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.
I bought it through TDAmeritrade. $6.95 commission fee
Never knew this company existed until I read an article on it today. I wonder why it has not been getting much press with its achievements? I in now. LESLA, NIO, LI and XPEV get the lion's share of the press.
I bought it first thing this morning at $1.12. So I hope all you guys that own this stock get filthy rich.
Tweet from BNGO Twitter account today: "Evidence is pouring in that Saphyr outperforms standard of care testing for many types of leukemias. Dr. Blanca Espinet from Hospital del Mar will present her Saphyr results on CLL leukemias. Join our Next-Gen Cyto Symposium on Jan 12.
That's not a bad thing. Especially for a company needing money. It gives them money to continue operations, file for patents, and go through the FDA process, ect. I look at it as a good thing.
On January 11 more light will be revealed by the company about this technology. With that and possible FDA approval and interest from ARK this stock should continue to gain. High risk with possible high rewards. Could become an even more multi-bagger or could end up being a flop. We will see. I'm in as what I have learned I think this will be a VERY BIG WINNER going forward in 2021. My opinion of course.
The beginning of the UFC of eSports in my opinion. Hold long and watch this grow. GLTA!!
I like it...I like it. This company is going to be big!! IMO
I like the trending up.
Thank you for posting this.
If it holds into close again....watch for another pop tomorrow.
Loving the trend so far. $$$
Good Luck to you.
It would need to go 1000% before some bagholders can dump to break even. Keep pumping.
It held strong today. Monday should be interesting.
I predict this stock is going to be a big winner. Right now at $1.00.
DTSRF So why the increased activity these past few months? What's this company all about? Thx
China is a huge market. The sedan NIO is introducing is what is in the biggest demand there. Building a battery swap system rather than charging stations is the smart way to go. Yep NIO is going to be big big big. Watch for it to break $100 in six months if not sooner.
At some point but not anytime soon. Free charging stations??? They will not become a dime a dozen thats for sure
Smoking!! Plus dividends. Hidden Gem I found at the bottom of the Covid affect.
Yes. I bet its Warren Buffett snapping up those shares after reading the exciting 10q filing where the company said “we had to face some hard realities” and “we lost our appeals” and “we could not afford to press on”. BOOM!!!! Who would ever question that the company got a HUGE settlement after reading that and all the other exciting words from the company since the settlement. Oh yeah. “New direction” means the shareholders will be excited to know no distribution is coming for the company will need the money to fund the “new direction” BOOM!!!!
Been a supporter and shareholder of SECI for a long time. Sold my shares when the settlement was announced. Not bashing here, but cutting through the BS. NOTHING posted or filed by the company about the "settlement" or on their website indicates any big settlement or big happenings. On the contrary, it indicates that they got either nothing or very little of what they wanted or expected. I've seen the "New Direction" wording from other companies and what usually translates to is "We are going to try to turn lemons into lemonade" If they had exciting news, they would have said something like "Great News coming for shareholders. Keep an eye out for filings" They can say that you know. The old postings here like "Billion Dollar Companies are going to pay up behind the scenes in a settlement" and "Somebody is accuminating big here....something big is coming up" has been and is BS.
I lost 45K in a company when they announced "We are going in a new direction." What they were saying is "We failed, but we don't want to admit it."
I do hope I am reading the signs wrong. I do hope this company makes you shareholders money. I don't like seeing people lose money. However, I do not have faith in it from what has been said by the company and what is happening.
I really do hope it comes out well for stockholders. We will see soon I hope.
Whatarush12. I have been a stockholder in SECI for a long time and a supporter and defender. I have sold my stock.
The portion of the 10k you posted about the settlement contains ZERO wordings that give any encouragement. In fact, the opposite happens. Read it again. "Sector 10 had to face hard realities" and "financial burden" does not paint a rosy picture about the settlement or future possibilities for justice. It does not promote that Sector 10 settled from a position of strength. When you do not settle from a position of strength you do not get big $$$$$$ in a settlement. If you think so, I have some swampland I need to sell you.
The filing to me was letting the stockholders know no big money was paid and justice they got was not what they wanted.
Now if they had said "Sector 10 is excited to announce that a settlement was reached and stockholders are going to be rewarded for their loyalty and patience" I would have a different outlook. What they actually put out paints a grim picture.
If any real money is going to be made from this company it will be from settlement proceeds. Not sale of stock.
Fiddle me this. What happen to share price of this stock when even small amounts sell??? Does $75 become $9 in a blink of an eye??? Ka-pow Batman
When they were talking RICO and bringing in big names I thought so. Look at the name of the ones listed in the lawsuit that settled. Are they worth Billions? I don't know myself, because I have never heard of them and have not researched them. Anyway, it does not matter to me now. Last post. Good luck guys.
You are welcome for my paying for the past year to access the court to get actual documents and providing the information to you guys. Hope it helped you. Goodbye.
Actually, I am done with this stock. In posting actual court documents for you guys today alone I have been accused of trying to HOAX, being a liar, and now a trickster. I done. Good Luck. I am canceling my access to the Utah Court Filings. This case is over.
Posting actual court documents is not a trick. How can it be? In discussing the potential of the settlement amount should not what actually happened not in the case be considered???? I will not buy back in thank you. That is a personal choice. It does not mean that this could not be a windfall for those who have shares. I hope it is. Good Luck.
I have no idea. I am not a lawyer. I just posted the documents for discussion as the RICO part of this dispute was where the big money lies.
What was left of the suite that was going to be addressed at trial that was settled on?
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER
3RD DISTRICT COURT
SALT LAKE COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH
SECTOR 10 HOLDINGS INC Et al, MINUTES
Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER
vs. Case No: 119907606 DC
LEE ALLEN Et al, Judge: KARA PETTIT
Defendant. Date: September 29, 2020
Clerk: katherf
TELEPHONE CONFERENCE
PRESENT
Plaintiff's Attorney(s): KARRA PORTER
Plaintiff's Attorney(s): PATRICIA KUENDIG
Defendant's Attorney(s): AARON BERGMAN
Defendant's Attorney(s): DEBORAH CHANDLER
Defendant's Attorney(s): THATCHER RAHMEIER
Defendant's Attorney(s): FRANCES DIGIOVANNI
Defendant's Attorney(s): JORDAN BLEDSOE
Defendant's Attorney(s): KENNETH BLACK
Audio
Tape Number: W35 Tape Count: 10:00-11:00
HEARING
10:00 AM The above-entitled case comes before the Court for telephonic oral argument on Plaintiffs'
Motion for Revision of Nonfinal Ruling, filed 7/20/2020.
09-29-2020 07:11 PM Page 1 of 3
The Order of the Court is stated below:
Dated: September 29,
2020
/s/ KARA PETTIT
07:11:57 PM District Court Judge
10:02 AM Ms. Porter presents argument on the motion.
10:16 AM Mr. Bergman with response.
10:34 AM Mr. Rahmeier with response.
10:40 AM Mr. Bledsoe with response.
10:41 AM Ms. Porter with reply.
10:53 AM The Court takes the matter under advisement and will issue an oral ruling.
10:56 AM First, the Court notes that Sector 10 misinterprets and misconstrues the Court's oral ruling
and the written memorialization of that ruling on Defendants' motions for summary judgment in
October 2018 and February 2019. The Court considered all of the Defendants' briefing. as well as
Sector 10's responses thereto, and granted all of the Defendants' motions for summary judgment on
the trade secret issues and related claims, and its ruling was not solely with respect to Dutro's motion
for summary judgment. The Court declines to exercise discretion to reconsider its prior rulings on
the summary judgment motions because (1) the matter is not being presented in a new or different
light, (2) there has not been a change in the governing law, (3) there has not been the discovery of
new evidence, and (4) the Court does not have a conviction that the prior decision was clearly
erroneous based upon the record and arguments made before it on the motions for summary
judgment in October 2018, and Sector 10 either did or could have raised the arguments at that time.
Therefore, for the reasons set forth on the record, which are incorporated herein by reference, the
Court denies the motion to reconsider.
This is the Order of the Court.
End Of Order - Signature at the Top of the First Page
09-29-2020 07:11 PM Page 2 of
CASE NUMBER: 119907606 Debt Collection
3
CERTIFICATE OF NOTIFICATION
I certify that a copy of the attached document was sent to the following people for case 119907606
by the method and on the date specified.
EMAIL: BRAD BEARNSON
EMAIL: AARON BERGMAN
EMAIL: KENNETH BLACK
EMAIL: JORDAN BLEDSOE
EMAIL: THOMAS BOWMAN
EMAIL: DEBORAH CHANDLER
EMAIL: FRANCES DIGIOVANNI
EMAIL: BROOKE JOHNSON
EMAIL: PATRICIA KUENDIG
EMAIL: MARK J LEE
EMAIL: KARRA PORTER
EMAIL: THATCHER RAHMEIER
EMAIL: AUBRI THOMAS
EMAIL: JOEL ZENGER
09/29/20 /s/ KATHERINE FAIRCHILD
Date: ____________________ ______________________________
Signature
09-29-2020 07:11 PM Page 3 of
CASE NUMBER: 119907606 Debt Collection
3
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Brad H. Bearnson (#3633)
Aaron K. Bergman (#13147)
BEARNSON & CALDWELL, LLC
399 N. Main Street, Suite 270
Logan, Utah 84321
Email: bbearnson@bearnsonlaw.com
Email: abergman@bearnsonlaw.com
Attorney for Defendants Dutro Company, Reality Engineering, Inc.,
Vicki Davis, William Dutro, and Lee Allen.
IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH
SECTOR 10, INC., a Delaware corporation;
SECTOR 10 SERVICES USA, INC., a Utah
corporation; and SECTOR 10 HOLDINGS,
INC., a Nevada corporation,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DUTRO COMPANY, a California
corporation; REALITY ENGINEERING,
INC., a Washington corporation; VICKI K.
DAVIS, an individual; WILLIAM DUTRO, an
individual; LEE ALLEN, an individual; JOHN
B. GARGETT, an individual; TRUSYS, INC.,
a Washington corporation; VALLEY
INCEPTION, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; INCISIVE SOFTWARE
CORPORATION, and PROXIMEX
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation,
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Case No. 119907606
Judge: Honorable Kara Pettit
(Consolidated with Case Nos. 100912234,
100915682, and 100916065)
This matter comes before the Court pursuant to three (3) dispositive motions for
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Civil No. 119907606
Page 1
The Order of the Court is stated below:
Dated: February 04, 2019 /s/ KARA PETTIT
02:52:15 PM District Court Judge
February 04, 2019 02:52 PM 1 of 7
summary judgment. On January 30, 2018, defendants DUTRO COMPANY, REALITY
ENGINEERING, INC., VICKI K. DAVIS, WILLIAM DUTRO, and LEE ALLEN (hereinafter
referred to collectively at times as the “Dutro” defendants). That same day, defendant
PROXIMEX CORPORATION, LLC (hereinafter referred to as “Proximex”) filed a joinder,
adopting to itself the same law, arguments, and reasoning as set forth in the Dutro defendants’
motion for summary judgment.
That same day, January 30, 2018, Proximex filed its own motion for summary judgment.
Similarly, on January 30, 2018, VALLEY INCEPTION, LLC (“Valley Incisive”) and INCISIVE
SOFTWARE CORPORATION (“Incisive Software”) filed their motion for summary judgment,
which by and large constituted a joinder in those aforementioned motions filed
contemporaneously by the Dutro defendants, and Proximex. Each of the above motions were
fully briefed, save that Plaintiffs did not file any brief in opposition to that motion for summary
judgment filed by Valley Inception and Incisive Software Corporation.
On August 22, 2018, the Court heard oral argument on each of the above motions as
presented by each of the parties to this case. On behalf of the Dutro defendants, argument was
presented by Aaron K. Bergman of Bearnson & Caldwell, LLC. On behalf of Proximex,
argument was presented by Francis DiGiovanni and Thatcher Rahmeier. On behalf of Valley
Inception and Incisive Software, argument was presented by Kenneth B. Black. On behalf of
Plaintiffs, argument was presented by Mr. Robert E Aycock. Plaintiff, by representation through
Pericles DeAvila was also present for the oral argument.
On October 10, 2018, the Court held a teleconference with each of the parties, and
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Civil No. 119907606
Page 2
February 04, 2019 02:52 PM 2 of 7
announced its ruling orally, instructing Mr. Bergman as counsel for Dutro defendants to draft,
distribute, and present for the Court’s signing a proposed order. The Court’s reasoning is also
adequately set forth in that October 10, 2018 teleconference, which is hereby incorporated by
reference into this Order.
THEREFORE, having reviewed the pleadings, having reviewed and being apprised of the
applicable law and authorities, and having held and heard oral argument from each of the
respective parties, the Court hereby finds and orders as follows:
1. To the issue of whether a trade secret exists, the Court finds that Defendants
carried, and met their initial burden at summary judgment by showing that there is no genuine
issue of material fact as to the existence of a protectable trade secret.
2. As the nonmoving parties, Plaintiffs are entitled to, and this Court has viewed the
facts presented in that light most favorable to Plaintiffs, attributing to Plaintiffs all positive
inferences that could reasonably be derived therefrom. Notwithstanding, Defendants having met
their burden, the burden then shifted to Plaintiffs who while being the nonmoving parties,
nonetheless do bear the burden of proof at trial.
3. Therefore, for purposes of the existence of a trade secret the question presented to
the Court is whether Plaintiffs set forth evidence of a trade secret, and that said trade secret, if
any, was not generally known or readily ascertainable in the public domain. While this Court
must construe the facts in that light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, regarding the existence of a
trade secret, there is no presumption. Thus, the Court holds that the burden is squarely on
Plaintiffs to present the aforementioned evidence.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Civil No. 119907606
Page 3
February 04, 2019 02:52 PM 3 of 7
4. The Court holds that Plaintiffs have not met their burden and have not set forth
evidence of a trade secret as defined by the Utah Trade Secret Act. As mentioned above, the
reasoning and basis for this holding is adequately set forth in that October 10, 2018 oral ruling.
5. The Court also holds that Plaintiffs failed to present evidence as to how the
alleged trade secret is not already contained in the public domain. It is well established that the
disclosure of such trade secrets in the Plaintiffs’ patent applications would extinguish the trade
secret. Plaintiffs themselves acknowledge that that which was disclosed in their patent
applications could not form the basis of a trade secret claim. Yet, the Plaintiffs presented no
evidence of a trade secret outside of that information and those documents already contained in
Plaintiffs’ patent and patent applications. Thus, the Court holds that Plaintiffs’ trade secret claim
is in reality Plaintiffs’ attempt to protect that which patent law might have protected had
Plaintiffs pursued to completion their patent applications.
6. The Court also finds and holds that, as a matter of law, the source code cannot
form the basis of Plaintiffs’ trade secret claim and it belongs to Reality Engineering. It is
undisputed that the source code was developed by Reality Engineering. It is also undisputed that
Plaintiffs had no work-made-for-hire agreement, nor any non-disclosure agreement signed by
Reality Engineering. See 17 U.S.C. 101. Furthermore, even viewing the evidence in the light
most favorable to Plaintiffs, with all reasonable inferences derived therefrom as the Court must,
Plaintiffs have presented no evidence showing that Reality Engineering was controlled by or
under the common control of Dutro Company. As such, the Court holds, Reality Engineering is
not an “affiliate” as defined by the Master Agreement.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Civil No. 119907606
Page 4
February 04, 2019 02:52 PM 4 of 7
7. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Dutro Defendants’ motion for summary judgment
against the Plaintiffs’ claims to the extent such claims relate to the misappropriation of an
alleged trade secret, and specifically dismisses with prejudice Plaintiffs’ Second, Fifth and
Seventh Causes of Action against Reality Engineering and Lee Allen, to the extent such relate to
misappropriation of the alleged trade secret.
8. The Court notes that as mentioned at oral argument, Plaintiffs’ Fifth Cause of
Action raises allegations in relationship to misrepresentations by Lee Allen. Those claims are not
affected by the above ruling.
9. Regarding the statute of limitations as raised by Proximex, Valley Inception, and
Incisive Software, the Court finds that there are disputed issues of material fact regarding notice,
including actual inquiry and constructive notice, that precludes summary judgment on the basis
of the statute of limitations governing Plaintiff’s alleged trade secret claim. Such must be the
Court’s conclusion when viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most
favorable to the Plaintiffs. Notwithstanding, because the Plaintiffs have failed to set forth
evidence as to the existence of a trade secret, and further have failed to set forth evidence that the
alleged trade secret has not already been disclosed in Plaintiffs’ patent and patent applications,
the statute of limitations issue is moot.
10. The Court GRANTS Proximex’s, Valley Inception’s, and Incisive Software’s
request for summary judgment and hereby dismisses Plaintiffs’ Second Cause of Action
(Injunctive Relief) and Seventh Cause of Action (Declaratory Relief) to the extent such relates to
misappropriation of the alleged trade secret. In addition, the Court GRANTS summary judgment
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Civil No. 119907606
Page 5
February 04, 2019 02:52 PM 5 of 7
to Proximex, Valley Inception, and Incisive Software, dismissing Plaintiffs’ Sixth Cause of
Action (Misappropriation of Trade Secrets) in its entirety. Because Plaintiffs’ claims against
Proximex, Valley Inception, and Incisive Software arise entirely from the misappropriation of an
alleged trade secret, and there is no evidence of a trade secret, these defendants are dismissed
with prejudice.
11. Finally, the Court recognizes that there was some discussion by Dutro Company
as to Plaintiffs’ First Cause of Action, on whether a contract between Dutro Company and
Plaintiffs exits absent defining the confidential information protected by that agreement. The
Court holds that this issue is a matter for phase II discovery, and therefore is not yet ripe.
Wherefore, the Court withholds any ruling as to that portion of Dutro Company’s motion.
* * * End of Order * * *
(Final Upon Court’s Placement of Electronic Signature and Electronic Seal at Top of First Page)
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Civil No. 119907606
Page 6
February 04, 2019 02:52 PM 6 of 7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
In accordance with Rule 7 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, I hereby certify that a
true and correct copy of the foregoing ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN
PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT was, for the purpose of
review and approval as to form, served on the 23rd day of October, 2018, and revised and served
by Plaintiff’s counsel on October 30, 2018, via email to the following:
Robert E. Aycock
Hilda Echegaray
William Chadwick
PIA ANDERSON MOSS HOYT, LLC
136 E. South Temple, Suite 1900
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Kenneth B. Black
Jordan C. Bledsoe
STOEL RIVES, LLP
201 S. Main Street, Suite 1100
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Deborah Chandler
JONES WALDO HOLBROOK &
McDONOUGH, P.C.
170 S. Main, Suite 1500
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101
Francis DiGiovanni
Thatcher Rahmeier
DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH, LLP
222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1410
Wilmington, Delaware 19801-1621
/s/ Aaron K. Bergman______________
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Civil No. 119907606
Page 7
February 04, 2019 02:52 PM 7 of 7
So what part of the case was left from the complaint that would allow for pursuing RICO?
Yes, I did. That was my decision. Made some money.
I did not know at the time why the dismissal of the case.
Hope the settlement makes people money, but I do not think the defendants would have settled for billions and billions. Not sure what expenses will come off the top and company debts being paid before the shareholder gets their cut. We will see. Good Luck.
Not sure. I am not a lawyer, but it seems logical the defendants would not have settled without protectin from RICO. Don't rely on what I say.
I wonder as part of the settlement it takes RICO out of the picture.
I hope it settled for billions. Then you guys will make bank AND certain long term repeated negative posters can eat crow