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.
Game over.
1. Today, the company response is a standard canned answer. "We are talking with our lawyers." "We are looking into our options."
2. They have no money. They will either have to find a knight in shining armor, dilute like crazy, or give away a VERY large part of any potential winnings to the lawyers if they can talk them into carrying on with the case.
3. They have no prospects. Pretty hard to go around drumming up licensing deals for your patent(s) when your said patent(s) are being thrown in the courtroom trash bin.
The turd is circling the bowl. Last one here, turn out the lights.
Game over.
Game Over.
Both sides fighting dirty. I don't have the exact order but:
1. HDVY requests delay. Intel allows it with standard complaint they don't think it is necessary.
2. HDVY files Clayton Scott's rebuttal against Evgeniou in the IPR trials. They may or may not have submitted the evidence properly although it is easily remedied. Scott's rebuttal as a complete ass whooping of Evgeniou. Intel no like.
3. Intel pushes an already stressed Albright to Stay the Infringement trial.
Your move HDVY. I'd start leaking my settlement number of at least double of what I would actually accept in settlement.
Judge Albright took a beating in November 2021 from Republican Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont regarding how he handles cases. They accused him of "soliciting" cases and browbeat him for refusing to transfer some cases. These Senators really shouldn't be sticking their nose into Albright's business. However, it sounds like he is caving.
He may be waiting for IPR trial results or indications at least. He may be completely overloaded and backed up with his case load after having to deal with the Senators. Perhaps this set him back a month or two.
Settlement talks? No way. Intel is fighting the validity of the patents in Albright's court still via the Motion to Dismiss that flat out claims the patent is not patent eligible as a matter of law. Their IPR trials and request for re-hearing show nothing different.
Perhaps if HDVY wanted some pittance amount of money in settlement they would buy them or capitulate, but if HDVY's amount is more than the cost of Intel's lawyers they are going to be told to pound sand.
How much money does HDVY want in settlement? They should start leaking a number to the public. That's what I would do.
ECF No. 12 is Intel Motion to Dismiss filed on 10/19/2020.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1102881/gov.uscourts.txwd.1102881.12.0.pdf
The most likely party to request the Stay Order of the case is Santa Claus or Intel.
HDVY running out of money and quick. They need the Motion to Dismiss to be denied to see if it causes the stock price to rise so that they could try to raise some cash in a stock offering. Obviously, better for them to have a stock offering at $0.50/share than $.0.05/share.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
WACO DIVISION
HEALTH DISCOVERY CORP.,
Plaintiff,
v.
INTEL CORP.,
Defendant.
6:20-cv-00666-ADA
STAY ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the proceedings, including all deadlines, in the above captioned
matter are STAYED as of December 16, 2021, pending resolution of the Motion to Dismiss at
ECF No. 12.
SIGNED this 21st day of December, 2021.
ALAN D ALBRIGHT
Told ya.
The motion to dismiss in the infringement trial will be granted tomorrow. Merry Christmas to Intel.
In the case of the IPR trials with the USPTO, it doesn't matter.
Is Intel at the bargaining table with HDVY in the infringement trial? Why not? Motion to dismiss is why. No need.
Boom goes the dynamite:
=======
+
____________ _,,_+__
(__((__((___() //| |
(__((__((___()()_____________________________________// |HDVY |
(__((__((___()()()------------------------------------' |_____|
If you guys can't see the writing on the wall, I can't help you. I'm most surprised that you are not seeing it as you basically said it outright in your posts.
It's 100% over between HDVY and Intel.
The case between HDVY and Intel is surely 100% over. Intel has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the patent(s) are invalid. In addition, Intel states they have never used the patent. Case closed.
Motion to Dismiss: Granted
Or was it denied? I'm so confused. It's hard to keep up.
Bold thinking you got there.
We'll go with your suppositions and thoughts on the infringement trial then. The case is closed. Last one out turn off the lights.
On the contrary. The Motion to Dismiss has been decided. Albright has given Intel time to prepare an Answer. Intel is acting like a petulant child and delaying. Albright, being the fair and impartial judge that he is know to be, is giving Intel lots of time. Perhaps too much time. But at least Intel can't claim him being impartial.
HDVY, tired of waiting and tired of Intel's games, has called them out in the scheduling order. And eventually, Albright will file the Motion to Dismiss denial anyway. As again, an Answer is not required.
Of course not. Judge Albright is in an infringement trial. He can rule to dismiss if he believes the patent is invalid (unlikely). Let's say he did. HDVY then continues through the IPR process. At the end of that patent, assuming they survive, they would be back in court for infringement.
There's more than one path. Bottom line though is that Motion to Dismiss will be denied. Currently, MtD is awaiting an Answer from Intel. You are welcome to place your suppositions why there is a pending Answer from Intel.
Generally, a defendant must file a motion to dismiss before filing an "answer" to the complaint. If the motion to dismiss is denied, the defendant must still file their answer, usually within a shortened amount of time. That's where we are.
Did you read the Motion to Dismiss by Intel?
Seems to me that this type of information would be pertinent to understanding Intel's claims of Section 101.
If Albright gave them a task to provide him evidence or statements to support their motion to dismiss, Intel would have kicked that out by now. More likely, Albright has asked Intel to offer up why they defended against the Section 101 arguments when they acquired their '077 patent, but now are arguing for the Section 101 arguments after losing in the Interference trial in 2019.
That's a huge meatball. I guess Intel just feels differently now.
HDVY: And therefore, your honor, you can see by example that Intel's expert witness gets it completely wrong. Thus, adding weight to our argument that SVM-RFE was not obvious.
Intel: Objection!!
Judge Albright: On what grounds?
Intel: That this is going to cost us a ton of money!!
"This extension is not sought for delay but for good cause and that justice may be served, as such extensions will provide the parties sufficient time to conclude fact discovery in light of:
(1) Counsel for Plaintiff’s recent pretrial schedule and trial preparation efforts (in another matter before the Court, which has now been postponed); (2) the parties’ protective order filed on November 30, 2021; and (3) Intel’s outstanding Motion to Dismiss (Intel has not yet filed an Answer). The parties have met and conferred on the requested relief. Intel does not believe that any extension of the case schedule should be necessary, but it has agreed that it will not oppose the requested relief in view of HDC Counsel’s pre-trial preparations for their other matter and based on HDC’s commitment to certain discovery milestones that the parties have negotiated."
Here are some thoughts:
1. Clayton Scott certainly puts Evgeniou in his place. Very succinct answers and the final part showing how using Hocking (or was it Boser) equations vs Evgeniou's analysis came up with different answers was the hammer hitting the proverbial nail.
2. Sometimes, you can find some wonderful nuggets in the older filings.For example, HDVY's response to Intel's Motion to Dismiss contains this beauty:
"Discovery will show that, as it is a matter of public record, Intel, itself, argued and overcame a Section 101 rejection during the prosecution of its own patent, that was later copied by HDC to provoke the Interference."
So understand that Intel is trying to invalidate SVM-RFE under Section 101 when they previously had argued the opposite to obtain their '077 patent with the USPTO. Again, kaboooooooommmmm!!!
3. As far as settlement amount, it is still unknown to me. What is the proper royalty rate? I've been down this path and keep coming up with a number between $800M to as high as $2.2B depending on the rate. I can only wonder what number HDVY is asking for? And what royalty rate have they been asking for in the past when they approached Intel for licensing?
There is gold in those newly posted filings in the IPR's.
"Dr. Evgeniou’s writing demonstrates a flawed understanding of these ?i’s. This undermines Dr. Evgeniou’s argument that the combination of Kohavi, Boser,and Hocking disclose claim element (c) of claim 1 because Dr. Evgeniou’s proposed combination is not actually supported by the teachings of the references."
Pure gold.
The CPU does not have to contain the algorithm to be in violation. If you used the patented technology, you are liable under BSD license. Doesn't matter if some random French dude put the SVM-RFE code in the package or you did it yourself.
This patent issue was well known in the "open source" world in the early/mid-2000's. People were warned. Movements started to get different open source licensing going (which did happen). However, scikit-learn is BSD License. Intel is screwed.
Rather than just randomly pick points in time to support your arguments, you should read the law:
Under 35 U.S.C. § 286, the patentee cannot recover for any infringement committed more than 6 years prior to the filing of the infringement complaint or counterclaim.
Since 2013, Intel has done just over $500B (*billion*) in revenue.
Intel sold $100's of billions of CPUs.
Machine Learning compiler optimization is a highly researched area, but was not in production for Intel during all those chip sales. But SVM-RFE was. Machine learning compiler optimization is still in infancy.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1805.03441.pdf
LOL.....he sounds like Ricky Ricardo (Desi Arnaz) from I Love Lucy.
So, anybody know how the deposition with Evgeniou went or is going today?
All the talk of a deal being negotiated is horse hockey. Intel is not going to negotiate for a deal until the Motion to Dismiss is denied. And even then, they may still go to trial.
I'll take HDVY in a trial scenario. Why? Take compilers in the software world. They translate programs into binary correctly. Secondly they have to find the most efficient translation possible. There are many different correct translations whose performance varies significantly. The vast majority of research and engineering practices is focused on this second goal of performance. All of these variations correlate directly to "features" or "variables". To find the best performance, you need an engine to classify and optimize these "features". Ergo...the gold standard...SVM-RFE. You know, the same SVM-RFE '077 patent that Intel had way back in 2005? The one that was wiped out in the 2019 Interference proceeding? It's all about market share and when the market is using your compilers and toolkits....well they tend to use your hardware as well.
Go tell your boys and girls back at Intel to read up on the BSD License for which scikit-learn is licensed under. MIT and BSD licenses don't have any patent grants. If you use MIT/BSD open source software, and some functionality of that software is patented by the author, you could be sued for patent infringement.
Correct, no. But they do promote the Intel DAAL (among other software and their compilers) with it. It's grey area as for as the definition of "incorporating".
Bottom line is Intel is not denying they used the patent(s). They used to deny they were using the patents in communications back in 2012 to/from HDVY and the Intel lawyers, but then the interference trial ended all of that nonsense. They are only trying to invalidate them now. Says a lot.
Incorrect. It well documented that SVM has been programmed into GPU's and FPGA's for SVM classification specifically using SVM-RFE and/or utilizing OpenMP (with LibSVM in there). That certainly straddles the line of "incorporating it" and likely crosses over a ton.
Reminder, just because Intellectual Property (SVM-RFE) is programmed into an Open Source piece of software (libSVM,scikit-learn, etc...), does NOT negate you having to pay for the rights to use it. Inte owe$ big.
I saw that post. Dude is on top of what is happening here with this stock. If that particular patent is truly estoppel, then I would also wonder why we are trading so low.
I've got 350,000 shares. $1/share be great. $2/share be awesome. $3+/share be out of this world for me.
You are incorrect. The "Motion to Dismiss" was never ruled upon. If you understand Patent Cases, the CAFC frowns upon dismissal of cases prior to Markman Hearing. Intel's filing was the standard "reaction" of the defendant. They all do this.
Here is the order:
October 19, 2020 - Intel files Motion to Dismiss.
November 23, 2020 - HDVY files Response to Motion to Dimiss. Cheekily, they include Proposed Order to Dismiss.
December 7, 2020 - Intel files Reply to HDVY's Response.
Finally, on 9/28/2021, the hearing on the motion is held. And as you know, we are now waiting for Judge Albright's ruling.
All verifiable here:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17375486/health-discovery-corporation-v-intel-corporation/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc
Actually, I can read Intel's SUR-REPLY to the Claim Construction brief. It's on the PTAB filings (3rd line item down): https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-web/#/search/documents?proceedingNumber=IPR2021-00555
Basically, they are still arguing about the term "data". HDC didn't use the plain term "data" (used "biological data") and Intel trying to wiggle out.
Doesn't matter, Albright already ruled "plan and ordinary" meaning so the term "data" is what applies. No doubt, Intel infringed. The question is how much did they infringe? How much is HDC looking to get in the case? Must be a lot. At least 100's of millions and possibly as much as several billion.
You can read PTAB here:
https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-web/#/search/documents?proceedingNumber=IPR2021-00555
None of these have Pacer as every single doc available for free. Just change the IPR number if you want to look at any of the IPR's.
I don't have " "Defendant Intel SUR-REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF" page 6 paragraph 2 dated 5/18/21".
What does it say?
Intel scorched earth:
4 of the 4 patents are still in play. Intel got IPR trial on 3 of the 4. I read in other forums that nobody can explain why Intel did not try two IPR's against the 4th patent. Do you know why since you have "been here before the house was built"?