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.
To know and to understand should be by those who understand HD's past patents. In the past, you have seen the USPTO force HD to re-due patents because they were too vast. There are other cases that the office allowed patents considered close. Trying to encompass artwork into such a larger patent area brings more risks and vulnerability. It requires such a tight patent art language. I do believe they were far too loose where others were able to patent through the many holes left open or should I say lack of teaching expression. One important point to remember and that is HD was the pioneers on this frontier but it is also a large area. Other mistakes and noted people were mentioned within past messages and it is your job to see where they fit if you wish?
HD cannot win this over time and they probably know this but is it wise to fight, to spend more money to make it look as such or move on. They could stall up to 2 more years but the end result will be the same. How many retail investors have any knowledge to dig as such? Maybe commercial entities and large account holders care to be aggressive in downloading a several years of documents as I recommended. Again by doing so you can see where both have won and both have lost. As stated prior NeoGenomic did not license 077 but did the Weston application/patent in this subject so HD was also required to protect the license agreement.
Now enough said and if you need particulars you will need to read past massages.
Oh, now something that could be old as I am not sure and have not looked upon it to date. Note Sun Microsystems patent 7283984. They reference four patents by Dr. Stephen D Barnhill, 6714925, 6760715, 6789069 and 6882990. I have not checked into this nor will I.
Some may view 10723 and more.
As i mentioned earlier forget about the Intel patent and worry about HD getting Retinalyze into the amount of profit they had once claimed.
Don't ask!!
Let me explain this in direct words by the USPTO, Re-examination unit Commissioner for patents.
Intel claims 1-15 are patentable as amended.
Now for the reasons, the Patent Owner has amended claims 1, 6, and 11 by adding a limitation that for storing the updated kernel data in the buffer to replace the kernel data. Weston references compute modifications to the kernel data in intermediate computations, the cited portions do not disclose the storing of that kernel data to replace the previous kernel data. The cited portions of Guyon and Cristianini similarly lack this teaching
The above is as little as i wish to message here.
Hello Dollardaze, i have explained earlier in a round about way as to why and how. I may message something later tonight, Know that HD is HD and how things generally go. My fear is not Intel but Retinalyze.
L/W
I was trying to be rather easy when i mentioned about both parties losing. To be exact this means both lose the patent rights nothing as to the money spent.
As for proceedings in present time HD has lost, Intel called for the present re-exam due to prior modification. I believe many may have viewed this differently.
I do still hope I am wrong, REALLY, more later.
L/W
Ehwest, i plan to message something for you later today. As for the comment of extension, it should be said continuation or continuation in part but did not wish to relate it as to the rejection as it was on more than one account. Never the less it still is seen differently.
_______________
as for one of my comments about "both parties may lose" This is to be taken as not losing money at all it means the actual patent it self but also the possibility of losing prior/present applications as what had already taken place (non final) with HD.
Much more to you provided i am given the time to write. Back to tasks and American nascar racing.
ehwest, first round was shot down due to circumstances which have nothing to do with your question. Yes it would be considered a continuation, continuation in part.
The latest action with modifications to patent 7685077 may be read first followed by allowance or contrast action in non final action by PTO. I am not sure in all this, not at all.
Both parties may lose, I just don't know.
Master License - HD and NGNM
This should answer any thoughts about future bankruptcy.
ARTICLE 13 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
13.1 The parties agree that the Licensed Technology is “intellectual property” as defined in 11 U.S.C. §101(56) and that this Agreement is an executory contract that is governed by 11 U.S.C. §365(n) in the event that LICENSOR commences a case under the Bankruptcy Code. In any such case, the parties agree that LICENSEE will retain and may fully exercise all of its rights and elections under the Bankruptcy Code, and that LICENSEE will have the right to retain and enforce its rights under this Agreement.
________________________________________________
Bankruptcy law under 11 U.S.C 365
Options For The Licensee If The Licensor Becomes A Bankruptcy Debtor
If you are a licensee and your licensor enters bankruptcy, one of two things can happen if the license is executory – the debtor can either assume or reject the license.10 If it assumes the license, then the parties have, in many respects, the same relationship they had before bankruptcy. (To assume the license, however, the debtor must cure defaults and demonstrate to the court some assurance of performance). But if the debtor rejects the license agreement, you may treat the license as terminated, put in a claim for money damages, or, most importantly, choose to retain your rights under the license agreement with respect to the patent as it existed on the date of bankruptcy filing.
Section 365(n) of the Bankruptcy Code protects licensees if the debtor licensor rejects the license. The licensee may treat the contract as terminated and become an unsecured creditor for any monetary damages caused by the license termination under Sections 365(g) and 502(g) of the Bankruptcy Code.
The same Section 365(n) also allows the licensee (in the alternative) the option to retain its rights under the license agreement.11 In many respects, the license continues as if it never terminated. Therefore the non-debtor licensee must continue performance (for example, making royalty payments as due under the license). However, the licensor is not obligated to continue performance. The licensee is only entitled to retain its rights for the length of the license with any extensions that the license may allow.12 Another important protection of Section 365(n) is that the licensee is given the additional right to enforce any exclusivity portion of the license.13 This allows a licensee to prevent another party from infringing the licensed patent rights. Therefore, Section 365(n) protects the non-debtor licensee in three respects. First, the licensee can rely on using the license. Second, the licensee does not need to worry about having the trustee try to renegotiate the license agreement to less favorable terms. Lastly, Section 365(n) allows a licensee to enforce the exclusivity of the license against third parties.
One disadvantage of Section 365(n) is that any future patent rights secured by the licensee in the license agreement are lost. In effect, the license agreement is frozen in time, as of the date on which licensor enters bankruptcy. For example, if the license agreement provides that future improvements would be available to the licensee under the same terms of the license agreement, these future improvements would not be available to the licensee in the bankruptcy regime.
In conclusion, bankruptcy law provides some protections for a non-debtor party of license agreements. What protections are available to a non-debtor party largely depend upon whether the license is considered an executory contract. If deemed an executory contract, the protection provisions of Section 365 may allow a non-debtor party some relief from the otherwise harsh provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.
As for the the USPTO involving Intel and their latest claims and remarks. Yesterday a re-examination litigation search was under way. I will not explain this but from time to time I will state various subline changes.
Yes but Retinalyze was the final blow that will show exit to Dr. Barnhill yet who has the ability to handle day to day operations, from my view no one. The final death blow if it happens will come from HD mistakes involving NeoGenomic not HD - Intel issue.
BC94 - enjoy reading the 10Q it is available.
When the Patent Office revoked Smuckers patent on the basis of prior art, Smuckers did not get itself in a jam by arguing.
It would have been nice if HD didn't like Jam but they do.
That has nothing to do with it in actualities. The future removal of the CEO will be a start but seen as far too late.
RB message 17297 about no knowledge yet holders of 4-10 million shares are at tune with one another? Do people really think they are that navie as typical retail investors. Not a chance in this world or the next.
In general both parties stand to lose in many ways yet investors may find this hard to understand. Very little remains as to grace towards HD but still some, aside from this some need to understand comments made about jury trial possibilities, they so not apply here. The judges will take in consideration over all. To help you understand why no jury would never exist in these matters is simply because typical citizens regardless of where have no understanding of any degree in technical matters to state the least. So comments about the ole 12 member jury brought a slight smile.
What does the timing of 10587094 have to do with Dr. S.D. Barnhill and then after several months with Mr. S. Tobin.
In reading prosecution documentation it takes a great deal of time to pull all related readings to fully understand. I thought sharing the website and a few numbers might do well but was wrong.
This message is the result of reading posts 17388 - 17390 in RB
HD still has a slight chance.
Apllication 12/944197 is what I call an extension of US20110106735. US20110106735 is successful but using a continuous or extension as such must be done within a 1 year peroid as all know. It appears to me that HD was sleeping about this area or thought that no concern would evolve far enough from Intels 1/02/08 publication. Claims must be made before a 1 year periord of publication date.
Office action is in response to HD 8/17/2011 amendment to 2011/0106735. Claims 1-23 are rejected. 5/2012. Note that the month prior 50% were of the claims were rejected.
Examiner - Patent 7685077 is currently under re-examination . An interference should rarely be suggested until examination is complete on all other issues. Each pending claim must be allowed, finally rejected, or canceled.
Conclusion - The prior art made of record and not relied up[on is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Claims 1 - 23 are rejected
[REFERENCING A MESSAGE FROM ANOTHER BOARD]
Reply; Look, there is no reason that Intel would even need to settle with HD, enough said!
Wonder if Dr. Barnhill still plays golf with Mr. Quirk on his days off. He only lives about 1 1/2 miles away if I recall. Nothing like a round a day right Bill? it also keeps the doctor away. I do not mean Dr. Barnhill.
ehwest, if you wish to know what the large shareholders already know you will need to go to the website posted prior and look close at the last 6 documents posted by the patent agency within application 20110106735. This will shed much light for anyone.
For a personal note to you this is exactly what you were looking for however most other investors or interested parties will be able to establish the latest findings.
Ehwest, go to the patent weblink I posted prior. It is generally/basically the same access but involving patent/application slightly different in a way. Place one of the follwing patent application numbers as follows then after in comes up look under the file wrapper area and the latest information is available. The following patent appliacation numbers would be my guess!!!
2011/0106735
2011/0119213
Go back to RB and see if Terry or others may wish to check up on these I will not but will state the latest of one of those applications numbers bring information as recent as June/2012. Maybe maybe not as to what you are looking for but is my best guess. Aside from that check the numbers at freepatentonline but as to what is happening presently the other weblink prior will obtain the latest data.
As mentioned prior it may serve well to download all or most of the documents. On another note, patent laws over the past 12 years have evolved further.
It can not be stressed enough to download most or all documents.
Ehwest, I should have never said that. It may sever better if people download these papers instead a few of us making or expressing various opinions. All the patent information is about the Intel patent and yes I realize you mean HDVY to gain that patent but I doubt that will happen. That patent in my personal thoughts will either die or Intel will be able to change the words enough to atleast secure claims 2-15. Of course all HDVY investors wish to see Intel patent 7685077 collapse and hope so but doubt HDVY will end up with the patent.
King, the supplemental response is part of what I posted. It is exactly a letter heading stating Intel has amended a response. The response is the Claims/Remark data some of which I mentioned. The "SA" itself is just the letter head submitted to the Patent office. The entire SA consists of the SA, ClM,claims and REM-remarks.
That is all that amounts to so no worry yet far too early. The patent office did indeed reject their patent based on just looking lightly at Westons patent 7475048 as submitted by HDC, and of course we already knew the Guyon paper would not be strong enough to counter Intel's patent.
King, look in the "Image file wrapper" area!
In case other wish or need the docket number is 42P21656RE seial 90/011938.
Absolutely not, first of all the patent agency struck down all 15 claims within Intel’s patent. Next Intel has amended claim 1,6 and 11 and also defined Weston’s claims in patent 7475048 and are trying to explain/show the office a understanding of Westons patent language. They are also requesting reconsideration under their new claims/remarks filed by Intel.
I gather that HDVY is working on a counter move in case the patent agency agrees with the new claims/remarks by Intel. There is no reason for HDC to enter further documentation/counter until the patent office makes a follow up decision but as it states the patent office refused all 15 claims by Intel's patent 7685077.
re: "Supplemental Response after Non-Final Rejection"
I would need to go back into the patent office to see this part. I only posted the basic last 3 filed documets. I do recall about 5 others for 3/12 but I don't have time to check this out today. I'm sure other posters have seen this post and will be hot on checking it out today.
I really didn't want to post any of the information but some have asked how to access the patent reexaminations and various remarks referencing interference involving Health Discovery Corps patent dispute with Intel. Go to the following website "portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair" and type in the two login requested words then on the next page select application and enter 90/011938 all the information will be right there. If you don’t know your way around it could be confusing. Note, the latest "CLM" involving Claims, "REM" involving Remarks, and "SA" involving Amendment and Response under 37 C.F.R. 1.111
As for the NeoGenomic CC today? I didn't care for them stating that the HDVY technology was used to tweak existing platforms. They made it sound as if this was all it was used for?
I see on the other board those talking about doctors, why they are or are not buying into HDVY stock. A few might use what I call spare money or how about play money to buy stock but let us be clear that most doctors buy into annuities and for a good reason. The more money you have the you want and need to protect it!
Thirty five to Sixty cents per share will be a fire sale when considering the patent value, the success of NeoGenomic - using our patents, the successful outcome of HDVY involving the patent issue with Intel, the recent success with Retinalyze LLC and do not forget the SVM Capital LLC launch of 6th generation that is active in trading since last January.
"we will be hearing something from them very soon".
From the RB message board.
re: [So how long untill the next election]
I am sure that Bill Quirk and Prime movers will call for a special meeting that will call for a vote to oust not only Barnhill but possibly another director too. If this happens we will probably have a fire sale between .35-.60 per shares.
Next move????
Will Barnhill make more money stepping aside or having the company remove him?
Othe problems Herbert A Fritsche Ph.D is just a figure head being used by Barnhill.
J McKenzie and Barnhill are as good as brothers. McKenzie was the first to recieve preferred shares because he help Barnhill launch a company involving SVM.
Next???? What will all this mean when it comes to the master agreement with "NeoGenomics". It calls for Fritsche and Barnhill to have individual agreements to help NeoGenomics as needed and expressed with the master agreement and sub agreements?
Are we actually seeing the result of the Intel/HDVY patent dispute but are last to know? Many things to consider but we do know that Barnhill had became poor at just about everything he has touched to date, especially with all the revolving professionals.
Who will end up being CEO? will Tobin or Hadden return or will there be a fire sale to NeoGenomics?
Question????
The real question that should be ask is if Dr. S.D. Barnhill is actually trying to get himself voted out?
If we do not hear the results of the recent voting in of Directors by July 10th It seem that one or two Directors might be voted down. I wonder if Dr. S.D. Barnhill was voted out?
I sincerely wish not to hurt feelings but it is clear since the short time of announcement to show time, it is what it is and nothing more, voting of directors. Our cue was the given by the date they announced this meeting verse when we needed to be present. Besides that, the bylaws do talk about shareholders meeting and that kills two birds with one stone. With the short time notice and a few feelings that creep up it tells me the company is very concern about spending money right now but perhaps that will change in 2013 with monies in HDVY coffers from past deals they have made. I believe our CEO is at risk being the shares that Mr. Quirk and Prime Movers hold. I would not want Mr. Quirk as CEO but maybe a director yet that could be a great threat to Dr. Barnhill. It will be interesting to see just how close the voting will come to threatening Dr. Barnhill. This could be his wake up call if he really cares. We seem to be really close to moving towards the green so you might give Dr. Barnhill a vote of confidence one more time.
King Oil, you have been here a while, I don't need to say anything to you that you already know but it is clear to me that Neogenomic is dead serious, $3 million dollars worth right up front. I also feel our patents are worth more than I previously thought and that Quest and Abbott are not done with us. Other thoughts are possibly cashing HDVY shares for Neogenomic shares. With an OS outstanding shares of around (43 million) in Neogenomic I do feel that they have a good chance at some bigger money before us. It all depends how much of a push HDVY gets from John Hadden.
Finally! some excellent news!eom