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.
King, bad news? all of us should be used that that....anyways fixing coffee and donuts for a friend but will check PACER shortly after...later
I dislike seeing that information because we have seen how George can super squeeze a few pennies to keep our company sucking every possible bit of oxygen to keep alive but looking back at Barnhill, all it seems he did was dance the Barnhill shuffle and jerk all of us around with BS talk and what may appear to be a quick way to dump our potential for a few bucks and reasons to convince the BOD to dish out bonuses.... I also think BQ liked Barnhill very much, maybe neighbors? Maybe why George didn't allow him on the board, what do I know just my honest thoughts :- )
I did see the earlier post on this board about district court and the PTAB decisions it is my understanding that the "District Court" has the final say between these two courts however could Intel try and kick this up to the supreme court to stall for more time.
I'm not sure but believe George and our Attorney's gave Intel an offer they can't refuse.
Zenos
No doubt Intel is doing what Intel does best in trying to defend themselves and yes stalling is the typical move but for them to display any carefree or hasty attitude might not fare well with Judge Albright. No doubt, the Judge has rubbed elbows with Intel in other cases. Intel may have a couple of Senators in their pocket but believe Judge Albright is not. It appears both political parties have screwed with him but hope midterm produces total republican control. He has been disciplined and as a result is limited in Patent cases.
I am also surprised that HDC response was within 5 business days and wonder if that is a bit extraordinary or HDC just wanted to sack Intel’s BS before Judge Albright could make any type of motion however, maybe that was normal within that time frame but I see that differently.
Heck, I had to re-read the response several times but first must thank you for posting the document and know that I am sure many others that still view the thread probably feel the same way and again I am floored that HDC responded so soon.
Finally I can see HDC responded in the areas of “Alice in Wonderland – Steps 1 - 2” firstly to understand that this was dealt with recently and also that the way HDC responds involving this area is in a direct way but not pushy but a confident approach and even somewhat in a neutral way not pressuring the Judge nor Ms. Vidal.
Finally I see (in my understanding or not understanding) several concrete areas where HDC has me smiling as to presenting to anyone who reads this response an easy flow of words and clear understanding without shoveling a response down anyone’s throat and attorneys for HDC are involved in this case as if it is their only newborn baby.
It is amazing how I can read various documents and be swayed a bit either way but now I see no reason for the PTAB to grant a hearing to Intel. The conclusion statement that HDC provided was genuinely smooth and smart but that is just my view.
As I pointed out prior I have a PACER account but I am grateful you posted the document in the thread. I am surprised HDC would respond and respond so soon I mean when does that back and forth stop? I guess Judge Albright will hammer this down when he get tired of babysitting Intel. I am going to check his calendar more often.
O.T. I see the Diaeresis...Germany or running a MAC? I haven't used the tables since around 1990. Did a lot ANSI art and ASCII way back but these days don't have that length of short term memory nor interest for such retaining codes.
OK....it has been decided at the USPTO as patentable but now Intel is asking to have the Director - Ms. Vital to hear Intel in a hearing involving what they (Intel) is saying that patentability should never have happened mind you we are not talking about 1 patent but 4 and that should be hard for Intel to overcome but our past has been crappy. Either way that the USPTO sides on still leave a decision by Judge Albright at the Federal level and this involves the 101 issue front and center involving "Alice in Wonderland" a seemingly curse upon us and not a pleasant fairy tale fantasy.
If the USPTO Director Ms. Vidal refuses to grant Intel a hearing (which I doubt) and regardless Judge Albright will still need to address 101 involving the same issue as before in which was dealing with the uncertainty and just how to interpret "Alice step 1 and 2 involving our not just 1 but 4 extremely in depth Patents. It would seem if all 4 patents stood the PTAB in recent years that Ms. Vital will NOT grant Intel a hearing unless she feels pressured by Intel's "ROPE A DOPE" process which as I said above leaves Judge Albright in the headlines again at the "Texas District Court System"
With a grace from the USPTO and Judge Albright at the Texas Court this would finally mean either Intel's must bow down and talk settlement or now approach the Supreme Court and screw with Judge Albright again. We had a Dem & Rep Senators put a screw into all these proceedings or should we say Judge Albright so how will all the cards be dealt in the next two months?
Does a positive move (for us) by both the USPTO & then with Judge Albright to
seek trial automatically signal CEO George H. McGovern to finally submit our back filings so we can finally start trading again. What else would signal this needed move and where in hell is George getting the money to do what is needed, it sure doesn't grow on the HDC tree.
Just my thoughts........
King...I like your idea in a big way but I would easily settle to have all of my HDC shares valued @ .75 cents per share in a deal with Intel to then convert into INTC shares @ $26-$28 dollars per share then hold the stock 1 year for tax purposes. Then of course start sell when INTC reaches $55 per share again.
As for Mr. Murphy resigning I believe he is even older than George and really there is no reason at this point for George to have but a couple of people around him. I mean he has his daughter that can help him with some of these tasks but really this is all about how we are going to close the doors, I mean finally with style... like everyone holding HDC stock finally gets to smile? The old statement we hear about deserving doesn't apply we get what we get and that is about it.
One thought strongly comes to mind and the truth to that is what ever we get by way of Texas Court - Judge Albright meaning a trial which neither party wants, it appears that TREBLE will be awarded. Now Intel can sit on that all night long a pout and stomp their feet but George isn't giving up nor are all of us
So if we win it would even be clear in Intel's eyes just how dirty they have treated us and left us without bread and water, pay back just might be a bitch! (Now that is what I call deserving :)
From my read of the Intel brief response is a clear indication that they (Intel) is throwing everything possible at Judge Albright (Texas Court) and Intel is stating that the USPTO/PTAB does not know what the hell they are doing. This will throw a huge wrench into the lap of the new Director Ms. Kathi Vidal, this may force her to grant Intel a hearing. Even after in which case Intel is proven wrong meaning our patents will still stand then Judge Albright must deal with how to separate or migrant two different set of rules in two different Courts. This involve a strong crack of a whip from the Supreme Court and recent Senators who may of confirmed Ms. Vidal. All this fighting over rule 101 and 103 truly means something within the higher Court system and as it stands Ms. Vidal must prove without a doubt that she has an open mind and grant Intel a hearing why (Intel's rope a dope moves.) So even if we shut down Intel at the USPTO/PTAB Judge Albright will be forced to deal with it again and as we know he isn't shaken easily (as it seems) but still he will be forced to comply with the rules as hand.
If Judge Albright favors us will Intel seek the Supreme Court within this issue This case seems to be worth far more than we know....something isn't right with the degree of fight that Intel will go to win a case however, I do recall poster named "Alan81" stating that Intel will do just about anything instead of settling a case.
* I do believe the PTAB Director will have access to HDC and Intel's briefs involving the Texas Court case.
Zenos.. re:
Ou71764...Just sent you Intel's response brief 10-21-22
Zenos....have you pulled Intel's latest response briefing dated 10-21-22?
Seems to be very powerful to state the least. Looks like they are heavily relying on Judge Albright in that court proceedings and totally disregarding every avenue that the USPTO has provided. Intel's last powerful words at the end of their brief are as follows......
HDC's arguments thus runs headlong into Supreme Court and Federal Circuit precedent and invites this Court to commit legal error by substituting a 103 analysis for its 101 analysis.
I commented about this possibly of a head on collision and believe Judge Albright has no choice but to side with Intel....this sucks!
When wacky tobacky Barnhill came on board "Direct Wireless" and pull the shares away from the past directors and the fight with CEO Bill G Williams - Natural Shrimp i thought Barnhill was on top of business but he turned out to be something all of us just want to forget. I do believe that we were light years a head with our technology but it was a shame the SVM structure wasn't defined years sooner. So the wrong people in charge, no money and fighting years upon years of various corporate entities that were using various forms of SVM before us. A massive missed technology bigger one could imagine or fully understand as I see this.
What we be the next technology that is waiting in the shadows to expand in a huge way providing it has the right management and all the resources to be successful?
We can say different things about George H. McGovern both pro and neg and a few here have been here since 2003, have you ever seen any of our past CEO's hang in there like he has? Have you ever seen any CEO in any stock hang in there like McGovern?
Yes we can say he had to in order to salvage his own investment or perhaps something else negative or even positive but to me not 1 past CEO or Director had it in their gut to go the distance and take all the BS that goes along with this. I mean he is 75 - 77 years old and could you imagine (if he is still married) what BS his wife must be saying?
Sure we especially me hated the "D" shares issued and a few other things but you gotta hand it to him the man surely can kick ass and easily out due "Bruce Willis"
We don't know the end results but I must say this company should have closed it's doors long ago and not one here would ever believe this ungodly journey.
Maybe BQ has learned what it really takes and sure Vennwest wants a taste of George but believe he would be better off staying with Santa at the North pole in hopes that he learns what naughty and nice means before Christmas morning.
Yes, very nice....I down loaded the documents earlier but only printed out the main 9 page to see what HDC is stating to Judge Albright. It is looking good in my mind but the standard of rules in one court is different in the other but still I feel positive but might finally clinch this is for the Director of the USPTO to deny Intel a hearing, now that will send a clear message to all parties and to Judge Albright.
I find it hard to believe that some of us have been waiting on some type of success for 18 and 20 years.
A side note: I gather "adognamedcharlie" might have bit the dust?
DigDeeper....I believe the PTAB has helped HDC's case but is this enough and what rules must Judge Albright apply. I think once the hearing matter at the USPTO is resolved we will finally get a solid answer on moving forward. Let's hope the Director refuses Intel's request.
Intel Corporation (INTC) may layoff 20% of their workforce, maybe they will now settle the lawsuit with HDC.
From looking where Dr. Dent lives verse the recent hurricane it would seem that they are still busy messing with wringing clothes and salvaging waterlogged items including some of the walls in their home.
I wonder? Is it possible that Intel could be liable for multi billions to be owed to HDVY or are they just being a "AH" in throwing their weight or body slamming us.
Hello...yes but Intel seems to be able to handle an wave coming at them and responds to them only if they feel like it. I lost it this morning I'm not for ripping the teeth out of a big player because they might be worth massive billions of dollars but they sure pissed me off about approaching the PTAB Director and yes they have the legal right to do so but delay after delay and our entire existence just sucks. Intel delay delay and more delays. Take these SOB's to the cleaners.
How long will - can George allow this crap to go on and what kind of deal do we have with our legal team.
Another note....HDVY is nothing compared to some of the huge legal lawsuits that Intel has to deal with.
From "YankeesFanInOhio" - Yahoo message board
Yesterday afternoon at the PTAB, Intel filed a Request for Rehearing by the Director. If you want to understand what that means refer to my post from last week. I knew they weren't going to give up at the USPTO.
______________
Loc........My money says Intel will not get successful results and I hope George makes this company bleed big time. This is very wrong about what Intel has done to us so make those SOB's pay!
I have no clue but could handle Intel buying my shares for $1 buck and then exchanging ratio for Intel shares @$27 would make me pretty happy when their stock kisses $50 dollars a share again.
.....regarding PACER, did you go into PACER and look or elsewhere. We would be looking for document #45 if I recall.
I'm kind of surprised that George has not completed the quarterly or yearly filings yet!
Now as to the latest? The only problem was that damn company did not have a license to do those business transactions. Now of course many thing suck but because they didn't have a license? If you have a Taxi or UBER pick you up do you ask them if they have a license? NO! you just pay fee.
As for PACER there was nothing new as of late last night. I believe document #45 is what we are looking for when JA makes his decision.
The Judges calendar in Texas Court changes quickly from 7AM-7PM every 5 minutes Central time. I have been watching this like a hawk and will say that the earliest day for JA to handle the decision might be on the 27th of September but who really knows for sure?
As for the Expect Market? I have watched another corporation that was on this and it appeared to me that when we finally see that our 2 - 10-Q and 10-K are filed it will be 12 to 24 hours before this will start trading. Who knows I believe George will need to file a 8-K too. Question, didn't George file a 10-K that included the 10-Q's the last time we were in this position?
I don't see any reason for HDC to ever operate a website again.
I must have missed this one earlier by Charles -Yahoo message board?
Here we go folks! In this latest letter to HDVY shareholders from Bill Quirk, Bill cites a legal article which has direct implication on HDC's lawsuit:
Dear HDC Shareholders,
This paragraph from a legal article says: when PTAB issues a final written decision (FWD) affirming the patentability of a patent that has previously been challenged i.e. precisely HDC’s situation, Intel is precluded from raising the issue in a trial. Intel appealed to PTAB twice and lost twice on all challenges to HDC’s patents. I strongly suspect Judge Albright will soon make three decisions favorable to HDC: 1) deny Intel’s request to start HDC’s infringement lawsuit all over again, 2) schedule the jury trial, and 3) in light of the “doctrine of issue preclusion", dismiss Intel’s effort to raise the “patentability” issue in court. Intel raised this issue as a (bogus) legal tactic because they said no one can infringe on a patent that is “not patentable”.
Bill
Below is the article:
PTAB Decisions & Issue Preclusion By Scott McKeown on July 28, 2021
images_content_USPTO-deadline
What is “Materially Identical?”
The doctrine of issue preclusion can prevent an issue previously litigated at the PTAB from being re-litigated in a later proceeding, such as in the district court. In order for issue preclusion to apply, a “materially identical” issue must have been “actually litigated and determined by a valid and final judgment,” where the determination was “essential to the judgment.” See Papst Licensing GMBH & Co. KG v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., 924 F.3d 1243, 1252 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Thus, once appeals have been exhausted, the determinations in a FWD from the PTAB may have preclusive effect in future actions, even on related patents so long as they raise “materially identical” issues.
MBMoney....do you recall?
Charles over on the Yahoo message board posted the following.......
The PTAB has just navigated through some difficult and complex, post Alice, legal waters, and with their final IPR rulings they have upheld the validity of all of HDC's patent claims. In so doing, they have also paved the way for judge Albright to deny Intel's motion for a dismissal. The judge can simply cite the PTAB's rationale and move forward to a trial. In fact, I don't believe that Albright can afford to be in the position of invalidating the very patents that the PTAB just finished validating. All he has to do now is affirm the rationale adopted by the PTAB. The PTAB, in doing the heavy lifting, have made Albright's job easier. In my further opinion, the PTAB IPR rulings, affirming the validity of all of HDC's patent claims, are legally binding.
My question is simple was Alice steps 1 and 2 addressed under the rules when Intel was fighting us referencing those 4 patents during the PTAB? I don't recall if that ever came up except in the Texas Court.
After reading what was submitted back on 9/1 and 9/16 over 4 times I believe that Judge Alan Albright is now going to move this case from the pleading stage to the next level but what I'm not understanding is how? Will JA amend the two cases together? If we lose the ability and documentations of the first case we might as well head to the soup line.
Ou71764....I don't even know if I replied to your last email a week or two ago but I feel that I let you down. Sure it is up to the individual trader/investor to watch their holdings but I did tell you that I would notify you or any changes and we sure have been having them lately.
I am going to email you Intel's response from the 9/16/22. I can not post it on this message board due to software and security issues. I will not use one drive or any other cloud base ability. I have scanned this latest court document from PACER I can not remove/edit certain areas as needed/personal security in order to re-post it here. I do hope when HedgeAppleJoe returns from Vegas or perhaps even someone else that they place the documents on one drive for people to see.
After you get this email lets set up a time to talk on the phone, possibly today EST.
Ltd... actually, I didn't see that post until now. Yes we have been here forever and we were close way back on RB. Going way back I recall doing the first share count from retail shareholders and of DW management. Here you go..........
https://www.send2press.com/PRnetwire/pr_03_0826-dirwireless.shtml
Zenos.....great that means every Intel challenge to destroy our patents at the USPTO/PTAB failed. All patents will stand tall as they were granted long ago.
Next on the list is also today in Texas involving Judge Albright to listen to Intel's last motion to dismiss and I'm sure they will try and do so with prejudice.
I wrote/messaged here a day or two ago that I felt the PTAB would disclose the 483 decision today but doubt it was because of the court session in Texas. Today is also Intel's last rebuttal to dismiss the on going court case. I'm sure Intel will proceed today and not delay more BS moves. Maybe time for Intel to think about paying the damn piper?
At any rate as far as I'm concerned this is a feel good weekend!
By Tuesday/Wednesday the Texas court documents should be ready to see but as to Judge Alan Albright's final decision, please have the sun finally shine on HDC plus of course please allow us to use all the documented history in order to gain treble damages and to allow HDC shareholders to finally rub Intel's nose in the crap.
* As for the decision from Judge Albright? That probably won't be ready until late September or sometime in October at least that is my thought.
Anyone spot any new news or videos, anything?
Anyone care to guesstimate the present legal costs?
So the PTAB has one more decision which would be about IPR2021-00554 which will probably be on the 16th of this month. We will most likely win this fight too.
Now in Texas on the 16th Judge Albright will listen to Intel's reason why this case should still be dismissed. As everyone recalls this balanced on Alice step1 and step 2. Judge Albrigh, Intel and even HDC were basically unsure about these steps within our patents as the patents are indeed very very complex. The balance leaned both ways so Judge Albright dismissed the case. HDC quickly submitted a request to be heard and I believe Intel did not refuse this move. We presented our last best step to Judge Albright on September 1 and Intel will present their rebuttal on the 16th to try and maintain dismissal but now with prejudice.
The problem for Intel is the fact that Alice steps 1 & 2 do not apply to our patents as the USPTO/PTAB has recently proven with every patent and every claim line so far. Intel tried for years to knock us down and for that Idea I wonder if George isn't going to settle so lightly as he might have before? Maybe pursue Jury trial and slap Intel around a bit, plus of course treble damages. I know from past court readings that both HDC and Intel did not want to go to trial but how long does Intel expect to beat on us and take their crap and just settle up for nothing? I'm sure George is tire of this and so are all of us shareholders but Intel has knocked all of our teeth out so George knock at least half of their teeth out.
Lefty...the PTAB came out with another final decision a few hours ago as follows...
Need to get the weblink again be back soon
We only have IPR-2021-00554 to go. Meaning all our patents stand tall and good. This also makes things much easier for Judge Albright to make a decision. It really looks good and would think any financing needed to submit our late SEC filings are pretty much a go...
So, so far we are hitting on all cylinders like never before.
If JA is able to allow HDC to make use the old case number and documentations we might be seeing a settlement or jury trial action within 3 - 6 months.
Digdeeper...well?...I gather you have dug deeper over the past week and are at the starting gate?
Of course he was and will show you where he started. He worked with Nancy who was the President of MFMI - Media Forum International. This is where I first heard of Roger being able to raise several million dollars but was that really true? I'm not sure but only recall that MFMI was just Roger's. I believe he used Nancy as a spring board and that she probably didn't want to either work with him or continue MFMI.
https://www.siliconinvestor.com/subject.aspx?subjectid=29980&LastNum=25&NumMsgs=25
For the few here don't forget the depth of the 144 page complaint that we filed, especially the documentation/communications with Intel going way back.
Yes "IF" everything falls right for us "Treble damages" are pretty much at hand. Anyways here is the document so get a clue at just how we were treated by Intel, my thoughts believe our SEC filings will be filed and Intel and HDC might be in talks...there again they really pissed off George?
https://97c708a5-4b71-452a-a913-9d2088df68ca.filesusr.com/ugd/5a27d7_4bc7de4a82b346c8b87d1ce9b4e6e48e.pdf
Judge Alan Albright appears to be bronco riding Judge and WACO was his own special baby. Judge Derek Gilliland is new in this area and has stated in interviews that he would act somewhat like Judge Albright does in addressing these types of cases. JG does have his opinion about abstract type patents but what is his real reason to recuses himself I mean 28 U.S.C. § 455(b) has a range to apply in these cases. I believe (personally) that JG feels that JA dismissed the case and since he did that in his opinion this case is done and should not allow 6:22-cv-356-ADA to exist or continue.
What I hope of course is that JA (I doubt) won't make 622-cv-356-ADA disappear but he will amend/merge the new case to 6:20-cv-00666 in order to serve several points that I don't even need to mention.
It is true that the court, HDC and Intel did not have a full understanding on how the ALICE 2 step dance should be applied in this case. Now with arguments it will become clear and without doubt for Judge Albright to make a final decision plus he is giving both sides their last chance to prove to him one way or the other.
If we win Intel will be dragged across the carpet as the history involved in how they interacted with HDC as seen by a jury trial will treble the damage award.
...or will JA dismiss the case, handle the case himself or re-appoint a new Judge?
Correct SEC rule 15c2-11 started a year ago...sorry Dave heck you have been around IHUB since 09
Dave...new rules as of last September (A YEAR AGO) require these public trading Corporations to keep their SEC filings up to date. if they fall behind they are given some slack but we (HDVY) hasn't been able to file due to money. We are on what is called the "Expert Market" which sounds like BS.
When you see new filings added here then you will know when trading should start within 24 years so until then forget about trying to buy shares from any brokerage firm.
https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?CIK=hdvy&owner=exclude&action=getcompany
We are behind maybe 2 - 10-Q and a 10-k filing to state the least.