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.
Now if this was during the first USPTO/PTAB sessions the fact remained the Judge rules only rules on first patent owner not anything else. I recall Alan explaining that to me long ago, actually I could find that post but aren't we just cutting hairs at this point?
Sunspotter....as you know I have no problem with you and even when Terry would dog HDC or another stock that I liked it took time, being open about understanding different views. I recall LBJ, Drakes and yes you from years ago. Some of us learn while other don't or refuse. Sometime the newbies get all wrapped up as I did many years ago and you know you can't tell them anything as they won't listen so just like shorting stock it is apart of balancing the system same with the extremes from one end of the positive spectrum to the other.
The only problem with the chart you are showing me 😎 is it is pictured in a mirror meaning the chart is really moving upwards.
____________________
If there was no balancing the system would collapse.
Chazzy....it went right by you, if Zenos could be Mason who could be Hamilton Burger. Of course "Sunspotter"
Chazzy..OK...so who is Hamilton Burger?
From my understanding it isn't just updating HDC filings that will allow us to trade again it goes deeper than that. I would say provided we do file soon it would make common sense for HDC to also address all of their shareholder in several needed areas in which I'm sure they are fully aware of.
King....if HDC and Intel are still negotiating (which I seriously doubt) then rest assure that we will be getting a few Intel stock shares in our trading accounts. I would even take 144 two year restricted stock or certs provided Intel pays the fees later.
Hello everyone what a massive crowed since I wasn't around bugging everyone earlier.
Chazzy, still..... the $2.25 million prior the discovery phase conclusion could be positive or negative but I gotta tell you I doubt Intel would even think of waiting for the Vennwest conclusion. Intel as I see them don't have time to dick around with HDC yet I gotta hand it to you that they spent 8 or 10 years with HDC hammering on their back saying ...
Charles I see a post over on Yahoo referencing tax losses and someone had sold multi thousands of shares like lets say it amounted to $40 bucks. It appears the person who posted doesn't understand or know what the seller bought those shares for to begin with. They just see the sale not understanding what the person paid for those shares to begin with. The loss as you know is the difference not what one sees as a final sale.
One more thought? is it possible that the $2.25 million settlement was something offered to HDC before the discovery phase?
Of course my post was not to be taken personal which I hope it wasn't. Yes a lot of pain and so many missed opportunities something more than meets the eye was wrong with our company.
A good question from the get go, why did HDC Barnhill directly decide not to pursue Biomarkers when that was the main course for our corporation. Was he just after what he could get or pump or what. We lost far too many deals or they weren't deals like we were lead to believe. Of course there is a fine line within the company disclaimer just like what Mr. Fromholzer said about a Interim CEO. It is all in the wordings these penny stock say.
Yes, are we the glorified burnt toast that fought Intel.
__________________
I have early morning appointments today talk much later. It does seem when I'm not around to post here that we get news so maybe good news might be announced today, we can hope?
Ending 2011 we had as follows........
Intellectual Property - In connection with the SVM Acquisition, we obtained rights to the intellectual property within the “SVM portfolio” that currently consists of fifty-nine patents which were or have since issued as well as twenty-eight other patent applications that are pending in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world. The issued patents and pending applications in the SVM portfolio to date, including new applications that we have filed since acquiring the original IP, HDC
So do we blame Intel, NeoGenomics or HDC for doing very little business? None of those patents would start to expire until 2019. This gave them 8 years to do something? I mean HDC won't even talk to us how in the world could we expect them to do any serious business, now understand their attorneys did the work.
It is getting closer to the end of the year where many must look for any tax write off for taxes.
.....for the next 20 plus years 😟
Zenos...I must say very superb! Intel says they don’t need a licensing agreement because HDC’s patents are invalid. 2017 - Intel files two motions to invalidate our patents. Later that year we sent a letter to Intel’s President urging a business collaboration (still trying!). Unless this is a recent statement I’m unaware of, I gather that Intel only claimed that they were not infringing, and not they were not using our patent.
I don't need a gold rush but sure would like to leave with at least my underwear socks and shoes....I mean winter is upon us and it is getting real cold standing around and shivering, waiting on snow or gold coins to fall from the sky above.
BTW...next leprechaun I see is going to get his a$$ kicked.
Alan so true but I still hold some hope,
I have always highly valued what you bring to this message board, spotted that from the first few posts you wrote.
I do see the first issue you listed as straight up but the second wow! now that would send me hiding under a rock if I were HDC or their attorney's.
I also doubt since it is my perception that HDC did not want to rock and roll any "Cease and Desist" since that would really pi$$ off Intel but maybe HDC should have done so?
Alan...I haven't even finished reading your post but HDC wanted the courts to decide that but here is an example referencing reasonable Royalties
1. Reasonable royalty rates are used in patent infringement cases
Patent infringement occurs when an individual or organization uses an inventor’s patented product or method without their permission. If a patent owner has licensed their patent rights to a licensee, and the licensee breaches the terms of the patent license agreement, this is also infringement.
If a patent owner’s intellectual property rights have been infringed, they can take the infringer to court. The court will determine appropriate compensation that the infringer must pay the claimant.
In patent infringement cases, the claimant has two choices for determining damages:
A ‘lost profits’ claim: If the claimant is able to prove the profits it would have earned had the infringement not occurred, they may be able to claim that amount as damages.
The ‘reasonable royalty rate’ approach: This approach is often used where lost profits cannot be proven. It provides the claimant with a market-based rate.
The most appropriate option depends on the individual circumstances of the infringement case.
2. There is no single method for calculating a reasonable royalty rate
When it comes to calculating a reasonable royalty rate, there is no one-size-fits-all method. In fact, the laws, guidelines and techniques surrounding reasonable royalty rates are constantly evolving.
Here are some of the most common frameworks you can use to determine reasonable royalties for a patented invention:
Market approach: If you have access to suitably comparable licensing agreements, you can base the reasonable royalty rate on the royalties earned in comparable transactions. In order to use the market approach, the third-party licensing data must meet strict technical and economic comparability criteria. Remember that royalties can be affected by factors including industry, market size, product growth potential and the nature of the licensed IP. Use the RoyaltyRange database today to find real comparable royalties for your analysis.
The Georgia-Pacific/hypothetical negotiation approach: This method involves carrying out a hypothetical license negotiation between a ‘willing licensor’ and a ‘willing licensee’. It was developed through the case of Georgia-Pacific Corp v. United States Plywood Corp in 1970. The method outlines 15 factors that you can use to determine a reasonable royalty rate through the hypothetical negotiation framework. These include the royalties received by the licensor for the patent, the commercial considerations of both parties, the profitability of the product using the patent and the value the patent has brought to the infringer.
Analytical approach: This involves identifying the infringer’s projected profits for the patent in question at the time of the infringement. These projected profits are then split between the relevant parties as a percentage of sales, and the claimant’s percentage is applied to the actual sales during the infringing period to determine the appropriate damages.
These are only quick overviews of some of the available calculation methods.
Patent licensing and patent infringement cases are complex, so it’s important to consider each method carefully and take into account the unique circumstances of the case.
3. Comparable licenses are a good starting point for any analysis
If you use the market approach, you will need to draw on comparable royalties drawn from real, up-to-date license agreements. The quickest way to find reliable data is to use RoyaltyRange database.
Whatever method you choose for determining reasonable royalty rates, comparable licensing transactions offer a good starting point for your analysis. They enable you to see the royalties agreed for comparable licenses in real market transactions, giving you a basis for your calculation.
You can search the RoyaltyRange database to find recent third-party license agreements quickly and easily. Simply enter your comparability criteria below and we’ll provide the relevant results.
Search for comparable patent royalties today
Ready to use our database? Go to the bottom of this page, where you’ll find our purchase forms.
You can choose from the following services:
One Search: Access the database on a one-off basis. No subscription needed.
Readymade One Search reports: Download one of our pre-prepared royalty reports for your industry.
Subscription: Sign up for 12 months’ unlimited access to our royalty rates data.
Benchmarking study: Get an in-depth report that compares relevant royalty rates for your product and industry. See averages and the interquartile range.
Readymade benchmarking study: Download one of our pre-prepared benchmarking studies for your industry.
also worth mentioning.......as to the interference....
As previously disclosed, the Company submitted a patent application to provoke an interference with Intel’s Patent No. 7,685,077. The application file had been transferred to the U.S. Patent Office’s Interference Division.
On September 21, 2016, the Company received notification that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) declared an Interference between the Company’s pending patent application covering SVM-Recursive Feature Elimination (“SVM-RFE”) and Intel’s Patent No. 7,685,077, entitled “Recursive Feature Eliminating Method based on a Support Vector Machine”. An Interference is an administrative proceeding within the USPTO that is used to determine which party was the first to invent an invention that is claimed in two (or more) independently-owned patent applications.
The Company has been designated the “Senior Party” in the Interference, meaning that it is entitled to a presumption of prior inventorship based on its earlier filing date. As the “Junior Party”, the burden falls upon Intel to prove that it conceived and reduced the claimed invention to practice prior to the Company’s earlier filing date .
In addition to the patent application involved in the Interference, the Company currently has three issued U.S. patents and five issued foreign patents covering the SVM-RFE method.
I recall clearly that Li copied our patent word for word but did change the wording in (I believe that last entry) then HDC copied his work and submitted to force interference.
I had posted in the past that I thought Intel actually supersized the patent even further but I'm not savvy like you.
Charles...what an excellent post, sincerely but seems HDC still falls millions of miles away from being real with us shareholders or were they being forth coming with that last 8-k. So they want their cake and eat it too or do we?
Charles this is what I was talking about referencing another HDC patent date extension....
by LocWolf
Monday, July 31, 2023 2:18:59 PM
Post# of 17863
I just read a post over on Yahoo referencing a comment to the effect of the USPTO should further extend our patent date since all this Intel Corporation BS.
____________________
I believe it would be safe to say that Intel is not stopping HDC from licensing our patent or patents to anyone. Sure maybe other corporations would not do business with HDC due to the lawsuit but HDC's problems have always been far deeper than this Intel lawsuit.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=172479356
by Alan81
Re: LocWolf post# 17372
Monday, July 31, 2023 4:02:24 PM
Post# of 17863
This is interesting to me. By extending the patent they are basically saying companies are not liable for past infringement while the patent was in dispute.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=172480611
...and if they were to extend our patents again they would have to do something "for" Intel not against them!
Isn't that correct Alan. 🙂
I was wrong about HDC sending information out to companies it was to Universities as follows.........
The Company launched its new academic/research institution licensing program in the third quarter of 2011 by sending letters to a test group of universities and research institutions that have reported the use of SVMs in academic journals and conference proceedings. The letters received mixed responses, with some of the contacted institutions being receptive to entering into license negotiations. The Company’s proposed terms include a paid-up license against past and future infringement of the Company’s patented technology for a nominal one-time license administrative fee, plus a reach-through provision with royalties payable on any revenue generated when the results of the SVM usage are licensed for commercialization. To date, more than 50 U.S. institutions have been identified as using SVM-RFE and SVM through review of academic publications, with many of the reported uses relating to biomarker discovery and medical diagnostics.
We don't know the actual lingo of the thought and legals of each side and in what areas so when you read what I posted heck who wouldn't scratch their head..... Very understandable.
Charles.... if HDC sends legal documentation such as "Cease and Desist" then fine but if not at our age we will be in the ground before anything ever happens.
Charles...I like that Idea had this been 10 years ago but see very little hope at this stage. Look at the the Attorney bills, patent(s) basically exhausted, We would need multi millions of dollars to keep us afloat in the meantime. let me say HDC did higher a company way back to somewhat do as you are saying, sent out letter (if I recall correctly) and very little if any represented response however, and yes I understand now we have a proven patent but SVM/RFE has developed beyond us. We might have a good chance at the "prostate arena" but must say a company such as us in the "technology suing business" is probably or "IS" too damn expensive plus income to support the time frame needed. I don't even need to mention our management as George did try and maintain this with his in house relationships - keeping costs as low as possible but Colleen needs to be elsewhere however Ed could hold Interim until this company could opt a full CEO.
Hey,if you can rent a cop why not rent a management team?
Buylow...I don't believe you understand the agreement made between Intel/HDC.
Charles if people wish to fill out complain forms copy the website links.
What the SEC, for information on what we will do with your complaint and other options for resolving your complaint.
https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/general-resources/news-alerts/alerts-bulletins/investor-bulletins-48
SEC complaint form
https://www.sec.gov/oiea/Complaint.html
Good Sport... recall in the recent settlement agreement where HDC agree it could no longer sue Intel yet Intel could sue HDC? Could it be Intel is holding HDC at bay over that $2.25 million, Intel got their reassurance with the prejudice terms HDC agreement on. It also sounds as if HDC agreed to their terms that HDC did not have the upper hand. I still wonder (look at the timing) why Mr. Fromholzer resigned? If you were him and the settlement was much more than what we were told would you resign? Wouldn't you also think at minimum that something further would be said about something at least a Interim CEO or hello shareholders we are still alive?
Good Sport I know nothing but search constantly with multiple search engines day and night. I believe this is dead money but holding just like you. Since a problem in 1999/2001 involving a CEO and many shareholder that thought I had inside information involving a CEO I never ever place myself close to any management where investors might twist on me and blame me for their holding losses. In other words years ago it cost me $480k my investment as I lost just like every other shareholder but they did not believe me since I was somewhat close/appearances to a certain CEO. If anyone did have inside information involving HDC I would personally run the other way. It is pretty simple from what I learned with almost getting sued. If one does have inside information you do not ever involve yourself posting in any of these threads that is stupid. So if I were to offer any corporation a large amount of money for shares and options you don't place yourself in these message threads period. With Dunlap, Bennett & Ludwig I was checking them out yesterday and could not generate anything. Now for me to generate email or phone calls to these corporations or like HDC, not ever going to happen.
I appears when you reverse split us shareholders payback a "beach" 😂
From reading which might get me in trouble HDC missed their 10-K back on 3/30/22 and reading further HDC and all other corporation were given a grace period of 15 days. I believe that the SEC/OTC gave additional time/consideration to these corporations. This could be why we heard several different dates as to when the hammer drops so technically the official date 15 days after the 3-30-22 proposed filing. To me we were just given extra time meaning the hammer should have fallen two months ago (September). This is why Digdeeper and a few others mentioned September as D-Day.
Our time "18 months" started 3/30/22 but we had a grace period of 15 days by SEC/OTC rules. Now with that NT-10-K I don't know if another extension was given but I see us at 41 days beyond 18 month period
Happy hour 4 - 5
Well after posting twice it was about time someone post?...at any rate you know what I hope which is a very positive ending but you talked about Mr Fromholzer and his positive notions/comment. When you consider the comment about Interim CEO it kinda gets blurry to me? let's hope there is a bit of sunshine for us shareholders and that Colleen and Ed won't break the remaining guitar strings
Not sure but looks like the hammer to fall on January 19, 2024
I found when the trading was halted..........
by Loc........7-21-22 Post 16882
This isn't trading right something is FU....maybe Citadel Securities GP LLC is still with us???
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=169461510
by Choo Choo........7-21-22 Post 16883
This is from the Reddit HDVY message board:
Today 49 pink sheet entities were moved to expert market. The OTC Markets does this when a company is missing one or many forms. We are missing 12/31 10k and 3/31 10Q.
Once filed, HDVY will be "Current" with filings and will again trade as fully reporting. For now, only MM's can see inside market. Don't be foolish and enter ANY market order or you'll get creamed!
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=169462299
The Expert market went into affect on 9-28-21 and did it not give them 18 months to get it together or else total de-list? That would have hit sometime in May of 2023. If for some reason it was extended another 6 months then come 11-29-23 we are death to the world and no more hope & poke? 😒 ... correct?
I don't recall off hand when we actually got kicked off the Pinks?
So if anyone follows HDC like I have you too would know that HDC learned from Intel how to stall as long as possible and to continue to ignore their shareholders....just simply said the truth and nothing but the truth.
It looks like they are trying to hold this from dropping any further but don't believe they will be successful and .50 may come into play.
That is what they get for screwing with us shareholders.
Now here is Junior Wedekind https://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/GetDocument?aggregateId=domp-k10248-249f5383-38fc-43a2-99aa-d781394cc725&transactionId=k10248-1aa003db-b44d-443d-ad21-69bc470b2271&formatType=PDF
This is Lee Jr, not Lee the 3rd who is HDC's Attorney, that one I won't pull. One more so so...if this link gets deleted then know HDC is watching this thread or there about.