The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
Think I managed to grab at a low like that for 17.15 another 2500 shares or something. Not a lot but could be a quick climb to 30p from here with a few 10% days that hold
then I see 50p as next key resistance to break before next targets can be established in the future for this company .. keep popping them away ????.
Gla ??????
https://phys.org/news/2021-08-decades-quantum-dots-brink-widespread.html
Yes the EU are not to be expected to do anything beneficial.except for their small cabal of friends.
The same EU just plastered an additional Fuel TAX. On every passenger jet journey in or out of the EU.
(Except private jet journeys they are exempt because you know . Supe rich people using private jets need their tax breaks on fuel more than us normal folk.
EU is full.of ****e like that. Good riddance
My understanding is that , Nanoco have been pushed out of the cabal.
Lg focusing on oled I think since 2010 kg have connected with qd vision and nanosys in some respecr and obviously have their own in house tech oled.
hxxps://www.cnet.com/tech/home-entertainment/samsung-oled-tv-with-quantum-dots-could-challenge-lg-as-soon-as-next-year/
Whereas Samsung : will be closing 100% of LCD panel production in favour of the new billions investment into QD ..."QD Display"
Before end of Dec 2021
So 10 months might be far too far in the future I'm Afraid. Unlike if the company was agreed to be sold last year then the price we would know and the date and so any arbitrage opportunity would be quite easy quantify , as is my understanding ..as we have not and will not be sold now. Likely until Samsung offer a settlement here or a judgement is offered and all the shares and ultimate control of all other remaining patents tech and future patents and tech from Nanoco is still held by shareholders
this seems more promising than that sale would have been. And Samsung know that. But now slowly as more news stories occur, the tide will rise. And Ill be ready . when I see Bloomberg mentioning Nanoco is when I will consider the price until then best bet is just continually accumulate and hold through y/e 2021.
As I understand it Samsung's definitely in breach of Nanoco patents.
nanosys may also be be in breach of Nanoco tech and in the interim the contracts with stmicro and the "large Asian mnfr". Who could.well be any by screen mnfr like lg so they have a future line to complete their range against Samsung's high end TV line.
6. Additional circumstances weigh in favor of the Board’s
exercise of discretion
Factor six also weighs in favor of a denial. The Parties are not strangers to
each other. Petitioner and Patent Owner have been aware of each other’s work and
have exchanged information pursuant to confidentiality agreements for more than a
decade. Petitioner and Patent Owner were also in negotiations concerning patents
that include the ’365 patent, up until Petitioner walked away from the negotiations
and Patent Owner initiated the Parallel Proceeding. Petitioner has had multiple
opportunities to avoid litigation, and were well aware of the ’365 patent long before
they were served with the complaint from the Parallel Proceeding. Moreover, as
discussed herein infra, the Petition’s grounds are weak and do not justify instituting
on the merits. the circumstances here are materially the same as those in NHK and
even more compelling than in Fintiv. In each of those precedential decisions, the
Board denied institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) where, as here, the district court
action was set to be tried months before the IPR’s final written decision would have
issued, and the petitioner had raised substantially the same prior art and arguments
in both proceedings. With all six Fintiv factors weighing in favor of denying the
present Petition, an institution of this proceeding would not be consistent with the
objective of the AIA to “provide an effective and efficient alternative to District
Court litigation.” NHK, IPR2018-00752, Paper 8, at 20 (quoting Gen. Plastic Indus.
Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19, at 16–17 (PTAB
Sept. 6, 2017) (precedential)). Instead, it would unnecessarily subject the parties to
expensive and duplicative proceedings to adjudicate the validity of the ’365 patent
and create an air of uncertainty over any decision coming from Judge Gilstrap in the
district court. Accordingly, the Board should deny institution.
Just a cursory read through this document gives me a lot more confidence in Nanoco.
Samsung have been Upto all sorts of shenanigans that hold water about as well as a leaky sieve - Petitioner applauds its purported efforts to file the Petition “promptly,”
Petition at 68-69, it was served concurrently with Petitioner’s invalidity contetnions
in the Parallel Proceeding. Petitioner’s statement that “Here, Petitioner filed its
Petition before serving its invalidity contentions,” is untrue or even if technically
true, highly misleading. See Petition at 69. The Petition was filed and served on the
same day that Petitioner served its Invalidity Contentions in the Parallel Proceeding.
Compare Petition at Certificate of Service with Ex. 2022 at 204 (Certificate of
Service). Given how far along the Parallel Proceeding will be by the time of an
institution decision and the resources both Parties will have to expend before that
time, this factor strongly favors denial.
See item 12
hXXps://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2021-00186Because Petitioner’s grounds fail to disclose critical claim elements, and there is no reason to combine Banin with Herron or Treadway, Zaban with Farneth/Yu or Lucey with Ahrenkiel/Treadway other than Petitioner’s improper hindsight effort to assemble portions of divergent references to create something that might approximate the invention of the ’365 patent, there is no reasonable likelihood of success that Petitioner will prove any of the challenged claims are unpatentable, and the Board should thus deny institution. II. THE BOARD SHOULD DENY INSTITUTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) The ’365 patent is owned by Nanoco,. infringement of the ’365 patent in the District Court for the Eastern District of Texas,
captioned Nanoco Technologies Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 2:20-cv-
00038 (E.D. Tex.), filed February 14, 2020 (“Parallel Proceeding”). Petition at 66.
In that Parallel Proceeding, Petitioner has raised a plethora of invalidity defenses,
including all of the ones presented in the Petition. Ex. 2022 at 184-199. As Petitioner
concedes, the district court has scheduled a trial to begin in October 2021, more than
seven months before any final written decision deadline will become due in the
requested IPR. Petition at 62. In light of the overlapping invalidity issues presented,
as well as the resources required by both parties in the Parallel Proceeding, a
discretionary denial of the Petition under the Board’s controlling precedent is
appropriate. See, e.g., Apple Inc., v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB
Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”); NHK Spring Co., Ltd. v. Intri-Plex Techs.,
Inc., IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 at 20 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2018).1 1 See also Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01018, Paper 12 (PTAB
Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential); Snap, Inc. v. SRK Technology LLC, IPR2020-00820,
Paper 15 (PTAB Oct. 21, 2020) (precedential).
In the past 6 months .
•confirmed contract with stmicro - if succesful continuation and growth of that contract
• large Asian mnfr contract and likely ongoing distribution to and through them.
• lots of promising health uses being tested researched and other esoteric areas where qd may be useful
•large investors buying In at 1,000,000 share increments (3% of TOTAL shares.
•repeated positive rns regarding
•small amounts of shares available on the market .
•confirmation of no further dilution recently from the end of July onwards via loan notes agreement. With major shareholders.
•rg increasing stake
• LO INCREASING STAKE
°potential for settlement with Samsung at any moment.
°medium term potential for judgement in case . Immediate transformative damages awarded and ongoing licensing fee agreed and arranged .
-possibility of not winning existing contracts continuity.
-possibility of not getting no new contracts
-possibility of getting judgements against nanoco patents in Ptab
-possibility of Samsung getting judgement in their favour .
°
°
°
°
°potential for ????apple September ?mention in annual report lidar bet ya I've got a belly feeling about this one . . If it does. Boom
You was missed xoxo
www.macrumors.com/roundup/iphone-13/#lidar_scanner
LiDAR Scanner
There were a few rumors suggesting the LiDAR Scanner that was added to the iPhone 12 Pro and the iPhone 12 Pro Max could expand to the entire iPhone lineup in 2021, included in both Pro and standard models, but Ming-Chi Kuo and Barclays analysts have said that it will continue to be limited to the iPhone 13 Pro and Pro Max models only.
The LiDAR Scanner measures light distance and pixel depth of objects in a scene to map out the area up to five meters away. It allows for more realistic AR experiences and improves autofocus in low-light scenes.
Release Date
Apple's 2021 iPhone lineup will be unveiled in the fall of 2021, with the company likely aiming to return to its traditional September launch timeline. Apple's iPhone 12 lineup did not launch in September as expected due to production delays caused by the global health crisis, but iPhone 13 models will not face the same production delays and should be available by late September.
Anyone got any idea for when the next one is due out. Looking forward to filling up on NANOCO for the next 6 months until they start to rise parabolic and my broker stops offering them on a buy , that's when the markets gonna really push. Right now this is a bargain for any logical investor pursuing capital appreciation in the short to medium term.
Yes dubbya this pattern is like 80% of the days trades. One Friday a few couple weeks ago it had a drop nearer 4pm than 8am though but for the vast majority it seems to drop in am and rise in late pm of trading. (Gmt.time)
Does everyone forget that qd vision was bought with 180million USD $$$ . They had Less than 10% of patents that nanoco do in qd field. NANOCO is due to boom . I wouldn't be surprised to see north of 50-60-70-80p per share before end of 2021 so I don't imagine r.g will be the only one holding a 100% profit
The lenses will feature nanostructures one-thousandth th.....PIRATEPETE PLEASE CONTINUE
How any is your target for total accumulation ? 1 million shares ... 10 million ?
I took one.
Anyone fancy copy pastin any of the most relevant "premium posts". If there are any ?
If you look at recent director dealings you can see that the recent placing a few weeks back (the primarybid rights issue ). Was purchased a cross the board from Dr fielding to tenner. They added approx 10% to their holdings ! That gives increased confidence and encouragement .. if the board see this current price point as value, retail investors should have faith too !
Interesting reading
heres hoping it's not only the docket that rockets ;p
If nanoco returns to 100p + at some point in 2020. Would you like to hold a freeroll poker game and invite along all current participants of this lse nanoco share chat message board.
Surely having such a large holding that could be a great way to celebrate ones successes whilst also being able to network and put a face to a (screen)name ? Say perhaps a £2000 prize pool . Could be setup relatively pain free at a local casino . I for one would be willing to travel the length and breadth of the country to beat some of the posters on here at poker. By bluffing or having the nuts ..
:) Just as a little fun and light entertainment. Please do consider my proposition :p
EXEMPTION REQUESTS ARE BASED ON INCORRECT AND OUTDATED DATA
hxxps://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/index.php?id=316.
This link shows that nanoco submitted detailed proposal confirming no need for An extension. ( In may of 2019!!!!)
Andd that they have shown specific current cd free qd products on market are more energy efficient. (A+ rating for Samsung 65inch CD free qd screen)
That they already have sufficient manufacturing capabilities to supply current market requirement for cd free qd
And FURTHERMORE that there Will be no impact on jobs in the EU.. as Most ALL cadmium based screen production is Done outside of EU
I EXPECT A GOOD BOUNCE ONCE ROHS IS UPDATED at the end of the new consultation
RoHS WHOLE PURPOSE IS TO BAN THE CADMIUM BASED QDS. Otherwise, what is the Point of this rohs thing.
WAIT AND SEEE BUT I CAN SEE THIS RISING FAST ONCE THE NEWS BREAKS. IF RoHS don't make the decision. That China has already since made the same decision. My only finding Will be the EU Is even more pointless Then already thought. Lots of money spent to do naff all. Wait and see . Holding my breath . Though at Least not underwater !