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.
No doubt, if we don't see 18 cent anytime soon then just wait another year for the Trial to start, we can increase authorized shares, more patents will expire according to SEC filings and of course we must pay management for all the hard work they are doing. Heck, when we run out of "D" series we can do a series "E" and even increase voting rights even further.
It seems to me that the more stock people buy the higher the share price will go? It appears with the share price where it is sitting that investors are not holding this stock. Why sell? with so much potential? Oh well what in the world do you expect, it appears share price seems to tell the tale?
Nothing like a win win situation right, sit tight and enjoy the ride!
$$$$$$$$$ "Yippee ki-yay" $$$$$$$$$$$$
Heck...if HDVY's share price would move up 93 more cents we might break a dollar.
We had another 8-k...I sure hate to see some of this.....
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1698530/000169853021000065/exicure8-k6321.htm
Well in that case that S-3 filing will be coming into play soon enough.
I believe this is a new video but I'm not sure?
Maybe in the future I might look into the ZOOM aspects but actually thought you need to be invited by one side or the other. I do have ZOOM accounts etc but haven't used that in a while. Not a big deal but I had no clue that we could access the hearing, cool!
OK...CEO David A. Giljohann, Ph.D. two future presentations
https://investors.exicuretx.com/news/news-details/2021/Exicure-Inc.-Announces-Participation-in-Upcoming-Conferences/default.aspx
I think 1 of the hinging factors that Intel has submitted is a jury trial going to happen? Is Intel correct in telling the Judge that this case is too complicated for a jury to understand or is that Bull$hit!
We all know just how complicated SVM-RFE technology is so how will the Judge react to what Intel says about allowing or not allowing a Jury trial?
...remember the Judge likes to keep things ""simple"" ))
...even if the Judge is leaning towards one side after the hearing and a jury trial is to happen in the feature we still won't know how he is leaning prior to trial. I do wonder how much of a plus factor that we have since the USPTO has accepted our patents in recent years.
...just maybe the Judge will tell Intel if they are smart to start digging a deep fox hole!
It appears that a strong message is being sent to David A. Giljohann, Ph.D.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1698530/000169853021000062/exicure8-k6221.htm
Now if we lose him then what???
I like what Good_Sport said about the volume and yes they seem to parallel with one exception. When I mentioned that date posts prior it was just that one date which was the 27th a Monday. I didn't say anything about July 24th 2020 which was the the Friday prior which moved 17 million shares....at any rate I like what he said about all that.
...as for people at the court or court system buying truck loads of shares. I just don't think so since these court cases are a dime a dozen to them...plus isn't it too early as the Markman hearing hasn't started yet?
Good_Sport....now that is a thought?...anyways I checked 12 traders that messaged in our message thread during that time and none have made any public comment about HDC or selling. Now we did have one message here Tuesday that took news over to BB's board but nothing seem to stir. I sure thought the share price would have increased again today but as everyone can see it isn't impressive but I gather better than 5 cents?
Now I'm wondering, we tested .13 how about if we get positive news in some manner? I do not see a reason why the stock price moved upward in the first place. Was that started for the purpose for news to be spread and NOT actually for traders? We had just about zero talk within traders in this message thread.
I find it hard to believe that some entity or club would only work this stock for basically only 1 day when they could have used tomorrow morning as we would not hear anything about the Markman hearing for at least a few days.
The company has done a good job with doing that as I see things. Mind up that too many people read too hard and deep into Arthrex possibilities, not to say nothing will happen but some were tripping over one another. As I said prior I am an investor and believe in this company but I will buy this and sell in order to buy more shares in HLYK. Even when we reach the Nasdaq I will buy and sell this as I'm doing now. That process keeps me grounded and raises both the ability in the cards I hold and of course to make smart choice and not follow any stock into the ground anymore.
I do believe we have a winner here but time and money is what we need and of course someone like Arthrex to body block for us, well sort of?
But at least we are holding share price!
King...I still see the possibility of closing above .13 today but do feel we should have moved upward sooner. Maybe the OTC will kick in the SVM-RFE Algorithm in a few minutes.
...who know 50% of the volume from yesterday has played and played out and still more money to be made so I see this as tracking upward as soon as they change the Algorithm.
...damn what happen did the OTC lose electrical power?
Now none of that may not have value but still what the heck and if anyone thinks I'm afraid to put both of my feet in my mouth think again!
Ou71764...I gather the speculation will rise even higher today and we will know early Friday morning if share price will hold or not but of course it can break at any time but generally speaking we should be fine at least until that time. It seems many are thinking about the upcoming Shareholders meeting to be held on June 29th. We have investors thinking a settlement has been reached but I do not feel that to be so and as you know a spike in price is a spike and it seems need to focus on that due to other existing short comings.
Now I don't know if the following hold true but worth reading and this is an old case.
The Markman hearing tomorrow?
A Markman hearing is a pretrial hearing in a U.S. District Court during which a judge examines evidence from all parties on the appropriate meanings of relevant key words used in a patent claim, when patent infringement is alleged by a plaintiff. It is also known as a "Claim Construction Hearing".[1]
Holding a Markman hearing in patent infringement cases has been common practice since the U.S. Supreme Court, in the 1996 case of Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., found that the language of a patent is a matter of law for a judge to decide, not a matter of fact for a jury to decide. In the United States, juries determine facts in many situations,[2] but judges determine matters of law.[3][4]
Markman hearings are important, because the court determines patent infringement cases by the interpretation of claims. A Markman hearing may encourage settlement, because the judge's claim construction finding can indicate a likely outcome for the patent infringement case as a whole. Markman hearings are before a judge, and generally take place before trial. A Markman hearing may occur before the close of discovery, along with a motion for preliminary injunction, or at the end of discovery, in relation to a motion for summary judgment. A Markman hearing may also be held after the trial begins, but before jury selection.[5]
The evidence considered in a Markman hearing falls into two categories: intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic evidence consists of the patent documentation and any prosecution history of the patent. Extrinsic evidence is testimony, expert opinion, or other unwritten sources; extrinsic evidence may not contradict intrinsic evidence.[6]
And again I'm not sure if any value can be placed with the following weblink? Maybe Alan could comment on this?
https://www.radiation-dosimetry.org/what-is-intrinsic-and-extrinsic-semiconductor-definition/
With the timing as played plus 3 day 45 minute rule we are good for .18+ prior close of business Thursday.
The last time we had this much volume was on July 27th 2020 when HDC announced the lawsuit against Intel
Thank You "Chat" ....I just now went to my PACER account and pulled that information.
Oh yeah after 17 plus years we are at .10 again?
King...If it breaks .13 I will watch this more closely through other means until then I can watch by way of message boards. Might consider selling some around .20 we will see?
Just got back from Publix...I can only pray and hope. Does look pretty good so far...may even crank up my software and watch this closer?
Asa I have said......... https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=164107624
?_? What was that!
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.