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.
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.
Gardi stated: "I hope I was able to help you with the recent patent transactions with the final rejection PTOL 326..It is a rejection that is from attorney and monies..Not the patent in it self.. "
That is TOTTALY false. The final rejection was based on the patent contents itself and specifically in reference to papers previously published by Jandu prior to the Small-Howard patent application regarding fibrin degradation products.
The patent attorney withdrawing is a separate issue.
If you actually read SEC filings, you will see an 8K where Mac cancelled the agreement with Gartner.
The agreement with UNI Pharma was indeed completed but within that agreement is a statement that cancels the agreement when the approved patents expire. All current patents have now expired so the UNI agreement is no longer valid.
Gartner did not pay $6,000 for the patent. What he got during his attempt to license DR70 for lung cancer use was a transfer of all the know how to manufacture DR70.
JimTash, I have thoroughly search the patent databases for any patent regarding a lung cancer test by Gartner.
It has now been over a year since GCDX was founded and even if he had made a provisional patent filing, it would now have been required to have been updated to a non provisional application. Also, if he filed an international patent application under PCT, the year also applies and Gartner would have been required to file a real patent application or the PCT would have expired.
There is just no patent application from Gartner about a lung cancer test.
Also, it is just pure garbage that the GCDX test was some sort of combination. It is just an LC Sentinel test that Provista was testing.
Question: If it was just a DR70 test, why would they need to do any additional testing at Provista?
Answer: The DR70 research was done in two forms. There were studies done as a cancer screen for the general population in addition to studies done strictly on previous colorectal cancer patients. Also studies on lung cancer were done.
The studies that was submitted to the FDA were those done to monitor colorectal cancer.
Canada approved DR70 as a lung cancer test.
Provista was attempting to use DR70 to exclusively screen smokers and former smokers. When you restrict the group you are screening, the data you obtain is entirely different than when your screening basis is broad.
When you look at the false positive data for DR70 as a general screen, there are about 50 false results for every actual cancer detected. That makes the test more than worthless but a hazard for anyone taking the test.
But when you limit the screening group to smokers and former smokers, you only get 3 false positives for every actual cancer found because the cancer rates are much higher among smokers. Those statistics are much better than as a general screen.
Is that data good enough to market the test? Provista didn't think so but Gartner did think he could obtain investment money on that basis. Investment money was what Gartner was after and he failed to get any.
JimTash, there is no patent by Gartner that can be found and his test is not any combination of test. Those are the facts.
The patent application FINAL REJECTION has been mailed.
The examiner maintains the patent fails under the teachings of Jandu. Nothing Small-Howard presented swayed the examiner's opinion regarding rejection.
A time period of 90 days is given to respond but since Small-Howard has already addressed Jandu, I doubt any further attempt will be made.
Global Cancer diagnostics has no connection with Radient.
The website is not even being updated. The email for contact is for a former employee.
The phone number has a mailbox that is full of unanswered messages.
Gartner is no longer a director of AZBIO.
Current list of directors.
http://www.azbio.org/azbio-board-of-directors
Also, his company presentation at the AzBio is no longer being made available. Looks like GCDx is passing into history.
Gartner has absolutely nothing to do with Radients attempt to continue a patent on DR70.
As for your comments on salesforce software application, it is totally off topic and also has nothing to do with any patent rejection.
The patent attorney has filed another attempt to be removed as the patent attorney. Unfortunately, the name for the correspondence change is no longer associated with Radient. The email address is dead and the phone number has been disconnected.
Good luck. I think this will be rejected also.
Latest patent status:
"Final Rejection Counted, Not Yet Mailed
Application Type: Utility Status Date: 06-16-2014"
Looks like those who were hanging their hopes on this patent application being approved have lost again.
Decision on Petition to withdraw from Record
The patent office has now posted the decision.
"petitioner has failed to complete the change of correspondence address section. Petitioner has failed to submit the name of either an assignee or first named inventor as described above. As such, all future communications from the Office will continue to be directed to the above-listed address until otherwise notified by applicant."
Since the petition was not properly completed, it was rejected. Since Radient now has no business address, no patent information can be sent to them. The only possibility is to find the current address of Small-Howard and list her for any correspondence.
Another Darren Brown website
http://www.whoismind.com/whois/amdl-diagnostics.com.html
Another Darren Brown website
http://whois.polodomains.com/domains_by_email/3taY77lxNmTE0p_YFh40PjbUEWy2IVdN/1.html
This site has expired but the name is interesting.
Anytime a new investor had to give money to someone totally unrelated to his investment, he would not be happy. Giving stock is giving money.
I certainly can't give you 40%, maybe 5% if these Aussies are a lot more sophisticated than I suspect. I think they are a bunch of broke clowns who start websites under construction and not much more.
I would give Browns wife a pat on the back for holding down two jobs. I still just think they are stealing the equipment.
Living stated: "a judge would approve the DIP, and the DIP may invest in the new entity . . . or they know other folks, maybe they have a mark already targeted? . . . you also keep putting too much weight on the success of the product . . . who cares? . . . do you realize how much money in biotech is burned on a failed phase 1, and how much more gets evaporated on a failed phase 2? . . . and on and on . . . we will never convince each other . . . all i'm saying is it's still a possibility . . . i give your scenario 60%, mine 40% . . ."
Come on Living, the attractiveness of the product is what entices someone to invest. You HAVE to have a product...something to make money.
How much money is burned on a failed phase 1? Living, a phase one is a small test to see if it harms you. It costs very little money and is usually done on healthy volunteers, maybe employees. Very little cost unless it kills people.
Your example had the lenders owning $10 million in stock after it was done. Do you think the new investor is going to be happy giving $10 million to the lenders?
Maybe you need the new investor to be insane.
When the attorney gets the notice from the patent office, they will have to resubmit the withdrawal form. Look for the resubmit in a few weeks.
"To avoid a petition being summarily dismissed for lack or insufficient fee, petitioner should make certain that the correct petition fee is submitted along with the petition. See the current fee sheet for guidance."
http://www.uspto.gov/about/offices/patents/pep/office_of_petitions.jsp#heading-1
When does patent office use "dismissed" regarding petitions?
Answer:
"1002- - United States Patent and Trademark Office
www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1002.html
If any required fee does not accompany the petition, the petition will be dismissed. "
http://search.uspto.gov/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&affiliate=web-sdmg-uspto.gov&query=dismissed&go=Go
Living stated: "the company is called saliva test inc, the ticker is SPIT, trading on the OTC . . . OS will be a mere 100 million shares, (5 mil old SH, 50 mil lenders, 45 mil DIP/BOD) with a brilliant new test in development . . . add a couple of doctors to the BOD and they're ready to roll . . . doctors involved, low float, it's an easy .25 on the OTC"
Well, that's sure a dream. So you would claim Radient could be worth $25 million at that point?
Well, your numbers aren't correct. What are they operating on after they exit chapter 11? Someone needs to come in with cash for stock. These guys are taking a huge risk compared to the lenders who would be sucking the new investor like a leech.
No judge would approve an exit plan with zero money to operate. The company needs to have cash to operate for at least 1 to 2 years. How much are these doctors paid? How much is management given? How much is production costs? Marketing costs? and how much revenue is an unknown and unproven test going to generate?
Lets say the saliva test works and sales happen. Uni knows how to make the test and so does the Chinese pharma who also has it for sale. They undercut you and take 50% of your sales. What do you do? You can't sue, you have no patent.
This plan is doomed from the start. Give me something better.
When a petition is dismissed, something is in error with the submission.
In this case, the required fee was probably not submitted along with the petition.
Cheapskate patent attorney.
Living, Mac couldn't raise any more money and the Aussies are not going to either.
I know for a fact that the main lender who foreclosed on Biocurex was offered stock in a company interested in the shell. He refused and wanted cash and the interest in the shell died.
For a long time, no one would touch the stock of Radient. That is why Mac was forced to go the loan route because they could just sell shares and convert notes to cover without ever being a beneficial owner.
Radient is going to have to come up with something besides DR70 to raise money. Anything even remotely connected to DR70 would be a stopper for any sane investor.
Living, I just deal in reality.
This is not a matter of borrowing money to run the company, toss out a few press releases and hope for the best.
your scenario takes money, lots of it just to get out of chapter let along attempting to run the company.
When you exit chapter, it takes one or more investors to toss in a bunch of money and buy stock. What kink of magic would Charter and Brown come up with to suck money out of investors when any fool can see that a lot of his money would go to the current note holders. No investor is going to be happy about that. If you think these hedge funds are going to take a few pennies, you are dead wrong. They are really ticked off. These lenders are all about rolling money from one loan to another. They are not investors and when you become beneficial owners, you can't easily sell. They would just be stuck. They would want a deal for cash....just cash...that's it. So what's it take to get them off your back?
Do you really think Charter and Brown would find someone to provide that DIP money? Would you give them money?
This is all over, the Aussies just want the assets. Do you think Mac called them? Nope, they called Mac to see what he intended to do with the assets. Charter wants those for the saliva test.
Living, these Aussies are actually just small time operators. They aren't connected with any takeover. That is just a pipe dream for some bagholders who have a lot of worthless shares.
Look at Brown for a minute. His life has not been a life of Riley. He has been in jail. That follows you. He and Charter may have even met in jail.
Back in 2003, Radient was struggling to get approval for DR70. The FDA had turned them down and the home brew marketing had failed but wait, Australia approved the test. Charter and Brown became distributors for Radient without a pot to you know what in. Browns wife served as a director for the new company they formed. AMDL Australia pvt and Brown created a website, something that he seems to be good at, amdlaustralia.com. The marketing never went anywhere.
At some point, Charter, and idea man, decided to modify DR70 into a saliva test. In 2011, Charter filed a provisional patent for it but never followed through and let it lapse without even filing a real non-provisional patent application. Charter made another distributor deal with Radient but still never met any minimum sales.
Radient made a deal in 2013 with UNI that totally cut Charter and Brown out of the picture and gave Australia and New Zealand to UNI.
In 2011, Charter has a gaming website in Hong Kong. In 2012, he sees Radient flailing in debt in the throes of death. Charter thinks he may be able to take over the SE Asis distribution of DR70. After all, it was generating over $300,000 in sales of kits.
Idea man Charter thinks that if he could get DR70 shifted over to a saliva test, the revenue might be even more. He changes his gaming website to a cancer saliva test.
Charter now waits and gets ready for the patent to expire and the UNI deal to go away. He contacts Mac about the equipment and Mac says, "you take this off my hands and you can do what you want with it.".
The Aussies have Mac request the SEC revoke the registration so there is no longer any obligation for financial reports. Nobody will ever know where the assets went. They take over, start the process of shutting down, phone, website and they start a new website for AMDL Australia which will become the new website for their private company as a new distributor for DR70.
IMO, they will manufacture kits to get several months supply and then close down in the USA and ship everything overseas.
IMO, you have read the last 8k you will ever see filed for Radient.
The Aussies are smart enough to know that Radient will never again have millions to throw away. Investors are done with it and there is nothing left.
Maybe the Aussies will be successful with the saliva test and sell enough that Brown's wife will no longer have to work two jobs. I wish them well.
Living stated: "all connections to the old days should be erased, including AMDL "
You cannot erase the past. It is what it is and it impacts the future. At what point are you erasing? The new management has been here a month and nothing done. Do you erase that also?
These Aussies have had no money in the past so where is the money going to come from? Don't anyone attempt to say it is WG or Provista because that is a crock.
Even if WG got money to sell his lung cancer test, there is no need for him to waste any of that money on Radient. He got all he ever wanted from Radient, the process to make his lung cancer test. He needs nothing more. All issued patents have expired.
Wofie stated: " That is why they named their concern AMDL back in 2009..... "
Nope, AMDL Australia was started in 2003.
This is the business address of AMDL Australia.
http://www.tuugo.biz/SiteViewer/0050003922848?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aussieweb.com.au%2Fbusiness%2Famdl%2Bpty%2Bltd%2F2191063%2F
Several sources give the same address for the company. It is a shopping center and I suspect just a mail box drop.
Their website no longer works either.
amdlaustralia.com
The Aussies have no real business in Australia.
The revocation is not just temporary. Radient could at some point in the future file for stock registration but along with the registration filing, it would be required to submit audited SEC financial reports for the preceeding 3 years.
With all the former management gone, it would be exceptionally difficult to provide those SEC reports. Accordingly, the value of the RXPC shell has diminished even more with the recent change in management.
"Non-Trading Non-ReportingNormally only a shareholder base
No symbol
May or may not have been a reporting company
Must file with SEC full business information and audits to become reporting
Market Maker must file a new 15c211 with the NASD to get symbol This type of shell is least attractive"
http://gopublic.com/public-shells-types.html
No one is going to want Radient as a shell. Not only do you have a bunch of sharehoders to deal with, you have $25 to $30 million in debt to deal with along with the preceeding 3 years of audited financial reports to deal with.
Radient will just never trade again. It is just too expensive and too difficult and there is just no value left in the company, no patents, nothing but the lab equipment and that may have already left for Hong Kong.
Living stated: "i'm saying that a consortium of 11 folks could own 51% without filing a 13F/G"
That is ABSOLUTELY untrue. If any of the holders are connected in any way for a joint purpose, they would be required to file even if they didn't own 5%.
Guard, some of the lenders filed forms 13G after they signed new lender agreements.
They can only file 13G if they never intend to take any control over the stock.
THEY CANNOT BE A PART OF ANY "TAKEOVER" GROUP.
"To be able to file a 13G instead of a 13D, the party must own between 5% and 20% in the company. It must also be clearly understood that the party acquiring the stake in the company is only a passive investor, and does not intend to exert control. If these criteria are not met, and if the size in the stake exceeds 20%, a 13D must be filed."
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/schedule13g.asp
This poor guy was really an uninformed investor.
He never figured out that all the unresolved trades being reported were not short selling but just the 2010 lenders selling. The 2010 lenders dumped a huge amount of shares as they sold and converted their notes from Jan through Jul of 2011.
http://www.sec.gov/comments/4-627/4627-85.htm
There was no letter sent by the SEC threatening revocation. This was all voluntary. Since it was voluntary, why would they ask for the request to be rescinded?
On or about July 15, the SEC will act on the request, either deny it or grant it. I think the SEC will certainly grant the request.
Top Penny, the only way Radient keeps trading is for the SEC to refuse to agree to the revocation of the registration.
The SEC acts on requests to revoke registration 90 days after submission.
If you think that Brown and Charter did not ask MacLellan to request the revocation, that would be short sighted since Mac has always allowed his defunct companies to "blow in the wind".
Living, lets just face the facts.
1. You need money from somewhere to reorganize.
2. No one is going to provide money for Radient with a DR70 product or any product with no sales nor sales record. It just wont happen.
There is no indication that Charter or Brown have any significant money at all. I showed a street view of the house Brown lives in and the street he lives on. If he has money, it certainly is not in his home.
All of these website creations gives the opinion of "fly by night" operations.
I do think Charter and brown may be attempting to run a saliva cancer test out of Hong Kong. They need money to start that and what better way than to just steal Radients equipment.
3. Put yourself in the position of an investor who is being asked to provide money for Radient. Would you give them money?
Your plan would require the lenders to take all stock for their notes. There are 5 lenders involved and they are all really angry. What is the odds of any success with these lenders. I do know the lender who foreclosed on BioCurex. He was offered stock in a new company for the shell and cancellation of his note. He wanted cash...no deal.
The mountains are just too tall to climb for your scenario to work.
I just go with the basic plan...steal the assets.
Bushell, So far, this is what I have found out about Brown and Charter.
They are two of the principals who created private amdl Australia back in 2003 to sell DR70 in Australia and New Zealand. According to Radients financial reports, they never met sales quota.
Nothing more heard from them until 2010 when they signed a second agreement with Radient for sales. Again, never met minimum sales.
In 2011 they filed a "provisional" patent application (minimum cost, no information) for a DR70 saliva test. They never followed though with a real patent application and let it expire.
In 2013, Radient gave their sales territory away in a deal with UNI. See 8k.
Last month, they were appointed as management to Radient. Had the former CEO send a request to the SEC to revoke the stock registration ( IMO, this was unnecessary if they just wanted to reorganize). They also cancelled the current website and pulled the phones cutting off all means of communication with current shareholders. (suspicious behavior)
They have several websites under construction, one for their private company in Australia and one in Hong Kong for a saliva cancer test.
No further communication from them and no one knows what they are up to. They did leave an old website up that Radient used prior to 2010 but it has a redirect to the one they cancelled. amdl.com
IMO, since sales of DR70 has mostly been in SE Asia, I think they intend to quietly ship all of the equipment necessary for manufacturing DR70 to to their privately owned company in Hong Kong and the last 8k is probably all you will ever hear from them.
The stock will cease trading when the SEC acts upon their request to revoke. Should happen around Jul 15.
bushell, a hint. If you search the internet, restrict google to Australian websites. If you do, you will get the hits where both Charter and Brown have served time in the grey bar hotel.
Both Roberton and patricia Baker were both former employees of provista life sciences but were not retained by Provista DX when they split off in 2012.
Roberton is obviously gone from Global cancer diagnostics and in 2013 Baker put her resume on file looking for work.
http://www.postjobfree.com/resume/abn8ue/mountains-laboratory-director-paradise-valley-az
Below is the website for global cancer diagnostics.
http://www.globalcancerdx.com/About.html
Two employees are listed.
Gartner and Patricia Baker.
A Donald Roberton used to be listed on the page but since he is no longer an employee.
The phone number is a cell phone that is never answered.
The email is for droberton and was never even updated when he left.
The same address is used for Memory DX, the old provista life sciences.
The same address is used for the lab address of "Iron Horse Diagnostics" but not the business address.
Gartner was at provista life sciences when he attempted the sale of the company to Radient. He was also with Provista life sciences when they were developing LC Sentinel.
When Reese took over, they took a new name for the company, Provista Diagnostics but retained the same address with Provista life sciences.
Garter retained the rights to the memory portion of Provistas life sciences and then changed the name to Memory Diagnostics. He also changed the address to a new location. Provista Diagnostics no longer wanted to continue the development of LC Sentinel so Gartner took that product with him also. At the new location, Gartner changed the name of LC Sentinel to the "lung Cancer Test" and attempted to fund it through a new company called Global Cancer Diagnostics.
I called Provista Diagnostics and asked about Global Cancer diagnostics and she had no idea what I was talking about so you can definitely conclude that GCDX is in no way associated with Provista Diagnostics.
"Don Roberton
Works at Arizona State University
Worked at Global Cancer Diagnostics
Studied at Arizona State University
Lives in Scottsdale, Arizona"
The GCDX reference is PAST tense. Looks like Gartner now has no employees.
As always Wolfie, you are posting old information.
Gartner is no longer the senior vice president of business development. As a matter of fact, he no longer has ANY role in provista management.