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.
They've kept things close to the vest for years. I thought it was previously reported that the settlement/undisclosed amount was ~1.5 mil?
D
I saw the pr this morning was hoping for more details than undisclosed amount what the hell is a matter with these guys?
Helicos BioSciences Corporation Settles its Patent Litigation Against Pacific Biosciences, Inc.
Litigation Against Illumina, Life Technologies Continues
CAMBRIDGE, Mass.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Helicos BioSciences Corporation (OTCQB: HLCS.PK) announced today that it has settled its patent infringement litigation against Pacific Biosciences, Inc. The settlement gives Pacific Biosciences freedom-to-operate from Helicos's patents within a limited field of use covering Pacific Biosciences' current products only. In addition to paying an undisclosed financial settlement, Pacific Biosciences agreed to refrain from challenging the validity, enforceability, or patentability of any of Helicos's patents, which includes halting its efforts in the inter partes reexamination of the patents in suit with the USPTO.
"After carefully evaluating sales trends in the next generation sequencing marketplace over the last several quarters, including the trend in Pacific Biosciences's sales, and balancing potential future recovery versus litigation cost, we have concluded that the best course of action for Helicos is to settle with Pacific Biosciences" stated Dr. Ivan Trifunovich, President and CEO of Helicos. "The settlement and the associated non-exclusive and non-sublicensable license are narrowly focused on Pacific Biosciences's own technology. Our aim is to focus on the market leader Illumina as well as on Life Technologies, and we plan on continuing to pursue vigorously the patent infringement cases against them."
Forward-Looking Statements
This press release contains "forward-looking statements". All statements other than statements of historical fact that Helicos makes in this press release are forward-looking statements. In particular, the statements herein regarding our litigation plans, and statements preceded by, followed by or that include the words "intends", "estimates", "plans", "believes", " expects", "anticipates", "should", "could" or similar expressions, are forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements reflect our current expectations and are inherently uncertain. Our actual results may differ significantly from our expectations. We assume no obligation to update this forward-looking information. A discussion of the risk factors facing us can be found under "Risk Factors" in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011, and in our other reports and filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
About Helicos BioSciences:
Helicos BioSciences Corporation ("Helicos" or the "Company") is a life sciences company focused on innovative genetic analysis technologies and the monetization of that technology and related intellectual property. Helicos' proprietary True Single Molecule Sequencing (tSMS(TM)) technology allows the direct measurement of natural DNA without the confounding steps of sample manipulation or nucleic acid amplification. For more information, please visit www.helicosbio.com.
Helicos BioSciences
Ivan Trifunovich, PhD, 617-264-1800
CEO
itrifunovich@helicosbio.com
Source: Helicos BioSciences Corporation
STIPULATION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
AS TO DEFENDANT PACIFIC BIOSCIENCES OF CALIFORNIA, INC.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, it is hereby stipulated and agreed, by and
between plaintiffs/counterclaim-defendants Helicos Biosciences Corporation ("Helicos") and
Arizona Science and Technology Enterprises, LLC ("AzTE"), on the one hand, and
defendant/counterclaim-plaintiff Pacific Biosciences Of California Inc. ("PacBio"), on the other
hand (each a "Party," and, collectively, the "Parties"), through their undersigned counsel, and
subject to the approval of the Court, as follows:
1. All claims asserted in the above-captioned action by Helicos or AzTE against
PacBio shall be and hereby are dismissed in their entirety with prejudice and without costs or
attorneys' fees to any Party as against another Party.
2. All affirmative defenses and counterclaims asserted in the above-captioned action
by PacBio against Helicos or AzTE shall be and hereby are dismissed in their entirety without
prejudice and without costs or attorneys' fees to any Party as against the other Party
05/10/2012 255 STIPULATION of Dismissal as to Defendant Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. by Arizona Science and Technology Enterprises LLC d/b/a Arizona Technology Enterprises, Helicos Biosciences Corporation, Pacific Biosciences of California Inc.. (Kirk, Richard) (Entered: 05/10/2012
Just waiting for a proper announcement I'm assuming before the 15th
$HLCS might have a little churning to do before a breakout to where she belongs.. When is this decision to be made?
PACB as you said looks like it would get hit hard by any wrongful doing indictments. ILMN would just snicker and roll on down the road..
Yes good point...easier when there is less stock out there...god I remember the $3.50 days...thats when they were for sale...and then the board mysteriously put themselves off the for sale market and slowly went dim with info...
a pp was done at $2.50 at which point all the big guys subrscribed to (atlas versant etc)
then slow drift down to these levels/nasdaq delisting etc
PACB ILMN,abd others were all laughing at HLCS... Marcos Island, BIOit/pharma conferances etc etc everyone said HLCS was a spent force
Leenik Swann stopped coverage on them and that was that.... even though they were one of the first commercially available 3RD GEN Single Molecule Sequencing machines everyone poo pooed it lol RNA was considered excess "junk" material etc etc
and now
everyone is saying SMS is the future...read the ILMN filings, read the ROCHE cc transcripts when they were courting ILMN... SMS single molecule sequencing is the future... all of them are touting SMS and HLCS knew this..it was always about the science with them....this court case. the defending the IP and the monetization of their estate of intellectual property is what will make this baby fly...
I am just hoping the PACB settlement and the next filing is the jumpstart we will need.
we need strong volume...and MACDgyver I understand what you are saying in regards to the technicals on this but I am also guarded into not readingh to much into them because it is obvious that this thing is being manipulated....MANIPULATED!!!
I think you may be right...look at the letter sent to the judge that has just recently been filed
Re: Helicos Biosciences Corp. v. Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. et al.
C.A. No. 10-735-SLR-MPT
Dear Judge Robinson:
As an update to the Court on the letter submitted earlier today (D.I. 253), based on the
execution of a final settlement between Plaintiffs Helicos Biosciences Corporation and Arizona
Science and Technology Enterprises LLC ("Plaintiffs") and Defendant Pacific Biosciences of
California, Inc. ("PacBio"), PacBio hereby withdraws its request for the relief that is the subject
of Plaintiffs' objections to Magistrate Judge Thynge's March 1, 2012 order (D.I. 221).
Respectfully,
/s/ David Moore
David Moore
DEM/msb
1058735/36033
cc: Clerk of Court (via Hand Delivery)
Counsel of Record (via Electronic Mail
We should be hearing the details of the agreement anytime now
Better days will come.. They like to stair step things down before news releases imo.
a little of both I would say...
look at the length of the red candle on the graph...look at the volume to move it up and then about a total of $3400 worth of trades today knocks it down 3 cents? lol come man you gotta be kidding me....this is happening in broad day light right? no dark pools or anything here..just MM manipulation on low volume where total of $3500 worth of trades can shave off 3 cents or better yet $2.6 million dollars worth of market capitalization and you gotta ask yourself why?
$HLCS.. panic selling or MM games.. Low volume indeed. I pick the prior.
low volume knocking her down...
That's a charge to pacb for fees related to the case for the 3 month period of q1 ref in pacb filing
they settled for only 1.8 mil??
From pacb filing
On August 27, 2010, we were named as a defendant in a complaint filed by Helicos Biosciences Corporation, or Helicos, alleging infringement of two patents owned by Helicos and two patents in–licensed by Helicos from Arizona Science and Technology Enterprises LLC d/b/a Arizona Technology Enterprises, or AzTE, who was subsequently added as an additional plaintiff in the lawsuit. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granted our subsequent request for re-examination of each of the asserted patents, and rejected all of the claims of the asserted patents as being unpatentable over prior art. In April 2012, the parties reached agreement on the principal terms to resolve their patent litigation. Under the terms of the agreement, Helicos and AzTE will dismiss their lawsuit against the Company, and the Company will dismiss its counterclaims in the lawsuit and make one-time payments to Helicos and AzTE, without admitting any liability. The settlement terms also include worldwide, non-exclusive licenses for the Company to all patents owned by Helicos and the two asserted patents in-licensed by Helicos from AzTE in the field relevant to the Company's current products, and a perpetual covenant not to sue under any patent that Helicos has the right to enforce in such field, and the Company will refrain from challenging, or helping others to challenge, the validity, enforceability, or patentability of any patent or patent application to which it is granted a license under the settlement terms, except to the extent any such patent is asserted against the Company in the future, and the Company will also refrain from filing, or assisting others to file, any papers in the re-examination proceedings concerning the four patents that were asserted against the Company in the lawsuit. We have not assigned any value to the licenses under the agreement as of March 31, 2012. No value has been assigned to the licenses as we do not believe any of our current or future products would fall under any valid and enforceable claims in the licensed applications and patents.
The aforementioned settlements gave rise to events that existed as of the balance sheet date. Therefore, in accordance with ASC Topic 855, Subsequent Events, selling, general and administrative expenses for the three-month period ended March 31, 2012, include a $1.8 million charge relating to the settlement of these two intellectual property matters.
Atlas can make it happen if they want. Positive fundamental news could also make this happen at the retail level.
D
Agreed, is this enough to further stimulate HLCS to break the 50MA?
We just need the volume... watching it today and it seems like we cant break .13...lets hope some follow up news soon on the PACB settlement otherwise the important date for us would be the 15th of this month when the Q1 numbers come out... and I am looking for a modest improvement in revenue.... if you guys go to twitter and hit helicos unveiled you will see the tweets about major HVAC upgrades that signifcantlty increaes its capacity on how many machines can run at the same time...also they have been seqeuncing and working their current machines around the clock...the big question is... for whom? what client?
a lot of good stuff to look forward to
Great post ... thanks!
ILMN and LIFE out of legal time wasting ammo
ILMN and LIFE along with PACB latst year attempted to slow justice down by requesting a change of venue...from Delaware to Northern California...the reason they stated was that some of the expert witnesses that ILMN and LIFE and PACB had were not worried about the expense of time and money for having to travle and give testimony etc etc...this from 2 OUT OF 3 defendants (ILMN and LIFE) are mulit national billion dollar plus corporations and they were trying to pull this legal stunt....
One needs to assume that helicos is playing up the injured party status to the judge and ILMN and LIFE and PACB went for it hook line and sinker...they figured any day now helicos will shut down...but as per Ivan Trifunovich interview last June...
`"Basically, they are responsible for destroying a company and scientists losing their jobs."
"They are waiting for us to run out of gas. They see the situation we're in and they think we'll eventually go away. But that's not going to happen."
VC that are apart of Helicos are hsupporting it and they are not going to let this fail in fact Atlas just klaunched another fund in January raising over $200 million dollars.... these people are not bust ouyts but they are ^playing chess while....ILMN and LIFE attorneys are playing checkers...
anyways here is the ruling denying the motion to change of venue...
dont know what other `time wasting`moves ILMN and LIFE yhave, perhaps they will pull the fire alarm during the trial (if it gets to that) lol or continue to unleash 100 share algo bot trades to knock her down some more..but this too is ending
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
> > FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
> > HELICOS BIOSCIENCES
> > CORPORATION,
> > Plaintiff,
> > v.
> > ILLUMINA, INC., et al.,
> > Defendants.
> > )
> > )
> > )
> > )
> > )
> > ) Civ. No. 10-735-SLR
> > )
> > )
> > )
> > )
> > Richard D. Kirk, Esquire and Stephen B. Brauerman, Esquire of Bayard, P.A.,
> > Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel for Plaintiff. Of Counsel: Douglas J. Kline, Esquire,
> > Daniel M. Forman, Esquire, Brian A Fairchild, Esquire, Sheryl Koval Garko, Esquire,
> > James D. Clements, Esquire, Blake B. Greene, Esquire and Kurt M. Kjelland, Esquire of
> > Goodwin Procter LLP; David I. Gindler, Esquire of lrell & Manella LLP.
> > Richard L. Horwitz, Esquire and David E. Moore, Esquire of Potter Anderson & Corroon
> > LLP, Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel for Defendants. Of Counsel: Edward R. Reines,
> > Esquire, Derek C. Walter, Esquire and Sean O'Rourke, Esquire of Wei I, Gotschal &
> > Manges LLP.
> > Dated: May 3, 2012
> > Wilmington, Delaware
> > MEMORANDUM OPINION
> > Case 1:10-cv-00735-SLR-MPT Document 251 Filed 05/03/12 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 5368
> > R~N
> > I. INTRODUCTION
> > Pending before the court is a motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of
> > California filed by defendants Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. ("PacBio:), Life
> > Technologies Corporation ("Life") and lllumina, Inc. ("lllumina"). For purposes of
> > exploring the papers filed by each party, the court held an evidentiary hearing on
> > February 16, 2012. The court has jurisdiction to hear this motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
> > § 1338. Venue is appropriate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). For the reasons that
> > follow, the court will deny the motion.
> > II. BACKGROUND
> > A. The Parties
> > Plaintiff Helices Biosciences Corporation ("Helices") is incorporated in Delaware
> > with its principal place of business in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Helices, which
> > started out as a biotech sequencing company, now employs ten employees and
> > focuses on its patent enforcement business. (D.I. 187 at 3; D.l. 244 at 17, 36) Plaintiff
> > Arizona Science and Technology Enterprises LLC (d/b/a Arizona Technology
> > Enterprises) ("AzTE")), an Arizona corporation, is an "intellectual property development
> > affiliate of Arizona State University and is located in Phoenix, Arizona." (D. I. 169 at 2)
> > AzTE is "essentially a holding organization for the two Arizona State patents to which
> > Helices allegedly has an exclusive license." (/d,)
> > Defendant lllumina is a publicly-traded company incorporated in Delaware.
> > lllumina has approximately 2,000 employees worldwide, with most of them
> > (approximately 1 ,400) working in or near San Diego, California and the rest working in
> > Case 1:10-cv-00735-SLR-MPT Document 251 Filed 05/03/12 Page 2 of 15 PageID #: 5369
> > lllumina's commercial offices located in seven countries. (D.I. 187 at 3; D.l. 244 at 30)
> > lllumina generated over $900 million in revenue in the United States alone in 2010.
> > (D. I. 187 at 3) lllumina is a "biotech tool maker;" the accused product in this case
> > involves DNA sequencing. lllumina's sequencing instruments were largely developed
> > by a company Ilium ina acquired in 2007; the chemistry was largely developed in the
> > United Kingdom. (D.I. 244 at 29-30) lllumina has installed two of its DNA sequencing
> > platforms at the University of Delaware, has given presentations concerning its
> > sequencing systems at the University, and has provided customer training and
> > performed sequencing runs at the University. (D.I. 187 at 4; D.l. 244 at 31)
> > Defendant Life is a publicly-traded company incorporated in Delaware, with its
> > principal place of business in or near San Diego, California. Life represents itself as a
> > "global biotechnology tools company" with over $3.3 billion in sales, 9,000 employees
> > and a presence in 160 countries. (D.I. 187 at4)
> > PacBio is a publicly-traded company incorporated in Delaware, with its principal
> > place of business in Menlo Park, California. (D.I. 187 at 3; D.l. 244 at 20) PacBio
> > started commercializing its products in 2011 and had revenue from product sales in the
> > approximate amount of $34 million. (D. I. 244 at 20) PacBio has 300 employees and
> > has shipped its products on a national and international scale. (D.I. 187 at 3; D.l. 244
> > at 20) Like lllumina, PacBio has installed one of its instruments at the University of
> > Delaware, and has provided customer training and performed sequencing runs at the
> > University. (D. I. 187 at 4)
> > B. The Parties' Litigation History
> > With the exception of PacBio, which has not previously been engaged in
> > 2
> > Case 1:10-cv-00735-SLR-MPT Document 251 Filed 05/03/12 Page 3 of 15 PageID #: 5370
> > litigation outside of California, both lllumina and Life have litigated extensively in fora
> > other than California. Indeed, lllumina has been involved in litigating as many cases in
> > Delaware as it has in California. (D. I. 187 at 5; D. I. 188, ex. N) The remaining lllumina
> > litigations have been scattered throughout the country, including Massachusetts,
> > Washington and Wisconsin. (/d.) Life has also been involved in litigations throughout
> > the country, with nearly half of those litigations occurring in Delaware, Maryland and
> > New York. (D. I. 187 at 5; D. I. 188, ex. I) In the past, both lllumina and Life have
> > opposed motions to transfer venue to the Northern District of California. (D. I. 187 at 5,
> > citing cases).
> > Ill. STANDARD OF REVIEW
> > Since the Act of 1897, when Congress first enacted what is now 28 U.S.C. §
> > 1400(b), 1 any civil action for patent infringement could be brought in the judicial district
> > in which the defendant was incorporated. Indeed, until 1990, the words "inhabitant"
> > (used prior to 1948) and "resident" (used since 1948), as those words relate to
> > corporate venue in patent infringement cases, were limited to "the state of incorporation
> > only." Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp., 353 U.S. 222, 226 (1957); see
> > also VE Holding Corp. v. Johnson Gas Appliance Co., 917 F.2d 1574,1578 (Fed.
> > Cir.1990). In 1990, the Federal Circuit in VE Holding interpreted the 1988 amendment
> > to the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (c), as supplementing the specific
> > 1Section 1400(b) provides:
> > (b) Any civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the
> > judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant
> > has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established
> > place of business.
> > 3
> > Case 1:10-cv-00735-SLR-MPT Document 251 Filed 05/03/12 Page 4 of 15 PageID #: 5371
> > provisions of§ 1400(b). More specifically,§ 1391 was amended to broaden the
> > general venue provision for corporations:2
> > (c) For purposes of venue under this chapter, a defendant
> > that is a corporation shall be deemed to reside in any
> > judicial district in which it is subject to personal jurisdiction at
> > the time the action is commenced.
> > (Emphasis added) The Federal Circuit held that the emphasized language above
> > clearly indicated that§ 1391 (c), on its face, applied to§ 1400(b), "and thus redefine[ d)
> > the meaning of the term 'resides' in that section." 917 F.2d at 1578. Thus, as
> > recognized by the Federal Circuit, "[v]enue, which connotes locality, serves the purpose
> > of protecting a defendant from the inconvenience of having to defend an action in a trial
> > court that is either remote from the defendant's residence or from the place where the
> > acts underlying the controversy occurred .... The venue statutes achieve this by
> > limiting a plaintiff's choice of forum to only certain courts from among all those which
> > might otherwise acquire personal jurisdiction over the defendant." /d. at 1576 (citation
> > omitted).
> > Since 1948, 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) has given district courts the authority to
> > "transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been
> > brought." According to the Supreme Court, § 1404(a) "reflects an increased desire to
> > have federal civil suits tried in the federal system at the place called for in the particular
> > 2Before the 1988 amendment, § 1391 (c) provided:
> > (c) A corporation may be sued in any judicial district in which it is
> > incorporated or licensed to do business or is doing business, and
> > such judicial district shall be regarded as the residence of such
> > corporation for venue purposes.
> > 4
> > Case 1:10-cv-00735-SLR-MPT Document 251 Filed 05/03/12 Page 5 of 15 PageID #: 5372
> > case by considerations of convenience and justice. Thus ... , the purpose of the
> > section is to prevent the waste 'of time, energy and money' and 'to protect litigants,
> > witnesses and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and expense ... .' To
> > this end, it empowers a district court to transfer 'any civil action' to another district court
> > if the transfer is warranted by the convenience of parties and witnesses and promotes
> > the interest of justice." VanDusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964) (quoting
> > Continental Grain Co. v. Barge F.B.L.-585, 364 U.S. 19, 26-27 (1 069)). The Supreme
> > Court has urged a "common-sense approach" to application of the statute, as it was
> > designed as a "federal judicial housekeeping measure, dealing with the placement of
> > litigation in the federal courts and generally intended, on the basis of convenience and
> > fairness, simply to authorize a change of courtrooms." /d. at 623, 636-37. See also
> > Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 254 (1981). Consistent with Federal Circuit
> > precedent characterizing motions to transfer pursuant to§ 1404(a) as procedural
> > matters, the law of the regional circuit provides the governing standards. In re Link_AMedia
> > Devices Corp., 662 F.3d 1221, 1222-23 (Fed. Cir. 2011). See generally Panduit
> > Corp. v. All States Plastic Mfg. Co., Inc., 744 F.2d 1564, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ("When
> > we review procedural matters that do not pertain to patent issues, we sit as if we were
> > the particular regional circuit court where appeals from the district court we are
> > reviewing would normally lie. We would adjudicate the rights of the parties in
> > accordance with the applicable regional circuit law.").
> > Consistent with the Supreme Court's jurisprudence on§ 1404(a), "§ 1404(a)
> > accords broad discretion to district court[s]" and "directs [such courts] to take account of
> > 5
> > Case 1:10-cv-00735-SLR-MPT Document 251 Filed 05/03/12 Page 6 of 15 PageID #: 5373
> > factors other than those that bear solely on the parties' private ordering of their affairs.
> > [A] district court also must weigh in the balance the convenience of the witnesses and
> > those public-interest factors of systemic integrity and fairness that, in addition to private
> > concerns, come under the heading of the 'interest of justice."' Stewart Organization,
> > Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 30 (1988). Likewise, the United States Court of
> > Appeals for the Third Circuit has directed district courts to consider "many variants of
> > the private and public interests protected by the language of§ 1404(a)." Jumara v.
> > State Farm Insurance Co., 55 F.3d 873, 879 (3d Cir. 1995).
> > As can be seen, by the time Jumara issued in 1995, there was a recognized
> > historical continuum that served as the backdrop for the Third Circuit's analysis. First, a
> > defendant's state of incorporation had always been a predictable, legitimate venue for
> > bringing suit. Second, a plaintiff, as the injured party, generally had been "accorded
> > [the] privilege of bringing an action where he chooses." Norwood v. Kirkpatrick, 349
> > U.S. 29, 31 (1955). Indeed, although it was recognized at the time that the enactment
> > of§ 1404(a) permitted judges to exercise broader discretion than had been the case
> > under the common law doctrine of forum non conveniens, 3 the risk associated with the
> > exercise of such discretion was also recognized, as described in the dissenting opinion
> > in Norwood as "assigning to the trial judge the choice of forums, a prerogative which
> > has previously rested with the plaintiff." /d. at 37 (Justice Clark, with whom Chief
> > Justice Warren and Justice Douglas concurred, dissenting where the trial judge
> > 3Which doctrine involved the dismissal of a case if the forum chosen by the
> > plaintiff was "so completely inappropriate and inconvenient that it [was) better to stop
> > the litigation in the place where brought and let it start all over again somewhere else."
> > /d.
> > 6
> > Case 1:10-cv-00735-SLR-MPT Document 251 Filed 05/03/12 Page 7 of 15 PageID #: 5374
> > transferred three personal injury suits from Pennsylvania, where the plaintiffs resided, to
> > South Carolina, the forum of choice for the defendant employer).
> > In Jumara, the Third Circuit establishes the analytical framework for the
> > resolution of the instant motion to transfer. The Court starts its analysis by reminding
> > the reader that "[t]he burden of establishing the need for transfer ... rests with the
> > movant" and that, '"in ruling on defendants' motion, the plaintiff's choice of venue
> > should not be lightly disturbed."' /d. (citation omitted). See generally, VanDusen, 376
> > U.S. at 635 (where the Supreme Court refers to "the plaintiff's venue privilege"). The
> > Third Circuit recognizes that,
> > n ruling on§ 1404(a) motions, courts have not limited their
> > consideration to the three enumerated factors in§ 1404(a)
> > (convenience of parties, convenience of witnesses, or interests
> > of justice), and, indeed, commentators have called on the courts
> > to "consider all relevant factors to determine whether on
> > balance the litigation would more conveniently proceed and the
> > interests of justice be better served by transfer to a different
> > forum."
> > /d. (citation omitted). The Court then describes some of the "many variants of the
> > private and public interests protected by the language of§ 1404(a)." /d.
> > The private interests have included: plaintiff's forum of preference
> > as manifested in the original choice ... ; whether the claim arose
> > elsewhere ... ; the convenience of the parties as indicated by
> > their relative physical and financial condition ... ; the convenience
> > of the witnesses - but only to the extent that the witnesses may
> > actually be unavailable for trial in one of the fora ... ; and the
> > location of books and records (similarly limited to the extent
> > that the files could not be produced in the alternative forum) .
> > The public interests have included: the enforceability of the
> > judgment ... ; practical considerations that could make the trial
> > easy, expeditious, or inexpensive ... ; the relative administrative
> > 7
> > Case 1:10-cv-00735-SLR-MPT Document 251 Filed 05/03/12 Page 8 of 15 PageID #: 5375
> > difficulty in the two fora resulting from court congestion ... ; the
> > local interest in deciding local controversies at home ... ; the
> > public policies of the fora ... ; and the familiarity of the trial judge
> > with the applicable state law in diversity cases ....
> > /d. (citations omitted) (emphasis added).
> > Jumara, of course, was not a patent case and was decided almost two decades
> > ago. It does not take an intellectual leap of faith to suggest that, when the Third Circuit
> > identified the factors discussed above, the Court did not necessarily have in mind the
> > kind of business disputes that are characteristic of today's patent litigation, that is,
> > where the parties are national and international companies competing aggressively for
> > market share with the will, sophistication and resources dedicated to resolving their
> > business disputes in court. Neither did the Third Circuit have in mind the fact that
> > Congress itself has legitimized "forum shopping" by enacting the "Patent Cases Pilot
> > Program," Pub. L. No. 111-349, 124 Stat. 3674, thus eliminating the stigma once
> > associated with that phrase and the notion that plaintiffs, by choosing a forum in the first
> > instance, were engaged in some nefarious conduct.
> > IV. ANALYSIS
> > With the above "jurisdictional guideposts" in mind, the court turns to the "difficult
> > issue of federal comity" that this motion presents. E.E.O.C. v. Univ. of Pa., 850 F.2d at
> > 976. Although transfer is a discretionary decision on the part of a district judge, clearly
> > the Federal Circuit expects an analysis of all the Jumara factors in connection with any
> > transfer decision issued by this court. In this regard, the court notes that plaintiffs have
> > not questioned defendants' assertion that the instant law suit could have been brought
> > in the Northern District of California and, therefore, that requirement shall not be
> > 8
> > Case 1:10-cv-00735-SLR-MPT Document 251 Filed 05/03/12 Page 9 of 15 PageID #: 5376
> > addressed further by the court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
> > A. Plaintiffs' Choice of Forum
> > As noted above, plaintiffs filed suit in Delaware for legitimate reasons. Delaware
> > is a venue close to Helicos' principal place of business and, because all of the
> > defendants are Delaware corporations, it is a venue where all of the defendants could
> > be sued. Despite the defendants' implication that plaintiffs at bar, patent enforcement
> > companies, should be treated as second-class citizens (D. I. 244 at 36-37), the court
> > declines to disregard the privilege of choosing a venue that has historically been
> > accorded plaintiffs, absent specific authority making such a distinction. 4
> > This factor weighs against transfer.
> > B. Where the Claims Arise
> > A claim for patent infringement arises wherever someone has committed acts of
> > infringement, to wit, "makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention" without
> > authority. See generally 35 U.S.C. § 271(a); Red Wing Shoe Co., Inc. v. Hockerson-
> > Halberstadt, Inc., 148 F.3d 1355, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (an infringement claim "arises
> > out of instances of making, using, or selling the patented invention."). There is no
> > dispute but that both lllumina and PacBio have sold allegedly infringing products in
> > Delaware. Life has not.
> > This factor is neutral.
> > C. The Convenience of the Parties
> > The Third Circuit in Jumara indicated that, in evaluating the convenience of the
> > 4Academic institutions (like the University of Arizona) often enforce their patent
> > rights through private companies (like AzTE).
> > 9
> > Case 1:10-cv-00735-SLR-MPT Document 251 Filed 05/03/12 Page 10 of 15 PageID #: 5377
> > parties, a district court should focus on the parties' relative physical and financial
> > condition. In this case, clearly all of the defendants are larger in terms of their
> > operations than plaintiff Helices. 5 Once again, defendants would downplay this
> > comparison because Helices is not an operating company. Nonetheless, so long as
> > Helices has a legitimate right to enforce its constitutionally protected property rights, the
> > court will make the comparison required under Jumara.
> > This factor weighs against transfer.
> > D. The Convenience of the Witnesses
> > As the Third Circuit in Jumara implicitly recognized, litigation is an inconvenient
> > exercise. Therefore, it is not whether witnesses are inconvenienced by litigation but,
> > rather, whether witnesses "actually may be unavailable for trial in one of the fora" that is
> > a determinative factor in the transfer analysis. Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879. Setting aside
> > the general argument that party witnesses will be inconvenienced by litigating in
> > Delaware,6 plaintiffs and defendants spend some time speculating about whether nonparty
> > witnesses will be unable to attend trial. Defendants argue that virtually "every
> > potential non-party witness in this case may be unavailable in Delaware because the
> > Court cannot compel them to appear at trial." (D. I. 169 at 16) According to plaintiffs,
> > however, the same is true of the Northern District of California. (D .I. 187 at 15-16) At
> > this stage of the proceedings, when the parties are simply speculating about who might
> > 5No comparable information was provided vis a vis plaintiff AzTE. The court
> > assumes that its statistics would not alter the above analysis.
> > 6Depositions in the cases over which this judicial officer presides are generally
> > taken where the deponents reside or work. According to defendants, this case has
> > been no exception. (D. I. 169 at 20)
> > 10
> > Case 1:10-cv-00735-SLR-MPT Document 251 Filed 05/03/12 Page 11 of 15 PageID #: 5378
> > be a critical enough fact witness to be called to testify at trial7 and when neither fora has
> > subpoena power over the majority of the potential non-party fact witnesses, this factor is
> > neutral.
> > E. Location of Books and Records
> > The Third Circuit in Jumara again advised that, while the location of books and
> > records is a private interest that should be evaluated, it is not a determinative factor
> > unless "the files c[an] not be produced in the alternative forum." Jumara, 55 F.3d at
> > 879. Defendants argue that, because the "design, development, manufacture, and
> > marketing of the accused products or technology all took place entirely or primarily in
> > California (and also, in the case of lllumina, in the UK)," this factor should militate in
> > favor of transfer to the Northern District of California.
> > Consistent, however, with the court's view that virtually all businesses (especially
> > those based on advances in technology) maintain their books and records in electronic
> > format readily available for review and use at any location, lllumina has observed (in
> > opposing transfer in past litigation) that "parties (each with principal places of business
> > in California) have produced millions of pages of documents to each other simply by
> > sending each other computer disks containing images of the documents." (D.I. 188, ex.
> > 0) There is no indication that discovery in this case has proceeded contrary to the
> > above, that is, that the exchange of documents has occurred electronically, as it would
> > whether the parties were within blocks of each other or across the country from each
> > 7With respect to trials, in the nine patent jury trials conducted by this judicial
> > officer between March 2010 and October 2011, an average of three fact witnesses per
> > party appeared live for trial, with the average length of trial being 28 hours (with the
> > parties often using less time than allocated, on average, 25 hours).
> > 11
> > Case 1:10-cv-00735-SLR-MPT Document 251 Filed 05/03/12 Page 12 of 15 PageID #: 5379
> > other. With respect to trial, the court notes that, in the nine patent jury trials over which
> > this judicial officer presided between March 2010 and October 2011, an average of 87
> > documents were admitted per trial as exhibits by all parties, hardly a burden.
> > This factor is neutral.
> > F. Practical Considerations That Could Make The Trial Easy, Expeditious,
> > or Inexpensive
> > This factor arguably is where the "difficult issues of federal comity" most
> > dramatically come into play, as it involves a comparison between courts of equal rank to
> > determine their efficiencies, all in the context of the parties' various business and
> > litigation strategies. The court in Delaware has been criticized for managing its patent
> > docket without the aid of local rules, allowing the judges to vary their case management
> > procedures over time and/or from case to case. The court has also been criticized for
> > embracing its work as a trial court - encouraging parties to settle their disputes, but not
> > shying away from resolving disputes through the adversarial process (including trial) if
> > the parties fail in their efforts to craft a business solution. The court has most
> > specifically been criticized for expecting the corporate citizens of Delaware to make
> > themselves available to litigate in Delaware, as has been their historical obligation, and
> > for making observations about the realities of patent litigation gleaned from the (not
> > insubstantial) experiences of its judges.
> > Having thus set the stage, the court recognizes that trial in the Northern District
> > of California would be easier and less expensive for the defendants (and arguably for
> > plaintiff AxTE as well), while trial in Delaware would be easier and less expensive for
> > 12
> > I
> > I
> > !
> > I
> > i
> > !
> > I
> > I
> > I
> > ! i
> > I
> > Case 1:10-cv-00735-SLR-MPT Document 251 Filed 05/03/12 Page 13 of 15 PageID #: 5380
> > Helices. In light of the fact that trial has been scheduled in this case consistent with the
> > parties' proposals, the court will not address which court, the Northern District of
> > California or Delaware, has the most expeditious trial calendar.8
> > This factor weighs in favor of transfer.
> > G. Relative Administrative Difficulty
> > Given the case management order docketed in this case, the above factor is
> > neutral.
> > H. Local Interest in Deciding Local Controversies
> > Defendants reiterate their argument that "California has the strongest local
> > interest in this controversy" because the "factual connection of this case to California is
> > overwhelming." (D.I.169 at 18) In this regard, the court recognizes that defendants
> > maintain their principal places of business in California and that the California economy
> > may be impacted by litigation, e.g., the local economy derives benefits when trials
> > attract visitors and/or are resolved in favor of local companies.
> > Nevertheless, and despite any implications to the contrary,9 patent litigation does
> > not constitute a local controversy in most cases. Patent cases implicate constitutionally
> > protected property rights. The resolution of patent cases is governed by federal law
> > reviewed by a court of appeals of national (as opposed to regional) stature. Moreover,
> > 8Defendants noted in their briefing, however, that "[t]he median time to trial for
> > civil cases in the District of Delaware in 2011 was 26.8 months .... The median time
> > to trial for civil cases in the Northern District of California is comparable- 30.3 months."
> > (D.I. 169 at 18)
> > 9See, e.g., Link_A_Media, 662 F.3d at 1224 (in discussing Jumara's public
> > interest factors, the Court emphasized that the forum should have "ties" to the dispute
> > or to the parties aside from being the state of incorporation).
> > 13
> > I
> > l
> > I l
> > !
> > I
> > I
> > I
> > Case 1:10-cv-00735-SLR-MPT Document 251 Filed 05/03/12 Page 14 of 15 PageID #: 5381
> > to characterize patent litigation as "local" undermines the appearance of neutrality that
> > federal courts were established to provide and flies in the face of the national
> > (if not global) markets that are affected by the outcome of these cases.
> > This factor is neutral.
> > I. Remaining Jumara Public Interest Factors
> > The remaining Jumara public interest factors -the enforceability of a judgment,
> > the public policies of the fora, and the familiarity of the judge with state law - were not
> > addressed by the parties and, therefore, are neutral factors in this analysis.
> > IV. CONCLUSION
> > Defendants have the burden of persuading the court, by a preponderance of the
> > evidence, that the Jumara factors (as analyzed in light of the record presented by the
> > parties at bar) warrant transfer. Without giving undue weight to any one factor, 10
> > defendants have not tipped the scales of justice in favor of transfer. Their motion is
> > denied.
> > An appropriate order shall issue.
> >
Dr. Milos presenting this summer...its all about RNA
.Next-Gen Sequencing Applications
> & Translational Technologies Summit August 6-8...which Patrice Milos used to be on the advisory comiittee but this year is not attending..
>
>
> http://www.ibcusa.com/ts/2012/D12203TT91.pdf
>
> on wednesday august 8th the topic is non coding RNA..and the speakers on this are are Foundation Medicine, John Mcpherson from the ontario cancer institute (where Helicos shipped a machine to) and Timothy Triche...now if you remember Triche was co-author with Milos/Thompson/etc on the Helicos RNA paper
>
>
> http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/8/149
>
> now guess where Triche is board member....Wafergen !!! ...Foundation/Milos/Triche/Ontario cancer/Wafergen...
stealth mode still for HLCS new paper published...
patrice Milos who works for both Helicos AND PFIZER... 9WHY WOULD PFIZER INDULGE HER LIKE THAT BY ALLOWING HER TO MAINTAIN A TITLE WITH A PENNY STOCK ON THE PINKS....)
there is a lot more than meets the eye here people more to come but check out the latest paper....
Helicos co-authors (aside from Milos) according to LinkedIn:
Kathleen Steinmann was a Senior Scientist at Helicos and is now a Research Scientist II, Sequencing Platform at Broad Institute.
Christopher Hart was a Senior Computational Biologist at Helicos and is now the Associate Director of Bioinformatics at Isis Pharmaceuticals (San Diego)
>
> Check out the co-authors !
>
> http://genomebiology.com/content/pdf/gb-2012-13-4-r27.pdf
>
> and she is still listed as from Helicos..the paper was submitted Nov 2011
>
> http://genomebiology.com/content/pdf/gb-2012-13-4-r27.pdf
>
Sounds about right to me.
Let's hope this trend continues...the ilmn and life aspect of the trial should culminate this summer.... And now the pacb settlement once announced will arm Hlcs with the legal precedent it needs
i am back. last time i was here we ran to .21
this time ve gong to go higher ;0
big chinese men in silk suits are koming vith deep pockets
get redy peple.
Nice DD Summary.
Settlement soon? Life and Illumina coming into focus.
Any revenue stream in a settlement will bode well.
D
Click here for $HLCS DD extras..
<<< $HLCS Links! >>> ~ MAC's Quick DD Links without the charts.
Open these links (or the ones you desire) in background tabs
http://help.opera.com/Linux/9.52/en/keyboard.html
http://lifehacker.com/263940/force-links-to-open-in-the-background
PennyStockTweets ~ http://www.pennystocktweets.com/stocks/profile/HLCS
OTC Markets Company Info ~ http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/HLCS/company-info
OTC Markets Charts ~ http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/HLCS/chart
OTC Markets Quote ~ http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/HLCS/quote
OTC Markets News ~ http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/HLCS/news
OTC Markets Financials ~ http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/HLCS/financials
OTC Markets Short Sales ~ http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/HLCS/short-sales
OTC Markets Insider Disclosure ~ http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/HLCS/insider-transactions
OTC Markets Research Reports ~ http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/HLCS/research
Google Finance Summary ~ http://www.google.com/finance?q=HLCS
Google Finance News ~ http://www.google.com/finance/company_news?q=HLCS
Google Finance Option chain ~ http://www.google.com/finance/option_chain?q=HLCS
Google Finance Financials ~ http://www.google.com/finance?q=HLCS&fstype=ii#
Google Finance Historical prices Daily ~ http://www.google.com/finance/historical?q=HLCS
Google Finance Historical prices Weekly ~ http://www.google.com/finance/historical?q=HLCS&histperiod=weekly#
Y! < Company >
Y! Profile ~ http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=HLCS+Profile
Y! Key Stat's ~ http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=HLCS+Key+Statistics
Y! Headlines ~ http://finance.yahoo.com/q/h?s=HLCS+Headlines
Y! Summary ~ http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=HLCS
Y! Historical Prices ~ http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=HLCS+Historical+Prices
Y! Order Book ~ http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ecn?s=HLCS+Order+Book
Y! Message Boards ~ http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/mb/HLCS
Y! Market Pulse ~ http://finance.yahoo.com/marketpulse/HLCS
Y! Technical Analysis ~ http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?s=HLCS+Basic+Tech.+Analysis
Y! < Analyst Coverage >
Y! Analyst Opinion ~ http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ao?s=HLCS+Analyst+Opinion
Y! Analyst Estimates ~ http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ae?s=HLCS+Analyst+Estimates
Y! Research Reports ~ http://finance.yahoo.com/q/rr?s=HLCS+Research+Reports
Y! Star Analysts ~ http://finance.yahoo.com/q/sa?s=HLCS+Star+Analysts
Y! < Ownership >
Y! Major Holders ~ http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=HLCS+Major+Holders
Y! Insider Transactions ~ http://finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=HLCS+Insider+Transactions
Y! Insider Roster ~ http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ir?s=HLCS+Insider+Roster
Y! < Financials >
Y! Income Statement ~ http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=HLCS+Income+Statement&annual
Y! Balance Sheet ~ http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=HLCS+Balance+Sheet&annual
Y! Cash Flow ~ http://finance.yahoo.com/q/cf?s=HLCS+Cash+Flow&annual
FINVIZ ~ http://finviz.com/quote.ashx?t=HLCS&ty=c&ta=0&p=d
Investorshub Trades ~ http://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=trades&symbol=HLCS
Investorshub Board Search ~ http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/getboards.aspx?searchstr=HLCS
Investorshub PostStream ~ http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/poststream.aspx?ticker=HLCS
Investorshub Messages ~ http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/msgsearch.aspx?SearchStr=HLCS
Investorshub Videos ~ http://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=ihvse&ihvqu=HLCS
Investorshub News ~ http://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=news&btn=s_ok&ctl00%24sb3%24tbq1=Get+Quote&as_values_IH=&ctl00%24sb3%24stb1=Search+iHub&symbol=HLCS&s_ok=OK&from_month=3&from_day=15&from_year=2012&order=desc&selsrc%5B%5D=prnca&selsrc%5B%5D=prnus&selsrc%5B%5D=zacks&selsrc%5B%5D=money2&selsrc%5B%5D=djn&selsrc%5B%5D=bw&selsrc%5B%5D=globe&selsrc%5B%5D=edgar&selsrc%5B%5D=mwus&force=1&last_ts=1331855999&p_n=1&p_count=&p_ts=1331794260
CandlestickChart ~ http://www.candlestickchart.com/cgi/chart.cgi?symbol=HLCS&exchange=US
Barchart Quote ~ http://barchart.com/quotes/stocks/HLCS?
Barchart Detailed Quote ~ http://barchart.com/detailedquote/stocks/HLCS
Barchart Options Quotes ~ http://barchart.com/options/stocks/HLCS
Barchart Technical Chart ~ http://barchart.com/charts/stocks/HLCS&style=technical
Barchart Interactive Chart ~ http://barchart.com/charts/stocks/HLCS&style=interactive
Barchart Technical Analysis ~ http://barchart.com/technicals/stocks/HLCS
Barchart Trader's Cheat Sheet ~ http://barchart.com/cheatsheet.php?sym=HLCS
Barchart Barchart Opinion ~ http://barchart.com/opinions/stocks/HLCS
Barchart Snapshot Opinion ~ http://barchart.com/snapopinion/stocks/HLCS
Barchart News Headlines ~ http://barchart.com/news/stocks/HLCS
Barchart Profile ~ http://barchart.com/profile//HLCS
Barchart Key Statistics ~ http://barchart.com/profile.php?sym=HLCS&view=key_statistics
OTC: American Bulls ~ http://www.americanbulls.com/StockPage.asp?CompanyTicker=HLCS&MarketTicker=OTC&TYP=S
NASDAQ: American Bulls ~ http://www.americanbulls.com/StockPage.asp?CompanyTicker=HLCS&MarketTicker=NASD&TYP=S
NYSE: American Bulls ~ http://www.americanbulls.com/StockPage.asp?CompanyTicker=HLCS&MarketTicker=NYSE&Typ=S
Marketwatch Profile ~ http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/HLCS/profile
Marketwatch Analyst Estimates ~ http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/HLCS/analystestimates
Marketwatch Historical Quotes ~ http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/HLCS/historical
Marketwatch Financials ~ http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/HLCS/financials
Marketwatch Overview ~ http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/HLCS
Marketwatch SEC Filings ~ http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/HLCS/secfilings
Marketwatch Picks ~ http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/HLCS/picks
Marketwatch Hulbert ~ http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/HLCS/hulbert
Marketwatch Insider Actions ~ http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/HLCS/insideractions
Marketwatch Options ~ http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/HLCS/options
Marketwatch Charts ~ http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/HLCS/charts
Marketwatch News ~ http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/news/symbolsearch/symbolnews.asp?news=markadv&symb=HLCS&sid=1795093&framed=False
The Lion ~ http://thelion.com/bin/aio_msg.cgi?cmd=search&msg=&si=1&tw=1&tt=1&rb=1&ih=1&fo=1&iv=1&yf=1&sa=1&fb=1&gg=1&symbol=HLCS
Search NYSE ~ http://www.nyse.com/about/listed/lcddata.html?ticker=HLCS
StockTA ~ http://www.stockta.com/cgi-bin/analysis.pl?symb=HLCS&num1=567&cobrand=&mode=stock
StockHouse ~ http://www.stockhouse.com/financialtools/sn_overview.aspx?qm_symbol=HLCS
StockHouse Delayed LII ~ http://www.stockhouse.com/financialtools/sn_level2.aspx?qm_page=46140&qm_symbol=HLCS
AlphaTrade ~ http://tools.alphatrade.com/index.php?t1=mc_quote_module&t2=mc_quote_module2&t3=historical&template=historical2html&sym=HLCS&client_id=2740&a_width=680&a_height=1000&language=english&showVol=1&chtype=8
Reuters ~ http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/companyOfficers?symbol=HLCS.PK&WTmodLOC=C4-Officers-5
StockWatch ~ http://www.stockwatch.com/Quote/Detail.aspx?symbol=HLCS®ion=U
Search NASDAQ ~ http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/HLCS
NASDAQ Divy History ~ http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/HLCS/dividend-history
NASDAQ Short Interest ~ http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/HLCS/short-interest
NASDAQ Institutional Ownership ~ http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/HLCS/institutional-holdings
NASDAQ FlashQuotes ~ http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/flashquotes.aspx?symbol=HLCS&selected=HLCS
NASDAQ InfoQuotes ~ http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/infoquotes.aspx?symbol=HLCS&selected=HLCS
NASDAQ After Hours Quote ~ http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/HLCS/after-hours
NASDAQ Pre-Market Quote ~ http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/HLCS/premarket
NASDAQ Historical Quote ~ http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/HLCS/historical
NASDAQ Option Chain ~ http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/HLCS/option-chain
NASDAQ Company Headlines ~ http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/HLCS/news-headlines
NASDAQ Press Releases ~ http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/HLCS/news-headlines
NASDAQ Sentiment ~ http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/HLCS/sentiment
NASDAQ Analyst Summary ~ http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/HLCS/analyst-research
NASDAQ Guru Analysis~ http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/HLCS/guru-analysis
NASDAQ Stock Report ~ http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/HLCS/stock-report
NASDAQ Competitors ~ http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/HLCS/competitors
NASDAQ Stock Consultant ~ http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/HLCS/stock-consultant
NASDAQ Stock Comparison ~ http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/HLCS/stock-comparison
NASDAQ Call Transcripts ~ http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/HLCS/call-transcripts
NASDAQ Annual Reports ~ http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/annualreport.aspx?symbol=HLCS&selected=HLCS
NASDAQ Financials ~ http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/HLCS/financials
NASDAQ Revenue & Earnings Per Share (EPS) ~ http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/HLCS/revenue-eps
NASDAQ SEC Filings ~ http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/HLCS/sec-filings
NASDAQ Ownership Summary ~ http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/HLCS/ownership-summary
NASDAQ Institutional Ownership ~ http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/HLCS/institutional-holdings
NASDAQ (SEC Form 4) ~
--------- All Trades ~ http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/HLCS/insider-trades
--------- Buys ~ http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/HLCS/insider-trades/buys
--------- Sells ~ http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/HLCS/insider-trades/sells
The Motley Fool ~ http://caps.fool.com/Ticker/HLCS.aspx
The Motley Fool Earnings/Growth ~ http://caps.fool.com/Ticker/HLCS/EarningsGrowthRates.aspx?source=itxsittst0000001
The Motley Fool Ratios ~ http://caps.fool.com/Ticker/HLCS/Ratios.aspx?source=itxsittst0000001
The Motley Fool Stats ~ http://caps.fool.com/Ticker/HLCS/Stats.aspx?source=icasittab0000006
The Motley Fool Historical ~ http://caps.fool.com/Ticker/HLCS/Historical.aspx?source=icasittab0000004
The Motley Fool Scorecard ~ http://caps.fool.com/Ticker/HLCS/Scorecard.aspx?source=icasittab0000003
The Motley Fool Statements ~ http://caps.fool.com/Ticker/HLCS/Statements.aspx?source=icasittab0000009
MSN Money ~ http://investing.money.msn.com/investments/stock-ratings?symbol=HLCS
YCharts ~ http://ycharts.com/companies/HLCS
YCharts Performance ~ http://ycharts.com/companies/HLCS/performance
YCharts Dashboard ~ http://ycharts.com/companies/HLCS/dashboard
InsideStocks Opinion ~ http://www.insidestocks.com/texpert.asp?sym=HLCS&code=XDAILY
InsideStocks Profile ~ http://www.insidestocks.com/profile.asp?sym=HLCS&code=XDAILY
InsideStocks Quote ~ http://www.insidestocks.com/quote.asp?sym=HLCS&code=XDAILY
InsideStocks Projection ~ http://charts3.barchart.com/procal.asp?sym=HLCS
Zacks Quote ~ http://www.zacks.com/stock/quote/HLCS
Zacks Estimates ~ http://www.zacks.com/research/report.php?type=estimates&t=HLCS
Zacks Company Reports ~ http://www.zacks.com/research/report.php?type=report&t=HLCS
Knobias ~ http://knobias.10kwizard.com/files.php?sym=HLCS
StockScores ~ http://www.stockscores.com/quickreport.asp?ticker=HLCS
Trade-Ideas ~ http://www.trade-ideas.com/StockInfo/HLCS/HOT_TOPIC.html
Morningstar ~ http://performance.morningstar.com/stock/performance-return.action?region=USA&t=HLCS&culture=en-US
Morningstar Shareholders ~ http://investors.morningstar.com/ownership/shareholders-overview.html?t=HLCS®ion=USA&culture=en-us
Morningstar Transcripts~ http://www.morningstar.com/earnings/NoTranscript.aspx?t=HLCS®ion=USA
Morningstar Key Ratios ~ http://financials.morningstar.com/ratios/r.html?t=HLCS®ion=USA&culture=en-US
Morningstar Executive Compensation ~ http://insiders.morningstar.com/trading/executive-compensation.action?t=HLCS®ion=USA&culture=en-us
Morningstar Valuation ~ http://financials.morningstar.com/valuation/price-ratio.html?t=HLCS®ion=USA&culture=en-us
CCBN (Thompson Reuters) ~ http://ccbn.aol.com/company.asp?client=aol&ticker=HLCS
TradingMarkets ~ http://pr.tradingmarkets.com/?lid=leftPRbox&sym=HLCS
OTCBB ~ http://www.otcbb.com/asp/SiteSearch.asp?Criteria=HLCS&searcharea=e&image1.x=0&image1.y=0
Insidercow ~ http://www.insidercow.com/history/company.jsp?company=HLCS&B1=Search%21
Forbes News ~ http://search.forbes.com/search/find?tab=searchtabgeneraldark&MT=HLCS
Forbes Press Releases ~ http://search.forbes.com/search/find?&start=1&tab=searchtabgeneraldark&MT=HLCS&pub=businesswire,prnewswire&searchResults=pressRelease&tag=pr&premium=on
Forbes Web ~ http://search.forbes.com/search/web?MT=UNGS&start=1&max=10&searchResults=web&tag=web&sort=null
YouTube Symbol Search ~ http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=HLCS
Buy-Ins ~ http://www.buyins.net/tools/symbol_stats.php?sym=HLCS
Quotemedia ~ http://www.quotemedia.com/results.php?qm_page=47556&qm_symbol=HLCS
Earnings Whispers ~ http://www.earningswhispers.com/stocks.asp?symbol=HLCS
Bloomberg Snapshot ~ http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/snapshot/snapshot.asp?ticker=HLCS
Bloomberg People ~ http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/people/people.asp?ticker=HLCS
Financial Times ~ http://markets.ft.com/Research/Markets/Tearsheets/Summary?s=HLCS
Investorpoint ~ http://www.investorpoint.com/ enter "HLCS" and click search.
Hotstocked ~ http://www.hotstocked.com/ enter "HLCS" and click search.
Raging Bull ~ http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=HLCS
Hoovers ~ http://www.hoovers.com/search/company-search-results/100003765-1.html?type=company&term=HLCS
DD Machine ~ http://www.ddmachine.com/default.asp?m=stocktool_frame.asp?symbol=HLCS
SEC Form 4 ~ http://www.secform4.com/insider/showhistory.php?cik=HLCS
OTCBB Pulse ~ http://www.otcbbpulse.com/cgi-bin/pulsequote.cgi?symbol=HLCS
Failures To Deliver ~ http://failurestodeliver.com/default2.aspx enter "HLCS" and click search.
http://www.coordinatedlegal.com/SecretaryOfState.html
http://regsho.finra.org/regsho-Index.html
http://www.shortsqueeze.com/?symbol=HLCS&submit=Short+Quote%99
DTCC (PENSON/TDA) Check - (otc and pinks) - Note ~ I did not check for this chart blast. However, I try and help you to do so with the following links.
IHUB DTCC BOARD SEARCH #1 http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/msgsearchbyboard.aspx?boardID=18682&srchyr=2011&SearchStr=HLCS
IHUB DTCC BOARD SEARCH #2: http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/msgsearchbyboard.aspx?boardID=14482&srchyr=2011&SearchStr=HLCS
Check those searches for recent HLCS mentions. If HLCS is showing up on older posts and not on new posts found in link below, The DTCC issues may have been addressed and fixed. Always call the broker if your security turns up on any DTCC/PENSON list.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/msgsearchbyboard.aspx?boardID=18682&srchyr=2011&SearchStr=Complete+list
For a complete list see the pinned threads at the top here ---> http://tinyurl.com/TWO-OLD-FARTS
MACDlinks
nice close... the word will slowly leak out...this news was published in a trade journal and neither PACB or HLCS have issued a pr or a filing in this regards..meaning that nothing is signed..but apparently they are close.....
looking good... people are still somewhat patient and bidding their price..but soon I feel the day will come when you will have to hit the ask if your gonna want some and this thing could rise very rapidly....
Up 33% on above avg volume
wow why is this stock not moving on this? I guess nothing has been finalized. In the recent PACB Pac Bio filing they have a shelf registration tro raise up to $150 million dollars.... I am wondering if the financing is related to any payout coming to helicos
Awaiting Settlement of Patent Suit with PacBio, Helicos Sets Sights on Life Tech
and Illumina
May 02, 2012
By Monica Heger
Helicos is in the final stages of settling a patent dispute with Pacific
Biosciences — one of three defendants in a suit that has been ongoing since
2010.
The settlement with PacBio has not yet been finalized, but Helicos CEO Ivan
Trifunovich told In Sequence that the agreement will allow the company to "focus
on Illumina and Life [Technologies]," the other defendants named in the suit.
PacBio disclosed that it had settled the Helicos suit — as well as another
dispute with Life Tech — in its first-quarter earnings call this week (see
story, this issue). The company took a $1.8 million charge during the quarter
related to the settlement of the two IP matters.
As reported by In Sequence sister publication GenomeWeb Daily News, no licensing
deals were reached as part of the settlements and PacBio considers the two
matters concluded.
Ben Gong, PacBio's vice president of finance and treasurer, told GWDN that the
settlement with Helicos had not yet been finalized, which Trifunovich confirmed.
Neither would disclose financial details of the proposed settlement.
"Between PacBio, Illumina, and Life Tech, there's quite a big difference in
terms of traction in the marketplace," said Trifunovich. "We just felt that
working with PacBio to put this behind us would be a good thing to do," he
added. "It will make it easier for us to focus on Illumina and Life."
The suit has been making its way through the courts and is scheduled to go to
trial in September (IS 4/10/2012).
Helicos first brought its patent infringement suit against PacBio in 2010,
claiming that the company infringes on four of its patents, US Patent Nos.
7,645,596 and 7,037,687, both entitled "Method of determining the nucleotide
sequence of oligonucleotides and DNA molecules"; US Patent No. 7,169,560,
entitled "Short cycle methods for sequencing polynucleotides"; and US Patent No.
7,767,400, entitled "Paired-end reads in sequencing by synthesis."
Later, it added Life Tech and Illumina, claiming that Life Tech infringes on the
'596, '687, and '560 patents and Illumina on the '687 and '650 patents. It also
alleged that Illumina infringes on an additional patent, US Patent No.
7,593,109, entitled "Apparatus and methods for analyzing samples."
Helicos BioSciences (HLCS) announces prenatal diagnostics IP sale to Sequenom (SQNM) 4.32 +0.33 : Helicos BioSciences announced that it has entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement with Sequenom, pursuant to which Sequenom purchased all rights, title and interest in Helicos' United States Patent Application Serial Nos. 12/709,057 and 12/727,824 (Methods for Detecting Fetal Nucleic Acids and Diagnosing Fetal Abnormalities) and certain related proprietary materials. In consideration for the sale and transfer of the purchased assets, Sequenom paid Helicos $1.3 million.
Yes. 05 or. 07 is more reasonable..8 will wait for it to come back down! Too steep for me here and probably just someone taking profits. Good luck I hope they get the judgement in their favor.
Haven't left. It's either going to be boom or bust come settlement time. Just waiting.
D
For those of you still "following" Helicos, it's time to put it back on your radar.
Roche hostile takeover of Illumina is good for the entire sector. Helicos has been beaten down but there is still life yet. Pending IP litigation against Illumina, Pac Bio and Life Tech start mediation in February. And remember they are still a company generating rev from their new sequencing services. Last 10-Q reported a million $ in the past few quarters.
I'm getting back in at these ridiculously low prices. Dipped to $.03 and back to $.10 as of this post.
Bruce Ginsberg joins the Helicos board to review certain financing matters. It should be noted that Ginsberg has sat on other boards before to represent VC involvement.
Ginsberg is the CEO/President of Moobella. One of the Moobella directors is Erich Sieber, Senior Vice President of Inventages (Nestle)........
http://www.inventages.com/en/about_us/where_we_invest.html
On January 4, 2012, the Company fixed the size of its Board of Directors at five
(5) members and appointed Bruce C. Ginsberg as a director of the Company. Mr.
Ginsberg has been appointed to a Committee of the Board of Directors formed to
review certain financing matters. Mr. Ginsberg is currently the President and
Chief Executive Officer of MooBella, Inc., a food service provider, and is a
member of the Board of Directors of Mac-Gray Corporation (NYSE: TUC) where he
serves on the Audit Committee. Mr. Ginsberg will receive an annual cash
retainer in accordance with the Company's current non-employee director
compensation policy.
How low can this go??!! It just keeps going down? I always liked this company and Hope the best for them in the outcome! Their technologyy advanced so many fields!
HLCS~~Product revenue. We recognized $214,000 and $341,000 of product revenue during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, respectively, and $116,000 and $454,000 of product revenue during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011, respectively. Product revenue recognized during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010 and 2011 consists primarily of revenue from the sale of proprietary reagents to customers.
As of December 31, 2010 and September 30, 2011, we had deferred $7.3 million and $8.0 million of revenue, respectively, pursuant to multiple element, single accounting unit arrangements as we had not completed all obligations under these arrangements. These amounts have been received and future revenue recognition will have no effect on our cash balances.
Service revenue. We had no service revenues for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010 and $385,000 and $1.0 million of service revenue during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011, respectively. Service revenue is derived from sales of DNA and RNA sequencing services which commenced in the fourth quarter of 2010.
Grant revenue. We recognized $422,000 and $1.5 million of grant revenue during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, respectively, and $224,000 and $1.2 million of grant revenue during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011, respectively. Grant revenue recognized during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010 and 2011 relates to the reimbursement of expenses in connection with our government research grants. The decreases in grant revenue in both the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2011 is primarily due to the reduction of personnel resources to complete grant research work and the expiration of grants in 2011 from 2010. As of September 30, 2011, we continue to conduct research in connection with two ongoing grants.
Cost of product revenue. We recorded $94,000 and $270,000 as cost of product revenue during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, respectively and we recorded $70,000 and $201,000 as cost of product revenue during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011, respectively. Cost of product revenue consists of costs associated with the sale of proprietary reagents.
m1999
HLCS~~HELICOS BIOSCIENCES CORPORATION (a development stage company)
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(unaudited)
The Company’s future capital requirements will depend on many factors and it may require additional capital beyond its currently anticipated amounts. Any such required additional capital may not be available on reasonable terms, if at all, given the Company’s prospects, the current economic environment and restricted access to capital markets. The continued depletion of its resources may make future funding more difficult or expensive to obtain. Additional equity financing may be dilutive to the Company’s stockholders; debt financing, if available, may involve significant cash payment obligations and covenants that restrict its ability to operate as a business; and strategic partnerships may result in royalties or other terms which reduce its economic potential from any adjustments to its existing long-term strategy. If the Company is unable to execute its operations according to its plans or to obtain additional financing, the Company may be forced to cease operations. The financial statements do not include any adjustments relating to the recoverability and classification of recorded assets or the amount of reclassification of liabilities, or any adjustment that might be necessary should the Company be unable to continue as a going concern.
Since inception, the Company has incurred losses and has not generated positive cash flows from operations. The Company expects its losses to continue for a considerable period of time. These losses, among other things, have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on its working capital, total assets and stockholders’ equity/(deficit). As of September 30, 2011 and November 1, 2011, the Company had $550,000 and $275,000, respectively, in cash and cash equivalents. The Company will require significant additional capital in December 2011 to continue its operations beyond the existing $2,000,000 committed portion of the Bridge Debt. As of the date of this filing, $666,667 has been drawn against this committed facility and $1,333,333 remains available to support ongoing operations. Potential sources of additional funding may include funding from the $2,000,000 uncommitted portion of the Bridge Debt Financing facility and/or from other sources that have not yet been identified, but there can be no assurance that any such funding will be available on reasonable terms, if at all. Including $1,333,333 of the available Bridge Debt facility, the Company has $1,608,333 in total available resources as of November 1, 2011 and owes approximately $250,000 in monthly principal payments for each of December 2011 and January 2012 as well as a final $800,000 payment on the Senior Debt due in January 2012. If the Company is unable to execute its operations according to its plans or to obtain additional financing, the Company may be forced to cease operations. The Company’s present capital resources are not sufficient to fund its planned operations for a twelve month period as of the date of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2011.Accordingly, the Company’s current financial resources raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern.
m1999
HLCS~~Common stock: par value $0.001 per share; 120,000,000 shares authorized at December 31, 2010 and September 30, 2011; 86,557,606 shares issued and outstanding at December 31, 2010 and 87,233,989 shares issued and outstanding at September 30, 2011
http://www.otcmarkets.com/edgar/GetFilingHtml?FilingID=8242951#A11-25928_310Q_HTM_ITEM2_MANAGEMENTSDISCUSSIONANDANA_162319
m1999
Followers
|
24
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
684
|
Created
|
08/23/07
|
Type
|
Free
|
Moderators |
IR and PR for Helicos: MacDougall Biomedical Communications, Chris Erdman, 781-235-3060,cell: 617-686-1718, e-mail: chris@macbiocom.com
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=HLCS
Helicos BioSciences Corporation, a life sciences company, engages in the development of genetic analysis technologies for the research, drug discovery, and clinical diagnostics markets. The company is incorporating its proprietary True Single Molecule Sequencing technology into its commercial product consisting of an instrument called the HeliScope and its associated reagents and supplies. It intends to offer the HeliScope, which is used to enable ultra-high-throughput genetic analysis based on the direct sequencing of single molecules of DNA or single copies of RNA. The company intends to sell its system in North America, Europe, and Asia. Helicos BioSciences Corporation was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
|
|
|
tSMS™ Technology Demo :: | |||||
| |||||
Popular Links :: | |||||
http://www.otcmarkets.com/edgar/GetFilingHtml?FilingID=7931967
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |