Nanoco Share Discussion Threads

[pharmoutcomeszzz] 13/4/2021 13:30

I’m not all that bothered what’s causing the rising share price atm and we can only guess, which is a slightly fruitless exercise. People need to chill out and enjoy that with each passing day at the moment, our ‘paper’ profit is getting ever more juicy, or our ‘paper’ loss is shrinking markedly.

[donaferentes] 13/4/2021 13:15

agreed - claimed knowledge is a very dangerous signal from anyone

[nigwit] 13/4/2021 12:48

There are some on LSE who are being categorical about the reasons behind the recent uplift. I would like to hear from them how they know the exact reasons why others have bought shares recently since I very much doubt they have deep enough pockets to have driven the price themselves. I prefer to listen to those who admit they don't know and not those who claim to know things when they can't because the relevant information isn't available to them.

[dessaix] 13/4/2021 12:13

I would be interested to know what folks thoughts are on the necessity of Nano restructuring in 2022 due to running out of cash. If R&D, Production, and scale-up remain with the existing business and a new entity is formed to take forward the litigation, where would that leave existing share holders of Nano. Would they be granted a share holding in any new company thus formed, would they perhaps be asked to fund the core business to take that forward until revenue streams increase? I suppose this questions is driven by the fact that historically Samsung are extremely combative and will not roll over and pay up easily, and that the litigation could still be ongoing well into 2022 and maybe beyond.

[nigwit] 13/4/2021 11:45

Here's my thinking The mCap has risen by circa £63m from £27m to £90m in three months. In other words holders have invested £63m in Nanoco in that time. They've done this either by buying shares from the market or by holding more tightly on to those they have forcing new entrants to pay more and more from looser hands. Legal cases are pugilistic. They normally go with form but tend to swing backwards and forwards during bouts and whilst there is sometimes a knock out blow it can go against form and from either side. More often though the victory will be on points. A draw where Nanoco win but get minor damages is also possible. I don't think anyone with a big enough chunk of £63m to matter is going to be looking at the Markman. I think they'll be savvy enough to know the next blow could go the other way and that it's not wise to call the result before time. On the other hand ... The end of cadmium is now in sight There are several reports of an Apple car and Apple QD devices The company has said it is finalising deals for sensor tech and working with new parties. This is a huge market worth billions. The hearing date is getting nearer. It's a slow train but an unstoppable one so the pressure on Samsung to settle or face a damages award is gathering. To my mind these are far more tangible value drivers than a few BB posts about a fairly unimportant claim construction hearing the result of which will have been anticipated by the parties long before the legal case was even launched.

[and1] 13/4/2021 10:34

It will be reasonable if the current rise settles at 50+ by May, while waiting for concrete news about further moves on litigation/ settlement.

[andycapped] 13/4/2021 09:48

I don't think there is any point in trying to assess what potential awards may or may not be made. We can roughly estimate the amount of lost revenue from licensing assuming Samsung are found to have infringe Nanoco's patents, and then apply the generic times three multiplier for wilful infringement, but other cases have demonstrated that awards can often be considerably more. I think we can say that assuming the case goes our way, even the most modest of awards will be transformational for the company.

[tottington] 13/4/2021 07:55

While assessments of potential damages figures, and their effect on share prices, is interesting, does anyone have an informed view on the likelihood of Samsung being held to have "wilfully infringed" the patents, and if found to have done so, what the prospects of and scale of any enhanced damages award might be? For my part their breach, if found to be so, could easily qualify as "wilful" ("In 2007 the Federal Circuit elevated the standard for proving wilfulness from a subjective standard "akin to negligence" to an objective standard.23 Patentees seeking enhanced damages for wilful infringement must now first prove "by clear and convincing evidence that the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent."'24 If the threshold question is satisfied, the patentee must then prove "that [the] objectively-defined risk (determined by the record developed in the infringement proceeding) was either known to the accused infringer or so obvious that it should have been known to the accused infringer.'" However this test has been watered down in favour of the patent holder "the Supreme Court eliminated the objective-recklessness standard and instead, decided that “the subjective wilfulness of a patent infringer, intentional or knowing, may warrant enhanced damages, without regard to whether his infringement was objectively reckless.“), and so fed up are the US etc. becoming with Far Eastern companies deliberately stealing the research of Western companies in order to dominate the market with goods cheaper than they should be because the research was paid for by someone else before the tech was "stolen" that enhanced damages could well be awarded. Or is this just getting carried away? Anyone who knows about the issue, any comment would be interesting.

[andycapped] 12/4/2021 20:08

I think this will push well past a pound if the patent appeal is rejected. Samsung will have no other defence beyond that, and it will send a clear signal to anyone else looking to infringe upon them.

[ascov] 12/4/2021 19:13

AHHH...We dream of £1....but even then it won't reach the eye watering amount i paid in 2013. Someone somewhere sold me the idea that Cadmium free quantum dots would change the world....and like a dope,in my greed, i believed it. Now he's retired as CEO and is sunning himself on his profits..... Let this be a lesson to all those that think the current boom in shares, crypto's etc will last forever... We're all Doomed (well , maybe not yet)

[and1] 12/4/2021 19:01

If Nano wins the case or looks like winning the case, £1 a share is a possibility. Long road though unless Samsung sees the writing on the wall.

[piratepeter] 12/4/2021 18:43

Hi Warranty I agree that would be the sensible route for Samsung however it would be a complete break from what they have done with other companies.

[warranty] 12/4/2021 18:31

If the Markman hearing indicates Samsung are likely to lose an infringement case, I can hardly see them squandering legal costs trying to string things out when they’ve probably been advised by their legal team that they’re likely to lose the court case. It would be far cheaper, easier and better for their reputation to settle with Nano, agree a payment to purchase the technology and move on.

[and1] 12/4/2021 16:05

If we assume that the cost of the QDs in each TV is equivalent to 10% of the uplift in price between QD and non-QD TV displays, and that Nanoco would have received a 12% royalty (as per our May 2017 initiation note) on these QDs, this represents US$14.4–18.0 in lost revenue per TV display or US$200–250m between April 2015 and the present This value excludes QDs in any future TV displays Samsung makes or TVs sold in other territories. We note that around one-third of Samsung's TV sales are attributable to the US market.if above extract from Edison publications were to be believed then Nanoco's loss of royalty is 600-750 million dollars. Looks quite high.

[millwallfan] 12/4/2021 15:16

Nigwit. We have exchanged views on the value (me)or otherwise (you) of Markman and we are both entitled to our respective views. However IMHO it is difficult to NOT attribute at least some small part of the recent rise to what was an overall positive signal for Nano from the Hearing feedback. Indeed it may well have ‘hacked off’ the Patent Office if it proves their role and validity is being challenged.

[donaferentes] 12/4/2021 14:03

I doubt institutions will buy in on spec for the legal suit. They'll want it out of the way first. So agree not sure what has sparked this recent interest, nice though it is. Prob PIs getting in on new highs at 24+.

[barkboo] 12/4/2021 13:50

I think most people respectfully disagree with you NigWit.

[nigwit] 12/4/2021 13:25

I still say the Samsung case resolution is too far away to be on the radar of big new investors. Speculation but this looks more like an expensive paid research analysis report is doing the rounds of the II's and it's reported that IRQDs are about to go commercial, possibly in Apple's car. All the nonsense about the Markman is just a BB ramping game among a small bubble of inexperienced holders mostly on LSE. I haven't seen a single independent story concerning it nor has anyone new appeared and said it's why they've bought in. It doesn't explain the whole surge from sub 9p especially given the litigation was launched long before the rise began.

[trt] 12/4/2021 11:31

Got to be in it to win it.

[trt] 12/4/2021 11:30

Is news of a pre- settlement now leaking ?

[barkboo] 12/4/2021 11:28

Riskblue - when you say, "no apparent news" was that tongue in cheek? lol

[riskblue] 12/4/2021 11:04

Interesting price action on no apparent news.