Maximus Decimus Meridius - leading the army of the north
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.
get the STRAP we are about to inflict some Payne
MICRON will fold first. IMO
LMAO. THIS SCAM STILL HAS A BID? WTFFFFFFFF $CGAC
ROFLMAO $CGAC
added more this will be in double digits in no time. alllllllllllll aboard.
The provided text is discussing a legal argument concerning the authority of a Board (likely the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, or PTAB) during inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. The argument states that the Board made an error by determining that certain claims are unpatentable based on a reference not included in the grounds proposed by the petitioner and that this error conflicts with legal precedent established by the Supreme Court.
Breakdown of the Key Points:
Erroneous Conclusion of Law: The argument suggests that the Board relied on an incorrect legal conclusion. Specifically, it found that certain claim limitations were satisfied by a reference that the petitioner did not include in their proposed grounds of unpatentability. Furthermore, the petitioners had disclaimed this reference in relation to teaching those limitations.
Conflict with Supreme Court Precedent: The text cites a Supreme Court precedent that establishes that it is the petitioner’s contentions—not the Director’s discretion—that define the scope of the litigation from the beginning to the end of the process. This suggests that the Board should not rely on grounds or arguments not presented by the petitioner.
Implications for Law and Policy: The error raises significant questions about the Board's authority. It questions whether the Board has the right to go beyond the specific grounds and arguments proposed by the petitioner in the IPR petition, suggesting that doing so could overstep its legal boundaries and undermine the procedural fairness expected in such proceedings.
Summary
The text argues that the Board overstepped its authority by basing its decision on grounds that were not included in the petitioner's original arguments. This action is claimed to conflict with Supreme Court rulings, which emphasize that the litigation's scope must be defined by the petitioner’s claims, not by the discretion of the Board or its Director. This raises broader issues regarding the Board's power to deviate from the established grounds and arguments during IPR proceedings.
bought 2500 shares today
nice i would def be interested in this ipo!
picked up some 0156s yesterday ty
its over for them... CAFC Vacates PTAB for Overly Rigid Benefit Requirement in Motivation to Combine Analysis
Petitioners seeking to have the PTAB determine that patent claims are unpatentable should take caution to provide explicit arguments as to a PHOSITA’s motivation to combine prior art references. Merely stating “it is obvious to try” is insufficient absent further arguments and supporting evidence. Likewise, even if the reason is “common sense” then there must be some evidence in the record as to why combining the prior art would be common sense to the PHOSITA.
https://stocktwits.com/Glad2bhere/message/583568845
Yea its ridiculous.
who wants to bet. micron settles first.
https://sih-st-charts.stocktwits-cdn.com/production/original_583069827.jpg
that is the day i go on vacation ;-D
this is a big case. i am sure they know that delay to reviewing it AGAIN is a injustice to netlist. i GUESS no later then q1 2025.
great question. i wonder how long did it take, the last time they sent the patent to the cafc for review.
We are definitely good to go we can see the finish line. also anything is possible between now and then. Netlist is adding patents to its portfolio. Everyday the BOD for the SAMSUNG and MICRON is asking themselves why pay interest? This price level is an absolute steal IMO. GAIL's gotta keep buying them shoes. So guaranteed she is cooking up something! LOL
Place your bets, folks! In the left corner, we have the United States legislative and judicial system, known for their long bouts of gridlock and indecision. In the right corner, we have corporate greed, undefeated in speed and stealth. Odds are in. (Spoiler alert: The ref's already been bought!)
devils got this one in a headlock 😯
Gail's non-dilutive financing plans? You can bet the farm on it. 🤑
adding today as well!
As of the current market, there are a few widely available oral GLP-1 analogs for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. One notable oral GLP-1 analog that has been approved and is available on the market is:
Rybelsus (semaglutide): This is the first and currently the only oral GLP-1 receptor agonist approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. It is produced by Novo Nordisk and is available in different dosage strengths.
Note: While injectable GLP-1 analogs are more common and include well-known options like Ozempic (semaglutide), Trulicity (dulaglutide), Victoza (liraglutide), and Byetta (exenatide), the oral formulations are still relatively new and limited in variety. The introduction of oral GLP-1 analogs, such as Rybelsus, represents a significant advancement in the field, providing a non-injectable option for patients.
Financial Snapshot of Oramed Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Cash on Hand:
As of June 30, 2022, Oramed Pharmaceuticals Inc. had $29.9 million in cash and cash equivalents, and $97.4 million in short-term deposits, totaling $127.3 million in liquid assets.
Revenue vs. Expenses:
For the quarter ending June 30, 2022, Oramed generated $674,000 in revenue. However, they reported significant expenses, including $9.2 million in research and development and $2.5 million in general and administrative expenses. This resulted in a net operating loss of $11.4 million and a net loss attributable to shareholders of $10.5 million.
Cash Burn Rate:
Based on the net loss, the company's cash burn rate was approximately $10.5 million per quarter.
Largest Expense:
The largest expense category was research and development, totaling $9.2 million for the quarter.
Shares Outstanding:
As of June 30, 2022, the company had 38,564,016 shares of common stock outstanding.
Insider Share Ownership and Transactions:
Detailed information on insider share ownership and recent transactions was not specifically detailed in the accessible filings. For more granular details, it is recommended to review the most recent Form 4 filings.
Senior Note Holders:
Oramed holds a Senior Secured Promissory Note issued by Scilex Holding Company, valued at $101.875 million, with a due date 18 months from issuance (September 21, 2023). Payments made by Scilex so far total $40 million.
Warrants and Convertible Securities:
Oramed possesses various warrants including Penny Warrants and Transferred Warrants. The Penny Warrants are exercisable at various dates in 2024 and 2025, contingent on the repayment of the Senior Secured Note. The Transferred Warrants have an exercise price of $11.50 per share and expire on November 10, 2027.
Shelf Registration and Capital Raise:
The company has an active shelf registration statement on Form S-3, allowing the issuance of securities up to $100 million. As of the latest filings, approximately $26.3 million in shares were sold under the Cantor Equity Distribution Agreement.
Nasdaq Listing Compliance:
There were no recent notifications or compliance issues with Nasdaq's listing requirements reported in the filings.
Overall Financial Health Assessment
Oramed Pharmaceuticals Inc. maintains a strong liquidity position with substantial cash reserves and no reported long-term debt. However, the company is heavily investing in research and development, leading to significant operating losses. The existence of the Senior Secured Promissory Note and related warrants reflects strategic financial maneuvers to secure funding and potential upside. Investors should closely monitor ongoing financial performance and capital allocation strategies.
smart money
light volume. we need much more to happen to be excited about anything going on with this one sir
its a waiting game now. money in the bank plus interest. clock is ticking.
looking good
BULLISH ASF
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1499494/000147793224003073/dxf_20f.htm
Summary:
Net Cash Per Share: -$1.45
Cash on Hand: $2.9 million
Revenue per Quarter: $0.8 million
Expenses per Quarter: $5.2 million
Cash Burn Rate: $4.4 million per quarter
Largest Expense: Provision for loan losses ($2.6 million)
Shares Outstanding: 22,384,779 ADS (equivalent to 10,744,693,960 ordinary shares)
Insider Transactions: 5 recent transactions
Warrants: 3,000,000 issued, $0.10 exercise price, exercisable from January 1, 2024, expiring December 31, 2026
Current Raisable Amount: $10 million
Total Shelf Capacity: $50 million
Babyshelf Restrictions: Yes
Last Nasdaq Deficiency Notice: May 15, 2023
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1499494/000147793224003073/dxf_20f.htm
Summary:
Net Cash Per Share: -$1.45
Cash on Hand: $2.9 million
Revenue per Quarter: $0.8 million
Expenses per Quarter: $5.2 million
Cash Burn Rate: $4.4 million per quarter
Largest Expense: Provision for loan losses ($2.6 million)
Shares Outstanding: 22,384,779 ADS (equivalent to 10,744,693,960 ordinary shares)
Insider Transactions: 5 recent transactions
Warrants: 3,000,000 issued, $0.10 exercise price, exercisable from January 1, 2024, expiring December 31, 2026
Current Raisable Amount: $10 million
Total Shelf Capacity: $50 million
Babyshelf Restrictions: Yes
Last Nasdaq Deficiency Notice: May 15, 2023
thats the maximum it could take. they could receive the appeal note the patents in question. note the PAST 3 times this patent has been examined and easily rectify the situation given they have the entire record of the court case.
starter at .0016
come on kathi. u need to do the right thing.😉😊
no i was referencing one of your stock plays on your board!
9828%??????? i agreeeeeeeeee!
the 912 patent which the PTAB all of sudden decided was obvious (after 10+++ years of litigation) is going to make us rich. when we beat google we are going to be ...... .... . the judicial branch is going to make sure we get paid. its sad that this has taken this long but I believe finally the highest court in the land is seeing how it is has errored and this latest ruling is an attempt at fixing the problems.
In a major ruling, the Supreme Court on Friday cut back sharply on the power of federal agencies to interpret the laws they administer and ruled that courts should rely on their own interpretation of ambiguous laws. The decision will likely have far-reaching effects across the country, from environmental regulation to healthcare costs.
the supreme court smack down
smart money