2016 EPGL CONFERENCE • THE INSIDE SCOOP • TRANSCRIPT $EPGL $InWith
(Originally posted in early 2017)
In light of the phone call from Hayes—in which he affirmed current events as evolutionary of those referenced in the 2016 Vegas conference, I thought it beneficial to re-post the transcript and link to the video of said conference.
As you will note a number of predictions have come to fruition. Others, which were of an even further-future nature, remain yet to develop. For example, at time-stamp “51:00” there is indicated a two-year time-frame for the EPGL contact lens hitting the market; however the beginning and target delivery date is left to speculation (and now, coincidentally, this could equate to Hayes’ two-year privatization projection).
When someone tells you that a particular question has been addressed, there is a good chance you’ll find it here and straight from the horse’s mouth, so to speak. After finding something referenced in the transcript below, you can use the indicated time-stamp to source the info in the video (linked at the bottom) and thus see/hear the given info by EPGL/InWith representatives.
Save and bookmark this post for reference. You can also find this post (and its antecedent iterations) by searching for the term, “Inside Scoop.”
Disclaimer: Except for where quotation marks offset text indicative of actual dialogue, this is not a verbatim transcription or inclusive of everything said. Except for text appearing in quotations, this is a paraphrased account of select portions throughout the presentation. Numbers refer to the time-stamp of minutes and seconds whereat the dialogue is located in the video.
——BEGIN TRANSCRIPT——
5:00
“What is BioMEMS? BioMEMS is basically called Biomedical Micro-Electro-Mechanical System. So basically what we do, is produce mechanical and electrical machine(s) that can sense and actuate at the size of a human hair or nano-meters to (a) millimeter in size. So it is usually very small, okay? And then after that, when we built those system(s), we have to interface it (them) with a human so they can be used.”
7:30
Why an Electronic Contact Lens is discussed.
8:20 - 9:52
Elastic Circuit and Injection Molding discussed.
9:52 - 14:02
The Elastic Circuit Patent: What it does and why it was created.
14:03 - 14:48
Without the Elastic Circuit, Google’s electronic contact is substandard and why.
14:50 - 16:18
Ideas discarded in the creation of the Energy Harvester.
16:19 - 22:08
Production of the Energy Harvester Patent (harnessing the unlimited power of the eye, estimated power, power requirements, storage, ancillary use of Smart case, etc.).
22:09 - 26:50
The Smart Case Patent for additional power, data transfer and back-up of data via the first patented use of a saline fluid medium and testing confirming success of same. According to David Markus, EPGL is the first to file patents in fluid antenna space: A review of filings indicated J&J had only filed for charging the "electric toothbrush."
.
27:01 - 32:02
Predefined Space Patent—creation and utilization of the interior contact lens space as a reservoir for future solids and medication.
33:19 - 39:13
The 300 micron limitation of liquid crystal focusing as used by Google, Alcon, Johnson and Johnson and others, resulting in EPGL development of a limitless and magnetic mechanism for “haptic control” of contact material for focusing.
39:14 - 42:15
Ciliary Muscle Sensor. EPGL’s sensor that utilizes the eye’s ciliary muscle to activate electronic components.The concept is that the ciliary muscle moves, causing a vibration. A sensor in/on the contact (the Piezoelectric Sensor) detects the movement of the ciliary muscle (which controls the focusing of the eye) and that specific vibration causes the sensor to transmit a "Piezoelectric charge" that actives the electronics (such as auto-focusing). Since the movements in an eye (muscle movement, blinking, the iris, etc) each occur with a differing level of vibration (or "frequency" if you will), the theory is that the senor will be able to detect the vibration of movment specific to the ciliary muscle.
42:16 - 43:06
Q: "Has that been tested--how much, like, energy can it produce?"
A: "That one, uh, we're still working on it because we have to work closely with basically live animal(s).
Q: "Live animal(s)?"
A: "Live animal, live whatever--"
Q: "Or you. Would you like to volunteer?"
A: "Sure, let's do it. Let's do it right now. I trust you guys."
Dr. Markus tells us that this excited someone or some company of importance, but refrained from telling us who.
43:07 - 44:09
"Now I want to make sure you understand this is not an energy harvester, okay? This isn't producing energy. This is sensing the vibration of the muscle. The idea behind this is the Holy Grail application because if we can successfully integrate this within a lens that has that haptic, which can change the focus, now we've got a--basically replication of what's actually happening in your natural eye. But it's now in a prophylactic version ON your eye. So this is something that could renew vision for people who are in their--you know, 50 and above, back to giving them the ability to... You know if you're in a restaurant, and you can't see the damned menu and you want to see it, you know... Pick up your smart phone and dial the app or--that's the manual version--OR the automatic version is the ciliary muscle sensing your--your--the needs of what's going on and now it focuses automatically. It's a Holy Grail application
(NOTE: AN EPGL PATENT RELATED TO THIS WAS APPROVED IN JANUARY of 2017--Tolleson)
46:00 - 49:57
Optical Lens Patent—putting optics in a contact lens—also known as GRIN (Grabin Refractive Index Lens, (sp?)).
50:00 - 50:59
Dr. Markus describes when the diverse innovations will come together in one product.
51:00 - 51:40
The 2-year time frame for EPGL contact lens hitting the market. As the time period wasn’t identified, the beginning and target delivery date is open to speculation.
52:20 - 53:21
How EPGL got involved with the electronic contact lens when being contacted by CooperVision’s chief technical officer (following EPGL coming up with the Energy Harvester).
53:22 - 57:51
The “white hot” Future of augmented vision products are enumerated. “Autofocus, here, that we’re talking about is a huge business. 5 billion plus—annually—estimated. We intend—EPGL intends—to be one of the companies that develops the first working, viable, autofocus lens; with the exact technology that we’ve been talking to you about today.”
57:52 - 58:36
Various “groups” have put together acquisition proposals that aren’t even “close to being accepted.” Everything going forward is for the benefit of shareholders and a deal will not be made that, “screws you guys.”
59:17 - 59:23
USPTO feedback indicates other patents have good chance of approval.
1:00:15 - 1:00:36
Focus is building the technology for a large payoff and not day-to-day trading.
1:00:37 - 1:00:45
Between U.S. and international applications, there are 15 patent applications.
1:00:46 - 1:02:02
Expect “Downline Patents” based on current Patents and work related to same.
1:00:03 - 1:03:49
About J&J being faced with paying for EPGL tech or risk losing rights to the competition: Also about the team being built around David Markus.
1:04:03 - 1:08:29
About Augmented Vision and how Google “Glassholes” are contrasted by the discreet augmented vision of contact lenses produced with EPGL technology. This takes into consideration that EPGL patents utilize existing injection molding production while alternative methods of production would require a method of production layering. This includes a patent developed with CooperVision (of which EPGL now owns 100%) and which is of similar impact to that of the Elastic Circuit.
1:08:30 - 1:09:34
A listing of 8 patents pending or granted, which equals 16 pending or granted when counting international filings.
1:09:35 - 1:12:02
EPGL stock position compared to that of Apple in the early 80s and the overall wide market appeal of augmented vision.
1:12:03 - 1:13:26
EPGL learned that “we are further ahead than we thought” and are “doubling down” hardcore in going out in getting an autofocus prototype built. Also referenced is mobile phone app integration, which EPGL now considers a quicker path to market.
1:14:40 - 1:16:49
Expounding upon the GRIN lens and the cost effective nature of mass producing millions of lens using EPGL patented tech with current production methods over the alternative layering method.
1:18:01 - 1:20:12
Q: “Can you elaborate upon the whole agreement with J&J?; what that entails?; Is it certain technologies?; Is it all technologies?; Is it the company in general?“
A: An NDA prohibits extensive details but the agreement is for ALL EPGL technologies in terms of first right of negotiation. Speculation on large companies’ intent in regard to the track record and product of a smaller company. A “CooperVision situation of control” is also being avoided.
1:20:13 - 1:21:27
Q: “How is this whole team is going to work?; Do you guys have a plan in place where you are going to have that announced or... any information on that?”
A: When the team is in place, further details will be announced; however the team will likely be based in Irvine. A comparison to the company details followed on the heels of the CooperVision settlement is portrayed as something on which EPGL will “double down” in this instance of delivering on changes and developments going forward.
1:21:28 - 1:22:49
Q: “Can you discuss how large (the team) will be?”
A: The goal will be as many as 25 professionals in the biomems field that Markus picks (plus David Markus).
1:22:53 - 1:23:34
Q: “Is the J&J agreement an open-ended agreement? Are they just sitting back watching EPGL to see where they are headed? What they are coming up with? What the future looks like in the near term? Is there a deadline? A term? An expiration date?”
A: “There is a term that gives us plenty of time to get done what we want to get done. It is open ended in the sense that as we progress and as the relationship develops, there is possibility to grow, to continue. But, yeah, there is a term.”
1:23:35 - 1:24:05
Q: Inquiry regarding J&J’s interest being the technology or the company (audio was difficult to discern).
A: “It’s not an infinite situation nor would I want it to be. We fully plan on making them have to make that decision. Because we’re going to have some things that I think they’re going to—they as well as other companies—will be very interested in what we’re doing.”
1:24:06 - 1:25:46
Q: “How is the team going to be funded? The financials—is there income coming into the company? Are there sales? Or investments?”
A: “Let me just put it this way: We’re still in startup mode in the opthemalic area. We’re not turning a profit in this area yet. But the good news is that in some of these talks that we’ve been having with parties that are possibly interested in acquiring the company—which I want to emphasize, we have not made any decisions, okay? So no rumors get started. I’m just letting you know that its heated up recently. But we have some folks that are interested in capitalizing EPGL waaay beyond, waaay beyond... I mean, large-large capital that can launch us literally to be on par with a program that literally is the leader in the field. And that’s what my goal is—is to... When we do that... What’s the stupid clique? Katie bar the door? ... But anyway, the idea of us putting together a team that is backed by really big money is gonna—”
1:25:47 - 1:31:03
Q: “Is that financing—would that be as a loan, or would that be for stock—”
A: “It might involve Michel Hayes not having as much stock as he used to have. I don’t know, there’s a lot of different combinations. I’m not going to get too into the weeds on that right now. But the overall message here is that we’re kicking it into 7th gear, Okay? We’re in a sports car that’s been going along at maybe 5th—6th gear. There’s a Ferrari shop right out the door here. So if you imagine you’re driving your Ferrari—you’ve got those paddle shifters, right? It’s got 7 speeds. We’ve been going along in 4th and 5th, right? At 60, 70 miles per hour. We’re about to paddle up to 7th gear. We want to accelerate this program. And based upon what we’ve accomplished so far, we know we can. And we’ve got the right relationships falling into place. There will be more news on that front soon. We’re trying to execute on all levels. But I want to emphasize that the goal here with EPGL is to... We’re on the OTC, right? We’ve got designs and we’ve got ideas that don’t involve OTC any more, but they don’t necessarily involve going to OTCQB or QX. There’s ways of achieving our goals and these are some of the things I’m talking to some people on Wall Street about. And you guys and all current shareholders will be along for that ride—whatever it is. Okay? I’m not getting into details. I’m just saying I’m not happy with our stock setting on an OTC and having, you know, 500,000 average daily volume. I’m glad we have a lot of people that don’t want to sell, right? We’ve got a lot—we’ve got several hundred shareholders. And I’m glad we have a lot that don’t sell. But the fact that it can be moved so volatilely... Is that a word? Erratically, volatilely...on such small volume. I mean if someone wanted to come in, man—if someone had 50K or 100K they could blow us up through 10 cents in a heartbeat, right? But no one wants to do that because they realize there is always that possibility that they do that and then it immediately becomes a value of 30,000 in two or three days because so many people go ahead and sell, right? So it’s a tough market to be in to have somebody come in, a whale like that and really blast it. But that’s not what we should be about, anyway. We should be about slow, steady improvement. I mean look where we’re at right now. We’re sitting at 4 cents right now—we’re at two-hundred million market cap, based on the number of shares. The thing is that with another patent pending coming through soon—and with more on the way—why the hell would anybody want—why would anybody want... I mean, unless you’re a day trader just playing the swings... If you—unless you invested money that you can’t afford to invest, why would you want—at this point in time—to divest? We’re just at the beginning here. We got patents just barely coming. If anything—I mean I’m just talking for myself, looking at it objectively—I would, myself, I would...I... If I was looking at another company, and it was me in the exact same situation, I’d be wanting to buy—I’d be buying on the dips and I’d be trying to, you know, acquire. Because I think that we are—I do think we are undervalued, right now. I said it. I think we are going a lot further than we are right now. And if everybody can fast forward in that DeLorean, and see the future, you know? But there’s been a lot of people over time, and you can go down the list of companies, and there’s a wake of people in every successful company that sold way too soon or didn’t take advantage of their opportunity. And you know what? God bless everybody who makes a decision—whatever they do. But we’re, I think, you know, we’re in a point in time right now where we’ve got as good a chance as anybody to be really successful in this market. And we’ve got technology that is needed in a lot of ways and we’re planning on maximizing that opportunity. So...”
1:31:04 - 1:32:53
Q: “...People are asking (about) anything they can share about Intel or AT&T or any of those factors?”
A: “Intel is...a situation where we met with them for the purpose of discussing utilizing their chips in our prototypes—in our process. And, you know, that as well as Hitachi, is all still out there, okay? So we’re still open to using Intel chips. We, you know, we’re not partnering with Intl, okay? Because that’s not what the goal of the whole deal is. The goal with Intel was to discover what chips they had and what sizes they have that we could use. And that’s why we made the relationships with Intel at the time. And that’s all still open. What was the other—”
Q: “AT&T...”
A: “AT&T. When we went down to Plano and met with them. The—again I got to be careful because, you know, these things are under NDA and I don’t want to blow some of these things. But there were some technologies that they were specifically interested in incubating. So we went down, we spent a day with them. David came up with some solutions. We have rights to the technology. They have rights to the technology. I can’t go much more than that. And it is technology that is applicable in the market. Whether they do something with it, whether they maximize it, it’s up to them.”
1:32:54 - 1:33:22
Q: “Can you say—do you have other companies coming to you guys now, as research for other companies as well?”
A: “I get calls all the time. From people and companies that want to work with us, that heard of us. But we have to be judicious with our time and we’re really taxed right now. And so it’s got to be something that really is big time to get our attention because we’ve got our hands full right now.”
1:33:23 - 1:34:33
Q: “When you’re saying, ‘putting it into 7th gear,” is that—maybe involve maybe more people so you can handle more? And so you can really handle it more efficiently?”
A: “Well, theoretically, if we have a larger team, as we’re planning with David, we can handle more projects. But we—I mean how many potential things that are out there that are a 5 billion dollar annual market? There’s not many things like that out there. There’s not that many opportunities out there. The Augmented Reality is another thing that’s a multi-multi-billion potential market that we could have a slice of. So, you know, we’ve got enough gettin’ to go after right now. And we’ve laid down the ground work. So if we were to start, you know, really like diverting our attentions off into too many areas... On things that don’t have potential anywhere near this, we’d be doing everybody a disservice. So we’re focusing where we need to focus. Now if that becomes—if it becomes our ability to be involved in multiple other things, then yes, we would. But we kind of have a senior (word?) purpose right now...”
1:35:46 - 1:36:23
Q: Inquiry concerning which patents to expect approved following the Elastic Circuit.
A: There is no way to ascertain and an explanation as to why is offered.
1:36:32 - 1:38:05
Q: “Someone is asking, ‘Is there any chances that any of these companies will start acknowledging EPGL through announcements or anything like that any time soon?’“
A: There is no way to force these companies to mention EPGL and no way to know when that will happen. But J&J does acknowledge inquiries with regard to their working with EPGL, even going so far as confirming the first right of negotiation with the, “4 cent OTC.”
1:36:06 - 1:39:23
Q: An inquiry regarding the details of how J&J/EPGL will implement the actual negotiation upon which the agreement is based.
A: Any tech EPGL creates must be first offered to J&J. They may accept or decline. They also have the contractual right to meet or beat any deal offered to EPGL by other parties, and in said circumstances there is a specified period of time in which J&J must extend any offer.
1:39:24 - 1:40:02
Q: An inquiry as to whether J&J currently has any similar arrangement with any other company.
A: This cannot be known with certainty, but the belief is that there are no other companies similar to EPGL and EPGL’s circumstances.
1:41:08 - 1:44:53
Q: An inquiry as to recourse should J&J pass on any deals and other companies, like Apple, follow suit based upon J&J’s decision.
A: EPGL’s 100% ownership of tech reflects the freedom for EPGL to explore options and this—along with an operating prototype—is insulation against the possibility. The term limit of J&J’s agreement, however, is long enough for this to not be a concern.
1:44:57 - 1:49:05
Q: Inquiries regarding Topspin.
A: The tech is still owned and filed for patents, but EPGL is not focusing on Topspin which is currently shelved (as a “bank” of savings so to speak) in favor of the contact lens tech.
1:49:09 - 1:49:38
Q: Inquiry regarding the producing of a prototype not equating to an intention to do actual lens manufacturing.
A: EPGL is willing to commit to actual manufacturing in partnership with another company should such a possibility present itself.
1:49:39 - 1:50:16
Q: Inquiry as to if EPGL has the “in-house” ability to actually manufacture a prototype or lens.
A: The actual physical production of a lens is why EPGL requires a relationship with a manufacturer. However the apparatus and construction of the lens circuitry is done “in-house” by EPGL.
1:50:18 - End
Q: An inquiry as to if Price Waterhouse has a day-to-day influence or presence concerning EPGL.
A: Price Waterhouse does not exercise influence, control, input or presence in this regard. “They’re happy.” Price Waterhouse owns shares by virtue of having “converted about 8 million dollars of debt to equity of the company… That 8 million dollars is 90 million on paper right now—or thereabouts.”
——END TRANSCRIPT——
SOURCE VIDEO:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Be6T8fkNJ4g
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
