Health Discovery Corp (HDVY)

[Zenos Arrow]

>>>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.