Ben Richardson, CEO at SulNOx, confident they can cost-effectively decarbonise commercial shipping. Watch the video here.
65mUSD Nanonano not 150.
Your analogy doesn’t hold NGR, although it did give you your daily dose of belittling everyone and making yourself sound superior, so congratulations.
A better analogy would have been the exploration company decided to stop drilling at the last minute and had a fire sale of the company without alerting any other than some close friends who sold their shares just before the sale was made.
From memory, We really went to court with 2 patents, one on Suspension and 4 which were all overlapping on the seeding process. You’ve really not got to think about the misleading BT with his 47-0 PTAB(which many here loved to shout about) and think of it as broadly 2 patents. I can’t recall which one of these was sold, but a guess would be they dealt on one and sold the other (and surrounding ones which form the patent thicket), all as part of the settlement to allow S to go ahead with current activities.
So the timing of payment may stem from that bundling if the two into one figure.
I believed at the time there was a contest to be had in court over the seeding patent(s), so perhaps that’s the one they dealt on. Just guessing here.
Everyone has their own investment profile, worthwhile respecting others’
My guess is the share price profile over the next couple of years would have been considerably greater than what it is now in this scenario. Some people chose to forget that also. And the fact that we are shareholders, and share price is kinda important.
And what would the share price have been directly after that 750m ‘win’ in your scenario NGR.?
Agree with you Maxi, unless someone starts addressing the issues raised then I’m for voting them out. If there are good answers to the points raised then just answer them and be done with it
What company in its right mind would embark on a recruitment drive before it has seen the size of the order book?
Almost every company NGR. It’s called business planning.
They’ll knock it out the park. They will achieve the volumes they need from the first generation and they’ll already be working on gen3 with gen2 already taking shape. They have first mover advantage (in reality when you consider the competition here) on this, so will fill out the early adopters with ease, then the volume comes around gen3. The key thing for investors is to know that the first gen isn’t important. When you’re locked in from a manufacturing standpoint (as long as you don’t disappoint of course) then you’re in it for the long haul. So IF N are in this model this is the ‘transformative’ often discussed, regardless of volumes for gen1.
IMHO.
The main issue here for me is the continued misleading of investors by successive RNS prior to trial that proclaimed that the validity of the patents had now been dealt with and no further questions on that remained going into the trial. This seriously misrepresented the situation, and the investments were very much more at risk going into trial than investors were misled to believe.
A mistake? No- I challenged this position and Nano stuck to their RNSs claiming IP validity was dealt with. Either gross incompetence or more sinister motives at play there.
Yes Nanostory, all of this has already been pointed out earlier in the year. Those intent on ramping this share, usually the same suspects, respond as we’ve seen today. If it were only their money that’s put at risk here no one would care…
“ In the settlement agreement, will Samsung not have accepted that the IP is valid?”.
No.
No one on this board seemed to want to talk facts around patents when this was brought up 6 months ago, but the facts are that only two things are tested at PTAB, inventiveness and novelty. Two further elements are left for the courtroom, sufficiency and support. Don’t ask me why, it’s just the way it is. Validity was still in play. The RNSs at the time were intentionally misleading IMO and I challenged Nano over Email at the time to no avail. As it had a very big bearing on whether we were to capitulate and settle these RNSs were very misleading to investors about the value of their investment.
It was for this reason I roughly halved my holding at 50ishp ahead of the trial. All investors should have been informed enough to make similar choices. I tried to discuss on this board at the time but the cheerleaders closed down the conversations.
‘Main arguments for validity’.
Please explain
Intrusivethought. No IP has been validated! This is just another of BTs fantasies he has spread over RNS that seems to have taken hold. The IP has not been tested in court as an agreement was reached out of court not to test it.
And for the thousandth time- the PTAB did not validate the IP, it found for the Inventiveness and Novelty of the patents alone. Validity was the fight we were up against in the trial, and S had a strong argument against validity which was to be tested and never was.
And all this time value of money cr@p. A win in court actually WOULD have validated the IP and setup the European challenge. The SP would have rocketed.
There are clearly only two logical conclusions here. The case was in the balance, both sides agreed to deal and this was the best deal we could come up with. Or N had the stronger case and a deal was done which included ongoing royalties (perhaps through future supply agreement) which were kept confidential as part of the deal - which I’ve discussed before. If we don’t see some revenue soon then it’s the former and we dealt precisely because the IP was never validated and we feared the court case to prove it.
I only remain invested because I hope for the latter, and because of the opportunities in other markets where other IP is in play to the 5 that we’re contested.
Did they really sell 118 patents?
20 years from the priority date
Like with all logical conclusions we reach SL, it comes down to which is the most plausible given all the available info. Maybe if it the deal waddles and quacks like a duck…
I wonder why you are so able to accept the deal on face value when none of the learned posters here can make any sense of it, yet this alternative which connects a few more dots is not an option? Is it that you’ve never been party to any such deals?
There’s an ongoing supply deal with Samsung guys, it’s clear. Chill. This is an inflection point you just can’t see it yet.
Stand back and look at what the situation would look like if the deal included an ongoing supply arrangement. Exactly like this.
I’m not at all surprised by what has been disclosed and what is held back, and what state the company is left publicly in (stable, strong, ongoing concern, manufacturing facility being prepared). It was always going to be the case that any settlement would include face saving clauses by Samsung meaning the share price lags. Give it time, all will become clearer.
Somewhere around a year ago when settlement was being discussed no one would allow for this kind of eventuality where terms of the deal are held back from the market. Everyone argued that terms would all be very clear, and that a settlement was the preferred end game. Unfortunately, in order to get Samsung to settle then it was never going to be a slam dunk deal for all to see.
If T212 were a grown up investment platform I’d be allowed to buy more, which is what I’d be doing right now.
But if a weird set of transactions that