[ADVERT]
Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Nanoco Group Plc LSE:NANO London Ordinary Share GB00B01JLR99 ORD 10P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  -0.15 -0.74% 20.20 19.80 20.60 20.00 19.80 20.00 240,359 16:35:12
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Technology Hardware & Equipment 3.9 -6.0 -1.8 - 62

Nanoco Share Discussion Threads

Showing 23901 to 23923 of 24200 messages
Chat Pages: 968  967  966  965  964  963  962  961  960  959  958  957  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
12/5/2021
20:45
Maybe but on the other hand Samsung have sold a lot of QDTVs and there’s no way to predict at what price LOAM et al will sell. They may never want to, no matter how high the share price climbs. Personally I now regard it as a lifelong hold (and I expect to live another few decades)
nigwit
12/5/2021
20:37
The share price peaked in 2013 around £1.80 which would have reflected the value belief of the patents and anticipated commercialisation. IMHO I cannot see a return to such dizzy heights given the genuine competition have had 8 years to continue their R&D which potentially erodes our competitive advantage all those years ago in securing long term contracts. I think assuming we win in court the best we can hope for now is a large lump sum award giving financial security plus the opportunity for a special dividend to reward LTH’s together with future sales contracts. I would guess many holders would in fact be happy for either a takeover at £1 or a share price thereof giving the chance to exit if required. Of course only time will tell how this will pan out but I am reluctantly resigned to a likely several year wait as much as I would welcome a ‘reasonable217; early settlement. Just my views
millwallfan
12/5/2021
19:43
Fines are not applied in civil law. That is why penalty clauses are never upheld. The normal principle applied is that both parties should be put back in the position they would have been had the infringement never happened without being punished. Also there’s always a requirement to quantify the exact loss as best as possible. Sometimes the losses are referred to as the ‘liquidated damages’. Consequential losses are hard to make stick because as hypothetical alternative futures they can’t easily be quantified. Being pragmatic it’s nearly always impossible to turn back the clock so the court will try and find for a compromise amount that neither side will want to risk by running an appeal. The principle of tripling the damages in patent cases is unusual. I confess I don’t know much about it but given other fundamental, long established principles I can imagine it being the first line of damages to be challenged if it comes to an appeal.
nigwit
12/5/2021
19:12
Nano are using strong language. They stated that Samsung acted wilfully. If they aren’t compelled to pay compensation that also acts as a fine then what’s the point in the patent office??
a.fewbob
12/5/2021
19:06
David No, it doesn't ------ s.a. An appeal against quantum is almost certain IMV. Since there will be so many alternative ways for the judge to calculate the damages there will be at least as many grounds to question them. From what I've seen nearly all the similar cases that go to trial end up in appeals, which is what Tenner explained in the interim results presentation. Today's good news is but a small step on a long path. As it says in the RNS. Maybe it will bring the sides together or maybe it will cause them to argue from further apart. None of us can say. We must be patient.
nigwit
12/5/2021
18:49
You can only appeal on justifiable grounds..You can't launch an appeal simply because you don't like the financial fine and/or other measures imposed by the US courts such as an injunction.
spastics attack
12/5/2021
18:30
NigWit. Does this message apply equally to your relationship with fellow posters, some of whom you have crossed swords with in the past?
davidw1
12/5/2021
17:23
Unlikely. The court will try to quantify the loss but it's almost impossible to put a value on what an alternative future would have been from the first infringement and very hard to ever get damages for consequential loss. I know others have often referred to the trebling of damages in wilful infringement cases, which would certainly go some way to restoring what might have been, but on the other hand if awarded they may well just lead to a long appeal. I think it's better for the sides to be pragmatic and try to settle by finding a sensible compromise that enables the past to be put behind and lines up a prosperous and mutually beneficial future.
nigwit
12/5/2021
16:29
Will they get fair compensation for having their business destroyed?? This has set them (us) back years in terms of lost revenue, growth, r&d etc Samsung should get massively fined.
a.fewbob
12/5/2021
14:29
DOTZ Nano (on ASX) up circa 300% this year QTTM (on NYSE) up circa 500% this year NANO up circa 300% this year Looking good for all quoted QD firms. Happy days!
nigwit
12/5/2021
12:50
Hi Dessaix - yes I think the IPR tests whether the patents themselves are sound - e.g. if they claim invention of something that was already known (so called prior art). But I thought that investigation could take a long time - up to a year. Maybe the October trial date is set on the basis that there won't be an IPR. Or maybe the trial can look at whether the patents have been infringed while the assessment of the validity of the patents proceeds in parallel. Maybe we have to wait until October before we find out if there is going to be an IPR. This could drag on, unless there is a settlement.
noccer
12/5/2021
11:39
I echo you Millwallfan I have had experience with a couple of these situations all be it on a lot lower value but both took about 3-4 years to grind through the courts to a resolution. Its looking good but sadly can't see any resolution coming soon plus they will probably need another fund raise early next year if no pay out by then.
clarea
12/5/2021
10:19
Dessaix - lots of info there, but have no idea what it means. Is an IPR a near certainty, in which case why do we have a trial date set for October? Hopefully those in US know more about this and we'll see a further uptick later if they like the news.
noccer
12/5/2021
10:14
Trt et al. Most feel that Samsung will hold out to the bitter end but I think there might now be a small chance of pre trial settlement given the level of support the Markman outcome provides AND their previous record of negative outcomes when previously challenged and losing in the USA on similar challenges. What is for sure is that we have just added another ‘ace’ to our hand which will place our legal team in an even more bullish position should any ‘without prejudice’ discussions be initiated. A positive step forward but I fear still a long way to go !!
millwallfan
12/5/2021
09:57
Some useful stuff on the IPR hTTps://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Trial_Statistics_20200630_.pdf Looking just at stats this seems likely to be the critical process.
dessaix
12/5/2021
08:40
I think in football terms - a 4-1 first leg win for NANO is pretty much game over for Samsung. A little threatening pressure from the home team before the trial, and I think this will turn out rather nice.
barkboo
12/5/2021
08:24
That's good, these little Quantum Dots are big business now judging by current plans to flood the market with displays incorporating the technology.
sirrux
12/5/2021
08:20
Samsung will settle out of court well ahead of the trial. They won't want the publicity - big payday coming for NANOCO. Got to be in it to win !!
trt
12/5/2021
07:10
Very good timing by LO!!! Anyway great news let's hope we don't have to suffer the IPR
bagpuss67
07/5/2021
15:45
Yes, Agree with all. I tried a sell of 100k shares and offered 25.6p, on a Friday?
redbraces
07/5/2021
11:53
Bagpuss - the alternative is, they wait for the result. If they then lose, which would not only involve a large financial hit.....there will be conditions that they will have to adhere to - these conditions will be the very worst result for them.... I think an agreement/arrangement/settlement is odds on - but I would be happy to wait and go all the way.....that would be more profitable for investors imo.
barkboo
07/5/2021
10:16
Yup. Maybe just a reaction to LO being very close to things and topping up.. Just can't see Samsung rolling over until that absolutely have to which might be quite a long time...
bagpuss67
07/5/2021
10:14
something's going on here
mirabeau
Chat Pages: 968  967  966  965  964  963  962  961  960  959  958  957  Older
ADVFN Advertorial
Your Recent History
LSE
NANO
Nanoco
Register now to watch these stocks streaming on the ADVFN Monitor.

Monitor lets you view up to 110 of your favourite stocks at once and is completely free to use.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P: V: D:20210917 23:38:44