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.
If HLYK fails Dr. Dent doesn't just us shareholders along with HealthLynked Corporation. Dr. Dent covered his a$$ with massive millions of shares and you can't blame him I would do the same. The hope of AI was what he pushed and that doesn't look good. As for the patent that is so poorly written and I have no doubt that Dr. Dent knows this too. I should not talk about this area for a few reasons so I'll just clamp it about that.
Dr. Dent is good with ideas but not so much like involving NEO. Doug made that corporation fly.but I had high hope that Dr. Dent could make HLYK successful because it isn't a huge corporation yet allowing him to grow with the company. As for NEO Dent took the share price to $1.40-$1.60 as I recall and that is all.
I was so sadden when I did my in depth studies at the USPTO involving our patent.
Dr. Dent as most know here is to reward O'Leary for deals that he comes up with and those words kinda struck me like what is Dr. Dent doing is he just doing his medical practice and that other business from within his home or am I wrong?
I haven't checked to see if any new businesses have been initiated by Dr. Dent or O'Leary but will check in the next few days.
Lets hope they pull something out of their hat worth talking about. I do know Dr. Dent doesn't panic easily and works at his own speed so maybe all this will eventually work out for but short and long term traders and investors?
We will see what has been happening when they file their 10-Q in August.
I just read the news about our CEO, just terrible I hope his daughter is doing the best she can in trying to deal with such heartbreaking reality of losing her Dad. It is clear now that HDC Attorneys have been involved deeper than what we had expected. I seen a comment over in Yahoo about George's interest/holdings in HDC that has probably been dealt with many months ago involving Colleen and her Dad.
Digdeeper.....do you have any time to search for Federal Appeal cases verses USPTO decisions?
https://patentlawcenter.pli.edu/2011/07/19/resolving-differences-how-the-federal-circuit-treats-divergent-uspto-and-district-court-rulings/ ??????????????
USPTO Clarifies Alice/Mayo Step 2A with New Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Wednesday, January 9, 2019
For the last several years, a major part of prosecuting software-related patents at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has been dealing with the USPTO’s interpretation of patent subject matter eligibility issues arising from the Supreme Court’s Alice decision. New guidance from the USPTO concerning the Alice/Mayo test and patent subject matter eligibility was released on January 7, 2019 for public comment.
In recognizing patent applicants’ ongoing frustration related to subject matter eligibility rejections, the USPTO stated that “properly applying the Alice/Mayo test in a consistent manner has proven to be difficult, and has caused uncertainty in this area of the law,” such that “it has become difficult in some cases for inventors, businesses, and other patent stakeholders to reliably and predictably determine what subject matter is patent eligible.”[1]
The current USPTO procedure is to determine if a claim is “directed to” a judicial exception to patentable subject matter, such as “abstract ideas”, and then, if the claim is directed to such a judicial exception, to determine if the claim has “something more” than the judicial exception that would make the claim patent eligible, despite its being “directed to” a judicial exception. To clarify its application of the Alice/Mayo test, the USPTO revised the examining procedure for Step 2A of the test, which determines whether a claim is “directed to” a judicial exception. Based on the new guidance, it appears that the USPTO is aiming to cut down on subject matter eligibility rejections.[2]
The USPTO made two significant changes to the Alice/Mayo test. First, under a newly termed “Prong 1” of Step 2A, examiners are instructed to determine whether the claimed subject matter recites a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea. The USPTO defined an abstract idea as one of three categories:
1) mathematical concepts,
(2) certain methods of organizing human activity, and
(3) mental processes.
As specified in the new guidance, mathematical concepts include mathematical relationships, formulas, equations, or calculations. Methods of organizing human activity include fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Mental processes include concepts performed in the human mind, including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion. Examiners no longer have to compare the claims to past case law to determine whether an abstract idea is recited, as is currently provided in MPEP 2106.[3]
Under the new guidance, USPTO examiners are instructed that claims that do not recite subject matter within one of the three defined categories should not be deemed as covering an abstract idea, with only rare exceptions. The USPTO’s guidance explains that, in the rare circumstance in which an examiner believes a claim limitation should be treated as an abstract idea even though it does not fall within the defined categories, the examiner must still go through the rest of the examination steps Step 2A and Step 2B, and if grounds for rejection still remain, must provide justification for his or her abstract idea determination that the Technology Center Director must approve. Such justification could include, for example, that the claim contains subject matter that invokes similar eligibility concerns to those the Supreme Court has expressed with regards to judicial exceptions.
The second significant change of the new guidance sets forth a new “Prong 2” of Step 2A. Under new Prong 2, the guidance sets forth an entirely new subject matter eligibility test related to whether a claim recites a practical application of a judicial exception. The PTO’s revised guidance explains that a claim is not “directed to” a judicial exception (ie, the claim is not abstract) if the claim recites additional elements that when taken as a whole integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception. The guidance further explains that
“[a] claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.”[4]
The new guidance provides some general direction as to what is meant by a practical application. The examples provided by the guidance include claims that:
Reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field,
Apply or use a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition,
Implement a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim,
Effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or
Use a judicial exception in some meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.[5]
The new guidance indicates a judicial exception should be found to not be integrated into a practical application if an additional claim element:
Merely recites the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, or
Adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, or
Does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.[6]
Importantly, in a significant change, the USPTO’s new guidance also noted that Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test “specifically excludes consideration of whether the additional elements represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity.”[7] Examiners are instructed to give weight to all additional claim elements, without any consideration as to whether the claims elements are directed to conventional elements. If the examiner determines that the claim is not directed to a practical application, current Step 2B is performed regarding whether the claim elements represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity.
Going forward, the new guidance should make it more difficult for examiners to sustain abstract idea rejections against many inventions, including software-related inventions. The new guidance swings the examination pendulum back toward the original machine or transformation test[8] while significantly increasing the burden on examiners to make a proper abstract idea rejection. In particular, to make an abstract idea rejection under the new guidance, examiners will have to articulate why an invention does not constitute a practical application under Prong 2 of Step 2A and then provide evidence under Step 2B regarding why claim elements recite well-understood, routine, conventional activity.[9]
The USPTO’s revised guidance is open for public comment until March 8, 2019 and is subject to change. In addition, since the guidance is not binding as law, it remains to be seen how Courts will assess the validity of patents granted in accordance with the USPTO’s new subject matter eligibility guidelines.
[1] 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019).
[2] Id. at 51 (explaining that “any claim considered patent eligible under prior guidance should be considered patent eligible under this guidance”).
[3] MPEP 9th Edition, Revision 08.2017, Section 2106.04(a), USPTO, https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/index.html (“Examiners should determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea by (1) identifying the claimed concept … and (2) comparing the claimed concept to the concepts previously identified as abstract ideas by the courts to determine if it is similar.”).
[4] Id. at 53.
[5] Id. at 55.
[6] Id.
[7] Id.
[8] Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 598 (2010) (explaining the machine-or-transformation test requires that a process be tied to a machine that transforms an article in order to be patent-eligible).
[9] Memorandum from Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy Robert W. Bahr to Patent Examining Corps, Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.) (Apr. 19, 2018), https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-berkheimer-20180419.pdf.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/uspto-clarifies-alicemayo-step-2a-new-patent-subject-matter-eligibility-guidance_________________________________________________________
I'm also trying to locate cases where the USPTO and Federal Appeal cases clash and have been decided
If it was Tuesday then around 2-3 pm it will be able to read/pull.
Look, for some over on Yahoo, most know but possibly some might not know. Intel without doubt knew the USPTO would respond but needed to figure and plot their next needed move to possibly counter them. Also know as I see things that Intel wanted to make sure the USPTO would respond with great force making sure the fuss is heard around the world involving the those related in the Federal Bureaucracy, now think about that. What are (possibly) a couple of Senators thinking referencing JA and of course the newest Intel chip manufacturing business being built in the USA. one favor and leverage might be needed to kill more than one stone...one washes the other and of course HDC is known for (if anything can go wrong it will) ...Try and stay positive as it seems someone or some entity is keeping HDC from collapsing so no doubt I feel that their is a football game and a chess match going on in several corners. Are there or is there a entity or entities just playing a nasty a$$ game at our expense. Now think about this? look at all the negative things that has happened and most likely the company should have collapsed by now. As for Vennwest? with all this other crap happening I doubt they will even place a dent in us and actually be in the game too so we don't really know all the bad guys but possibly some might throw their black hat away and finally put that white hat on but I still don't believe HDC will ever trade shares again and furthermore If George H. McGovern wasn't our CEO we would have collapses over 7 years ago.
I find it hard to believe that Intel would think that Ms. Vidal would not use as much human resource in the appeal cases but she should since Intel is basically stating that the USPTO/PTAB don't know what they are doing. So as you read my prior post you can see that Intel reacted and will match the USPTO resources (just watch and see in the coming months) which caused an 3 month delay (already) in the appeal case to state the least. No wonder JA in Texas made adjustments to court dates. Hold on to your socks but no need to bend over at least not yet. Maybe all this might work out for all of us so stay hang on..
04/24/2023 5 Entry of Appearance for Dan L. Bagatell; Lori A. Gordon;
Sarah E. Piepmeier; Nathan K. Kelley; Tara L. Kurtis as counsel for
Appellant Intel Corporation. Service: 04/24/2023 by email. [918770] [23-1727]
[Dan Bagatell] [Entered: 04/24/2023 08:20 PM]
04/24/2023 6 Certificate of Interest for Appellant Intel Corporation. Service:
04/24/2023 by email. [918771] [23-1727] [Dan Bagatell] [Entered: 04/24/2023
08:21 PM]
04/24/2023 7 Notice of Related Case Information for Appellant
Intel Corporation. Service: 04/24/2023 by email. [918772] [23-1727]
[Dan Bagatell] [Entered: 04/24/2023 08:22 PM]
04/24/2023 8 Docketing Statement for the Appellant Intel Corporation.
Service: 04/24/2023 by email. [918773] [23-1727] [Dan Bagatell] [Entered:
04/24/2023 08:23 PM]
05/22/2023 9 ORDER filed modifying the official caption. The official and short
captions are revised as reflected in this order. Within 30 days from the date of filing
of this order, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) is directed to inform
this court whether it intends to intervene. (see order for further details) Service as of
this date by the Clerk of Court. [924980] [23-1727, 23-1728, 23-1729] [NL] [Entered:
05/22/2023 02:04 PM]
05/24/2023 10 Certified list received. Service: 05/22/2023 by email. Refer to
Fed. Cir. R. 31 for calculating brief deadlines from service of the certified list.
[925560] [23-1727, 23-1728, 23-1729] [CMH] [Entered: 05/24/2023 10:26 AM]
06/21/2023 11 Notice of Intervention pursuant to the provisions of 35 USC
Section 143 from the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Service: 06/21/2023 by email. [931252] [23-1727] [Robert McBride] [Entered:
06/21/2023 09:00 AM]
06/21/2023 12 Entry of Appearance for Robert E. McBride; Thomas W. Krause;
Farheena Y. Rasheed; Peter J. Ayers; and Mai-Trang D. Dang as counsel for
Katherine K. Vidal, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and
Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Service: 06/21/2023
by email. [931257] [23-1727] [Robert McBride] [Entered: 06/21/2023 09:06 AM]
06/26/2023 13 MOTION of Appellant Intel Corporation to extend the time
to 09/12/2023 to file brief. Service: 06/26/2023 by email. [932185] [23-1727]
[Dan Bagatell] [Entered: 06/26/2023 11:33 AM]
06/27/2023 14 **TEXT ONLY** ORDER granting motion to extend time to
file brief [13] filed by Appellant Intel Corporation. The opening brief is due
09/12/2023. Service as of this date by the Clerk of Court. This order has been issued
without an attached document and is official and binding. [932502] [JPS] [Entered:
06/27/2023 11:14 AM]
Sure looks like O' Leary is beating the same basic news releases? .... Damn shame!
I doubt HDC will ever trade again if nothing more than a problem (aside) from updating ( typical SEC filings.) HDC will need to submit additional paperwork and subject to certain requirements before they will allow trading again and I'm positive HDC will not easily obtain that level to get approved. Now we normally would have just updated our filings as we did the last time we were in this position but we are on the expert market which will require those late filing plus satisfy other needed paperwork and approvals that I do not believe HDC is capable of. So, that leaves us retail traders in a pickle and hoping on a large settlement or perhaps JA making Intel pay big time. I would think the both Intel and HDC might be into some talks but perhaps not, maybe scheduling problems, health issues but very well waiting on PTAB or Venwest or both, not to mention and early word from the Federal Court on taking on this case or refusal? I will say I'm tired like everyone else and need this done one way or the other. ...like others, been here 20 years and 1 month.
* I know of another company that has submitted their late 10-K and after more than 2 months they still won't remove this company off the expert market. All transition back to trading isn't as easy as some think.
GoodSport...of course I hope I'm wrong....so you don't think Dunlap would be interested in $10 -$20 million dollars? Also just look at the most recent case Intel settled for like $25 million and see what Intel was accused of violating. It is easily seen that "real products" were involved.
I have several complex thoughts? In general I feel strongly that if any settlement is involved it would be between $25-$50 million dollars at the most, now with that thought comes a deduction of 40% not 20 or 30 percent for HDC's attorneys. I say that because this is a case that requires massive risk by our attorneys. So, with a settlement at $50 million being the best case scenario the only winners would be those holding multi millions of shares. No doubt George will walk away a very wealthy man however, all of us would end up between 5-12 cent per share but don't quote me on that figure but surely you get the same feeling as I do that this sucks bigtime.
So why would HDC possibly press the brake pedal or should I say it seems that way? Many thoughts run through my head but firstly the Vennwest case. With that out of the way and clear documentations possibly within an 8K filing something might rise to the occasion and no doubt allow much more focus on the Texas court too. Who knows maybe settlement talks coupled with an early sense of the Federal Appeal case coupled with the USPTO/PTAB which needs to be addressed first so give it some time to gain traction and hope it is in our favor I mean we have no clue what if anything is being said referencing possible support from PTAB.
i do not believe George has clear intention or past need for updating SEC filings but believe enough pressure may evolve where he must and of course would relieve pressure and slow any class action lawsuit but believe it is only a matter of time before that happens.
Of course I have more to say but enough for now......
Do you guys see that Form 4? Is that stating that George is now buying warrants for a past loan? It actually sounds as if the loan transaction/warrant purchase was a few days ago? It sounds ...but yet these warrants "to" be purchased but has not transpired yet?...my thoughts also think we will see another filing from Dent in the same manner?
I just hope this isn't a new loan?
This is an "Indeed" review but don't know if it is a true?
Currently work here and how they treat the staff is disgusting
App analyst (Current Employee) - Naples - May 4, 2023 Indeed Featured review
The management and turnover is appalling. Too many managers. I’ve never felt
more unstable in a job. No perks to working here. They treat us like a number.
All they see are dollar signs and the CEO and CFO are never on the same page.
The app doesn’t work and they try to trick people into using it. They say a
nurse is answering the app questions but it’s really someone with no medical
background. The place is spiraling and a complete disaster. I am currently
looking for a new job.
Pros - None. My coworkers are the only pro.
Cons - Too many managers. Micromanaged to the core.
Several years back Dr. Dent tried to build a multi-faceted medical business and failed but this time it looks like HLYK will pay the price and Dr. Dent will just continue his medical business with his wife and a few others. You can't blame him for this type of structure in business.
Digdeeper...I believe not much happen so we will see in the next meeting.
It appears these jokers are going to sell all our remaining technology so they can continual their journey on being nothing more than a shell company waiting for one of their friends to reverse merge with us. I doubt very much if it will be a merge but rather a reverse merger. It is hard to believe that Exicure as we knew it 3 years ago could fall into this environment, just unreal plus all our patents technology and contacts mean nothing to new management. So let us watch these guys pay the leasing on that 30,000 square foot building by selling all our technology to whoever. It appears that the private company we invested that $1,000,000.00 in might be the private entity that "might" RM with us. Other thoughts are a distribution point needed in the North Eastern region of the USA. At any rate watch and see but feel strongly that we will see .50 share price in the coming months.
Can and will the Federal Appeals Court deny Intel their day in court? Could happen right?
Yes King....now I really didn't want to post this as I sincerely doubt during any mediation conference that the general public would be able to Zoom access but did spot a post and noted the following access codes however, I would tend to believe they it is bogus, ZOOM access numbers. 1613833464, 928374
On another note I now believe we will never trade again period but hope I am wrong.
HDC made the best choice in not getting involved in the Federal Appeal case.
Come to me sweetheart .50 share price then we can tall!
King...your guess is as good as mine but is HDC's move risky, are they thinking that all the USPTO decisions is ground that HDC and their Attorney's wish to stand on instead of "possibly" giving Intel or the Appeals Court more ways and means to slap HDC down. I really haven't any legal idea period just my personal thoughts.
Maybe Digdeeper might say something about the possibilities..... but I do hope HDC's Attorney's don't feel that the appeals court is going to slap down HDC with Alice 1 and her step sister again. Also recall at the PTAB Judge Garth B. Baer, he was against the final decision. so will that possibly leverage in Intel's favor?
I do not trust the Appeals court and believe if the appeal is successful I believe HDC will just disappear into thin air.
This might help a few referencing the expert market etc.
Jack maybe this will help but aside from this there are other possible problems?
I really thought since the 10-K was filed trading would start but the more I think about the Expert Market it will be up to the SEC to approve a 211 filing from this company. They may have filed it but GSTX may still be waiting on that approval. The 211 also includes a MM to handle this stock among other things and the 211 filing is new to me, also don't know if typical traders would see that filing but is mandatory if the company wishes to trade within the USA market again.
Note...it maybe very hard to unload this so be super careful. I think I will send you a PM on Friday between 4-5 pm .
They filed an 10-Q yesterday but I'm not through reading it. Did see where we are concerned about Russia and Ukraine war and also COVID. I sure hope O'Leary and Dent aren't trying to blame that for our poor business performance.
...back to reading the 10-Q
I see the clerk of court entered the document a day before the scheduled mediation session so probably is a delay by HDC
Are you kidding?
Common Stock
The Company is authorized to issue up to 500,000,000 shares of common stock (par value $0.00001). As of September 30, 2022 and 2021, the Company had 374,305,480 shares and 343,237,369 shares of common stock issued and outstanding, respectively.
During the year ended September 30, 2022, the Company issued 31,068,111 shares of common stock as follows:
? 28,868,111 shares of the Company’s common stock to members of the Board of Directors, employees and consultants valued at $13,207,981 ($0.46 per share average).
? 1,000,000 shares of the Company’s common stock at $0.10 per share for a purchase price of $100,000.
? 200,000 shares of the Company’s common stock at $0.22 per share for a purchase price of $21,921 (AUD$30,000).
? 1,000,000 shares issued to settle debt on convertible note that matured on December 5, 2021.
During the year ended September 30, 2021, the Company issued 96,998,646 shares of common stock as follows:
? 12,888,596 shares of the Company’s common stock to members of the Board of Directors, employees and consultants valued at $6,293,500 ($0.49 per share).
? 1,900,000 shares of the Company’s common stock at an average price of $0.073 per share for an aggregate purchase price of $138,093.
? 534,446 shares of the Company’s common stock for the conversion of debt totaling $204,010.
? 50,000,000 shares of the Company’s common stock to EKH International Co. Limited a beneficial entity of Rodney Young valued at $0.55 per share.
? 28,665,604 shares of the Company’s common stock for the acquisition of intangible assets valued at $6,879,745
? 3,000,000 shares of the Company’s common stock for the future liability settlement for assumed liabilities fair value of $720,000 recorded as stock receivable.
______________________________________________
Careful a RS is coming.......
Jack...you be careful messing with this since they filed their 10-k...Roger's son Jason is now involved as a director so it looks like he traded his wheel barrel and pick for an easier way to make money.
look how they word their business (We are "primarily focused" on providing the materials and technologies for a greener future. GSTX has a portfolio of projects in the cleantech are with:
• Patented and novel technologies.
• Proven products with exclusive geographical distribution rights.
• Ground-breaking new innovations.
• Mineral resources that critical to the high-tech supply chain.
_______________________________________________________
Please do not trust this company spots don't change and besides they have never ever made any money just talk and nothing more, honestly.
The liabilities of everything fall on HLYK not Dr. Dent. If we fall he will end up doing as he did prior HLYK. Remember the shares he owns in HLYK. If you look at NeoGenomic Corporation you can see how Dent uses his medical practices. Also Dr. Dent has been trying to do what we see in HLYK for many years and you can see this if you look here.... https://dos.myflorida.com/sunbiz/
Now I'm in this as you are but it seems to me Dr. Dent must pull a rabbit out of his hat to make this work meaning a different avenue within the medical field. What happen to the so called AI talk? Now as for our patent it is better than nothing but not worth much in it's present form and definitions.
I have faith as you do that Dr. Dent will move in another direction but know I fear a RS when looking at what Dr. Dent had to do with Neo in the early early days.
Now this doesn't matter but while Dr. Dent was at the helm of what we know as NeoGenomic the stock price kissed $1.40 or a bit higher and that was all. Dr. Dent had multi millions of shares to maintain being in control, a powerful director but it was CEO - Douglas M. VanOort that moved the company in a huge way.
Now O' Leary is the one that is doing the foot work in trying to do what he can to move HLYK.
Good morning Alan, anyways I was thinking more on the lines of the ParkerVision lawsuit settlement against Intel. You can see a vast difference between HDC and ParkerVision meaning HDC potential is far less than what ParkerVision presented plus they have been in prior lawsuits and even ongoing which tells me they (ParkerVison) has proven clear cut goodies to fight for. Now maybe HDC has but I sure don't feel good about our chances when considering what is lacking in HDC.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=171151665
You can look at this another way...Dr. Dent and O'Leary have a typical revenue stream that pays them in one fashion or another but as for us shareholders? We are holders of what is in the bag.
Alan...my thoughts are that Intel hasn't even offered 1 penny to HDC yet?
From looking at a few past lawsuits involving Intel I also believe the max we might get without treble damages is $20-$40 million.
Digdeeper...so you think Marty isn't still involved? all the executive positions he has held/served in HDC. I am no attorney by far but his resignation email did not simply express his paychecks but rather may have opened the lid on Pandora's box. So by Marty ignoring/not getting involved may leave him in limbo until a legal system looks his way. Marty and George still has time (as I see it) to resolve these issues as he may be the key that turns the Vennwest case one way or the other which may cause a action or reaction involving the Intel case.
I also believe George has reached his ability on asset/collateral, just my thoughts.
______________________
Above are Just my thoughts
What do you think?
OK...so is it possible that George is stalling for time and if so what do you think we will see soon meaning an announcement by way of HDC or some type of transcript after the next mediation meeting in Georgia?
Look, if you might have the ability to make millions of dollars how would you if you were the CEO stall this case with Vennwest?
Yeap....on the day of the next Vennwest court session I would call 911 and be rushed to the ER due to chest or back/shoulder discomfort.
George is 77 or 78 years old so the stress of all this can cause/enhance existing or new health problems.
I don't understand how some people on other message boards would think that we have some type of plan or business "if" we should win the Intel case. HDC is done along with our once powerhouse patents. There is no way any CEO would even think of going after another corporation after 17 years of 20 patent life has past and in our case (involving the Intel case) only have 1 patent involved/still living and that expires in 2025. Yes a few other patents would still exits but folks HDC is done.
Another thought is this, if you had say 200 - 300 million HDC shares at what share price would you settle? Due to many things but more so with the bad shape of HDC our attorney's will probably get 40% of whatever and I strongly feel that somewhere along this time frame involving Intel that they Intel will possibly offer 50-200 million to settle and our legal team will just tell George time is up.
Go figure we can't even buy toilet paper anymore so as I see things Intel probably hasn't even offer a penny in any settlement yet but the penny they offer pre jury trial day will be the signal that this case is done regardless of George, period.
It is a shame but to keep many investors that hold millions of share at bay and away from suing HDC we may never see a future filing in order to sell our share into any hype.
Oh no, now I gotta learn how to read and speak Korean.....or whatever? Wasn't I punished enough by previous management?
Talk about strange thoughts?
What if George is actually unable to continue as CEO? maybe resign due to health issues? no doubt I wouldn't be surprised if all this stress has taken it's toll on him.
Is it possible that "Marty Delmonte" might take up the stress since he is much younger and held just about every position in HDC except being the CEO?
I keep on thinking that George once said he would have never come on board as CEO if Marty Delomonte didn't come with him
What thoughts do others have here that may read this post?
23-1727 Intel Appeal Case(s) 23-1727, 23-1728 and 23-1729
Entry of Appearance is due on 04/24/2023. Certificate of Interest is due on 04/24/2023.
Docketing Statement is due on 04/24/2023. Certified List is due on 05/22/2023. [CMH]
[Entered: 04/10/2023 03:25 PM]
04/18/2023 2 ORDER consolidating appeals (23-1727, 23-1728, and 23-1729).
The Certified Lists are due no later than 5/22/23. Service as of this date by the Clerk of Court.
[917563] [23-1727, 23-1728, 23-1729] [CMH] [Entered: 04/18/2023 04:49 PM]
04/18/2023 3 Note to File: The following cases are consolidated: 23-1727 Lead with
23-1728 and 23-1729 Member Cases. The parties must file all documents in the lead appeal
only. [917564] [23-1727, 23-1728, 23-1729] [CMH] [Entered: 04/18/2023 04:50 PM]
04/24/2023 4 Letter from Appellee Health Discovery Corporation Notice of
Non-participation of Patent Owner in Appeal Nos. 23-1727, 23-1728, 23-1729 Service:
04/24/2023 by email. [918591] [23-1727] [Tarek Fahmi] [Entered: 04/24/2023 12:50 PM]
04/24/2023 5 Entry of Appearance for Dan L. Bagatell; Lori A. Gordon;
Sarah E. Piepmeier; Nathan K. Kelley; Tara L. Kurtis as counsel for Appellant Intel Corporation.
Service: 04/24/2023 by email. [918770] [23-1727] [Dan Bagatell] [Entered: 04/24/2023 08:20 PM]
04/24/2023 6 Certificate of Interest for Appellant Intel Corporation. Service: 04/24/2023
by email. [918771] [23-1727] [Dan Bagatell] [Entered: 04/24/2023 08:21 PM]
04/24/2023 7 Notice of Related Case Information for Appellant Intel Corporation. Service:
04/24/2023 by email. [918772] [23-1727] [Dan Bagatell] [Entered: 04/24/2023 08:22 PM]
04/24/2023 8 Docketing Statement for the Appellant Intel Corporation. Service:
04/24/2023 by email. [918773] [23-1727] [Dan Bagatell] [Entered: 04/24/2023 08:23 PM]
Be back shortly but...as of 9:15A this morning nothing new in either court case nor any change in documents at the Georgia Corporations Division referencing HDC, and needless to say at the SEC.
Companies moved to the Expert Market from another OTC Markets tier can apply to relist on the OTC Pink or other OTC Markets tier by becoming an SEC reporting company, submitting a new Form 211, and meeting OTC Markets requirements for the particular tier.
Not so fast.... but I'm not sure?.....