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.
You should know two thinks from the get go, I could care less what anyone thinks of me and only use this alias. Know what I post isn't going to change anything and as for supporting HDC you probably weren't around back in the early days or you would have known me from RB message board, did the first public shareholder count and of course would talk with Robert Braswell prior Dr. Barnhill coming on board. Been there done that so you can say whatever you want and believe whatever as I just don't care. I just want this company to end one way or another and we are getting closer. Many of us have suffered for years and used by many that have come and gone!
GSTX is reporting as confirmed by SEC filings...simple to see!
Golden_Cross...GSTX is not "PINK" Also, I am not invested in GSTX
https://www.sec.gov/edgar/browse/?CIK=1497649&owner=exclude
King_Oil...good it looks like new blood is buying into HDC but 5 cents to me may as well be nothing. If I weren't so heavy with my ROTH account I would dump this. I know, why not come out of retirement I mean it has only been 14 years...because I enjoy the torching that HDC does to me that's why!....besides, who is giving up after all these damn years?
I have always liked Roger as I had indicated many times over the past 20+ years but that really doesn't matter does it? What matters is facts correct then name me just 1 public trading company he has been involved with that has been successful for retail traders.
This as follows is RM's typical MO which of course is FACT!
SOLAR QUARTZ TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
NOTE 1 – ORGANIZATION
We were incorporated in Colorado on June 21, 2010 as Vanguard Energy Corporation (Vanguard) and until June 2014 were involved in the exploration and development of oil and gas properties in southeast Texas. We were never able to earn a profit and in January of 2013 we began investigating the possibility of selling our oil and gas properties. The sale of our oil and gas properties represented the sale of substantially all our assets in June of 2014.
The following history of events describes how the current entity Solar Quartz Technology Corporation acquired its subsidiary Solar Quartz Technologies Limited and all entities described below other than Vanguard were entities under common control.
On June 20, 2016, SQTNZ agreed to acquire Solar Quartz Technologies Pte. Ltd., A Singapore Corporation, (SQTSG) in a transfer of shares or a swap for 122 shares (100%). SQTSG (formerly known as Auzsolar Pte. Ltd.) held ownership of quartz mineral rights.
On October 1, 2016, Australian Oil and Gas Holdings, Inc., our parent company, (AOGH), (formerly known as Anasazi Energy Corporation (ANSZ) and subsequently known as Solar Quartz Technologies, Inc. (SQTI)), entered into a Reorganization and Stock Purchase Agreement and acquired Solar Quartz Technologies Limited., a New Zealand Corporation, (SQTNZ). AOGH issued 201,182,000 shares (95%) in exchange for 100% of SQTNZ shares outstanding.
On July 1, 2017, Vanguard acquired SQTNZ from SQTI in a share exchange wherein Vanguard issued 213,402,755 new shares of common stock to SQTI in exchange for 122 (100%) of the common shares of SQTNZ. The assets acquired in this exchange were reflected in our financial statements at SQTI’s historical cost basis of $30,000 as it was considered an acquisition of assets from entities under common control. The issuance of these shares was equivalent to 95% of the Company’s shares issued, as we committed to issue an additional 10,021,224 shares to those holders of our common stock immediately prior to the acquisition. These actions resulted in a total of 224,426,229 shares outstanding.
SQTNZ is a corporation that has no prior business activity other than being the title owner of the exclusive mining and development rights for two High Purity Quartz (HPQ) deposits known as Quartz Hill (represented by leases ML 30235, ML 30236 and ML 30237) and White Springs (represented by leases ML 30238 and ML 30239) located in North Queensland, Australia.
HPQS is an essential primary material for the manufacture of: Photo-Voltaic (PV) solar panels; Semiconductors; all High-end Electronic products; Fiber Optical cables; Halogen Lamps; HD and LCD television screens; and Epoxy Mounding Compounds (EMC).
NOTE 2 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES AND BASIS OF PRESENTATION
Principles of Consolidation and Basis of Presentation— The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Solar Quartz Technologies Corporation and its subsidiary. All significant intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation.
The accompanying financial statements have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) and pursuant to the accounting and disclosure rules and regulations of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). A summary of the significant accounting policies applied in the preparation of the accompanying financial statements follows.
The 3rd of June only represents what language/terms/rules to be adapted/allowed/determined by Judge Albright from this Markman "hearing". This is only a hearing I don't believe it to be anything other than that.
I think he is the one that George has rocking chair races with and last time out they tied, that was the time they split the series "D" shares between themselves. I'm surprised you forgot?
I don't know but with HDC trying to keep the trial language as simple as possible just might work in the event this does go to a jury. In other words it appears if the Judge Albright decides to adapt HDC "Plain and Ordinary" language to be used then all the more reasons the Judge might push forward for a jury trial. So is it possible that Intel may not use certain terms that would normally conflict or change meaning(s) in Intel's attacks during the actual trial? Maybe 2 points for our team?
....So! the closer Intel tries to get to us the further apart they will become.
Excellent statement Graphene might very well be the future it just won't be through any corporation controlled or that involves RM. In other words those who sincerely want to invest in Graphene and it's possibilities won't be by investing in GSTX.
BTW...RM through a different company (it went over your head) is charging GSTX at least $50k every quarter. That is lunch money for RM. Smart move as that company is privately held. Way to go Roger!
RM...are you grinding any remaining leftover rock yet?... as usual wheres the beef!
...simple, don't read
https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2111.html
III. "PLAIN MEANING" REFERS TO THE ORDINARY AND CUSTOMARY MEANING GIVEN TO THE TERM BY THOSE OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
"[T]he ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application." Phillips v. AWH Corp.,415 F.3d 1303, 1313, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); Sunrace Roots Enter. Co. v. SRAM Corp., 336 F.3d 1298, 1302, 67 USPQ2d 1438, 1441 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1298 67 USPQ2d 1132, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("In the absence of an express intent to impart a novel meaning to the claim terms, the words are presumed to take on the ordinary and customary meanings attributed to them by those of ordinary skill in the art.").
The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification – the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms. See, e.g., In re Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., 696 F.3d 1142, 1149-50, 104 USPQ2d 1337, 1342-43 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (construing the term "electrochemical sensor" as "devoid of external connection cables or wires to connect to a sensor control unit" to be consistent with "the language of the claims and the specification"); In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260-61, 94 USPQ2d 1640, 1644 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (construing the term "material for finishing the top surface of the floor" to mean "a clear, uniform layer on the top surface of a floor that is the final treatment or coating of a surface" to be consistent with "the express language of the claim and the specification"); Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583, 39 USPQ2d 1573, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (construing the term "solder reflow temperature" to mean "peak reflow temperature" of solder rather than the "liquidus temperature" of solder in order to remain consistent with the specification).
It is also appropriate to look to how the claim term is used in the prior art, which includes prior art patents, published applications, trade publications, and dictionaries. Any meaning of a claim term taken from the prior art must be consistent with the use of the claim term in the specification and drawings. Moreover , when the specification is clear about the scope and content of a claim term, there is no need to turn to extrinsic evidence for claim interpretation. 3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Tredegar Corp., 725 F.3d 1315, 1326-28, 107 USPQ2d 1717, 1726-27 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (holding that "continuous microtextured skin layer over substantially the entire laminate" was clearly defined in the written description, and therefore, there was no need to turn to extrinsic evidence to construe the claim).
re: "Plain and Ordinary"
I can’t find enough yet to explain what “Plain and Ordinary” means in the construction phase except from these web links. It is a laid out format with defined meanings and language.
(my words....I could be wrong but believe possible rules to follow providing the court agrees.)
https://www.gibbonslawalert.com/2016/03/14/need-to-construe-plain-and-ordinary-meaning/
https://media2.mofo.com/documents/160815-patents-plain-ordinary.pdf
Today you can see document #41 which is a "Joint Claim Construction Statement" The document I talked about yesterday was #40 by Intel where it looks pretty bad for HDC. Now this joint document #41 seems to backup what I was stating a day ago so again this doesn't look good at all. HDC has taken a basic "Plain and Ordinary Meaning" attitude on things and Intel of course is striking with purity. Of the 4 patents HDC doesn't seem to make proposed construction on patent 483 and 685.
I think maybe one of two patents expired could that be the reason HDC did not propose construction involving those patents or maybe those where to be noted as "Plain and Ordinary Meaning too?
It sincerely looks super bad for HDC in so many ways, I mean no matter what way HDC turns Intel nails us. The Judge will see this and probably side with Intel
Alan....Absolutely NOT! I am only on page 7 of 22 with Intel replying construction to HDC.
It is very clear both parties want to resolve this and not go to trial. It is a fact that Intel is stating to the Judge that all the technical aspects of this case and understanding is too far over the heads of any jury.
Now as for HDC I don't know yet but suspect they want a settlement due to not having enough finances to go the distance.
One probable key that is being strongly in issue is the term Data verses Biological data
Also really worth mentioning is that HDC seems to be using "Plain and ordinary meaning" in their patent language..
__________________________________
My thoughts so far..............
I may pull HDC prior construction but I must say it sincerely looks Intel's claim construction brief might determine that the Judge might NOT allow any Jury trial and possibly side with Intel.
MBMoney...it seems the latest court case documents involving HDC and Intel were introduced by Intel on May 18th. I did see HDC's a week or so prior.
Of the documents that Sarah Piepmeier submitted I did not pull Exhibits F or G.
This is what I was just talking about. Checkout this weblink and then know who is Arthrexs and HealthLynked's competition. In the link it shows companies that are involved in the Medtech areas. There are several of course but note the 2 following names........
Stryker is in direct competition with Arthrex
1. Stryker (Kalamazoo, Mich.). Stryker is a medical technology company focused on orthopedics, neurotechnology and spine. The $14.9 billion company had around 40,000 employees worldwide in 2019 and owned 8,883 patents. The company had reported 40 years of sales growth through 2019 and was spending $971 million on research and development per year ahead of the pandemic.
Teladoc is in direct competition with HealthLynked.
2.Teladoc (Purchase, N.Y). Teladoc is a global virtual care and telemedicine company that provides millions of virtual medical visits to patients in 175 countries each year. The company connects patients with providers for telehealth visits and was named Best in KLAS for Virtual Care Platforms for 2020. On Aug. 5, Teladoc merged with Livongo, an applied health signals company, to combine Teladoc's clinical expertise with Livongo's consumer health insights and data-driven approach to healthcare delivery.
https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/20-medtech-companies-to-know-2020.html
Maybe Arthrex could spinoff a "Medtech" subsidiary, and even could control login or subscription rights if needed.
I don't see any realistic reason that Arthrex would even think of going public after all these years and I just don't see our share price rising upwards to kiss $2 plus dollars per share and maintain that... regardless how much money that Arthrex could invest in us.
I doubt Dr. Dent would go private as that isn't a good move for retail shareholders.
Would some type of spinoff of Arthrex's business be worth doing with Dr. Dent? I gather mindsets are somewhat the same as to helping people and that is also easily seen and another reason I'm looking at the educational areas of business that may make a difference in the growing knowledge needed for the general public and professionals too?
I see "Gordo" over on Yahoo thinks about a reverse merger with Arthrex Corporation and I seriously doubt that to ever happen however, the like minds of these two corporations might be able to help one another but how? Could it be a deal to help Dr. Dent/HealthLynked exposure worldwide or possibly something involving Arthrex spinning off part of a new business with HealthLynked which would help our foot print to go and grow globally. Our revenue needs to be increased drastically and I'm trying to beat the bushes with new ideas? Anyone else have a clue?
The educational area might be the possibly key?...I wonder if Dr Albitar might get further involved?
Now just pay note to certain players?
https://www.businesscheck.co.nz/ltd/9429041770832/
Next, look real close
Phoenix Global Holdings Limited
https://www.businesscheck.co.nz/ltd/9429042336907/
I have no problem leading a horse to the water but can't make the horse drink if it can't see the forest for the trees.
I wonder how many huge players have already extracted everything they can from many of these areas.
Now this is Roger...do it to them....I wonder where Tina is? California, Australia or visiting back home.
NOTE 4- RELATED PARTY
PGRNZ Limited, a management company controlled by the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, and a Company Director, provides management services to the Company for which the Company is charged $75,000(AUD) quarterly, approximately $50,914 (US). During the three months ended Dec 31, 2020 and 2019, the Company incurred charges to operations of $50,914 (US) and $51,245(US), respectively, with respect to this arrangement.
Correct any day now $20-$30 bucks per shares.
OK...we had a "Press Release" on 5-18-21 which even stated as follows and yes I know that is a forward looking statement but coming from Dr. Dent and George O'Leary I believe it will indeed happen this year.
The following as stated in the press release.......
George O’Leary, HealthLynked Chief Financial Officer, said “We are very proud of the work we have done to improve our net equity over the last 12 months, and with $6.1 million in net equity at the end of first quarter 2021, and our recently approved $50 million shelf registration, we believe HealthLynked is in a great position for our planned uplisting to NASDAQ during 2021.”
About the Bid Whacking!
I think the probable cause is the Algorithm being used. Sure it might be pushed by newbie actions but the computers seems to be making the predetermined mathematical moves to make money.
Computers are strictly lights on lights off and nothing more yet you can place a buy or sell at each end of the spectrum yet nothing transpires. The Algorithm is working its magic and the dude that used to do the trading transaction is now in the unemployment line.
The last time we had anything close to this share volume was on April 20th when "DocLynk" news hit the wire!
It is early days for HLYK but reading about "DocLynk" sounds good yet running across the following might cause some not to mess with us.
"DocLynk does not accept insurance. A patient will, however, receive a telemedicine follow-up document in an email after the appointment is completed that they can submit to their insurance for reimbursement. "
As I said super early days and perhaps down the line HealthLynk might be able to handle some Insurance transactions?
I haven't pulled the HealthLynked Application for my phone and probably won't as my medical is handle differently.
I did not see anything referencing patent applications and this should have been clearly documented by now. I will check for applications sometime this week as it has been about 2-3 months since last check. Most corporation always make note in their 10-K referencing such things & of course on corporate website. I'm looking for the application number they all have a number to be disclosed after 1 year or they will lose that original date "and provisional" filing (if I recall?).
As far as a RS is concerned to "obtain the NASDAQ"?...that would be foolish to do until Dr. Dent is able to at least stabilize the stock from dropping too far back. Now a RS without considering up-listing to the NASDAQ now that is easy but generally doesn't settle well with retail investors. As far as the 10-Q what in the world was anyone thinking. What has transpired in the last year or so is a great accomplishment yet so many had higher expectations. Keep grounded but also never fear buying and selling any stock as it strengthens the investor/trader. You can always buy back in and never ever move the goal post especially in selling. So don''t sell all just pull profits to where you at least feel good that you made something.
All in all and regardless of any investment or trade stay grounded.
I believe Dr. Dent should have release the first Conference they had for FREE to anyone that would enjoy watching it. Sure maybe a documentary in time but probably would have increased interest which is what we all need.
I wonder if they had thought about that and perhaps will release that conference to the general public in the coming days.
...and of course I do realize that of those 4 patents listed in the prior post 7542959 & 8095483 have expired on 5/1/19 & 8/7/20
These are the 4 patents that HDC is stating that Intel has infringed upon. Intel is trying to crush Health Discovery Corporations efforts.
Feature selection method using support vector machine classifier
https://www.freepatentsonline.com/7542959.pdf
Methods of identifying patterns in biological systems and uses thereof
https://www.freepatentsonline.com/7117188.pdf
Support vector machine—recursive feature elimination (SVM-RFE)
https://www.freepatentsonline.com/8095483.pdf
Recursive feature elimination method using support vector machines
https://www.freepatentsonline.com/10402685.pdf
________________________________
As per most recent 10-K filed on March 19, 2021 for the year of 2020.
Note 5 – PATENTS
The Company’s principal asset is its intellectual property, which includes advanced mathematical algorithms called Support Vector Machines (“SVM”), as well as biomarkers that we discovered by applying its SVM techniques to complex genetic and proteomic data. Biomarkers are biological indicators or genetic expression signatures of certain disease states. The Company’s intellectual property is protected by 22 patents that have been issued or are currently pending around the world. During the year ended December 31, 2020, nine patents expired per the terms of the original issuance. The remaining 22 patents have expirations ranging from 2021 to 2032.
So HDC said that Mark Moore has not updated HDC and then Mark files a suit against HDC. Mark decides it isn't worth fighting and drops the suit. My question is not if any HDC money has been lost due to that nor if Mark produced anything for using SVM technology but rather did HDC ever get the damn update from Moore about what HDC claimed within that earlier 10-k. Hey! nothing like a happy HDC family gathering.
...we have an upcoming shareholders meeting so get ready....even though George disconnected his home office to save money I gather the "Dogs" best friend "Marty" will save the day unless someone give Marty a deck of cards.
Hmm....what did this really mean?
On February 27, 2019, the USPTO ruled in favor of the Company on the SVM-RFE Patents. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the USPTO issued its decision, finding that the Company is entitled to claim exclusive rights to the SVM-RFE technology. The decision, issued by Administrative Patent Judge James Moore, ordered Intel’s patent to be cancelled. The decision also dismissed Intel’s motions challenging the validity of the Company’s pending claims and issued patents covering SVM-RFE.
PennyPop...this weblink is probably (you) well worth reading?
https://wdtxipblog.com/2021/05/13/judge-albrights-fireside-chat/
________________
In case the above weblink is removed replace "xxx" with "com"
https://wdtxipblog.xxx/2021/05/13/judge-albrights-fireside-chat/
Another thought aside from the weblink above...is it possible the Judge has seen Intel before him far to many times and is becoming a bit bias?...has any of the Attorneys discussed this possibility?
Penny...the most accurate, educated discussions would come from Alan81. I don't know if you are aware but believe Alan retired from Intel. He is a professional, down to earth, honest and I don't believe he has taken a stock position in HDC but does buy and sell Intel stock.
From what I gather reading and listening to various attorney links that work both sides of these type of cases each side takes a big chance at supplying far too much information that can actually hurt their case meaning both sides. There are rules (of course I don't know them!) that they must follow and each side must be cautious not to play these rules to the hilt. Each side can blow a hole in their case by too much presentation....at least that is my layman understanding????
PennyPop...if you have time the following link is interesting in understanding Litigation process on both sides of the table.
In the link below replace the xxx with com
https://www.youtube.xxx/watch?v=J28lcXGucMQ
PennyPop...no the PTAB never dealt with the "Validity" of any of our patents. The facts representing the Intel/HDC fight on ownership was resolved due to our earlier patent materials before the Intel/China fiasco. So as Alan81 has stated over and over again that yes HDC owns certain patents but Intel is trying to state by way of the court system and the PTAB that the patents don't hold water. In other words the patent(s) may prove to be unpatentable.
The Judge never addressed patentability as seen in below.
Read this and it will become clear...........
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=151504654
Irish...I have known Roger for over 20 years. He means well and even believes in the crap he tries to do but as always he fails to deliver to typical shareholders. Now Jack should know better but believe that geowen57 just got caught up in Rogers smooth talking. I believe Geowen57 is very innocent and the only reason I talked with him a few months ago. I personal invested in at least 4 or 5 public corporations of Roger and son in the USA and Australia over the past 21 years and every single corporation turn to crap. Some don't know but Roger was born with a gold spoon in his mouth and doesn't included anyone else.
Did anyone here think we would see a $1.48 share price again?
I picked up a few more shares today and in time we will soar like an Eagle....so "Neogenomic Corporation" make way as here we come.