RE: CEO Proposed statements interim results18 Apr 2026 13:47
Nanonano is using a true statement ("we're close to commercialisation") as evidence of failure, when it was actually a prediction of the infringement that would later generate $155m.
When the CEO said that a decade ago, they were right. Samsung was already using the technology. The fact that they used it without paying doesn't make the statement wrong — it makes Samsung an infringer.
The commercialisation was happening; Nanoco just wasn't getting paid for it yet. That's why the litigation happened and why the nine‑figure settlements were paid.
As for Monday, I'm expecting a confirmation of continued progress, not fireworks. If anything material had changed, we'd already know. The settlement, the cleared sensing path, the internship ads, the trade presentations — all point to a business that is proceeding normally, comfortable and steady in its execution as previously guided.