Health Discovery Corp (HDVY)

[LocWolf]

re: Yahoo message board by GoodStuff
Can anyone explain why they are still referring to the new case # 6:22-cv-00356 ? The original is 6:20-cv-00666. It says JA is taking it under advisement. Shouldn’t JA have ruled on this before setting the schedule ? THX
_________________________________

GS...no doubt everyone has noticed that and even JA far more than all of us however, for JA to act in a neutral manner he probably needs to be cautious on how to introduce that aspect. I sincerely feel he has already made up his mind to allow HDC to use all evidence dating back to the 6:20-vc-00666 case history especially when considering how JA is using and considering the remaining Fact Discovery time. The case number may remain 6:22-cv--00356 and we should not be concerned as long as we get to use all the past documentations from the original court case and the two plus years of possible liability award.

As I see things investors here may feel that Intel has the upper hand with all this stalling but I tend to differ meaning HDC has also had additional time to work on any weak areas they may see within themselves and also Intel's block walls that are looking weaker as time move along.

Another thingy about the PATB having that final say prior. Yes I doubt the USPTO will have much to say simply because Intel (in my words/thoughts) are done with the USPTO and it is onward to the U.S. Appeals Court which is about the USPTO structure.

Judge Albright will carry the football and body block everyone expect the U.S Appeals Court as they stand taller than JA or the USPTO Director.

Something I don't think anyone here (so far) has thought about, what is going to transpire in recognition and Publicity for the Attorney's and Firm of the winning team