Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Digdeeper...I believe not much happen so we will see in the next meeting.
Nvm .. punted to July ....
Sand is running thin in the hourglass ..
Soooo... Any filings from last Thursdays meeting ?
Can and will the Federal Appeals Court deny Intel their day in court? Could happen right?
Yes King....now I really didn't want to post this as I sincerely doubt during any mediation conference that the general public would be able to Zoom access but did spot a post and noted the following access codes however, I would tend to believe they it is bogus, ZOOM access numbers. 1613833464, 928374
On another note I now believe we will never trade again period but hope I am wrong.
HDC made the best choice in not getting involved in the Federal Appeal case.
Vennwest and HDC hearing rescheduled to May 25 at 1:30pm
King...your guess is as good as mine but is HDC's move risky, are they thinking that all the USPTO decisions is ground that HDC and their Attorney's wish to stand on instead of "possibly" giving Intel or the Appeals Court more ways and means to slap HDC down. I really haven't any legal idea period just my personal thoughts.
Maybe Digdeeper might say something about the possibilities..... but I do hope HDC's Attorney's don't feel that the appeals court is going to slap down HDC with Alice 1 and her step sister again. Also recall at the PTAB Judge Garth B. Baer, he was against the final decision. so will that possibly leverage in Intel's favor?
I do not trust the Appeals court and believe if the appeal is successful I believe HDC will just disappear into thin air.
HDC filed something a few days ago notifying the court that they will not participate in Intel appeals. I guess they have their reasons but it doesn’t sound good.
This might help a few referencing the expert market etc.
I see the clerk of court entered the document a day before the scheduled mediation session so probably is a delay by HDC
Who asked for the delay this time ?
Good morning Alan, anyways I was thinking more on the lines of the ParkerVision lawsuit settlement against Intel. You can see a vast difference between HDC and ParkerVision meaning HDC potential is far less than what ParkerVision presented plus they have been in prior lawsuits and even ongoing which tells me they (ParkerVison) has proven clear cut goodies to fight for. Now maybe HDC has but I sure don't feel good about our chances when considering what is lacking in HDC.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=171151665
That is also my perception, that Intel has not made any offer to HDVY. It appears INTC has the same position they held when this started:
(1) You do not have a valid patent
(2) We do not use the SVM-RFE algorithm in any of our products
(3) We don't owe you anything
It looks like we will need to wait and see what a jury has to say about it.
The very visible VLSI verdict is certainly the exception on patent awards. This verdict is significantly higher than the "standard". The VLSI lawsuit has been going on for many years, and remains in appeal.
Alan
Alan...my thoughts are that Intel hasn't even offered 1 penny to HDC yet?
From looking at a few past lawsuits involving Intel I also believe the max we might get without treble damages is $20-$40 million.
Digdeeper...so you think Marty isn't still involved? all the executive positions he has held/served in HDC. I am no attorney by far but his resignation email did not simply express his paychecks but rather may have opened the lid on Pandora's box. So by Marty ignoring/not getting involved may leave him in limbo until a legal system looks his way. Marty and George still has time (as I see it) to resolve these issues as he may be the key that turns the Vennwest case one way or the other which may cause a action or reaction involving the Intel case.
I also believe George has reached his ability on asset/collateral, just my thoughts.
______________________
Above are Just my thoughts
I think you need to go read Martys letter again ..
And ask yourself why he would re-involve himself with this shit show...
The Only reason would be lots and lots of $$$$ ..
Most of which he probably gets via held shares at this point ..
Why step back in and risk further embarrassment ?
Not gonna happen ..
Find another way forward that doesn't involve Marty ...
What do you think?
OK...so is it possible that George is stalling for time and if so what do you think we will see soon meaning an announcement by way of HDC or some type of transcript after the next mediation meeting in Georgia?
Look, if you might have the ability to make millions of dollars how would you if you were the CEO stall this case with Vennwest?
Yeap....on the day of the next Vennwest court session I would call 911 and be rushed to the ER due to chest or back/shoulder discomfort.
George is 77 or 78 years old so the stress of all this can cause/enhance existing or new health problems.
I don't understand how some people on other message boards would think that we have some type of plan or business "if" we should win the Intel case. HDC is done along with our once powerhouse patents. There is no way any CEO would even think of going after another corporation after 17 years of 20 patent life has past and in our case (involving the Intel case) only have 1 patent involved/still living and that expires in 2025. Yes a few other patents would still exits but folks HDC is done.
Another thought is this, if you had say 200 - 300 million HDC shares at what share price would you settle? Due to many things but more so with the bad shape of HDC our attorney's will probably get 40% of whatever and I strongly feel that somewhere along this time frame involving Intel that they Intel will possibly offer 50-200 million to settle and our legal team will just tell George time is up.
Go figure we can't even buy toilet paper anymore so as I see things Intel probably hasn't even offer a penny in any settlement yet but the penny they offer pre jury trial day will be the signal that this case is done regardless of George, period.
It is a shame but to keep many investors that hold millions of share at bay and away from suing HDC we may never see a future filing in order to sell our share into any hype.
You raise some interesting ideas. The things we don't know seem to keep growing. I don't have a guess on any of it.
Talk about strange thoughts?
What if George is actually unable to continue as CEO? maybe resign due to health issues? no doubt I wouldn't be surprised if all this stress has taken it's toll on him.
Is it possible that "Marty Delmonte" might take up the stress since he is much younger and held just about every position in HDC except being the CEO?
I keep on thinking that George once said he would have never come on board as CEO if Marty Delomonte didn't come with him
What thoughts do others have here that may read this post?
23-1727 Intel Appeal Case(s) 23-1727, 23-1728 and 23-1729
Entry of Appearance is due on 04/24/2023. Certificate of Interest is due on 04/24/2023.
Docketing Statement is due on 04/24/2023. Certified List is due on 05/22/2023. [CMH]
[Entered: 04/10/2023 03:25 PM]
04/18/2023 2 ORDER consolidating appeals (23-1727, 23-1728, and 23-1729).
The Certified Lists are due no later than 5/22/23. Service as of this date by the Clerk of Court.
[917563] [23-1727, 23-1728, 23-1729] [CMH] [Entered: 04/18/2023 04:49 PM]
04/18/2023 3 Note to File: The following cases are consolidated: 23-1727 Lead with
23-1728 and 23-1729 Member Cases. The parties must file all documents in the lead appeal
only. [917564] [23-1727, 23-1728, 23-1729] [CMH] [Entered: 04/18/2023 04:50 PM]
04/24/2023 4 Letter from Appellee Health Discovery Corporation Notice of
Non-participation of Patent Owner in Appeal Nos. 23-1727, 23-1728, 23-1729 Service:
04/24/2023 by email. [918591] [23-1727] [Tarek Fahmi] [Entered: 04/24/2023 12:50 PM]
04/24/2023 5 Entry of Appearance for Dan L. Bagatell; Lori A. Gordon;
Sarah E. Piepmeier; Nathan K. Kelley; Tara L. Kurtis as counsel for Appellant Intel Corporation.
Service: 04/24/2023 by email. [918770] [23-1727] [Dan Bagatell] [Entered: 04/24/2023 08:20 PM]
04/24/2023 6 Certificate of Interest for Appellant Intel Corporation. Service: 04/24/2023
by email. [918771] [23-1727] [Dan Bagatell] [Entered: 04/24/2023 08:21 PM]
04/24/2023 7 Notice of Related Case Information for Appellant Intel Corporation. Service:
04/24/2023 by email. [918772] [23-1727] [Dan Bagatell] [Entered: 04/24/2023 08:22 PM]
04/24/2023 8 Docketing Statement for the Appellant Intel Corporation. Service:
04/24/2023 by email. [918773] [23-1727] [Dan Bagatell] [Entered: 04/24/2023 08:23 PM]
Be back shortly but...as of 9:15A this morning nothing new in either court case nor any change in documents at the Georgia Corporations Division referencing HDC, and needless to say at the SEC.
My thoughts lean to HDVY buying time and trying to ignore the vennwest and shareholder situation ...
They know the intel dates are far out now and need to plan accordingly ..
I still say shares will have to be sold ..
the Judge wanting Share Structure info ...
And HDVY boys not wanting that info out is a possibility...
Cuz it s changed ?
Or about to change ?
One thing for sure Vennwest sure is a pain in the ask ..
I hope the new Board members vote to have the stock re-listed.. George is a dud !
I wonder if they were advised by their attorney to not be present at the meeting. It wouldn't be indifference, I hope. At least now the expectations are set. We definitely want to stay on the judge's good side.
Getting the stock trading again is important to all of us. I would have to think it would also be to George and all of them as well. Once Vennwest gets their board members seated I hope there's a big push to get the filings current.
Companies moved to the Expert Market from another OTC Markets tier can apply to relist on the OTC Pink or other OTC Markets tier by becoming an SEC reporting company, submitting a new Form 211, and meeting OTC Markets requirements for the particular tier.
Not so fast.... but I'm not sure?.....
Yes Charles a mess that needs to be fixed yet a few on yahoo just want George to pull $100k out of his a$$ and not get paid for it? You heard me bitch about those "D" shares along with other shareholders so it would seem if money comes or did and the filings are all set to be filed today (or when ever if ever) that someone or some entity other than George will get the remaining "D" shares shares. I doubt George would claim/touch them with a 10 ft pole simply said.
I really believe what needs to be uncovered or talked about now is why George wasn't on that ZOOM meeting now that sincerely sends a signal to us shareholders but perhaps the heavens will open today and somehow we will see all the past due filings updated. Normally trading would start between 15-24 hours after George submits the filings...in short we will see the updated 10-k etc long before we would be able to trade HDVY stock but if that happens a massive stampede in stock movement will occur.
You better bet your a$$ HDC's Attorney knows full well why George wasn't present on the ZOOM call.
Good Sport please always post such things but I won't pull that doc but will keep my document numbers up dated. Being that soon of a reply I'm sure Elise S. Edlin resubmitted her paperwork and she will now help defend Intel. This is just practical to resend and fix the minor problem.
_______________________________________
PACER only charges me a Quarterly fee if I go over $30 buck which is 300 pages "if" I recall.
If one doesn't use PACER it may cost you .50 cent per page which is highway robbery.
Anyone interested in learning just the basics which is all I do just let me know as we can use happy hour here on Fridays 4-5 pm to do PM's.
So did George learn how to stall from Intel or is he sick? Seems his Attorney must have addressed this with the Judge would you not think so?
Maybe George is a day or two away from filing with the SEC...now that would allow some steam out of the pressure cooker.
#60 Apr 27, 2023 Main Doc
Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Digdeeper17....other than the possibility of George having some type of health emergency is there a reason that you can think of for Him and other within the fragile structure to not attend the ZOOM meeting? Could something with Intel be that tempting to disregard attendance? It was this April 25th ZOOM meeting that possibly a NDA might happen involving information from within HDC to possibly disclose to Vennwest?
From reading doc 68 it clearly indicates that yes we had Lee Wedekind - HDC Attorney was on that ZOOM phone call but it also APPEARS that George McGovern, Ed Morrison and William Fromholzer were not present on the Zoom meeting. I sense that the Honorable Linda T. Walker might be a tad disappointed and actually if this is true we as shareholders should be even more disappointed like pi$$ed off, if true.
...as for Vennwest yes Laurie Venning, his officer Regan Ekrem and also Jim Hicks plus Robert Kaufman were on the ZOOM call.
Doc #68 4/25/23 The parties appeared before the Court for a settlement conference.
________Vennwest/HDC______
Court directed Defendants to exchange a list of at least three names of
potential new members to HDC's Board of Directors and produce HDC’s
capital structure and the name of HDC’s share transfer agent by April 28,
2023. Upon receipt of this information, Plaintiff is directed to submit a
proposed settlement offer to Defendants by Friday, May 5, 2023. Defendants
are directed to give best efforts at all times to propose a counter-offer.
Notwithstanding, Defendants are directed to point out what it believes are the
specific deficiencies of Plaintiff’s offer as well as any terminal points.
Defendants’ counsel was also advised that Mr. McGovern and any other
Defendant with the authority to settle this matter are ordered to be present
when the Parties reconvene. The Settlement conference is continued to
May 12, 2023, at 1:30 P.M.
Doc# 68 Vennwest/HDC still not viewable but should be by 3:00 P
To me it looks like just one tiny example of hundreds of tactics that Intel deploys to delay the outcome. Appeal after appeal after appeal. I can’t really blame Intel because it’s all legal and allowed by the court system. So why not do it? It’s obviously enormously profitable for a company like Intel.
I blame the structure and the obvious corruption involved in the system. It’s simply infuriating because there is nothing any one of us can do about it.
King absolutely NOT referencing the latest involving "Elise S. Edlin is a Partner of Perkins Coie LLP"
WHY? Simply stated if she misses a deadline in filing time verse the court procedures in the case and case timing she MUST then ask JA to please excuse and accept her coming on board to help defend Intel Corporations Interest.
If she "doesn't" miss the deadline which I have no clue what that could be no big deal in correcting her paperwork.
I do feel it was just a mistake due to the many different rules in these courts and the type of court.
The blatant corruption with this Intel case is infuriating. They’ve dragged it out for years and seem to be on the path to drag it out for several more years. So big companies with money steal technology and then use the courts to delay until the smaller company goes bankrupt. How is that justice?
Nickel Dimer Stuff, nothen major. Thanks Loc !
The Vennwest/HDC document was dated/stamped by the clerk today so we will see it sometime tomorrow.
Technical Requirements
Proposed orders must be PDF files and no security should be applied to the file. It is highly
recommended that proposed orders created using a word processing application such as Word
or WordPerfect be converted to a PDF rather than by scanning a printed copy of a document.
This makes the submissions text-searchable and more legible. Form orders published by the
court must be “flattened” before uploading to lock in information. “Print” to PDF - if your
software does not have this capability, print the order on paper and scan it to make a PDF file.
Good Sport... Texas Court
Now document #58 _ 4 pages
Elise S. Edlin is a Partner of Perkins Coie LLP Law Firm working on behave of Defendant Intel Corporation. She is just filing her paperwork with the Texas Court System involving document #58. https://www.perkinscoie.com/en/professionals/elise-s-edlin/experience.html
Now document #59 _ 1 page
....this is a immediate response from the Texas Court involving document #58 "Deficiency Notice" This was caused by Elise S. Edlin not completing the paperwork properly. Remarks from court operations as follows......Page 3 has nothing on it but a few typewritten items and the proposed order needs to be flattened before being filed. The Motion will be terminated and needs to be refiled in its entirety..
LOC,
April 26th - Wednesday afternoon:
FYI - New Entry (CourtListener) in Health Discovery Corporation v. Intel Corporation (6:22-cv-00356)
District Court, W.D. Texas
Deficiency Notice
&
Appear Pro Hac Vice
#58 & #59
Stonemoney...I 'll pull that document ASAP but believe it won't be available until Thursday between 10AM - 3PM.
Can anyone report on Venwest hearing today ?
Not sure yet if anyone posted this but this is Intel's latest about the Appeal.
4/10/23 U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, case 23-1727
Filing 1 Appeal docketed. Received: 03/28/2023. [915699] Entry of Appearance is due on 04/24/2023. Certificate of Interest is due on 04/24/2023. Docketing Statement is due on 04/24/2023. Certified List is due on 05/22/2023. [CMH] [Entered: 04/10/2023 03:25 PM]
Who knows but could there be a problem with either Marty or George willingness to sign the necessary Sarbanes-Oxley certification?
....or could there be a problem deep within the wording of a certification from ... Frazier & Deeter, LLC
This is from a past 10-K so read the wording closley........
To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of Health Discovery Corporation
Opinion on the Financial Statements
We have audited the accompanying balance sheets of Health Discovery Corporation (the "Company") as of December 31, 2020 and 2019, and the related statements of operations, changes in stockholders' equity, and cash flows for the years then ended, and the related notes (collectively referred to as the financial statements). In our opinion, the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company as of December 31, 2020 and 2019, and the results of its operations and cash flows for the years then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
Going Concern
The accompanying financial statements have been prepared assuming that the Company will continue as a going concern. As discussed in Note 1 to the financial statements, the Company estimates cash will be depleted in a period less than one year from the date of these financial statements if the Company does not generate sufficient cash to support operations. These factors raise substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern. Management's plans in regard to these matters are also described in Note 1. The financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.
Basis for Opinion
These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company's financial statements based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) ("PCAOB") and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the consolidated financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. As part of our audits, we are required to obtain an understanding of internal control over financial reporting but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion.
Our audits included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. Our audits also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
Critical Audit Matters
Critical audit matters are matters arising from the current period audit of the financial statements that were communicated or required to be communicated to the audit committee and that: (1) relate to accounts or disclosures that are material to the financial statements and (2) involved our especially challenging, subjective, or complex judgments. We determined that there are no critical audit matters.
We have served as the Company's auditor since 2020, and we previously served as the Company’s auditor from 2014 through 2016.
/s/ Frazier & Deeter, LLC
Tampa, Florida
March 19, 2021
Maybe the Venwest hearing tomorrow will bring that case to an end.
Marty should be willing to assist with the filings. And for that matter how difficult can it be to prepare them given that there's no revenue and no business being transacted. All they really need is the outstanding shares and the disclaimer that unless they win the lawsuit, the shares are worthless. If they don't do the filings it's almost an admission that they think it's likely a lost cause and they aren't willing to cough up the cash.
.
Since our last 10-K filing we had 23 patents and 15 have expired since that time. We now have 8 patents of which 4 are European/Japanese. Maybe Intel might be interested in those foreign patents but as I see things it appears management "prior" George McGovern were just sugar coating all us shareholders that once believed in them. At any rate we still have 4 patents in the US of A that stand tall even if they must lean on a wall for support?
Even though I don't like those series "D" shares, George H. McGovern, our CEO has done more for us than past management.
Followers
|
130
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
18304
|
Created
|
10/08/05
|
Type
|
Free
|
Moderators |
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |