[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 23951 to 23973 of 24200 messages
Chat Pages: 968  967  966  965  964  963  962  961  960  959  958  957  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
27/5/2021
07:53
N. Thanks. Appears he was a former chief judge so obviously very knowledgeable. Let’s hope for a constructive mediation and sensible outcome rather than several years to conclude full hearing and lengthy appeals. Any outcome which supports validity of nano patents must help new contracts as well
millwallfan
26/5/2021
22:35
Looks to me like both parties have agreed to Hon David Folsom as mediator. An experienced retired judge now specialising in this area. I don't think he will come cheap, so I think it means some serious money is being talked about. Some info on his mediation from an interview here : www.stout.com/en/insights/article/interview-former-chief-judge-david-folsom-us-district-court-eastern-district-texas
noccer
26/5/2021
21:59
Nano have filed with the Texas court ‘a nominated mediator David Folsom’ !! I don’t know but does this mean that either the Judge has suggested mediation to move forward OR Samsung have and we have agreed. Alternatively I suppose it’s something related to the recently announced patent review. Anyone any informed views????
millwallfan
26/5/2021
11:21
Could just be someone having a punt. Its not really anything volume-wise. I suspect if there is anything related to the patent case then when the US gets out of bed it will improve. We shall see.
noccer
26/5/2021
09:10
A lot of activity this morning - I wonder if news is imminent...this stock only moves into a canter for a reason?
barkboo
23/5/2021
14:37
They can have mine now for a bargain £2 😂
millwallfan
23/5/2021
13:59
Last year Samsung reported over 8m QD tvs sold..Hence with a licence fee of $120m its in their interest to spend money on legal costs delaying and watering down Nanoco's claim...But there will come a point when they will run out of options..Obviously nothing is guaranteed as we don't have visibility let alone understanding as to how 'solid' Nanoco's IP is subject to scrutiny. However Markman provided some guidance and glimpses that its relatively robust..interesting times ahead a game of nerves for many of our private investors and tremendous patience...It may transpire that we get both a STM deal and a Samsung licensing deal plus a reasonable 40p+ settlement more or less at the same time next year by June...Nanoco would then be the target of a takeover, profitable, cash generative, and key global player in a rapidly growing QD market with few publicly owned companies on offer. A takeout offer at 300p seemingly unreal now might be what we see next year towards the end of the year.
spastics attack
23/5/2021
11:41
Another filing listed. Looks like it’s our opposition to the previous Samsung filing requesting release of withheld relevant documents. Not sure when the Judge will rule on both but does demonstrate issues moving forward .
millwallfan
22/5/2021
12:55
I would like to add Samsung is launching its next generation of QD tvs next year with a 10 billion dollar new factory so it will not want litigation and the risk of injunctions and bad display market media coverage hanging over the new launch, scheduled H2 22. As a side note the new factory will manufacture 10m units, licence fees as quoted by ME $15 per unit, ergo $150m or £111m less overheads circa £100m less 20% tax nets £80m per year licence revenues for Nanoco if it can reach an agreement. With the Markman hearing providing a strong foundation the IPR is more of a time delaying tactic as opposed to overturning the legal case. The comments on appeals by Nigwit are unfounded as you cannot simply apply or extend UK law to US IP Court trials. The only appeal option is when there is a clearly defined grounds for one. For example in the recent case with Solas and its successful litigation against Samsung..If appeal was an option then Samsung would have dragged the case out for longer to exhaust the plaintiff but this was not feasible hence a financial settlement.
spastics attack
22/5/2021
11:46
SA - a great understanding of our current position and market reaction, impressive! The small investor is easily persuaded how to part with his or her hard earned...candy from a baby really, and I feel sorry for those weak holders that get bowel movement when 10% of their dough seems to vanish. Interestingly the recent rns was seen as bad news by the casino - I think it was predictable Samsung would play for time... Imo the Markman was a great result...make no mistake. We are trying to be persuaded otherwise. I never raise my average - I run my book that way, but I have worked a low average..and I am greedy! I won’t be selling until many multiples of today’s price.
barkboo
22/5/2021
09:25
An IPA should not come as any surprise and an attempt to delay the October hearing can simply be rejected by the judge that such a request is groundless and a time delaying tactic. Samsung's position is simply to drag the process out and attempt to minimise the financial damages by watering down the claims. I see nothing new hear nor do I see the pending court case in October being delayed..The reference of 'up to 12 mths for IPA to conclude' has been taken out of context..This does not mean a minimum of 12 mths. The court case in October followed by judgement which will typically fall into February 2022 would imply a 9 mth period of time for the IPA to be concluded..all very doable in my opinion. By which time STM contract would no doubt be proceeding to delivery as expected H2 22. In terms of funding this is an absolute no brainer institutional investors could easily support a further rights issue if needed, or STM through accelerated revenues under contract, or by litigation funding..There are no issues here..the only issue is time and patience.12 months from now I'm sure Nanoco Group will have a much more brighter and certain future if not sooner with a licence deal from Samsung, the icing on the cake equivalent to £80m post tax cashflow with other new contracts in the pipeline, STM etc, a strong order book and being a key player in the burgeoning QD market as many of the segments, sensing, display, medical, horticultural are growing rapidly. Based on a cost of capital 8.5% the share price will no doubt rise considerably to easily north side of 200p+ without adding in the special dividend awarded under a Samsung settlement. My expectation is that June next year we will cross the Rubican. The only trade off would be the size of settlement versus the licence fees agreement. A smaller settlement figure versus a higher licence fee per unit sold and extended terms using Nanoco CFQD technology. At the end of the day this is just business and Samsung has a track record and a well trodden path in these outcomes. The current situation should come as no shock and this is reflected in the small dip in share price reducing some of the buoyant froth that some quarters had anticipated from an earlier than expected settlement outcome.
spastics attack
20/5/2021
15:29
"Nanoco has provided an update on the litigation against Samsung for the alleged wilful infringement of the group’s IP. The US Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has agreed to Samsung’s request to review the validity of the five patents in the case. In our view, this development does not significantly swing the likely outcome of the court case one way or the other, although it could delay the final outcome by a number of months. It is very common for a company defending a patent infringement claim to contest the validity of the patents in the court case and through the parallel PTAB process, as Samsung is doing here. The PTAB’s decision does not mean these patents are invalid, just that it has agreed to review them. The evidential burden required to instigate an inter partes review (IPR) of a patent is relatively low. Each of the five patents being contested contains a number, in some cases more than 20, of ‘claims’ that can be challenged. To instigate an IPR, Samsung needed to show there was a ‘reasonable likelihood’ it would prevail with one or more of the claims challenged in the petition. However, a patent remains valid and can be used as the basis of an infringement case if one of more of the claims relating to that patent stand up to the challenges. We note that when deciding whether to proceed with the IPRs, the PTAB dismissed many of Samsung’s individual grounds of challenge against Nanoco’s claims. The IPR process is separate from the judicial court case, which will assess the validity of patents, whether the patents have been infringed and whether damages should be awarded. The IPR process can take up to 12 months to reach a conclusion followed by appeals. There is therefore a risk that for a second time Samsung will request the court case, currently set for October 2021, is delayed until the IPR process has been completed. The cost of the IPR process and any potential extension to the litigation timeframe will be borne by Nanoco’s third-party litigation funding. Any potential delay to the court case should not adversely impact Nanoco’s cash runway, which extends through calendar H222." Source: Https://www.edisongroup.com/publication/patent-review-process-going-ahead/29523
nigwit
20/5/2021
14:21
Thanks. You'd like me if you met me :)
nigwit
20/5/2021
14:10
It's the only real defense. Some claims may not survive the process but as long as most of the key ones do, Samsung will end up paying something.
ih_332411
20/5/2021
12:15
To my mind a challenge of a patent is an acknowledgement that the patent has been infringed
lavbog
20/5/2021
12:14
Nigwit is not to everyone's cup of tea, but to give him credit- he's been pretty much spot on so far.
pharmoutcomeszzz
20/5/2021
11:53
Fellow holders, Jarndyce and Jarndyce comes to mind
contact2fsnetcouk
20/5/2021
11:45
Barkboo I decided to unfilter you and give you the benefit of the doubt. You want to be taken seriously but you write rubbish. The stock market is hard enough at the best of times without morons like you making up imaginary friends. ——- Looked at without the attention span of a gnat on crystal meth the stock price is still almost 3 times what it was in December.
nigwit
20/5/2021
11:23
What's the reason for the recent drops on this, last time I checked it was 30p
thags
20/5/2021
09:47
NigWit - the Scaffolders are obviously a figment of you imagination? You have me filtered, so you have no idea what opinion the Scaffolders have....but I admire your telepathy, that is a great skill to have - it so trumps all your other ones! Btw - just mentioning fig makes me excited...have you tried homemade fig jam and croissants (bonne maman) if your wife don't do kitchen. Once converted mate - you will never change!
barkboo
20/5/2021
09:30
The legal process and expectations haven't changed. It was always going to be a marathon. Today's RNS has not changed the share price beyond the normal fluctuation we might expect on any other day. Just the same as with the Markman RNS announcement it was only a forum-driven, closed-loop dream that it would do anything else. Unless there's a surprise negotiated settlement, Nanoco is still years away from the litigation coming to an end, just as it was the case yesterday and last month. It's good to watch the signal and filter the noise. I like that contracts are building whilst we wait for the arrival of the potentially very large slow train coming down the Texan tracks.
nigwit
20/5/2021
09:13
Who are the Scaffolders? They sound like a figment of someone's imagination. I don't know about others but I'm invested in the stock market. I'm not here to watch a bad episode of Scooby Doo.
nigwit
20/5/2021
09:12
Not good news all the same but probably predictable knowing how Samsung act, probably hoping that Nano go bust before the trial, which now has little or no chance of taking place this year, if the IPR process itself can take a year or more. As a LT holder it looks like these go back into the bottom draw again.
warranty
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 23:39:43