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.
It's only Monday, so my guess would be an 8K by the end of the week (4 days after the event). Hopefully this is a pivotal moment. But I'll settle for a moment.
>>>Yes, and when you mention that Dr. Hauser also understands our techmology, well, HDC has not seen the stars line up like this since the days of Dr. Barnhill.>>>
Barnhill didn’t have the prospecting and licensing prowess of Dr. Hauser. Barnhill was a brilliant clinical laboratorian, but his early partnerships with Quest Diagnostics and SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories (late 1980s/early 1990s) were driven by the need for Barnhill Laboratories’ laboratory-developed tests – and NOT his business development skills. This was never more evident in the way he Barnhill managed the later Quest Dx and Abbott partnerships.
>>>The eighteen month window to remain on the expert market should have expired around January of this year. Frankly, I am amazed that HDVY hasn't been delisted already. There must be a reason.>>>
I’m guessing that there was communication between HDC and the SEC regarding relisting prior to our new CEO. As the 8K read, getting us current and relisted is one of Dr. Hauser’s first objectives. I think it’s probable that Dr. Hauser is working on the Super K now. I’m fairly sure this is a long and expensive process. Hence, just maybe, why we’re still on the purgatory market.
>>>Yeah, the only reason to go public is to make your equity liquid and to have Mr market apply a multiple to value of your biz.>>>
Yeppers. And liquidity is buyers and sellers. As it stands, most on this board are willing sellers. But there will be no buyers if Dr. Hauser doesn’t close a deal or two or able to create a pipeline of prospective licensing partnerships.
It seems we have the money from Intel to satisfy the expense of a Super-K, which combines our delinquent 10-Qs and Ks in one report.
I also agree with Chazzy. Dr. Hrauser will probably put out a PR when this process is either reportable or complete.
For All Mankind nailed it. Dr. Hauser cares little about his name in lights and only wants to secure the value of his stock options-which is the other half of his CEO compensation.
>>>Hey buddy you're talking in code. Care to translate?>>>
Eh, I have my arrows (>>>) and DigDeep’s has his/her - overly enigmatic and epigrammatic via the form of a Shakespearean sonnet - style.
If you dig deep enough, you’ll find a slippery, yet profound difference a letter can make, when placed at the end of the misspelled word “Marke.” (Let alone the linguistic crime of verbing the noun Math)
To assume Alan knows bio-MarkeRs, but not (necessarily) the stock MarkeT is specious. If you scan Alan’s background you’ll know he’s created road maps to commercialization in Life Science start-ups, which includes market evaluation and creating necessary funding.
And the fact that Alan took this role, one which most of his compensation is based on the performance of HDVY stock, tells me he sufficiently understands our Expert Market - OTC situation.
Is Alan’s hire a slam dunk for the company? No, but the board chose the perfect candidate to create licensing agreements quickly, establish expertise in deploying SVE/RFE and compete in the biomarker arena (IMHO).
SVM-RFE methodologies for establishing biomarkers are replete in the 85-billion-dollar diagnostics sector (110 billion expected growth in 5 years).
This article is only 5 months old and describes the SVM-RFE methodology in isolating 4 bladder cancer genes: (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-60068-9)
Over 20 years ago, our technology was part of the proteomics revolution, where it isolated (within a seemingly infinite amount of data) a protein fingerprint for ovarian cancer. Now, it is used in genomics along with other applications in sectors which I’ve zero understanding.
After reading the 8K, it’s evident going forward that the board doesn’t want to spend time/money going after infringers, but creating biomarker and other licensing agreements. So again, since we own the patent, we have a fighting chance to achieve this goal.
Hey Loc, I haven’t had the LTD moniker for over 20 years now. Nice to reminisce though.
Agreed. Dr. Hauser has some skin in the game.
>>>The "i could be wrong" was tongue in Cheek>>>
As was my entire response.
>>>The logic in their clear words lead straight to the point>>>
That’s a good standard to apply; clear words lead to the point.
The counter-argument has been that other clear words were omitted which led to “more to come.” Unfortunately, I’m finally inclined to believe if there were a “more to come,” it would have come by now.
>>> although Intel said they may have used our technology it was up to HDC's attorneys to find the evidence to support HDC's claims. So if that could not be produced in the discovery phase things would not work out like we wanted.>>>
That still doesn’t make sense. They were well into the case prior to the end of discovery. Again, the discovery phase is intended to eliminate evidential surprises. I believe the evidence was solidified before the end of discovery. But here’s what we know: Infringement was proven and subsequently 2.2 mil in damages paid out.
Damages are based on “But For Causation,” which is the difference between pre-and post infringement. If the 2.2 mil is all there is (and it’s beginning to look that way), then the But For Causation damages could be the back-pay of licensing agreements over the infringement years. But, when you back out legal expenses, it seems like a loss. And that doesn’t make sense. Maybe, Peggy Lee, that’s all there is.
>>>No need to bring Mr. Fromholzer into these discussions as I believe I have proved that he was simply wishing HDC good luck.>>>
Welp, if you apply your previous standard (>>>The logic in their clear words lead straight to the point>>>), you’ve proven Fromholzer’s intent of HDC competing in the diagnostic sector (paraphrasing). These are Fromholzer’s words that lead to the point:
“I look forward to watching the Company continue to move forward with SVM-RFE in the world of AI and in the development of identifying early-stage diagnostics for common health issues.”
>>>I could be wrong .. but if not ..Mic drop>>>
There’s no provisional mic drops. The essence of the mic drop belies anything but a thundering and certain finality. One can’t be both tentative and mic-dropping.
Thorough, thoughtful, well-reasoned and on point Chazzy (AKA Dugdeeper).
>>>I also mentioned is it possible that Vennwest/HDC are working on a buyout<<<
Interesting observation. I thought that BQ’s last message indicated HDC wanted nothing to do w/Laurie’s group. I could have only surmised that. I don’t think VennWest would bring anything to the table, except management.
I don’t think we need them, but only a CEO who can put together some deals within the next 13 months while we have an exclusive on RFE/SVM. Post 6/2025, it’s then a matter of selling ourselves as the Subject Matter Experts who can implement/deploy this technology. At that point, large companies like Intel won’t be our prospects, but certainly the endless smaller companies in the diagnostics and informatics sectors.
Aside from the family shares, there is way too much shareholder value to NOT take a full-throated shot at this. Until then Loc, we are stuck with each other.
Yes indeed sir Charles. This is the opposite of cut and dry. Until we can “solve for X,” with the information available, there is more information to come.
There seems to be two explanations for X. One, is the sudden surprise of no damages at the end of discovery; a legal process incorporated to safeguard against such a surprise. If true, IMHO, it would be an inconceivable legal blunder (given this safeguard).
The other solution to X is Bill Quirk’s Human Factor premis: The family surrendered a large settlement due to grief’s inertia. LocWolf implied the same idea when suggesting Colleen wants nothing to do with this mess. Again, it is inconceivable that both the key shareholders (Colleen included) and key stakeholders (legal team) would concede to such share value destruction. Their share value loss is exponentially larger than ours combined.
I’m with you Charles. Unless someone here can provide a plausible solution for X with the available information, then X lies in what is to come – even if this solution explains a why we settled for a loss, given the 2 million might not even cover legal expenses.
Is there an open bar?
>>>yes it still sucks.>>>
… would be a great title for your memoir; from wives to expert markets.
The fundamentals of the case haven’t changed. We have facts of previous legal wins and a settlement out of court. The 2.2 mil is also fact. But one that signifies a defeat. Or, as the enigmatic BQ quips, “on the eve of victory, why did HDC settle with Intel for chump change?”
As Bill and others have theorized, the 2.2 mil defeat was the result of a waning will to fight on (“on the eve of victory”)-while neglecting to factor in the will, reputation and income of their legal team.
Although equally unbelievable, I’m inclined to believe the oxymoronic “surprise, no damages” theory before the lack of will inference.
I think we all agree that at some point, HDC will clarify all of this in an 8 or 10K. Until then, as another philosopher quipped, “yes it still sucks.”
>>>This is the only hypothesis that makes sense to me, so I am sticking with it until I see compelling evidence to the contrary.>>>
Agreed. And the 2.2 mil would be a loss, not a win, since I don’t think it would even cover expenses.
The only counter argument is: Suddenly, all entities involved realized there were no damages inferred at the closing of the discovery phase. I say inferred, because I believe discovery involves only submissible evidence which will be presented in court. A “discovery surprise” is a contradiction in terms, since evidential transparency is the aim of discovery.
As early as the pre-trial communication, damages were indicated, so it would be hard to imagine going forward that damages weren’t cemented along the way.
Contingency attorneys carefully calculate the risk, and a miscalculation like this would be a My Cousin Vinny (minus Marisa Tomei) level of incompetency. I find it implausible that we can prove infringement without damages.
I’m squarely, and reasonably in the “more to come” camp.
>>>slowly bleed us out instead of pulling it out fast and taking a chance of getting blood splattered on to them.>>>
Is everything OK at home?
>>>Soon, we shall all know the truth.>>>
Yep. The virtue of our situation is that it's basically over - pending an announcement.
>>>can easily see the massive money it would take and professionals needed?>>>
Not really. It would equate to the funding needed for good biotech start-ups. Seed money, Series A funding (usually a few mil) and series B funding (ave. 50 mil) should be enough in our settlement.
Sure, and I’m sure there are more examples, but take Myriad Genetics. There entire company is based on BRCA 1&2 testing. They once had the patent for these genes, but continue to be the clear leader in BRCA testing once they lost the patent.
The reason? When testing becomes a commodity, it means it’s widely used. Myriad was the original owner of the patent and therefore developed the expertise to employ this testing.
I’m thinking, and this would be ambitious, HDC could do the same with their expired patents. Although they’re no longer “exclusive” with the technology, they can market it as a “me too” product with the advantage of being the experts (as was Myriad to the BRCA genes).
You are looking at this through the 2.2 mil lens but this re-launching of HDC is viewed from the "more to come" lens. But again, I'm not arguing for this outcome, only that there is more to come than the 2.2 mil.
>>>We have watch for all these years as they come and go have we not?>>>
LOL! If you're referring to forward-looking statements, then you have a good argument.
But it's a bit risky if he knows the company is NOT going in that direction.
>>> strike gold here and I'll strangle that leprechaun>>>
I swear I’m going to collect these Loc’isms over the years and submit them in one final post.
I don’t think the number of AI patents is as pertinent as the patents themselves.
As far as the number: I believe the proliferation of AI patents equals “acceptance” within these industries – so that could only be a good indicator, if we actualized Fromholzer’s statement.
As far as the patents themselves: Ours have done well in the clinical diagnostics sector.
Ciphergen/Vermillion/Aspira Labs’ Ova1 (proteomic test) was developed in conjunction with Quest Diagnostics; seemingly minutes after we collected our settlement. Neogenomics’ profited off our patent in its flow cytometry (analyzing large data sets for cancer testing). I often wonder who else in this big-date driven sub-sector of biotechnology.
I can make a case for HDC still commercializing their technology when the patents expire (I offered Myriad’s BRCA genes patent as an example).
We would need a proper, commensurate settlement, along with a company commitment to commercialize our patents. But again, my argument is mostly around the “more to come” regarding our settlement (whatever that might be).
*there ...is more to the story.
Spot on Sir Charles. It just defies logic. I'm not saying the company is suddenly going to flourish, although with a large settlement, they could. But I am saying their is more to the settlement that is more in line with reality.
>>>My thoughts are the Family said throw in the towel ...
This was dads Gig and were moving on ....>>>
Yeah, I purposely didn’t include the “giving up” scenario. It seems even less plausible, since the stakeholders are numerous; large shareholders aside, you have (most likely) a 40% stake in the law firm of Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig.
Multiples of millions would not be left on the table because “it was Dad’s gig and now he’s gone” is hard to reconcile.
Attorneys and law firms have metrics they use when wooing both law firms and clients. Cases won, dollars won, high-profile cases with high-profile companies are the cornerstones of their value. A win with a losing settlement might be harder to explain than a loss itself. Just can’t imagine such a reputational stain occurring because of an Atlas-like shrug from the Plaintiff.
>>>Mr. Fromholzer does NOT foresee HDC closing its doors, filing bankruptcy, or being acquired by Intel. Quite the contrary>>>
Yes, I would think a forward-looking statement on an 8K would be legally vetted for SEC violations.
Again, nothing has changed in our optimistic legal outlook except a 2.2 mil settlement payment that makes zero sense by itself.
The only argument against the “more to come,” is that after a decade-long legal battle, a shocking surprise of no damages implicit in our interference was found.
I find this absurd for two reasons: 1) Discover is ongoing, so such a case death-blow would’ve certainly been unearthed prior. 2) The very essence of “discovery” is to eliminate such surprises. So a surprise like this during a discovery phase – especially at the end point, is not only implausible, but also a contradiction in terms.
Oh boy. Adam Feuerstein. The Street.com. I just found it!
I was not happy with that article and the fact that his expertise was software – not the clinical diagnostics industry. Adam wasn’t even aware that our tests ( Lab Developed Tests (LTDs,) did not have to go through the FDA process, since they were developed with FDA-approved instrumentation and protocols.
We were in the thick of it in 2010. Thanks for the memories Loc.
>>>do you remember your post about Adam?>>>
I don't even remember who Adam is. Was I nice?
Just to clarify, I gave you a "thumbs up" for you patience.
>>>This type of behavior has very likely bankrupted many legit companies. HDVY shareholders are still waiting for justice.>>>
I think so King. You’ve been hanging on as long as I have, but I think we’ve arrived. Nothing has changed for us; a series of legal wins (detailed a number of times on these boards) that led to an Intel settlement. Since the 2.2mil makes less than zero sense, I’m confident there is more to come in our upcoming 10K.
>>>the issue of patentability has been decided once and for all. HDC has sole rights to the patent suit.>>>
Oh ... Yeah. There’s that.
Thank you for your always thorough answers Alan.
>>>My understanding and interpretation of the facts of the case are consistent with my observed outcome. I would suggest that rather than believing the observed outcome is incorrect, perhaps the interpretation and understanding of the facts needs to be revisited>>>
I’m not trying to be difficult, but I didn’t see where HDC claimed their patent was invalid within the PTAB casetext you were referring to.
Does your “observed outcome” include a testimony from HDC stating any of its patents are invalid? Or are you inferring this from actual outcomes or premises?
Anyone else want to tackle this one? Maybe I’m just casetext-wearied but I’ll have more time later to take a deeper dive. I just don’t recall HDC claiming their patent was invalid at any time.
>>>For instance, you need to be a bit careful about what is "claimed" in a lawsuit. Both HDVY and INTC claimed that the patent was invalid during the interference proceedings. All Intel / HDVY were doing is asking for legal rulings on issues. Their particular position/belief on any issue is irrelevant as a legal matter. All that matters is what the court rule.>>>
I disagree. What is claimed and argued (as King mentioned) is wholly relevant. It is this relevant stuff that a court will decide on. For example: The PTAB issued its decision, finding that HDC is entitled to “claim” exclusive rights to the SVM-RFE technology. Also, I think you mistakenly stated that HDVY claimed their patent was invalid (not so).
>>>Given HDVY had attempted to receive royalties, even after the interference was discovered, indicates that HDVY was not prevented from collecting royalties due to the interference.>>
HDC’s attempt to collect royalties from Intel’s infringement use does not indicate HDC’s ability to acquire new business (the subsequent 10 years) due to their patents being legally challenged by Intel. Intel’s infringement of the patent precedes HDC’s ability to monetize it.
>>>Another important point is Intel's written response to the lawsuit, in which they state they do not need a license for the patent because they do not use the patent.>>>
Where was this stated? You claimed something similar in a prior post – you said Intel never commercialized any products with our technology, but then walked it back. Did Intel ever state “they do not use the patent” in the past or present? Please don't make me read the entire 150-page document.
From what I gleaned in the legal document: 2012-Intel’ responds that they’re unaware of infringing activity. For the next 4 years HDC pushes for a licensing agreement with Intel. 2016 - 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.
>>>To this point, it would seem improbable a company would knowingly pay royalties to use the SVM-RFE algorithm when there are many comparable, if not better, algorithms available open source for free.>>>
Well take that up with Intel Alan. Apparently they would strongly disagree with you – hence the long fought legal battle.
>>>Alan...that doesn't seem to fit well when considering the attorneys were working under contingency but when does that fall apart?>>>
Contingency attorneys carefully calculate the risk of seeing a case through to its entirety. I find it almost laughable that this group miscalculated and had to give up everything at the end because it required more legal work. BTW, what other move would Intel have to keep fighting except for the trial?
>>>I mean the evidence itself. I am not sure what you are referring to in "potential damage report". The fact that you call it "potential" seems to infer it is weak though. The original lawsuit paperwork did have enough evidence to get past summary judgement. OTOH, a trial with witnesses is a different thing.>>>
It is a distinction with a difference, but I actually stated, “potential evidence in the damage report.” The “actual damage report” was scheduled to be submitted on September 8th.
Your “By way of example” illustrated real-life discovery, but why would you assume this discovery did not happen? Is it because you think we didn’t have the funds to conduct proper discovery?
We don’t have access to the details of discovery, so when you say “the evidence itself,” is weak, you can’t be referring to the evidence we know of, since you said the original lawsuit paperwork had enough evidence to get past summary judgement.
Nor can the “evidence itself” be what was unearthed in discovery, since we don’t have that knowledge.
So it certainly seems when you say you think the evidence itself is weak, it is NOT based on the evidence itself (what we know via public knowledge), but an assumption based on something else. If not the 2.2 mil payment, then idea that HDC lacked the funds to conduct proper discovery.
And to that end, we don't know that neither party wanted to go to trial is true. Pre-settlement agreement, of course.
I'm not sure how we will be compensated, but I'm confident there is more to the story, and that we won an infringement case against Intel.
I remember the days of transparency. I called HDC and was able to talk shop with Barnhill. I could see how the thought of an HDC attorney send shivers up your spine. Any lawyer, really.
>>>My opinion is the evidence presented in the lawsuit itself was pretty weak.>>>
Do you think the evidence itself is weak? Or making an assumption the evidence was weak based on the 2.2 mil payment?
If, the evidence itself, are you referring to our algorithm or potential evidence in the damage report?
Tarek Fahmi argued the patentability of our algorithm so well that I was able to understand it. Tarek has a computer science and engineering background and was named one of the leading IP lawyers in CA.
When our patent was challenged in court, the judge indicated that Intel has the burden of proving an ordinary person skilled in the “art” could stumble upon our algorithm. And they fell short.
>>>Zenos....why do we have a discovery phase in the court proceedings? Isn't that directly to show the proof on what HDC can prove or not?>>>
I don’t think so. Proof comes via evidence presented in a trial.
So we agree to disagree as to the reason we did not go to trial. Intel decided to settle – since they offered HDC a settlement, instead of going to trial. We disagree that this the 2.2 mil was a full settlement disclosure, due to reasons already enumerated ad nauseum.