Member Info for TerrorWit

Thanks for sharing the article Kooba

It’s an interesting development. However, a closer read suggests this news is more about the competitive dynamics between Samsung and its Chinese rivals than a specific commentary on Nanoco's value. Let's break it down.

**1. The Nature of the Patents Purchased:**

The article states Samsung bought patents from **Merck**, a German chemical and life sciences giant. This is critically important. These are likely patents related to **materials, formulations, and chemical processes** for creating quantum dots. This is Merck's business.

* **How this differs from Nanoco:** Nanoco's core strength is not necessarily in the specific chemical recipe, but in the **fundamental design, manufacture, and architecture** of cadmium-free QDs and the associated hardware (reactors). Their IP often covers broader, more foundational methods and apparatus. A company can buy specific material patents from a chemical supplier without negating the need for foundational manufacturing IP.

**2. This is About Samsung vs. China, Not Samsung vs. Nanoco:**

The article makes the strategic reason crystal clear: Samsung is "beefing up cadmium-free QD patents" to "check Chinese rivals" who "still use cadmium." This is a defensive move in a global turf war.

* **This arguably *increases* the value of a strong, cadmium-free IP portfolio.** It validates the market shift towards CFQDs that Nanoco pioneered. Samsung is building a moat using patents from various sources; a strong, proven patent from Nanoco could be another brick in that moat, not an outsider to it.

**3. The "Fully Paid-Up, In-Perpetuity" License is a Double-Edged Sword:**

Your point is valid that the value of a licensed patent diminishes as it expires. However, you're missing the strategic context of the Samsung license.

* It wasn't just a sale of a patent; it was a **global settlement of litigation.** The license grant secured freedom of operation for Samsung's entire product line against Nanoco's entire global IP portfolio, past and future, for the life of the patents. This is an incredibly powerful and broad agreement that Samsung paid a significant sum to secure. It prevents any future lawsuits from Nanoco on this technology.

* The value of Nanoco's portfolio, therefore, isn't just in its remaining lifespan *with Samsung*, but in its **utility against other potential infringers** (e.g., Chinese manufacturers) who do *not* have a paid-up license.

**4. What This Means for Nanoco's Value:**

This news doesn't devalue Nanoco's IP; it changes the landscape.

* **The threat to Samsung is now reduced** because of their new Merck patents and their existing Nanoco license. This might make Samsung less likely to acquire Nanoco solely for defensive IP reasons.

Terrorwit,

"Your post 16:25 yesterday. Very interesting and well thought out IMHO. Thank you. Much better than many of your previous posts, again IMHO. Please keep it up."

_________

Thank you. Usually there's no time or point in writing such long posts but using AI is a force multiplier and enables me to work faster than all the trolls who can no longer type as fast as AI can deconstruct their constant dribbling. I think we all benefit from using the best tools. Leastways, it's a superior strategy to listening to the tools on here.

Kooba, I believe you've just proven that Artificial Intelligence is superior to genunine stupidity.

Kooba, Does it bother you that my 'chatbot' can deconstruct your entire argument faster than you can type it? Maybe you're not arguing with me; you're arguing with the fact that your schtick is now obsolete.

I really don't understand why you're invested if all you want to do is whinge. It makes no sense at all.

Kooba

The silence is undoubtedly frustrating. Let's break down the possible reasons for the delay, which range from negative to positive:

1. The Negative Case (They are being strung along):This is a valid concern. It's possible a front-runner is slow-walking the process to gain more leverage on price or terms, or that all offers received were lowball and the board is trying to coax a better deal without much leverage. This is the worst-case scenario and would indeed make the next update concerning.

2. The Neutral/Process Case (DD is more complex than it seems):. While the business seems simple on the surface, a buyer is looking at things we aren't.

* **The Samsung License:** This is likely the single most complex item. A buyer isn't just buying the royalty stream; they are buying the rights to future litigation. They need to deeply assess the strength of the patents, the likelihood of Samsung designing around them in future products, the potential for new infringers, and the legal strategy and costs required to enforce them globally. This is a huge task for any legal team.

* **IP Deep Dive:** A serious acquirer (e.g., a chemical giant, a display maker) will conduct a forensic analysis of the entire IP portfolio. They need to ensure freedom to operate, assess the patent lifespan, and identify any potential weaknesses or future litigation risks *against them* once they own it.

* **Structural Complexity:** Is the offer for the whole company? Just the IP? Are they proposing a joint venture? Structuring a deal that works for both parties takes time.

3. **The Positive Case (A competitive situation is playing out):** This is the hope. The delay could be because multiple parties are seriously interested and are progressing through due diligence concurrently. The board's statement about "finalists" suggests this. If two or more bidders are engaged, the board will want to run a full process to maximize the final price. This takes time but is ultimately in shareholders' best interests. A rushed sale is rarely a good sale.

**In summary:** While the delay is anxiety-inducing and contradicts the initial optimistic timetable, it is not, in itself, a definitive sign of failure. M&A, especially for a unique asset like Nanoco, is notoriously complex and rarely sticks to a initial schedule. The next update will be critical in telling us which of the above scenarios is most likely."

Terrorwit is certainly clutching straws. Despite all the bluster he badly misjudged the court case, and he has now misjudged the "organic" commercial prospects.

Tenner happily predicted a settlement value worth many times the prevailing share price, and also proclaimed this was but only the cherry atop the cake (spoiler alert: there was no cake). The money will run out and it a fire sale at best.

--------------------

Let's correct the record here, Feeks, because this revisionist history isn't helpful for anyone.

On Predictions: You are categorically wrong. 'Terrorwit' was notably conservative and accurate regarding the lawsuit. He consistently refused to name a figure, stressed the uncertainties of litigation, and simply advised patience. Hi only prediction was that everything will be alright if Nanoco execute comment was contingent on the company's execution—a statement that remains true today and is unconnected to the settlement sum. To claim Terrorwit 'misjudged the court case' is the exact opposite of the truth. It was those like yourself, with unjustified high predictions, who misjudged it completely.

On Brian Tenner You are conflating two separate statements to create a false narrative.

1. Multiples of mCap. This was a comment on the potential scale of a successful outcome if it were achieved. It was not a firm prediction. All CEOs talk about the potential upside of major litigation; it's their job. The actual result, while lower than some hoped, was undeniably a significant multiple of the market cap at the time the case was filed.

2. Cherry on the cake. This is the most important point you're misrepresenting. The 'cake' was always Nanoco's organic growth strategy—the development of new materials, the new production line, and the pursuit of new commercial partnerships. The litigation settlement was the 'cherry'—a non-operational, one-time bonus on top of that. The existence of the cake does not depend on the cherry. The strategy and the pipeline that constitute the 'cake' are still being executed. To say "there was no cake" is to fundamentally misunderstand the metaphor you're critiquing.

The settlement provided a cash runway. The commercial team's job is now to use that runway to execute. Dismissing the entire organic strategy as a future 'fire sale' based on a misreading of a metaphor about a settled legal dispute isn't analysis; it's just bitterness over your own failed predictions.

"look forward" to updating shareholders on the CDX process in due course" ≠ failure

📊 Key Positives

Revenue Beat (£7.6m vs forecasts)

Helped by Samsung licence recognition and modest service revenues.

Shows Nanoco still has some commercial activity and licence leverage.

Cash Position Stronger (£14.0m)

Better than expected due to lower litigation costs + working capital gains.

At £0.5m/month burn, this gives them ~28 months runway (into late 2027).

JDAs and Strategic Options

Extension talks with Asian chemical partner (expires Oct 2025).

New JDA discussions outside historic markets.

Signals some ongoing commercial traction, not just litigation.

LG Litigation Progressing

Case served and “progressing as expected” — no delays indicated.

-----------------------

⚠️ Potential Negatives / Risks

Patent Lapse Revenue Recognition

£0.3m boost was a one-off, not recurring.

Signals patent expirations (and thus shrinking future leverage).

Founder/CTO Retirement - Dr Nigel Pickett stepping back (remains until Feb 2026)— but his successor has 18 years inside Nanoco, so continuity should be fine.

Issuance of 935,778 Shares - Small dilution (~0.5%), but worth noting - Shows cash wasn’t used to pay deferred NED fees → careful with liquidity.

------------------------

🧠 Bottom Line

This RNS improves Nanoco’s near-term outlook modestly- Cash runway extended - Revenues beat expectations

JDAs + “strategic options” alive

----------------------

Prediction

Shares climb into the 15-18p range and 20-25p on the October JDA announcment

You like the sound of your own voice too much. Just look at the state of this forum. Almost every post from the same whinging individual.

"Not sure how executing on board strategy to find a buyer for the operations and IP might fall into any of this."

Then you are an idiot.

"There is an ongoing obligation to inform the market of any information that can be deemed price sensitive"

--------

That's only true if the information isn't commercially sensitive, which it would be. Obviously.

There will be silence until the deal is ready.

Also, altought it might be the cleanest outcome, a a simple cash sale is not the only option. It could be structured in stages with some or all based on future results and it could involve shares being exchanged in lieu.

None of you mentioned any of this but most deals are not straightforwards.

You would all save a lot of time by simply admitting that you don't know.

---------------------

I did a lot of probing with AI and found that based on precedants and patent values the mid range outcome would be in the region of £20-£40m with values up to £70m not out of reach. It could go even higher if there's a buyer with a highly specific use case in a global market.

The average time taken by CDX Advisors is 6 months but both the LG case and the recent new JV will have caused delays of 6-12 weeks each by adding to due diligence work. There are other considerations such as UK Security Act reviews, particularly for Asian buyers.

The price is mostly underpinned by cash so whilst a black swan bad news event can't be excluded it still looks like an assymetric play today.

Regardless of the size of my four swimming pools or my ego it's Interesting that Bagherli was awarded a CBE in the new years honours list. That doesn't speak of a negative narrative does it?

Why would someone like Bagherli involve themselves with a dud and buy a material number of shares in it?

By the way, if I knew what I was doing I'd be watching porposies and seals from my lochside home in Scotland during the summer and enjoying my other home, which has four swimming pools, in tropial Queensland in the winter.

Oh wait a minute .....

Was ths missed?

https://www.electronicspecifier.com/news/awards/bagherli-appointed-cbe-in-king-s-new-year-honours

"All this AI content is worthless- the AI will only work with material in the public domain, even then it often interpolates incorrectly or presents ambiguous answers through insufficient information."

---------------

Three words - pot ... kettle ... black

Indeed, if you think about it, this is likely why corporations like Samsung and Apple help themsleves to patents owned by small companies and make the respective goods in house when they can. If they get sued they pay up but to them that's still safer than a criitical small supplier not delivering and having no back up.

If LG/Shoei supply Apple then Apple will also have a dual supplier. That's their rule for all critical componets, except when they can't because they're tied up with patents.