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.
Texas Court Document - Prepared waiting on public release....I hope this is a good Friday as I indicated over a week ago.
Hello King......it is beyond me that some in these message boards think that after we deal with this Intel lawsuit involving Intel that we may move forward with a business and or pursue more infringers. I can assure everyone that will never ever happen. Why can't people see the mind set and actions involve George just for starters? Age and health and what is remaining in his family life. Then we have the management team? How about our patent portfolio....what did I just say about our patents? Now what legal action or documents has George sent out to other infringers? What have we heard within real documentations that actually parallel like HDC has written documentations with consistency as we did with Intel before we filed the lawsuit against them.
Now with patent life it pretty much fades into the sunset within the last 1-2 years of life, at least that is what I gather from my readings so royalties moving forward if at all are bubble gum monies.
This present lawsuit with Intel I doubt will kick up into a high level of trading share price unless we public trading starts again. I figure settlement if that happens will pay out .20-.50 per share at max. It seems investors just don't understand the probable payout to our Lawyers and are forgetting about Vennwest who has been knocking on Georges front door. It seems simple to me when you look at a management team and experience? Don't get me wrong George has fought everyone including his own close friends to try and keep this going forward and yes many reasons but still he must be extremely tired. I tend to believe that Intel's option to settle with HDC would not be a buyout since Vennwest is in the picture.
Intel and HDC must come to an agreement on any issues they have (no doubt discovery time) then resolve any other issues (hopefully as JA expressed) by themselves first then approach the Judges Clerks to resolve further issues or help if need be....however, JA did say he would help them but preferred not to... that they should work out details before Trial date is set.
The only way Intel can stall at this point is to request JA's help and he indicated he preferred not to so that is sending a message down Intel's throat. I doubt Intel is stalling more about the details as to discovery time but it seems to me since JA did not deal with the two case numbers that that might be throwing a wrench into the timing events and is why I think (as said prior) that we will hear something from the Court by this Friday referencing the case numbers and who knows maybe the initial calendar of future events leading to Trial.
As for Trial itself? there will probably be 2-4 Pre Trial Conference hearing before the seat gets smoking hot so still early days.
Lefty....don't even think that as Judge Albright will indeed pick the court date, sincerely
Zenos...you know Intel and HDC have a slight issue with discovery time due to two possible case numbers and is why I strongly feel JA should have made his decision back on 2/17 about the two case numbers. That to me should define discovery time however, I'm totally convinced that JA will permit HDC to use case 6:20-cv-00666 and furthermore the Judge seems to be smiling and telling each side I'll see you in my court soon.
Just checked Judge Albrights Calendar again, I believe we will see some court documentations between tomorrow but before 3-10-23. His calendar is prime time and calling our name.
Just now checked Texas Court System and nothing new yet!
It would seem to me, yet I really have no clue that if HDC is able to file due filings that even though some type of settlement is or might happen I would think if the share price rises to .10 .20 .30 .40 or higher the company worth and settlement would be higher than if the parties are wheeling and dealing now but that is just my thought?
Sure would be nice to hear the present conversations between these player and their attorneys.
Tcld55....I'm going to be busy today but will somewhat respond now....I can pretty much assure you that George wants to get all this over as quickly as possible.
Reference other infringers....sure I'm sure there are more but feel George is done chasing Infringers but actually I'm sure. When you look at everything involving the company I mean everything I can see HDC is done messing with lawsuits after this Intel case.
I don't have a clue if Intel will buy HDC but believe they won't. I haven't a clue on what our attorney's will or will not due either but there will be a breaking point to end this one way or another.
Great if we ended up with .50 at min but would of course enjoy a solid $1 dollar bill per share.
If we don't trade again we are at the mercy of what every transpires from this case but if George files SEC documents then we have a greater chance since hype will move this stock way up within this trial if that happens. Possibly if HDC files back paperwork with the SEC information within may cause harm but that is my thought after readying Marty's resignation letter and of course trying to read between the lines of what pressures are being pressed from Vennwest Global.
I know you feel HDC might go after other infringers and of course several others feel that way too but my dollar says clearly that after Intel we are done period. Could you imagine what has been happening within the McGovern Family referencing HDC.
Settlement with Intel? I think we need to figure out what percent of the patent patents are involved in what percent of Intel's product or products and of course date in which our claim will be accepted. Will it be from the first day emails were sent to Intel or perhaps from our 2020 lawsuit filing in Texas. Also (which I doubt) will Judge Albright only allow the damages from 2022 in which would seem to be extremely unfair.
So for now our best shot (for us longs/traders) is if HDC files back SEC filings so the hype can start and traders send this stock flying. It would be nice if George felt this way too but I doubt that very much but I'm sure he wants to be done with this. If you read past documentations George stated that if it weren't for Marty, George stated he would not have taken on as CEO
King Oil...look at post 17190 it is from December 6th 2019
As for Marty that is an old 8k filing ...dated 6/22/2022................
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1141788/000168316822004508/health_ex9901.htm
I still haven't given up on Marty's return?????
...to work for the Company for a salary that has been accrued and unpaid to date. In effect, I have provided the financing for my own compensation. Furthermore, the funding that was provided by myself and a partner was on terms and conditions far more beneficial to the Company than any other sources of capital if they had existed. The Company had no financial statements, was effectively insolvent and its only prospects were two highly uncertain legal proceedings.
A critical element of our plan was to put in place a leadership team of accomplished professionals whose only motivation was the preservation and improvement to shareholder value. The keystone of this team was Marty Delmonte who was a loyal employee for many years. I personally would never have considered assuming my role and making my investment in time and money if Marty had not agreed to stay. The team’s only goal is to preserve, protect and enhance shareholder value by making the Company a success. I am proud of this leadership team and value each member tremendously. We have worked countless hours against great odds to get to where we are today.
Thanks to the hard work of the current team, we have been successful in executing the plan to save the Company. Specifically, we were successful in the Arbitration proceeding and enforcing our rights with the NeoGenomics MLA in April of this year. This important win provided the obvious financial benefit to enable us to continue to operate and, equally important, confirmed our exclusive and unfettered rights to our technology which had been encumbered by the MLA.
In addition, we were successful at the USPTO in our Interference Proceeding with Intel. The importance of the Interference Proceeding was that, while there was no immediate financial benefit, it confirmed that HDC is the sole owner of the valuable SVM-RFE Patent. Importantly, the term of the patent has been extended to June 2025. Consequently, if we are able to identify and successfully prosecute any infringement by any third party, the damage period could be as much as twelve years. Potentially more importantly, we have five additional years to develop our patent and to generate possible licensing revenue.
In reference to the Interference Proceeding win, it is important to note the difference between interference and infringement. Interference establishes the ownership of a patent in the case of an ownership dispute as a result of the filing of identical or similar patent applications. HDC won the Interference and now has exclusive ownership of the SVM-RFE patent. Infringement is the unauthorized use of another party’s patent. In that case, the onus is on the patent owner to prove that the infringer is actually using the patent. Patent infringement litigation is both complex and expensive. We believe that a third party or parties are infringing one or more of our patents. Since before the win at the USPTO we have been working closely with special counsel to evaluate and plan the best legal course of action for this matter. We have also been in discussions with certain entities concerning the financing of such potential actions. Although no agreements have been reached, we are pleased and encouraged by the progress made to date. As developments occur in these matters, we will communicate with shareholders as and when appropriate.
With regard to future development opportunities, we have been in discussions to identify areas of collaboration with a medical and bioinformatics research institution. The specific areas under discussion include image processing and analysis, flow cytometry, cytogenetics, uses of SVM-RFE in medical research and prostate cancer. If successful, this collaboration could help open new areas of commercial development for our Company. Although these discussions are highly promising and continuing, we cannot be sure of success.
Until recently, we have lacked the funds necessary to update our financial statements and to update our filings with the SEC. We have developed a plan with our accountants and attorneys to update our financial statements and bring our SEC filings current. We intend to file a 10-K for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 in the first quarter of 2020.
Once the above filings have been made, we will be able to have a Shareholder’s Meeting no later than June 30, 2020. The time and place of the meeting will be announced when appropriate and will most likely be held sooner than that estimated date. Of note is that this will be only the third such meeting in the past ten years. Contrary to the practice of previous leadership, we intend to conduct these meetings on a regular basis in the future.
Many shareholders have directed comments and questions to the Company. All of these communications have been reviewed and dealt with as appropriate. For the convenience of all shareholders, we request that all shareholder inquiries or comments be directed to the Company via the following email address: investor@healthdiscoverycorp.com. We will continue to read and respond appropriately to all shareholder comments and inquiries as we have in the past.
In summary, we are pleased with what we have accomplished to date. We have overcome incredible odds to get to this point today. To put in perspective, one year ago we were heading into almost two weeks of arbitration hearings against NeoGenomics. Despite the internal and external challenges, we have persevered through both internal and external obstacles to literally save the Company and give it hope for a better future. We fought, and will continue to fight on, for the simple reasons that carries this team: the belief in the HDC technology and the desire to fight for every HDC shareholder. It has served this current HDC team and will continue to in the future.
Thank you for your continued support and we look forward to speaking with you soon.
Respectfully,
/s/ George H. McGovern, III
George H. McGovern, III
Chairman & CEO
...and don't forget who actually fought for all of us.......and who didn't!
December 6, 2019
Dear Fellow Shareholders:
This is the first time that I have been able to communicate with you by a shareholder letter since I became Chairman and CEO of our company, Health Discovery Corporation (“HDC” or the “Company”). For those that I have not had the privilege of speaking with since my involvement with the Company, I would like to give you a little bit of history. I joined HDC’s Board of Directors (the “Board”) on May 17, 2016 and was appointed Chairman and CEO on February 24, 2017. Like many of you, I had been a shareholder for many years, long before joining the Board. I became a shareholder because I believed in the promise of HDC’s technology. I had hoped, like many of you, that the NeoGenomics Master License Agreement (the “Agreement” or “MLA”) would result in the successful development and commercialization of HDC’s technology as promised. After several years of no results and no royalties I became concerned that something was wrong. My concerns were based on my review of the MLA between our Company and NeoGenomics.
The first nine months of my tenure on the Board were very contentious. I advocated an aggressive strategy with NeoGenomics to enforce our rights under the MLA. I was vehemently opposed by the other members of the Board and the CEO. The dispute, both internally and externally, ultimately culminated in our filing of the Demand for Arbitration (“Arbitration”) against NeoGenomics in October 2017.
Fortunately, over several months the other directors and the previous CEO who had failed to enforce HDC’s rights against NeoGenomics all resigned. Unfortunately, by that time the Company was left with no funds to pursue any of the following: continuance of daily operations; prosecution of the Arbitration proceeding against NeoGenomics; prosecution of the Interference Proceeding against Intel at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”); and the ability to pay the required maintenance fees on our patent portfolio. In short, the Company was insolvent and effectively bankrupt. There were several entities that we believe were anticipating just such a development, which would have enabled them to acquire our technology for little to no value out of bankruptcy.
Since April 2017, we have focused on the survival and future of the Company. While we had serious disagreements with the actions of prior management, we have tried to focus on the future and to at least temporarily ignore the past. Nevertheless, as appropriate we intend to always take whatever action that we deem appropriate and in the best interests of the Company.
Upon my appointment as CEO on February 24, 2017, our first task was to develop a strategic plan to try to save the Company. The key elements of our plan were to aggressively pursue the Arbitration proceeding against NeoGenomics; to pursue the Interference Proceeding at the USPTO against Intel; to take the necessary steps to protect our patent portfolio from infringement by others; and, if the Company could survive, to take steps to develop our technology on our own or with others.
The critical obstacle to pursuing any of these efforts was lack of funds. We searched for funding from many sources. We asked if other directors and previous investors would consider providing funds for the Company and the answer was a firm no. In short, there were no sources of funds for the Company. As a result, I developed a plan to provide financing personally along with a co-investor. In addition, I agree
MBMoney...sure wish you would post here again.
I gather that too but Vennwest is saying that George won't accept better loan terms. Possibly Vennwest to loan money to HDC at a better rate. Now that statement is just to give you an idea "only" and yes warrants due to series "D" shares....but how can George buy warrants when we are on the expert market, he can't or can he?
Yes quickest way out is to settle with Intel but will they with Vennwest needling George? I recall past directors that still have millions of shares in HDC stating he wanted to just sell the company/technologies. Yes you know who I'm talking about and it seems he might have been tied to the hip with Vennwest and possibly our old CEO "Kevin". So if you were George and he was involved in HDC starting in 2007 and have watched some of these past insiders - directors wheel and deal why would you "if you were George" deal with them or allow them to be on the BOD.
We need to be able to trade again in order for the best share price to buy and sell, PERIOD!
I dislike those "D" shares and have voiced my personal thoughts on that but HDC is still breathing and is because of George H. McGovern III and NOT past directors or Vennwest.
.....Oh didn't BQ state Vennwest would back off of the lawsuit if the USPTO favored HDC involving those patents? Now to really top that off HDC has cleared the football field and made another touch down as it looks like we are headed to trial with Intel yet it seems to me BQ is totally wrong again.
Your thoughts and others too????
As for Vennwest/HDC.......On 2/19/23 The Georgia Court has "Ordered Setting Settlement Conference" March 22, 2023 at 10AM via ZOOM.
Case 1:20-cv-03386-VMC
Court document #65 and it is 6 pages.
_______________
My personal view of any outcome on conference date are absolutely ZERO.
It seems to me that JA is a common sense type of Judge so my money says there is no reason to roll the dice on case number why not use both and merge them.
Now at this point i sense it is time for George to submit the back filings, no doubt the share price will need time and investors plus the potential hype. The company stock needs time to increase the company value plus growing leverage against the mighty Intel Empire.
OK Marty you and George need to kiss and make up so lets rock and roll.
_______________
Yes Chazzy it is the best news we could get, George will now push to submit the back SEC filings.
Time to smile a bit...JA denied Intel which you know too!:))))))))))))))
BTW...there were 54 people on the Zoom call.
Damn case will move forward at the speed of a crippled Turtle on medicare!
Ou71764....of course I will record audio in segments today so if you can't view it but wish to hear it I will have it available for you. I will also try and explain who is who within the discussions. I didn't explain that last time. I may try and record the video too but I'm super interested in the audio for replay several time to absorb all of the information. At my age heck I need to hear things several times and then I still might get it wrong but I sure will always give it my best shot.
Choo choo Trader..... I really have no clue but with the exposure involving these lawsuits I tend to believe George is waiting for a green light to finally submit them, heck they could be ready for filing NOW, so we would normally trade sometime the next business day within 24 hours. My hope is that Marty in some way will help George prepare the filings for auditing and believe it imperative that "Frazier & Deeter, LLc must be the one's to finally sign off on all the documents.
re: "HDC Gofundme" account, wow maybe that is the answer to not make bad deals with a few people if that is possibly the reason not to deal with some of them. No doubt in the past dormant Georgia lawsuit Exhibit B was full of people and past officers and directors plus us little guys....I did say dormant but a bit shaky on that thought?....btw, who can you trust?
Lucky is to win a Lottery but HDC has never being lucky so we will claw our way out of this damn hole and finally smile then leave Dodge City.
Roughly 6 hours and we will see if JA kicks in Alice's teeth or HDC's.
Yes, money is needed for filings, as to other companies settling once Intel losses? I'm from Missouri show me any documentations to support that approach... not going to happen!
Of course we will get positive news....look at when JA sided with Intel and why? Then how many months past by and we hear that the USTPO told Intel to go and pound sand or did she say go stab ants?....then in lightning speed, within a week or two from her decision we are in court with Judge Albright. In that hearing Intel leaned 1 nano second towards losing the 101 issue basically placed a positive spin on tomorrows session, JA needed someone else in his corner referencing Alice and her damn sister and it was delivered by the USPTO so now he can resume the court case once they all agree on the remaining discovery issues. This will place a bit more stress on a limited time frame but HDC can't have everything. We will be fine tomorrow but any trial is still a few miles down the road and HDC has warren out their shoes and now walking in their bare feet.
Did you see that post over on Yahoo referencing George and $60k? I think after our past involving series "D" shares any money needed at this point means an outsider will most likely get some of those shares. .If I were George I wouldn't dream of touching them again but money must come from somewhere in order for HDC to trade again.
Once Alice is thrown out of Court I believe the second case/newest will collapse but we need NOT lose those two years from the past case ....we will be fine in time that is if I live long enough to see the end of all this!.
Yes sir blue sky tomorrow but doesn't mean that will last.
Motion Hearing 2/17/23 1:30PM CST 2:30PM EST
ID and Access Pass Code numbers ID 1613131172 Pass 167817 no change I'm sure the access password controls Video/Audio from called interference.
Zenos...checking the recent filing today it appears Citadel is reporting year to day Schedule 13g but an Amendment 1 which just shows their remain cards in their hand as of this date which was 13,568,420 of HDC shares. This report is normal and is reported 45 days as necessary however I thought they sold everything last year so we now know they are playing / still holding 13.5 million shares for game time, filed also due to taxes.
Answer to when trading would resume once HDC filings are submitted to SEC It generally doesn't take more than 1 trading day.
I removed/changed the Citadel post since we already pretty much know the deal, those over on Yahoo will just need to dig for that information instead of hand feeding them but besides that I don't want to post anything that might take away from any rising share price....gotta run to Sam's Club be back later.
Remember the motion hearing this Friday is at 1:30PM Central time which is 2:30PM Eastern Standard time and yes I will phone Texas for the ZOOM meeting ID and pass code sometime Wednesday and post it in this thread. WA:22-CV-00356
People also need to look at past exhibits in the Georgia court and ask who else could possible loan HDC money that also have millions and millions of shares and why are they not offering HDC funds or are they and George doesn't want anything to do with them (possibly) because of past associations? Now we all know about many of our past officers and directors right?
re: I believe that Laurie Venning, CEO of Vennwest Global Technologies, owns millions of shares of HDVY.
Hey Charles...No doubt a true statement about Venning's shares but actually because (in my thinking) is a perfect reason for McGovern not to deal with him. Chess game between the parties about who will give in and McGovern seems to be a man like in the Clint Eastwood movie "Unforgiven"
....with that said when it comes down to all this it seems our Attorney's will control who does what and when so if they feel $5-$50 million is all that can possibly be had, then they will leave Dodge City....and say pay us half and C-YA
This is why hype is our friend long before any trial but it is important that JA moves forward with a trial which will place pressure on all parties including Vennwest to finally come to a mutual understanding and then McGovern might produce the SEC filings which may also include a few negative things but with all the parties maintaining a mutual understanding all this might fly.
What is a company worth? How much worth comes from a share price? It is all about hype...that will send the share price higher than any settlement money.
Stonemoney...2 days ago around 9AM I looked at JA calendar and it did show 2/10 9:30AM hearing as I posted that in this message thread but around 3:30pm same day that date was removed and a new date and time 2/17 1:30PM was applied. I doubt very much if you are correct but in your travels if you should come across the ZOOM access information today please post it however, as I said prior I will phone the court on the 15th for the 17th hearing at 1:30PM.
BTW...Texas Court, Court Room Deputy, Jennifer Clark 1-254-750-1510
JA Law clerks 1-254-750-1519
https://www.txwd.uscourts.gov/court-staff/u-s-district-judge-alan-albright/
I'm from Missouri...you know the show me state?
Good question but my first thought about that believe that far too much focus was removed from what Dent was trying to do or maybe no interested party to push the film....Hey that's "Hollywood" for you.
Super layman come right up.....I did send a .WMA Windows audio file to you. I thought it would choke and not go but check your email(s).
Anyways as I recall Judge Albright threw the case out as you recall but it seems to me that that issue (might?) have been waiting on the USPTO to deal with but, if not... oh well, I see that the issue in the Texas Court was about Alice and her step sisters 1 and 2. I think both parties want a final decision on that 101 issues prior any further/process or possible direction or waste of the court/parties time. As I see things (and you can listen to the audio I sent you) once that is all finalized we will know how to proceed.
Today in JA court calendar showed a hearing to be on the 10th but later it was moved to the 17th at 1:30PM. On the fifteenth of this month I will phone the court for the zoom access info. If you want to watch/listen to this live we can talk on the phone when ever you would like or perhaps you already know how to do all this. If it was hard to do I wouldn't be doing it and as for prying eyes during these meetings, no big deal. One doesn't even need a camera to watch and listen. I just download the client version and the full version is fine too.
I think watching paint dry would be a bit more productive?
NEW.... JA Motion Hearing 2/17/23 1:30PM ...It is no doubt too early to phone the court referencing ZOOM access information. I'll wait until 2/15/23 to call them.
JA Motion Hearing 2/10/23 9:30AM.
Not sure but here is an older web link and as you read through it you will also come to HDC/Intel
https://www.quinnemanuel.com/the-firm/publications/lead-article-u-s-district-judge-alan-albright-grants-first-two-section-101-motions/
Health Discovery Corporation v. Intel Corp.
A few weeks later, Judge Albright issued a second order under Section 101—this time granting a defendant’s motion to dismiss, albeit after the Markman hearing. In Health Discovery Corp. v. Intel Corp., No. 6:20-CV-666-ADA, 2021 WL 6116891 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 27, 2021), the four asserted patents related to the ability of so-called “learning machines” to identify patterns in datasets that best enable the classification of data, a process known as “Recursive Feature Elimination.” Id. at *1. The defendant, Intel Corporation, argued that the suit should be dismissed because the patent claims were directed only to an abstract mathematical analysis.
After an extensive discussion of the challenge of applying the Federal Circuit’s seemingly inconsistent post-Alice precedents, Judge Albright agreed with Intel’s position, observing that although “accused infringers invoking § 101 in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion face an uphill scrabble . . . Intel has been able to surmount these procedural obstacles.” Id. at *4, *11. At step one of Alice, Judge Albright viewed the claims as “merely produc[ing] data with improved quality relative to that produced by conventional mathematical models,” and so “merely improv[ing] or enhanc[ing] an abstract idea.” Id. at *11 (internal quotation marks omitted). At step two, Judge Albright held that the complaint had “fail[ed] to allege an inventive concept.” Id. at *12. Apart from what he regarded as the abstract idea of improving a mathematical model, the patent claims did not entail any further concept “capable of moving the claims out of the realm of abstract ideas.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). It was not sufficient, he explained, that “some asserted claims are limited to a particular field of invention or input data, like ‘gene expression data’ or ‘biologic data.’” Id. Nor did “requir[ing] a generic computer to perform” the mathematical process salvage the claims. Id.
Significantly, Judge Albright dismissed the plaintiff’s claims without prejudice, echoing the views of Eastern District of Texas Judge Rodney Gilstrap that “‘[t]here is a wide gulf between a Defendant affirmatively showing by clear and convincing evidence that claims are ineligible under both steps of the Alice inquiry and a Plaintiff failing to plead adequate facts addressing the analytical steps called for in Alice.” Id. at *12–*13 (quoting Mad Dogg Ath., Inc. v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., No. 2:20-CV-00382-JRG, 2021 WL 4206175, at *7 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 15, 2021)).
Conclusion
Judge Albright’s rulings under Section 101 provide useful insight into his approach to Section 101 arguments on a number of issues. First, he remains unlikely to grant a Section 101 motion until after the Markman hearing and the close of fact discovery. Second, if he grants a motion to dismiss under Section 101, the dismissal is likely to be without prejudice. Third, in conducting the substantive Alice analysis for software patents, Judge Albright has focused on whether the patent claims solve problems “rooted in computer technology,” USC IP, 2021 WL 6690275, at *5, or otherwise involve an improvement to the functionality of the computer systems or processes themselves. As a result, so-called “black box” patents that fail to recite steps that software must perform to accomplish the specified results are vulnerable to invalidation. Finally, Judge Albright has recognized “the difficulty in applying Alice with any consistency” and the “inconsistency riddling § 101 jurisprudence.” Health Discovery Corp., 2021 WL 6116891, at *10. For that reason, he has made clear that in individual cases he will take his cues from Federal Circuit precedents “analyzing patents most like those under review.” Id.
From listening to the case again it sounds to me that JA will decide on the 101 issue first which involves his prior dismissal due to Alice 1 and 2.
Maybe "Zenos Arrow" might elaborate further but that was my take.
Internet and Phone access involving meeting ID number and passcode can be obtain from Court Deputy Ms. Jennifer Clark - 1-254-750-1510 or Law clerks 1-254-750-1519
https://www.txwd.uscourts.gov/court-staff/u-s-district-judge-alan-albright/
She was better....anyways probably better to do the other issuer first. I do think he will lean towards HDC.
OK..it looks like Alias "BPINV1" over on Yahoo got his message deleted however, I read it and will re-post some of his message.....to everyone here or at least to the mouse that is waiting for me to throw a piece of cheese or toast crust his way so he doesn't starve while waiting on JA to do his thing today.
RE: Zoom access to Motion hearing in Texas WA:22-CV-00356
1. For those that don't know "you must install" the client version of ZOOM.
2: Time differences. Texas 1:30 PM CST, now if you live on the East coast access 2:30PM.
3. Meeting ID. 161 313 1172
4. Pass code 167817
I have an appointment/meeting at 1:30 today and don't know if I will be back to catch the motion hearing but believe that may still be accessible after hearing is over? Let us hope all this works out for all of us. You can download the client from ZOOM or at the Texas website. Look it isn't a big deal using Zoom SO DON'T SWEAT IT.
BTW my post already printed
Status report as to VennWest and HDC as follows.....
Plaintiff VennWest Global Technologies, Inc., Defendants McGovern...... The parties have exchanged and reviewed settlement offers. However, while the settlement discussions remain ongoing, parties believe that referral to a Federal Magistrate for mediation would be beneficial to both parties.
Respectfully submitted this 2nd day of February, 2023
This is an update by Bill Quirk, Charles from the Yahoo message board posted it and it is also over on Stocktwits.
As per Charles.......
Here is an update from Bill Quirk. Mr. Quirk included an hourlong interview with Judge Albright but including that link here would delay my post.
Dear HDC Shareholders,
Some of you may already be aware that the USPTO Director last Friday slammed the door shut on Intel’s bid to have her review the final decision of the PTAB to affirm the “patentability’ of HDC’s SVM-RFE patents. A great win for HDC. And yesterday, Judge Albright set this Friday for a public “Zoom” Motions Hearing by HDC and Intel.
I suspect that one of HDC’s motions will – and should be - to ask the judge to proceed to jury trial on the basis of the original HDC filing, not the later amended filing which could add an indeterminate amount of time to the entire process.
I just finished watching an hour long video interview of Judge Albright two years ago on his judicial philosophy and I think HDC will get a fair shake.
Bill
__________________________________________________
I'm beginning to wonder if Charles is Chazzy?
Cool....from "GoodStuff" - "Yahoo message board"........6:22-CV-00356 Motion hearing set for 2-3-23 Judge Albright ZOOM 1:30