I am on a personal mission to find all the data I can on the UnifiedOnline/Chanbond deal. I just came across this exhibit for the 8-K from 10/30/2015. It have lots of information like the promissory note and a statement of unanimous consent... which talks about the 100% membership interests of Chanbond. (see this link https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1097718/000135448815004760/ex101page_18.jpg)
I hope to read this tonight and I encourage anyone else to take a read and comment.
magnus_invest Thursday, 03/28/19 09:11:26 AM Re: None 0
Post # of 84169
This is a UnifiedOnline & Chanbond document update as of 3/28/2019. I will ad more and continue to make them sticky. Please message me with other noteworthy links.
Added side note, some people have asked what is the "!" in the Inc. name and does it mean we are not purchasing the correct stock: UNIFIEDONLINE!, INC. and UNIFIEDONLINE, INC. are the same company (see below: STATE OF DELAWARE CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION)
https://businesswiki.info/company/nc/1102741/uo-ip-of-nc-llc Company Overview Uo! Ip Of Nc, LLC is a Limited Liability Company located in Greensboro , North Carolina. The company was registered on 2009-06-17 and it is approximately 9 years years old. According to North Carolina business register Uo! Ip Of Nc, LLC status is Current-Active.
Uo! Ip Of Nc, LLC agent is Carter, William R., Jr.. We don't have information about this agent address.
================================================================================ Entity Name: UNIFIEDONLINE, INC. File Number: 703828
================================================================================ Entity Name: ICEWEB, INC. File Number: 3440022
UNIFIEDONLINE!, INC. and UNIFIEDONLINE, INC ================================================================================ STATE OF DELAWARE CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION State of Delaware Secretary of State Division of Corporations Delivered 05:07 PM 12/22/2014 FILED 5:07 pm 12/22/2014 SRV 141574856 0703828 FILE
UNIFIEDONLINE!, INC., a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware DOES HEREBY CERTIFY: 1.The name of the corporation is UNIFIEDONLINE!, INC.
2.That a Certificate of Amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation (Title of Certificate Being Corrected) was filed by the Secretary of State of Delaware on December 16, 2014 and that said Certificate requires correction as permitted by Section 103 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware
3.The inaccuracy or defect of said Certificate is: (must be specific) CUSIP will not issue a new number if the new name contains an exclamation point. The corporation is a public company and is required to have a CUSIP number for its stock.
4. Article FIRST of the Certificate is corrected to read as follows: The name of the corporation (hereinafter "corporation") is UnifiedOnline, Inc.
SEC Filings ================================================================================ http://filings.irdirect.net/data/1097718/000135448815000023/iweb_8k.pdf January 5, 2015 From 8-K Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported) January 5, 2015
UnifiedOnline, Inc. (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) Delaware (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation) 0-27865 (Commission File Number) 13-2640971 (IRS Employer Identification No.)
4126 Leonard Drive, Fairfax, VA (Address of principal executive offices) 22030 (Zip Code)
Registrant's telephone number, including area code (816) 979-1893
IceWEB, Inc. (Former name or former address, if changed since last report)
Definition of "Subscription Agreement" ================================================================================ Subscription Agreement REVIEWED BY WILL KENTON Updated Mar 30, 2018 https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/subscriptionagreement.asp
What is a Subscription Agreement A subscription agreement is an investor's application to join a limited partnership. It is also a two-way guarantee between a company and a subscriber. The company agrees to sell a certain number of shares at a specific price, and in return, the subscriber promises to buy the shares at the predetermined price.
BREAKING DOWN Subscription Agreement In a limited partnership (LP), a general partner manages the partnership entity and brings in limited partners using a subscription agreement. Candidates subscribe to become limited partners. After meeting standard requirements, the general partner decides whether to accept the candidate. Limited partners act as silent partners by providing capital, usually a one-time investment, and have no material participation in the business's operations. As a result, they typically have little to no voice in the day-to-day operations of the partnership and are exposed to less risk than full partners. Each limited partner’s exposure to business losses is limited to that partner's original investment. The subscription agreement for joining the limited partnership describes the investment experience, sophistication, and net worth of the potential limited partner.
Broadly defined, a partnership is a business agreement between two or more people who all have personal ownership in the business. The partnership entity does not pay taxes. Instead, the profits and losses flow through to each partner. Partners will pay taxes on their distributive share of the partnership's taxable income based on a partner agreement. Law firms and accounting firms are often formed as general partnerships.
Subscription Agreements With Private Placements When a company wishes to raise capital, they will often issue shares of stock for purchase by either the general public or through a private placement. The primary disclosure form for potential general public investors is a prospectus. The prospectus is a disclosure document listing information about the business and its underlying security.
A private placement is a sale of stock to a limited number of accredited investors who meet specific criteria. The criteria for accredited status includes having a particular level of investment experience, assets, and net worth. Investors will receive a private placement memorandum as an alternative to the prospectus. The memorandum provides a less comprehensive description of the investment.
Commission file number: 0-27865 UNIFIEDONLINE, INC.(Exact name of small business issuer as specified in its charter) DELAWARE (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization) 13-2640971 (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) 4126 Leonard Drive, Fairfax, VA (Address of principal executive offices) 22030 (Zip Code)
NOTE 17 - RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS
On April 23, 2014, we [UNIFIEDONLINE, INC.] entered into a Subscription Agreement with UnifiedOnline! LLC (the “Subscriber”), a Delaware limited liability company, pursuant to which the Subscriber purchased 400,000 shares of Series AA Preferred Stock which were converted on January 5, 2015 to 903,825,954 shares of common stock becoming a majority shareholder in the Company. UO! IP of NC, LLC is a related party to Unified Online! LLC. In consideration for the Shares, Subscriber paid $116,087 to various vendors and obtained the agreement of a certain related party lessor to temporarily forbear exercising non-payment default remedies. Since entering into the Subscription Agreement, the Subscriber has advanced approximately $1.0 million bearing interest at 10% per annum to fund general working capital. The balance due was $1,090,255 and $1,029,005 at September 30, 2015 and June 30, 2015, respectively, and is reflected as note payable, related party in the balance sheet.
Uo! Ip Of Nc, LLC is a Limited Liability Company located in Greensboro , North Carolina. The company was registered on 2009-06-17 and it is approximately 9 years years old. According to North Carolina business register Uo! Ip Of Nc, LLC status is Current-Active. Uo! Ip Of Nc, LLC agent is Carter, William R., Jr.
On February 27, 2014, Agility Ventures LLC sold and assigned the Master Lease and Equipment Schedule to a third party, UO! IP of NC, LLC (see Note 5). UO! IP of NC, LLC has advanced the payments made on this lease to the Company at a rate of 10% per annum. The balance due to UO!IP of NC, LLC was $635,000 at September 30, 2015 and June 30, 2015, respectively.
On April 23, 2014, we entered into a Subscription Agreement with UnifiedOnline! LLC (the “Subscriber”), a Delaware limited liability company, pursuant to which the Subscriber purchased 400,000 shares of Series AA Preferred Stock which were converted on January 5, 2015 to 903,825,954 shares of common stock becoming a majority shareholder in the Company. UO! IP of NC, LLC is a related party to Unified Online! LLC. In consideration for the Shares, Subscriber paid $116,087 to various vendors and obtained the agreement of a certain related party lessor to temporarily forbear exercising non-payment default remedies. Since entering into the Subscription Agreement, the Subscriber has advanced approximately $1.0 million bearing interest at 10% per annum to fund general working capital. The balance due was $1,090,255 and $1,029,005 at September 30, 2015 and June 30, 2015, respectively, and is reflected as note payable, related party in the balance sheet.
On January 5, 2015, IceWEB, Inc. changed its name to UnifiedOnline, Inc.
==================== Aug 15, 2014
CHANBOND, LLC was formed in Delaware as a Limited Liability Company ====================
We’re also branching into the area of Intellectual Property Monetization around patent portfolios we’re negotiating in our lines of business; there’ll be more on that later.
I’ve never been more excited to be a part of anything as I am to be making these changes. We’ve worked extremely hard to get our company into position to make this happen. Our model is sound; our approach is right; our systems are perfected, and our resolve is solid. Come along with us! Be a part of UNIFIEDONLINE!, INC (UOIP: OTC BB). It’s a new day and a bright future!” Howe said. ====================
Sep 21, 2015 Chanbond files suit against 13 cable providers. Chanbond and their legal team MISHCON DE REYA NEW YORK LLP file suite against the 13 cable providers
====================
https://www.streetinsider.com/dr/news.php?id=11104682 Oct 27, 2015 purchase agreement by and among Deirdre Leane, and ChanBond, LLC Company purchased Chanbond, in exchange for a cash payment of five million U.S. Dollars ($5,000,000) payable on or before October 27, 2020 (the “Cash Payment”) and a shares payment of forty-four million, seven hundred thousand (44,700,000) shares of the Company’s common stock
Robert M. Howe, III of UnifiedOnline, Inc. purchases ChanBond, LLC Robert M. Howe, III of UnifiedOnline, Inc. (the “Company”) entered into a purchase agreement (the “Agreement”) by and among Deirdre Leane, (the “Seller”) and ChanBond, LLC (“Chanbond”)
On October 27, 2015, the Company entered into a purchase agreement (the “Agreement”) by and among Deirdre Leane, (the “Seller”) and ChanBond, LLC (“Chanbond”), pursuant to which the Company purchased Chanbond, in exchange for a cash payment of five million U.S. Dollars ($5,000,000) payable on or before October 27, 2020 (the “Cash Payment”) and a shares payment of forty-four million, seven hundred thousand (44,700,000) shares of the Company’s common stock (the “Shares”) par value of $0.001. The obligation to make the Cash Payment shall be evidenced by a promissory note (the “Promissory Note”). The above securities were issued in reliance upon exemptions from registration pursuant to Section 4(2) under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”) and/or Rule 506 promulgated under the Securities Act.
On the Closing Date, pursuant to the Agreement, the Seller executed an interest assignment deed which assigned, transferred and conveyed all of its membership interests in ChanBond to the Company and ChanBond appointed William R. Carter, Jr. (a related party to the Company) as sole manager (“Manager”) who shall have sole and exclusive authority over the business of ChanBond.
Effective October 27, 2015, the Company entered into $5,000,000 no interest Promissory Note with the Seller. The Promissory Note is due and payable on or prior to October 27, 2020. If the Promissory Note is not paid in full by the Maturity Date, the aggregate principal amount shall be increased by Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000) for each month such payment is delayed (or pro rata portion thereof) until paid in full.
Until the Note is paid in full, the Company shall be obligated to make payments on this Promissory Note to the Seller from 100% of any Net Revenues, derived from the monetization of the ChanBond patent portfolio, within thirty (30) calendar days after each calendar month commencing with the calendar month ending October 31, 2015.
In October, 2015 a forbearance agreement was reached between the Company and UO! IP of NC, LLC which forbeared its enforcement of rights due to the existing defaults and amended the payment terms of the lease. The final payment date has been extended to October 31, 2017 at which time the then outstanding principal balance, together with all accrued but unpaid interest on the unpaid balance, shall be due and payable in full
Long uoip Saturday, August 29, 2020 4:32:39 PM Re: Specialneeds post# 82363 Post # of 82389 since we're all waiting, another compilation re: Specialneeds' commercial insurance business experience ~
Specialneeds ~ #81710 Of course, unless they collectively feel the can get a deal in a global settlement. Everyone involved here knows the tech was stolen and great profits were gained by doing so. The value of the patents vs the revenue stream is easily and clearly estimated. The 13 and the manufacturers may have a sober view of all this and want to look for the exit early. The numbers grow exponentially for them by waiting this out. They must know Billy is not going away by now. ____________
#81886 In the Commercial insurance business we have seen a significant award inflation trend. Most believe that the millennial generation is more likely to not just provide economic justice but rather punish corporations. We term it social claim inflation. This trend is causing significant rate increases due to these very large awards. Claim adjusters are extremely wary to go to trial and are settling claims rather than take the risk with a jury. I can understand her concern. ______________________
#81521 I m just putting the dots together. Cisco is not highlighting this case in their financial statement thinking they are going to win this case. Our attorney highlights global settlement negotiations in a way that indicates the judge is well aware of those talks. I think we are close ___________________________
#81909 I don’t have a crystal ball, I just have been thru the mill in litigation over my career. I could go on for hours on huge awards that had little or no negligence been settled due to the fear of being in front of a jury. This one has negligence and huge negatives for the other side in terms of potential payout. Both sides will get closer to an agreement as we move toward a new trial date IMO ___________________
#82158 The problem with buying the tech is that if Comcast did that they would not be able to past the cost back to the manufacturers. This would not be a covered claim in a typical indemnification agreement. The manufacturers would also face the same problem as this would not be covered in an insurance contract _____________________
#82161 The treble damages, also know as punitive damages, are typically not covered. I would be surprised if these are awarded. I’ve rarely seen them awarded.
It would make great sense for Comcast to buy the tech. ________________
#81904 It basically boils down to this-did u act when you had to opportunity to and by not acting did u cause greater damage to a counter party that you were indemnifying. This is true for insurance contracts and other contractual law. _________________________
#81902 I’m not saying there is a limit on a settlement based on insurance coverage available. There just needs to be a good faith attempt to settle if the conditions are right. Billy can and probably has rejected those attempts so far. Billy is in complete control here and he , Diedre and the inventors have a number in mind which none of us can accurately guess the amount. ____________________________
#81894 Here is basically how the settlement situation will play out IMO. The majority or several of the 13 are depending on indemnification contracts by the manufacturers. In contact law both parties must act in good faith toward their counter party. The 13 know how much insurance coverage the manufacturers carry collectively over the time period of infringement. This could total hundreds of millions of dollars. If our demand is within that total then the carriers need to negotiate in good faith to settle within that amount. If they fail to do that and this goes to trial and multiples of that amount is awarded then the insurance carriers could be on the hook for the entire award because they did not negotiate in good faith. Last yr I had to pay 14m on a 1 m policy because our adjusters messed up a settlement. The contractual indemnification in this case is very important toward driving a settlement because of the case law around good and bad faith negotiations and the risk inherent with these. There are lots of factors going on behind the scene that are not obvious. I bought a ton of shares based on the structure of the suit and my experience with how litigation plays out. If Billy is asking for huge dollars then this can play out for several more yrs because his demands, if they are large enough, oddly gives some contractual protection to the indemnifiers. _________________________________
#81601 Sooner or later we will win. Sooner is better but I will also very much like later too _____________________
#82004 ~ Since most of my experience has involved defending the liability of my insureds I thought it would be worthwhile to share how the process works from the standpoint of the defense and how it may play out on their side.
First, once we are presented with a suit discovery starts and the first question to be answered is are we at fault. That question is answered fairly quickly as to the facts. In this case they know the answer to this basic question. The marksman and PTAB decisions and their own discussions with the engineers of the modems will make this clear that there is liability. The next step is to determine the potentially most effective defense strategy. Here they have three options and they have probed at each in the published pacer docs. They are:
Prior Art was in existence
The tech was obvious so it could not be patented
The tech they use was not used as patented.
Based on the most recent docs available it appears that they are focusing on third option. Their tech is different.
Once this strategy is established they will determine the likely outcome of the success of that strategy. This will involve detailed discussions with their experts and analysis of prior similar cases.
The next step will be holding internal mock trials arguing both sides in front of a jury to determine their likely decision. If they determine that it is highly likely that they will win they will follow the established strategy thru to a verdict. If they determine they will lose, a new set of decisions that need to be made will emerge. First, they will decide the high/low range of the potential award. Second, could a settlement agreement be reached at or below the low range. Finally, could the low range or below be established during the appeal process. They may attempt to lower the high end of the award range pre trial by entering into a high/low verdict agreement with Chanbond that basically says that we will pay an established pre agreed amount regardless of the outcome of the trial. This amount is significantly less than the high end of their award range calculations.
In this case, the most likely appealable issue will be based on an excessive award rather than any trial errors. So , if they appeal they will be betting on the CAFE judges lowering an award to the low end of the verdict award range. If a high/low agreement is agreed to by our side I don’t see this being appealed.
So before trial, the defense side will have a very accurate view of their chances of a jury win, the low side and high side of a verdict range and the potential for a verdict to be lowered on appeal.
The only other determination they will be considering will be how strong is Chanbond’s staying power if they try to drag this out and what impact will that have on the high end of their verdict range. I believe our new law firm has increased our staying power so the defense will take that into consideration. As always this is just MHO. Private Reply | Keep | Public Reply | View Replie
Scruffer Sunday, 08/02/20 11:55:31 AM Re: Long term post# 82034 0.005
P.S. Some of these statista links may not show b/c have to subscribe, but may get a few views free.
Thanks Long Term-inal.
You're credited with the longest post ever. You're like our encyclopedia Britannica or wikipedia of posts. It just keeps going and going, like a long airport terminal that never seems to end. When you think you're close, #56, must go to #98, another 1/3rd mile. Then find out in wrong concourse or terminal and must reverse course.
Specialneeds Friday, 07/31/20 08:55:21 AM Re: None 0.005 Post # of 82030 Since most of my experience has involved defending the liability of my insureds I thought it would be worthwhile to share how the process works from the standpoint of the defense and how it may play out on their side.
First, once we are presented with a suit discovery starts and the first question to be answered is are we at fault. That question is answered fairly quickly as to the facts. In this case they know the answer to this basic question. The marksman and PTAB decisions and their own discussions with the engineers of the modems will make this clear that there is liability. The next step is to determine the potentially most effective defense strategy. Here they have three options and they have probed at each in the published pacer docs. They are:
Prior Art was in existence
The tech was obvious so it could not be patented
The tech they use was not used as patented.
Based on the most recent docs available it appears that they are focusing on third option. Their tech is different.
Once this strategy is established they will determine the likely outcome of the success of that strategy. This will involve detailed discussions with their experts and analysis of prior similar cases.
The next step will be holding internal mock trials arguing both sides in front of a jury to determine their likely decision. If they determine that it is highly likely that they will win they will follow the established strategy thru to a verdict. If they determine they will lose, a new set of decisions that need to be made will emerge. First, they will decide the high/low range of the potential award. Second, could a settlement agreement be reached at or below the low range. Finally, could the low range or below be established during the appeal process. They may attempt to lower the high end of the award range pre trial by entering into a high/low verdict agreement with Chanbond that basically says that we will pay an established pre agreed amount regardless of the outcome of the trial. This amount is significantly less than the high end of their award range calculations.
In this case, the most likely appealable issue will be based on an excessive award rather than any trial errors. So , if they appeal they will be betting on the CAFE judges lowering an award to the low end of the verdict award range. If a high/low agreement is agreed to by our side I don’t see this being appealed.
So before trial, the defense side will have a very accurate view of their chances of a jury win, the low side and high side of a verdict range and the potential for a verdict to be lowered on appeal.
The only other determination they will be considering will be how strong is Chanbond’s staying power if they try to drag this out and what impact will that have on the high end of their verdict range. I believe our new law firm has increased our staying power so the defense will take that into consideration. As always this is just MHO.
long uoip Wednesday, July 15, 2020 12:10:46 PM Re: long uoip post# 81553 Post # of 81589 Aug 18th cox TRIAL is POSTPONED
513 07/15/2020 ORAL ORDER: The jury trial scheduled for August 18, 2020, is POSTPONED. Ordered by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 7/15/2020.
ChanBond, LLC v. Atlantic Broadband Group, LLC, et al. Court Docket Sheet District of Delaware 1:2015-cv-00842 (ded)
long uoip Wednesday, July 15, 2020 11:08:10 AM Re: Scruffer post# 81545 Post # of 81586 Stephen B. Brauerman letter to The Honorable Richard G. Andrews regarding Continuance.
VIA CM/ECF & HAND DELIVERY The Honorable Richard G. Andrews United States District Court for the District of Delaware 844 North King Street Wilmington, Delaware 19801 Re: ChanBond, LLC v. Atl. Broadband Group, LLC, et al., Cons. C.A. No. 15-842-RGA Dear Judge Andrews: This morning we received a copy of a letter from Cox’s counsel to the Court asking for a three-month continuance of the trial due to the current COVID situation. This request comes as no surprise to ChanBond, as Cox and the other defendants have sought to delay trial in these matters since these cases were filed. ChanBond recognizes the unique circumstances that exist and, because ChanBond would like to try its case before a jury and protect prospective jury members and Court personnel from unreasonable risk, ChanBond does not reject the concept of rescheduling the upcoming Cox trial. However, delaying the Cox trial will invariably delay the sequential trials of the other defendants, such as Comcast and the Charter entities (Charter Communications, Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks). These collective cases have been pending for almost five years and, to date, the only scheduled trial is Cox. Prior to the present health crisis, the parties and the Court discussed the scheduling of a second trial. See, e.g., D.I. 489, 490, 492, 493, and 494. In view of this unanticipated delay, ChanBond requests that the Court reschedule the Cox trial to the Court’s first available trial date in October or November. Additionally, ChanBond requests that the Court schedule trials for Comcast and the Charter entities to be held eight (8) weeks and sixteen (16) weeks following the newly scheduled Cox trial date. By doing so, in the event that the Cox trial must be continued a second time, the Cox trial can be moved to follow the Charter entities’ trial in the Court’s calendar and Comcast would be tried first. ChanBond believes this approach fairly balances the needs of managing the current health crisis and ChanBond’s right to try its case before a jury. Indeed, with the Cox case already prepared for trial, the parties will be able to use the continuance to prepare pretrial materials for the Comcast and Charter entities trials. ChanBond fears that without scheduling dates for these first few trials, a global resolution of ChanBond’s claims are unlikely as defendants will continue to try to delay trial interminably. Indeed, ChanBond believes that merely scheduling these additional trial dates for Comcast and the Charter entities will assist the parties’ discussions with respect to a global settlement. 600 N. King Street ? Suite 400 Writer’s Direct Access: P.O. Box 25130 ? Wilmington, DE 19899 (302) 429-4232 Zip Code For Deliveries 19801 sbrauerman@bayardlaw.com Case 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 512 Filed 07/14/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 31462 The Honorable Richard G. Andrews July 14, 2020 Page 2 Thank you for your consideration. ChanBond is available at the Court’s convenience. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Stephen B. Brauerman Stephen B. Brauerman (No. 4952)
ChanBond, LLC v. Atlantic Broadband Group, LLC Court Docket Sheet District of Delaware 1:2015-cv-00842 (ded) 07/02/2020 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Richard G. Andrews - Pretrial Conference held on 7/2/2020. Local counsel for plaintiff: S. Brauerman. Local counsel for defendant: J. Ying. (Court Reporter Heather Triozzi.) (Text entry; no document attached.)
web ~ A minute entry is the memorialization, electronic or otherwise, either by form or narrative of events occurring during a court proceeding or of matters required to be performed by statute or rule. It is not intended to be a verbatim record of the court proceeding. Comment ~ It is important that minute entries provide a concise record of court proceedings, identifying the nature of and participants in each proceeding, and actions taken during the proceeding including official acts of the court. The itemization appearing in section (a)(1)-(10) is not intended to be an exhaustive list. However, it is not intended that minute entries be used to describe proceedings in the level of detail characteristic of an official transcript. A court proceeding includes those matters heard in chambers when one or more parties are present or represented by counsel. In addition to the date and starting and ending times of a proceeding and the identity of the certified court reporter, alternative recording method and operator, or the absence thereof, a minute entry shall include all official acts occurring during the proceeding, which may consist of any or all of the following as applicable: (1) nature of the hearing; (2) appearances of counsel and parties; (3) identification and admission of exhibits; (4) administration of oaths and to whom administered; (5) names of witnesses who are called to testify; (6) parties' motions; (7) findings of fact and conclusions of law by the court as required by law or rule; (8) court rulings, orders, decisions and notices to the parties made in the course of the proceeding; (9) verdicts; and/or (10) any other matter directed by the court. Nothing in this rule shall be read to require minute entries in any proceeding or to inhibit innovations or programs that would eliminate minute entries. (b) Court Order or Ruling. A court order or ruling is a record of any out-of-court decision by a judicial officer on a procedural or substantive issue. (c) Notice. A notice is the memorialization of the scheduling of an event before the court or of an administrative action of the court. (d) Copies. Parties shall provide the court with sufficient copies of orders or notices to serve all parties. (e) Intent. This rule is not intended to allocate responsibility for preparing, processing or distributing rulings, orders or notices. Work assignments within each courthouse should be determined locally based on local resources and practice.
================================= This is a sample of a verdict form (was applied in vrng) note the final calculations the jury used a calculator with NOT enough didgets so add a 0
========================================== Long uoip Re: NewbieDoobyDoo post# 78958 0.001
Post # of 80134
questions about insurance have come up various times, previous answers to indemnity queries.. . (uoip shareholders are grateful for specialneeds background & expertise)
Long uoip79916 Re: BrokeAgent post# 79914 Post # of 79925 I'll concur with your analogy BrokeAgent as of Sept. 1st, 2020 until then I'm assuming no one (including me) truly knows how this will conclude.. .however I'm seeing it from another angle, carter may want a certain $ figure & the defendants lining up a guy who's specialty is "primary drafter of dozens of appellate briefs" is inferring to carter that cox is seriously following through all levels of litigation if billy tries to hold out for the bigger teece valuation (cox is "upping the ante") (I don't purport to be a professional, these are just my personal views based on the information/stats/data I've studied, I believe that's what all posters do) additionally, specialneeds "contractual indemnity risk" factors in, to seriously consider ~ https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=155245181
global-intellectual-property-litigation-risk-research-report.pdf page 13 ~ US patent litigation: Most U.S. patent cases settle, with only 5% going through trial
ARTICLE ~ Why plaintiffs in US patent cases who understand the odds of victory are almost always best off settling
The vast majority of patent disputes in the US settle before they end up in court. One reason for this, it is claimed, is because scared defendants are worried into making suits go away by aggressive plaintiffs who give them a choice of settlement at one price or fighting a suit at a higher price. And, undoubtedly, there is an element of that involved. However, there is a lot more on top. For example, looking from the plaintiff’s perspective there are also significant disincentives to take a fight all the way - especially against deep pocket corporate opponents. Plaintiffs that properly understand the odds of prevailing in a US patent case are likely to favour settlement in all but the most open and shut cases of infringement. The US - it’s the land of opportunity, including for inventors who protect their dreams with patent protection. In 2016, the US government granted more than 325,000 patents to inventors. Inventors enforce their patent rights through litigation, when they believe a corporation is practising their protected idea. In 2016 there were 5,100 patent litigation lawsuit filings. The vast majority of patent lawsuits settle before trial—95% to 97% of them. Some policy makers and corporations strongly criticise patent enforcement practices that favour early settlement. They argue early settlements to avoid testing the merits on patent disputes are an abusive litigation practice. Early settlement isn’t an abusive practice, but rather a prudent business decision. Our team filed a patent litigation lawsuit on an inventor's behalf. Fast forward to the pertinent part of the story: we came to a critical point in his litigation - the claim construction hearing. This is where a judge interprets the patent’s protected property: the claims. A judge’s determination in claim construction reveals what technology areas a patent does and does not cover. Our position was strong. On each claim term, we could rely on a plain meaning of the words. The defendants, on the other hand, needed to weave convoluted interpretations to support their defence. When strategising with inventor, we presented why we believed he would win at claim construction. At that point he asked a question: “Is there risk?” We informed him there was risk. He followed: “What’s the best- and worst-case scenario?” We explained the best case would be the judge ruling in our favour on each of the four claim terms. That did mean, we said, that the inventor would actually “win”, but that he would live to fight to another stage in the litigation. On the other hand, we said, the worst case would be the judge ruling against us on any one of the four claim terms. In that case we’d not only lose the current litigation, but all future litigations as well. The inventor didn’t find the risk profile very appetising. He directed us take an offer on the table, thereby settling the case and avoiding any risk associated with claim construction. Though it was puzzling at the time, I learned years later why his decision to minimise risk was the right one. 1st, patent litigation is structured like a video game. You must win every level to end up the winner. If you lose any one level, no matter how far you’ve come, then it’s game over. And like a video game, every level has its own gatekeeper. The table below describes each level of litigation, the gatekeeper, and provides the 2017 statistics of winning at each level.
In level one, you must convince a judge why you have a winnable case. If you reach level 2, you present your case to a jury. If you win there then at level 3, you must convince an appeals panel to uphold a favourable jury verdict. What are your overall chances of winning at every level, to win at patent litigation? It’s just 9% to 14%. Second, at every level you must perform a flawless juggling routine. In every patent litigation, as a baseline you must prove a corporation infringes your patent. This is one ball to juggle in every patent litigation. But a corporation can defend itself by raising up to 27 patent defences, each representing an additional ball to juggle. A corporation has 17 validity defences to invalidate your patent, two enforceability defences to render it unenforceable, four damages defences to prevent you from recovering the money you want and four infringement defences to be excused for infringing. If you drop the ball on any one of the 27 defences, then you lose and the defendant wins. The chart below illustrates the chances of winning this juggling routine. It is pulled from a 2000-2013 composite study from the University of Houston on the win/loss rate per legal issue in patent litigation. Let’s say you accuse a corporation of directly infringing your patent and the corporation raises a validity defence called 102(e) - this creates two legal issues you need to successfully juggle through the patent litigation. You have a 17.4% chance of winning both issues, through all levels. But suppose the corporation raises two more defences, two validity defences called 103 obviousness and 112 indefiniteness. This now creates four legal issues to juggle. Your chances of winning drop to 5.5%. Adding just two defences decreases your chances of success by 42.8%, because you must win on every legal issue at every level in front of a judge, jury and appeals panel. If you’re a patent owner, do you go for the home run on every legal issue, at every level in the litigation, for a 9% to 14% chance of winning? Or do you do what the inventor did? Take a settlement offer to reduce risk to the patent and live to fight another day? Most people do what the inventor did. That’s why 90% of all patent cases settle before claim construction and, as noted above, 95% to 97% settle before trial. This high settlement rate may seem alarming, but it demonstrates business judgement due to skewed risks against patent holders. If you’re a patent owner and are considering patent litigation, consider taking a page from my client's book and minimising risk to your patent assets.
Re: pillskill post# 79906 Post # of 79924 Robbie Manhas ~ focuses on high-stakes appeals, with a particular emphasis on patent law Managing Associate
Washington, D.C.
Litigation and IP A former Federal Circuit clerk, Robbie Manhas is a member of the firm's Supreme Court and Appellate group. His practice focuses on high-stakes appeals, with a particular emphasis on patent law and administrative law. He has been the primary drafter of dozens of appellate briefs, and has presented oral argument in the Federal Circuit and the Sixth Circuit.
Robbie is a lawyer because he is passionate about legal analysis, writing, and advocacy—understanding how to properly frame and creatively answer challenging questions of law, and then communicate that understanding to others in a credible and efficient way.
Robbie's work includes wins in the Federal Circuit and other appellate courts, and spans a variety of industries and products, such as semiconductors and electronics, software, pharmaceuticals, agriculture, and sporting goods. His work has also involved a number of U.S. agencies, including the Patent and Trademark Office, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Department of Agriculture.
Prior to joining Orrick, Robbie was a Senior Associate at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, where he was a member of its Appellate and Supreme Court Litigation, Intellectual Property Litigation, and Government and Regulatory Litigation groups. Before that, Robbie was a law clerk for the Honorable Richard G. Taranto of the Federal Circuit.
sorry for the duplicate Katoprimate, we must have posted simultaneously (I only saw pillskills' post & was too busy copy/pasting)
Appellate Brief The appellant and appellee must file individual briefs to aid the appellate court in its consideration of the issues presented. Failure to do so results in a dismissal of the appeal. The facts of the case, the grounds for review, and the arguments relating to those questions must be concisely stated. Any statements referring to the trial record must be supported by an appropriate reference to it.
DEFINITION ~ The appellant's brief must specifically discuss the alleged errors that entitle the appellant to a reversal and discuss why each ruling of the lower court was wrong, citing authority, such as a case in which a similar point of law has been decided or a statute that applies to the particular point in issue. Disrespectful or abusive language directed against the lower court, the appellate court, the parties, witnesses, or opposing counsel cannot be used. If it is, it will be stricken from the brief, and the costs of the brief that might have been awarded are disallowed.
Long uoip Re: TonyJoe1957 post# 79613 0
Post # of 79625
if comcast settles.. .they'll ALL SETTLE given it's the largest cable company of 13 defendants the deductible component is foremost concern
Cable One - average over 8 year (2011-2018) 629 million. no data before 2013, assumed 0 2011 and 2012 Cablevision - average/year over 8 year (2011-2018) 6.353 billion. Cequel Communications - average/year over 8 year (2011-2018) 2.313 billion. Charter Communications - average/year over 8 year (2011-2018) 19.492 billion. Comcast Communications - average/year over 8 year (2011-2018) 73.453 billion. Cox Communications - average/year over 8 year (2011-2018) 12.460 billion. Mediacom Communications - average/year over 8 year (2011-2018) 1.532 billion. RCN Telecom Services - no data, assumed 0 revenue Time Warner Cable - no data, assumed 0 revenue WaveDivision Holdings - hidden behind paywalls. Conservative estimate 325 million/year averaged over 8 years Wideopen West Finance - average/year over 8 year (2011-2018) 1.102 billion. Atlantic Broadband Group - no data, assumed 0 revenue Bright House Networks - no data, assumed 0 revenue
Total average per company per year $9,050,960,949.63 / year ..stats c/o Xjon1600
=========================================== Long uoip Re: flyingboozeman post# 79611 0 Post # of 79625
treble cost
court transcript ~ line 25 only Comcast has a willfulness claim
Willful infringement in patent litigation is rooted in punishing culpable and intentional infringers. The beneficiaries of that punishment—the patent owners—can receive up to 3x the damages resulting from the act of infringement, making it an attractive claim. No longer do patent owners have to demonstrate that the accused infringer acted objectively reckless. Instead, the focus is solely on the accused infringer’s subjective willfulness.
Read more about Dr. Teece and his publications and activities at the UC Berkeley website, his Berkeley Research Group profile, and his Google Scholar page.
======================================== long uoip Tuesday, 05/19/20 11:02:02 PM Re: Mic ll post# 79444 0
Post # of 79458
thought this was worthy of reposting, to lift your spirits re: your shares (btw, Micll there were a couple of shareholders tryna unload their shares a while back for 0.05 per share) if any uoip shareholders have better stats/data, feel free to amend/adjust.. .correct
Cable One - average over 8 year (2011-2018) 629 million. no data before 2013, assumed 0 2011 and 2012 Cablevision - average/year over 8 year (2011-2018) 6.353 billion. Cequel Communications - average/year over 8 year (2011-2018) 2.313 billion. Charter Communications - average/year over 8 year (2011-2018) 19.492 billion. Comcast Communications - average/year over 8 year (2011-2018) 73.453 billion. Cox Communications - average/year over 8 year (2011-2018) 12.460 billion. Mediacom Communications - average/year over 8 year (2011-2018) 1.532 billion. RCN Telecom Services - no data, assumed 0 revenue Time Warner Cable - no data, assumed 0 revenue WaveDivision Holdings - hidden behind paywalls. Conservative estimate 325 million/year averaged over 8 years Wideopen West Finance - average/year over 8 year (2011-2018) 1.102 billion. Atlantic Broadband Group - no data, assumed 0 revenue Bright House Networks - no data, assumed 0 revenue
Total average per company per year $9,050,960,949.63 / year
======================================= Re: None 0 Post # 38663 of 38663
Issue preclusion, or collateral estoppel – lets get a little real world perspective.
In late 2018, Plaintiff NetSoc sued Chegg in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY), alleging infringement of a patent directed to "establishing and using a social network to facilitate people in life issues."
Chegg filed a motion to dismiss and argued that the asserted patent failed to claim patent-eligible subject matter.
While Chegg's motion to dismiss was pending, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas found the asserted patent to be invalid under Section 101.
Chegg filed a supplemental brief and argued that the plaintiff was collaterally estopped from pursuing its patent infringement claims in SDNY because of the recent decision in Texas.
The plaintiff acknowledged that it was estopped, but the court found that it must review the issue and decide whether the doctrine's requisite elements were met.
Issue preclusion, or collateral estoppel, prohibits a party from seeking another determination of the litigated issue in a subsequent action.
"It is well established that once the claims of a patent are held invalid in a suit involving one alleged infringer, an unrelated party who is sued for infringement of those claims may reap the benefit of the invalidity decision under the principles of collateral estoppel."
Nevertheless, the court laid out the four elements that must be met for collateral estoppel to apply in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit:
• 1-the issues of both proceedings must be identical • 2-the relevant issues were actually litigated and decided in the prior proceeding • 3-there must have been "full and fair opportunity" for the litigation of the issues in the prior proceeding • 4-the issues were necessary to support a valid and final judgment on the merits
SDNY found that all four criteria for collateral estoppel were clearly satisfied.
The two actions involved the same plaintiff, the same patent and the same allegations. The Texas court resolved the issue after a full briefing and a hearing on the matter. With the plaintiff being represented by the same counsel in both cases.
"There is no doubt that the issue was fully litigated" and that the patentee "had both fair opportunity and incentive to litigate the validity issue in the first litigation."
The Northern District of Texas' conclusion that the asserted patent claims were invalid under Section 101 was the basis and a necessary part of the motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims with prejudice.
Accordingly, the court found that Chegg could "reap the benefit" of the earlier invalidity decision, dismissed the case against Chegg and noted that plaintiff's pending appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit did not alter the collateral estoppel analysis.
So this was a SDNY case.
Lets see how the four pillars work with worlds v activision.
1ST The issues must be identical – If the CE issue is based on the judges prior MSJ she herself can re-rule this issue as she sent the parties to the USPTO for guidance once sent to the USPTO it means this was no final judgment, no complete ruling.
There was an USPTO issue raised and the judge received it back from the USPTO on the error issue corrected.
If the CE issue is based on the judges prior MSJ she herself can rule that upon guidance from the USPTO, The PTAB, The CAFC and the PTAB again that the case is different due solely to the fact that Bungie had ZERO right to file in the first place.
Lest us not forget that legally ATVI and Bungie have been legally found to have engaged in collusion before a non article III court yes, but still a federal agency.
So how can anything at the USPTO, PTAB, CAFC, PTAB again mean ANYTHING if – I F – it should never have happened in the first place.
Think on that.
Ok we only brought into the CAFC roughly 30 other claims as WORLDS Inc wisely did not want to risk the 6 patent claims UPHELD.
This way if we lost at the CAFC we still would be able to go back to boston with 6 claims.
So could in anyway shape or form, could ATVI be saying that only X patents / claims be brought forth now. No. The IPR was tainted from the beginning. The IPR was brought forth by collusion.
While we had all patents challenged in the PTAB 6 were permitted to go forward. And ultimately all were returned.
I do not see how CE works from that direction.
Should the issue become the judges decision, I again do not see how the MSJ affects this case.
As well, these were not identical as Bungies case was a different plaintiff and different level of adjudication.
As well we did not have an identical issue as the USPTO had to adjust an issue during the trial which bungie did not have to deal with.
2ND Litigated previously
How was a MSJ with prejudice a litigated fully and fairly case.
If it were then the judge would have simply dismissed with prejudice. Game over.
The case was held over due to Bungie filing
This was a delay, not litigation, fully and fairly.
3RD Full and fair opportunity
Really, do I even have to write this section.
The Judge, rules to hold over without prejudice actually saying some of these may be patentable and says let the ruling body of the USPTO decide.
Now ATVI is going to walk back in with a judge knowing that the 4 plus year delay was due to ATVI and Bungie and I will say it again colluding to destroy a small company.
No way this leg stands.
4TH The issues were necessary to support a valid and final judgment on the merits
On this I may be a bit off but the issues here originally raised were a patent case complaint.
Which never got to the PATENTS and which CLAIMS would be at issue.
So what issues were completely allowed light of day, what issues were or were not supported and what was the FINAL judgement issued here?
------------------------------------------ A final judgment I get, because if one court at the FC level says we found each and everyone of these patents absurd and the claims within and with prejudice dismissed it, then the issue is stopping a patent holder from court shopping until they find a friendly court. Yes I get it. But how it would apply here. I do not know. ------------------------------------------
Nevertheless, the court laid out the four elements that must be met for collateral estoppel to apply.
How ATVI-Bungie think they have all four pillars here I am not sure.
But what I am sure of is that the attorneys will tell them they have a good chance on getting this bounced at $1200.00 an hour plus.
Judge Casper, who we all were upset about back when, for Whitey Bulger Etc. Threw us a legal lifeline.
Yes this is old news but use it in the real world v CE.
She would have to rule against:
Her own instinct of MSJ with prejudice The USPTO – Saying yes there is an issue here with a patent, we have fixed it, here it its. The USPTO – PTAB Saying originally the 6 were of all the claims without a doubt patentable. The USPTO – PTAB not allowing proper discovery The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit bouncing it back saying you did not provide a fair court The USPTO- PTAB saying you know on review Bungie should not have been allowed to bring this IPR
How does she rule against this.
The Judge had to have during her OWN review, had to have said, you know, this looks like they had the ideas, they fixed on going issues with limited information transfer, etc etc but there are smarter people than me, let me send it to them (the USPTO) and see what they say.
If they agree its good, then i have the cover i need to move this forward. Nobody can say you should not allow these patents or cliams to move forward. Even with a 97.8% kill rate of patents/claims if the PTAB USPTO CAFC, if it can somehow survive all that, then I will take it back to my court room.
How in the real world does the judge say, the PTAB UPHELD this, the CAFC said they did not get a fair hearing, the PTAB then 100% upheld by finding the actual litigants for the defense colluded here but the hell with it Now i will kill it.... No..
Suggest you copy / record When pass word is accepted look to the bottom left side of your screen...click there to click open. Note a long period before it starts waiting for Judge Andrews.
============== Update 5/6/2020 Specialneeds provided his knowledge of business insurance and how insurance companies that have a chance of being on the hook financially. In the situation here, the insurance companies for the modem manufactures will encourage a settlement, to minimize their loses.
long uoip Friday, March 27, 2020 10:55:57 AM Re: A deleted message Post # 78575 of 78599 respectfully easyme, I concur with most of your analogy.. . bill gates metaphor "great corrector" analogy was in reference to our impending aug. 18th court date, opportunity for Stephen B. Brauerman to advocate on behalf of Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine (the 3 chanbond inventors) so the legal system can validate their innovative technology & their long overdue $ compensation Economics + Law = Damages p.s. I don't think covd19 is nothing, it is changing the trajectory of many people's lives, mostly the lower socioeconomic class, unfortunately ____________________________________________
Intelligent device system and method for distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system Patent number: 10136180 Abstract: A plurality of intelligent device systems for use with a wideband signal distribution network, and methods for transmitting digital information and receiving digital and non-digital information onto and off of an RF carrier through a wideband signal distribution network, are disclosed. The intelligent device systems provide networks of intelligent devices that modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, using existing EIA/TIA 568 standard wiring infrastructure. The methods modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, and separate IP portions from non-IP portions. Type: Grant Filed: April 6, 2015 Date of Patent: November 20, 2018 Assignee: CHANBOND LLC Inventors: Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine ____________________________________
Intelligent device system and method for distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system Patent number: 9363554 Abstract: A plurality of intelligent device systems for use with a wideband signal distribution network, and methods for transmitting digital information and receiving digital and non-digital information onto and off of an RF carrier through a wideband signal distribution network, are disclosed. The intelligent device systems provide networks of intelligent devices that modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, using existing EIA/TIA 568 standard wiring infrastructure. The methods modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, and separate IP portions from non-IP portions. Type: Grant Filed: January 29, 2014 Date of Patent: June 7, 2016 Assignee: CHANBOND LLC Inventors: Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine
t TIMELINE of UOIP legal actions, thanks to Magnus
page 1 Judge Andrews ~ A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice caused by the failure to interest anyone in the technology at the time and the waste of time needed to explain why the non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000- 2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 .
page 2 The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they are valuing the potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates by the parties of the likely outcomes of litigation are now offered to prove what the outcome of the litigation should be.
page 3 There has been no showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the agreement between two parties who want to be on one side of either a litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an input for determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus, the "contemporaneous valuations" including not only the two completed transactions but the various statements during the same time period are excluded as unreliable. ______________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (document in full) FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE IN RE CHANBOND, LLC PATENT LITIGATION C.A. No. 15-842-RGA CONSOLIDATED MEMORANDUM ORDER Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and Testimony of Defendants' Damages Expert. (D.I. 370). I have reviewed the parties' briefing and heard oral argument. (D.I. 371,398, 409,471). Defendant's damages expert, Mr. Bakewell, offers three quantitative analysis approaches in his 200 page "Rebuttal Expert Report," one of which is the "market approach." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at~ 171 ). Plaintiff argues that Mr. Bakewell' s market approach opinions should be excluded because Mr. Bakewell does not use reliable principles or methods. (D.I. 371 at 1). Plaintiff contends that Mr. Bakewell fails to establish that the evidence he relies on is comparable to a hypothetical licensing negotiation in December 2012 for the patents-in-suit. (Id.; D.I. 339, Ex. A at ~164). Mr. Bakewell's market approach is based on three valuation datapoints: (1) "pre-DOCSIS 3.0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit," (2) "2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations," and (3) "2012 AST offer to sell." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at~ 287). Plaintiff argues that each should be excluded, and thus I should exclude Mr. Bakewell's entire market approach opinion. (D.I. 371 at 8). 1. Pre-DOCSIS 3. 0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit The "Pre-DOCSIS 3.0" datapoint relies on investment solicitations by Z-Band, the company formed by the inventors of the patents-in-suit. In December 2000, Z-Band sought between $2 million and $5 million in venture capital funding. In 2001 , Z-Band received an offer for $5 million from an unidentified foreign company for a "minority interest," which it rejected. (D.I. 399, Ex. A at 11 178-79). Mr. Bakewell concludes from these two facts that a lump sum royalty in the "mid seven figures" would be appropriate. (Id. at 1 287). Plaintiff argues that the investment solicitations and rejected offer are not technologically or economically comparable to a hypothetical negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit. (D.I. 371 at 9). I agree. The solicitations and offer occurred approximately ten years before the first of the patents-in-suit issued on May 10, 2011. (Id.). The solicitations cannot be representative of a hypothetical negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit when the patents-in-suit did not yet exist. Therefore, Mr. Bakewell's opinion based on "pre-DOCSIS 3.0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit" is irrelevant and excluded. Further, any marginal relevance that such an analysis might have, even if it specifically related to a license for the patents-in-suit, is minimized by the fact that no agreement was reached and that the investment opportunity took place some ten to twelve years before the date of the hypothetical negotiation. A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice caused by the failure to interest anyone in the technology at the time and the waste of time needed to explain why the non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000- 2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 . 2 2. 2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations The lawsuit in this case was filed September 21 , 2015. Mr. Bakewell opines that the "2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations" datapoint reflects a reasonable royalty of "less than $20 million." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i 287). I am unsure why he uses the word "contemporaneous," but I assume he means valuations contemporaneous with each other rather than with the hypothetical negotiation date. The contemporaneous valuations datapoint is recited in the narrative of the expert report. It seems to consist of two transactions in which ownership of the patents-in-suit changed hands, and various statements made by interested parties during negotiations for the two successful transactions as well as ones that did not take place. (See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 210-286; D.I. 371 at 16-20; D.I. 398 at 5-7). The terms of the first completed transaction- sale by CBV to ChanBond on April 9, 2015-stated that the purchaser would pay an upfront fee and a percentage payout based on the recoveries associated with the enforcement of the patents-in-suit. (See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 232-233). These transaction terms are not representative of a hypothetical negotiation because they base the payment for the patents on the outcome of litigation. The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they are valuing the potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates by the parties of the likely outcomes of litigation are now offered to prove what the outcome of the litigation should be. The second completed transaction is the October 27, 2015 sale of ChanBond, a month after the lawsuits in this case had been filed, to UnifiedOnline. (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 244-248). ChanBond's only assets were the patents-in-suit, two other patents, two patent applications, and this litigation. (Id. at ,i 244). To purchase ChanBond, UnifiedOnline paid $5 million and 44.7 3 million shares of its common stock. 1 (Id.). Thus, as with the earlier 2015 transaction, and as the expert report makes clear, the thing being valued in the transaction was this litigation. This transaction therefore is not comparable to the hypothetical negotiation. A licensing transaction values the patents. All other things being equal, a licensing transaction is much preferred over a settlement agreement that licenses a patent. See Laser Dynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 694 F.3d 51, 77-78 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Estimating the hypothetical negotiation, that is, what a willing licensee and a willing licensor would agree to, is one step further removed from being comparable than a settlement agreement. Instead of its being an agreement between a party who has a patent and a party that wants to be able to use the patent, it is an agreement between two parties who want to be on one side of that transaction, that of the licensor. There has been no showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the agreement between two parties who want to be on one side of either a litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an input for determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus, the "contemporaneous valuations" including not only the two completed transactions but the various statements during the same time period are excluded as unreliable. Further, any marginal relevance that the two transactions and the related statements might have has so little probative value that the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of issues inherent in bringing into the litigation how trials are financed. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would exclude it. Fed. R. Evid. 403 . 1 Mr. Bakewell assigns negligible value to the 44.7 million shares of UnifiedOnline on the basis of the par value of the stock. I assume it did not have any known market value. At least at this stage, the value of the shares is not at issue. 4 3. 2012 AST offer to sell Mr. Bakewell's market approach opined that the 2012 offer to sell the patents by nonparty Allied Security Trust ("AST") reflected a reasonable royalty of "high seven figures." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at, 287). AST is a cooperative that helps member companies secure rights to patents. (Id. at, 192). Rights to the patents-in-suit were offered to AST member companies for "high seven figures." (Id. at, 198). While the fact that rights to the patents-in-suit were offered for "high seven figures" is relevant to the valuation of the patents-in-suit, this datapoint alone cannot serve as the basis for Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion. Neither Defendants nor their expert have shown that a single offer to sell rights to patents is a viable basis for a market approach calculation of a reasonable royalty. (See D.I. 470). The 2012 AST offer is therefore excluded from Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion. I am not concerned about excluding this last remaining datapoint of Mr. Bakewell's market approach, and thus his entire market approach opinion, because Mr. Bakewell offered two other damages theories aside from the market approach. The market approach is not essential to Defendants' damages analysis. See United States v. Driggs, 823 F.2d 52, 54-55 (3d Cir. 1987). Outside of the market approach, the 2012 AST offer itself is independently relevant to the valuation of the patents-in-suit and may come in as evidence of such. A word of caution. The fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is not only irrelevant to a reasonable royalty analysis but also would be unfairly prejudicial to Plaintiff, confuse the issues, and mislead the jury. A hypothetical negotiation assumes that the parties are a willing licensor and a willing licensee and that the patents are valid and infringed. Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc. , 580 F.3d 1301 , 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Because no company 5 responded to the 2012 AST offer, the situation does not represent a hypothetical negotiation with a willing licensee. Therefore, the fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is irrelevant and inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 402. Further, even if the nonresponse to the 2012 AST offer were relevant to a reasonable royalty analysis, any possible probative value it might have would be substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues that would result from evidence that AST' s offer was not accepted. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would exclude evidence that the offer was not accepted. Fed. R. Evid. 403 . For the reasons above, Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and Testimony of Defendants' Damages Expert (D.I. 370) is GRANTED.
Sunday, 06/18/17 10:59:07 AM Re: None
0 Post # 33853 of 78158
RECENT UOIP/CHANBOND WINS and what they mean for us as shareholders.
(I) ordinary infringement litigation and declaratory judgment actions in Article III courts ("Article III Courts") ; AND (II) administrative invalidation actions in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent and Trial Appeal Board ("PTAB").
ARTICLE III COURTS Now we are en route to a win in civil court with the patent litigation. In fact, we are probably closer to receiving a settlement given the way this case has gone. The scheduled stages in the case are, chronologically, (i) Fact Discovery, (ii) Status Conference, (iii) Any Summary Judgment/Daubert (i.e. expert witness testimony) motions, (iv) Pretrial Conference, and (v) Jury Trial.
Here's why I think settlement is imminent:
OBLIGATION TO TRY TO SETTLE Initially, for the joint submission brief, these parties were to discuss the possibility of settlement. By the time of (iv), they must specifically certify (basically affirm) that they have engaged in a good faith effort to explore the resolution of controversy by settlement (see Rule 16.3(c)(12) of the Local Rules of Civil Practice and Procedure of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware). Initially, they have to state whether there's a possibility of settlement whereas, later along in the case, they must undertake to engage in a good faith effort to settle. Despite getting smoked at the Markman hearing, it appears the Defendants haven't yet tried to engage in a good faith effort to settle.
COSTS ASSESSED AGAINST THE LOSING PARTY Also keep in mind that the longer the case drags on, the higher the costs that can be incurred against the losing party (even if the case settles). For example, it appears that you can get a jury cost assessment against you if the case is settled less than 3 days before the scheduled jury selection (Rule 54.2). It also appears that you can still apply for attorneys' fees even in connection with settled cases (Rule 54.3).
It doesn't leave much room to play games and push the matter to trial before you settle as costs can be assessed against you the further the case progresses. I read somewhere that the average cost of taking a patent case through trial is over $2 Million per case.
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING (A.K.A. MARKMAN HEARING) Keep in mind that there is also a pretrial hearing that the parties go through, called a Markman hearing, which was already heard by Justice Andrews December 9, 2016. As per Wikipedia: "Markman hearings are before a judge, and generally take place before trial. A Markman hearing may occur before the close of discovery, along with a motion for preliminary injunction, or at the end of discovery, in relation to a motion for summary judgment. A Markman hearing may also be held after the trial begins, but before jury selection."
In any case, this Markman hearing was very important because the issues of law are adjudicated and it basically encourages settlement, particularly in Judge Andrews' court room. If you read about Andrews (who is set to try the case if you haven't been paying attention), it appears he has the fewest patent-specific procedures and guidelines out of all four Article III judges that sit on the Delaware court. He apparently has a unique procedure for these Markman hearings. I read that "instead of having the parties file separate claim construction charts and briefs for the Markman hearing, he requires the parties to exchange their proposed claim terms for construction, exchange their proposed constructions, confer, and file a Joint Claim Construction Chart, as well as a Joint Claim Construction Brief." In other words, he gets the parties to sit down and really pinpoint what the contentious issues are. This leads to less strong-arming and taking a tunnel-vision approach with one's own case. This makes the aspect of settlement more conducive, particularly as Andrews found in favor of ChanBond after the December 9th Markman hearing (http://www.morrisjames.com/assets/htmldocuments/patent%20blog%20-%20Chanbond%20-%201826.pdf). I encourage you to read Judge Andrews' decision as he outlines how the defendants were struggling to make a case and rules against every single one of the Defendants' proposed constructions. I also encourage everyone to read the last law review article in this post under the heading "New Changes in the Law Affecting this Case" and truly see how instrumental it was for ChanBond to win the Markman hearing.
BACKGROUND OF JUSTICE ANDREWS AND DELAWARE'S DISTRICT COURT From Law Review Article of 2016 (Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Stop for Summary Judgment: The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware’s Seemingly Disjunctive Yet Efficient Procedures in Hatch-Waxman Litigation, Katherine Rhoades, Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property):
It is no secret that the District of Delaware’s four Article III judges have extensive patent experience and are some of the most experienced in the country in handling patent infringement cases. The District of Delaware leads all other district courts with the most patent case filings per judge, which results in an experienced bench. In fact, Judge Andrews, Judge Robinson, Judge Sleet, and Chief Judge Stark are among the U.S. district court judges who hear the most patent cases, and they are the four judges that hear the most ANDA cases in the country.
The District of Delaware’s lack of local patent rules does not seem to have affected the district’s case efficiency or time-to-trial. Research “suggests that districts with local patent rules process patent cases faster than districts lacking such rules.” However, this research is not dispositive. Additionally, experienced judges can resolve cases more quickly. The District of Delaware has an overall faster time-to-trial - time from the day the complaint is filed to the first day of trial—than the District of New Jersey for patent cases that do not settle. While local patent rules can decrease the time-to-trial, Delaware’s experienced bench is efficient in resolving patent disputes.
In other words, due to the venue and the fact it's being heard by Judge Andrews, this isn't a case that will be bogged down by a slow court system or, worse, be adjudicated before an inexperienced judge. Efficient venue + reputable judge = quick route to trial or settlement.
NEW CHANGES IN THE LAW AFFECTING THIS CASE Maybe you think the Defendants will play strategic games and appeal Justice Andrews' ruling in the Markman hearing? Think again. On January 20, 2015, the Supreme Court changed the standard under which trial court claim construction rulings will be reviewed on appeal, holding that a trial court’s factual findings underlying its claim construction rulings must be given deference. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 831 (2014). In a 7-2 decision, the Teva Court concluded that a trial court’s findings of fact underpinning a claim construction ruling must be reviewed under a “clearly erroneous” standard, rather than under the general de novo standard previously applied by the Federal Circuit. Without getting into the details, this means that it's much harder for the Defendants to appeal Justice Andrews' Markman ruling due to this heightened review standard from Teva which, in turn, will lead to an increased likelihood of settlement.
MY OPINION So I personally think settlement will happen soon enough. Maybe not next week, but certainly quite soon given the mounting costs, the potential to have costs assessed against you even in the midst of settlement, the fact that the Markman hearing has already taken place and the issues of law have been adjudicated in favor of ChanBond as per Andrews' order (which also has to be submitted to the jury if it gets as far as a jury trial), and the fact that Markman hearings - after the Teva ruling - are now more important than ever in patent litigation.
Long term Saturday, 02/01/20 11:06:57 AM Re: long uoip post# 76368
0 Post # 76380 of 76412
The three cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach. In contrast to such data points, the market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements. StoneEagle Servs., Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc., 8:13-CV-2240, 2015 WL 3824170, at *9-*11 (M.D. Fla. June 19, 2015); D.I. 372, Ex. 1, Bakewell Rpt., §§ 273-274; see also AVN Technologies, LLC v. Intel Corp., 15-CV-33-RGA, 2017 WL 178752, at *3 (D. Del. May 1, 2017). ..
“has anybody responded privately or is there a way we can source this information ? are you suspecting same valuation method will be utilized with uoip ?
Waiting or others to respond....unsure where to get other jury instruction sheet in similar cases.....judge Johnson in the brings v Google case someone got the instruction sheet but didn’t know where they got it...u might be able to find out at Wordpress....go there enter vrng 24.....there’s a lot there to look through.....am under the weather presently..have enough energy to just read posts.
Suspecting the same valuation method to be utilized? Judge Andrews asked for other cases, perhaps that was just pointing the parties in a general direction, ...perhaps it was a hint as to what parameters he thinks is appropriate.... can’t really tell that’s why one must be familiar with multiple methods so when discussed in court in Feb we can pick up on inference as to what the parties are talking about......believe at the end of the hearing a plan will either be approved by judge and / or will send both sides with his guidance to further negotiate an agreed upon method ( this wouldn’t be bad) an acceptable delay if it prevents an appealable miss application of setting upon an agreed method.
=========== long uoip Saturday, 02/01/20 11:30:59 AM Re: Long term post# 76380
0 Post # 76381 of 76412
re: "Judge Andrews asked for other cases, perhaps that was just pointing the parties in a general direction, perhaps it was a hint as to what parameters he thinks is appropriate" ..I concur, certainly initiates genesis point
re: "3 cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach" ..another stall tactic or modus of operandi to veer case sideways
re:"market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements" ..I concur, thanks for the additional examples
re:"must be familiar with multiple methods so when discussed in court in Feb we can pick up on inference"..my research shows various modalities, court will reveal judge's sentiments which would be best suited
re:"am under the weather presently..have enough energy to just read posts" ..sorry to hear that (hope it's not what's on the news) thanks for responding despite your fatigue, hope you feel better
we need you.. . court 17 days ========================
Long term Saturday, 02/01/20 12:47:18 PM Re: long uoip post# 76381
0 Post # 76384 of 76412
“;another stall tactic or modus of operandi to veer case sideways “ Don’t think it’s a stall tactic...Andrews is being accommodating to the defense & pointing out to defendants to get real after what valuation methods they proposed ( what they proposed was ridiculous) the purpose is not to fall into a appealable trap....Andrews,as all judges have as an objective is not to be appealed for judicial mistake......his direction to 13 read those cases as a guide in developing a mutually agreed upon method that he could approve. The Feb hearing will further clarify what was said in the Nov25 hearing....if both sides have reached agreement of method of valuation & if Andrews is comfortable then the method will be applied & we’ll probably know by the end of the hearing. If the sides haven’t agreed I think he’ll give further instruction & set another date to determine method. As to setting trial date he could set it thus adding more pressure ( again demonstrating to an appeal court of his fairness rendering a non appealable point) =================
long uoip Saturday, February 1, 2020 6:26:26 PM Re: Long term post# 76384 Post # 76399 of 76411 re:"appealable trap" ..I shudder from even the inference I would rather go nice & slow then deal with weeks, months, years of appeals, seems like Judge Andrews track record is professional & methodical
re:"get real about evaluation" ..analogy between defendants offer of nov court hearing $5-10 million & figures that shareholders are submitting parallel to other similar cases @ $1.6 B (curious to what that amounts to per share) correct me if I'm wrong.. . 1,614,601,069 uoip shares $1.2 B = approx. $.75 share
I'm all for ~ "judges having an objective to not to be appealed for judicial mistakes"
re: "mutually agreed upon method"..ugh, Houston, we have a problem LOL
"probably know by the end of the hearing?".. wow, seriously ?
"MUST BE APPROVED by the judge"..dilemma for the defendants
re: "sides haven’t agreed I think he’ll give further instruction & set another date to determine method" ..I suspect this will be the great debate =================
Thoughts on Judge Casper. 1. She is fully aware of what's been going on in the IP legal arena 2. A message was sent to her when the defense attorney said " this will cost billion's " that was not a plea for leniency but rather suggestion/ threat ....to delay send it to ptab & caft thus delay delay = ware out wddd / she'd be appealed. Judge Casper recognized this & gave them what they wanted by referring to PTAB knowing by doing so it could likely strengthen wddd,s case ( if they could do so successfully & wddd do so) Result, now the case returns to her court & wddd has a much stronger case . Activision recognized this possibility thus enter Google 3. No judge wants to be appealed by doing what she did strengthens whatever ruling is made & that's what's good about what she did. Remember TK wasn't happy about going through the gauntlet but recognized the value thus he really wasn't as upset by these delays because he believed wddd would come out on top. How's that for faith / confidence. 4. Unless there's a buy out(not likely) or a settlement Judge Casper will proceed with the trial with a personal objective ......of providing nothing that will be appellate as a result of judicial mistakes .
Will a judgement that comes out of her court be appealed? Likely, Activision will find something & we'll go through the appeals process. Again... time & delay.,
long uoip Friday, March 27, 2020 10:55:57 AM Re: A deleted message Post # 78575 of 78599 respectfully easyme, I concur with most of your analogy.. . bill gates metaphor "great corrector" analogy was in reference to our impending aug. 18th court date, opportunity for Stephen B. Brauerman to advocate on behalf of Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine (the 3 chanbond inventors) so the legal system can validate their innovative technology & their long overdue $ compensation Economics + Law = Damages p.s. I don't think covd19 is nothing, it is changing the trajectory of many people's lives, mostly the lower socioeconomic class, unfortunately ____________________________________________
Intelligent device system and method for distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system Patent number: 10136180 Abstract: A plurality of intelligent device systems for use with a wideband signal distribution network, and methods for transmitting digital information and receiving digital and non-digital information onto and off of an RF carrier through a wideband signal distribution network, are disclosed. The intelligent device systems provide networks of intelligent devices that modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, using existing EIA/TIA 568 standard wiring infrastructure. The methods modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, and separate IP portions from non-IP portions. Type: Grant Filed: April 6, 2015 Date of Patent: November 20, 2018 Assignee: CHANBOND LLC Inventors: Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine ____________________________________
Intelligent device system and method for distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system Patent number: 9363554 Abstract: A plurality of intelligent device systems for use with a wideband signal distribution network, and methods for transmitting digital information and receiving digital and non-digital information onto and off of an RF carrier through a wideband signal distribution network, are disclosed. The intelligent device systems provide networks of intelligent devices that modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, using existing EIA/TIA 568 standard wiring infrastructure. The methods modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, and separate IP portions from non-IP portions. Type: Grant Filed: January 29, 2014 Date of Patent: June 7, 2016 Assignee: CHANBOND LLC Inventors: Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine
t TIMELINE of UOIP legal actions, thanks to Magnus
page 1 Judge Andrews ~ A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice caused by the failure to interest anyone in the technology at the time and the waste of time needed to explain why the non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000- 2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 .
page 2 The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they are valuing the potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates by the parties of the likely outcomes of litigation are now offered to prove what the outcome of the litigation should be.
page 3 There has been no showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the agreement between two parties who want to be on one side of either a litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an input for determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus, the "contemporaneous valuations" including not only the two completed transactions but the various statements during the same time period are excluded as unreliable. ______________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (document in full) FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE IN RE CHANBOND, LLC PATENT LITIGATION C.A. No. 15-842-RGA CONSOLIDATED MEMORANDUM ORDER Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and Testimony of Defendants' Damages Expert. (D.I. 370). I have reviewed the parties' briefing and heard oral argument. (D.I. 371,398, 409,471). Defendant's damages expert, Mr. Bakewell, offers three quantitative analysis approaches in his 200 page "Rebuttal Expert Report," one of which is the "market approach." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at~ 171 ). Plaintiff argues that Mr. Bakewell' s market approach opinions should be excluded because Mr. Bakewell does not use reliable principles or methods. (D.I. 371 at 1). Plaintiff contends that Mr. Bakewell fails to establish that the evidence he relies on is comparable to a hypothetical licensing negotiation in December 2012 for the patents-in-suit. (Id.; D.I. 339, Ex. A at ~164). Mr. Bakewell's market approach is based on three valuation datapoints: (1) "pre-DOCSIS 3.0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit," (2) "2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations," and (3) "2012 AST offer to sell." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at~ 287). Plaintiff argues that each should be excluded, and thus I should exclude Mr. Bakewell's entire market approach opinion. (D.I. 371 at 8). 1. Pre-DOCSIS 3. 0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit The "Pre-DOCSIS 3.0" datapoint relies on investment solicitations by Z-Band, the company formed by the inventors of the patents-in-suit. In December 2000, Z-Band sought between $2 million and $5 million in venture capital funding. In 2001 , Z-Band received an offer for $5 million from an unidentified foreign company for a "minority interest," which it rejected. (D.I. 399, Ex. A at 11 178-79). Mr. Bakewell concludes from these two facts that a lump sum royalty in the "mid seven figures" would be appropriate. (Id. at 1 287). Plaintiff argues that the investment solicitations and rejected offer are not technologically or economically comparable to a hypothetical negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit. (D.I. 371 at 9). I agree. The solicitations and offer occurred approximately ten years before the first of the patents-in-suit issued on May 10, 2011. (Id.). The solicitations cannot be representative of a hypothetical negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit when the patents-in-suit did not yet exist. Therefore, Mr. Bakewell's opinion based on "pre-DOCSIS 3.0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit" is irrelevant and excluded. Further, any marginal relevance that such an analysis might have, even if it specifically related to a license for the patents-in-suit, is minimized by the fact that no agreement was reached and that the investment opportunity took place some ten to twelve years before the date of the hypothetical negotiation. A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice caused by the failure to interest anyone in the technology at the time and the waste of time needed to explain why the non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000- 2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 . 2 2. 2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations The lawsuit in this case was filed September 21 , 2015. Mr. Bakewell opines that the "2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations" datapoint reflects a reasonable royalty of "less than $20 million." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i 287). I am unsure why he uses the word "contemporaneous," but I assume he means valuations contemporaneous with each other rather than with the hypothetical negotiation date. The contemporaneous valuations datapoint is recited in the narrative of the expert report. It seems to consist of two transactions in which ownership of the patents-in-suit changed hands, and various statements made by interested parties during negotiations for the two successful transactions as well as ones that did not take place. (See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 210-286; D.I. 371 at 16-20; D.I. 398 at 5-7). The terms of the first completed transaction- sale by CBV to ChanBond on April 9, 2015-stated that the purchaser would pay an upfront fee and a percentage payout based on the recoveries associated with the enforcement of the patents-in-suit. (See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 232-233). These transaction terms are not representative of a hypothetical negotiation because they base the payment for the patents on the outcome of litigation. The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they are valuing the potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates by the parties of the likely outcomes of litigation are now offered to prove what the outcome of the litigation should be. The second completed transaction is the October 27, 2015 sale of ChanBond, a month after the lawsuits in this case had been filed, to UnifiedOnline. (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 244-248). ChanBond's only assets were the patents-in-suit, two other patents, two patent applications, and this litigation. (Id. at ,i 244). To purchase ChanBond, UnifiedOnline paid $5 million and 44.7 3 million shares of its common stock. 1 (Id.). Thus, as with the earlier 2015 transaction, and as the expert report makes clear, the thing being valued in the transaction was this litigation. This transaction therefore is not comparable to the hypothetical negotiation. A licensing transaction values the patents. All other things being equal, a licensing transaction is much preferred over a settlement agreement that licenses a patent. See Laser Dynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 694 F.3d 51, 77-78 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Estimating the hypothetical negotiation, that is, what a willing licensee and a willing licensor would agree to, is one step further removed from being comparable than a settlement agreement. Instead of its being an agreement between a party who has a patent and a party that wants to be able to use the patent, it is an agreement between two parties who want to be on one side of that transaction, that of the licensor. There has been no showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the agreement between two parties who want to be on one side of either a litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an input for determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus, the "contemporaneous valuations" including not only the two completed transactions but the various statements during the same time period are excluded as unreliable. Further, any marginal relevance that the two transactions and the related statements might have has so little probative value that the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of issues inherent in bringing into the litigation how trials are financed. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would exclude it. Fed. R. Evid. 403 . 1 Mr. Bakewell assigns negligible value to the 44.7 million shares of UnifiedOnline on the basis of the par value of the stock. I assume it did not have any known market value. At least at this stage, the value of the shares is not at issue. 4 3. 2012 AST offer to sell Mr. Bakewell's market approach opined that the 2012 offer to sell the patents by nonparty Allied Security Trust ("AST") reflected a reasonable royalty of "high seven figures." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at, 287). AST is a cooperative that helps member companies secure rights to patents. (Id. at, 192). Rights to the patents-in-suit were offered to AST member companies for "high seven figures." (Id. at, 198). While the fact that rights to the patents-in-suit were offered for "high seven figures" is relevant to the valuation of the patents-in-suit, this datapoint alone cannot serve as the basis for Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion. Neither Defendants nor their expert have shown that a single offer to sell rights to patents is a viable basis for a market approach calculation of a reasonable royalty. (See D.I. 470). The 2012 AST offer is therefore excluded from Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion. I am not concerned about excluding this last remaining datapoint of Mr. Bakewell's market approach, and thus his entire market approach opinion, because Mr. Bakewell offered two other damages theories aside from the market approach. The market approach is not essential to Defendants' damages analysis. See United States v. Driggs, 823 F.2d 52, 54-55 (3d Cir. 1987). Outside of the market approach, the 2012 AST offer itself is independently relevant to the valuation of the patents-in-suit and may come in as evidence of such. A word of caution. The fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is not only irrelevant to a reasonable royalty analysis but also would be unfairly prejudicial to Plaintiff, confuse the issues, and mislead the jury. A hypothetical negotiation assumes that the parties are a willing licensor and a willing licensee and that the patents are valid and infringed. Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc. , 580 F.3d 1301 , 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Because no company 5 responded to the 2012 AST offer, the situation does not represent a hypothetical negotiation with a willing licensee. Therefore, the fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is irrelevant and inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 402. Further, even if the nonresponse to the 2012 AST offer were relevant to a reasonable royalty analysis, any possible probative value it might have would be substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues that would result from evidence that AST' s offer was not accepted. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would exclude evidence that the offer was not accepted. Fed. R. Evid. 403 . For the reasons above, Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and Testimony of Defendants' Damages Expert (D.I. 370) is GRANTED.
Sunday, 06/18/17 10:59:07 AM Re: None
0 Post # 33853 of 78158
RECENT UOIP/CHANBOND WINS and what they mean for us as shareholders.
(I) ordinary infringement litigation and declaratory judgment actions in Article III courts ("Article III Courts") ; AND (II) administrative invalidation actions in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent and Trial Appeal Board ("PTAB").
ARTICLE III COURTS Now we are en route to a win in civil court with the patent litigation. In fact, we are probably closer to receiving a settlement given the way this case has gone. The scheduled stages in the case are, chronologically, (i) Fact Discovery, (ii) Status Conference, (iii) Any Summary Judgment/Daubert (i.e. expert witness testimony) motions, (iv) Pretrial Conference, and (v) Jury Trial.
Here's why I think settlement is imminent:
OBLIGATION TO TRY TO SETTLE Initially, for the joint submission brief, these parties were to discuss the possibility of settlement. By the time of (iv), they must specifically certify (basically affirm) that they have engaged in a good faith effort to explore the resolution of controversy by settlement (see Rule 16.3(c)(12) of the Local Rules of Civil Practice and Procedure of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware). Initially, they have to state whether there's a possibility of settlement whereas, later along in the case, they must undertake to engage in a good faith effort to settle. Despite getting smoked at the Markman hearing, it appears the Defendants haven't yet tried to engage in a good faith effort to settle.
COSTS ASSESSED AGAINST THE LOSING PARTY Also keep in mind that the longer the case drags on, the higher the costs that can be incurred against the losing party (even if the case settles). For example, it appears that you can get a jury cost assessment against you if the case is settled less than 3 days before the scheduled jury selection (Rule 54.2). It also appears that you can still apply for attorneys' fees even in connection with settled cases (Rule 54.3).
It doesn't leave much room to play games and push the matter to trial before you settle as costs can be assessed against you the further the case progresses. I read somewhere that the average cost of taking a patent case through trial is over $2 Million per case.
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING (A.K.A. MARKMAN HEARING) Keep in mind that there is also a pretrial hearing that the parties go through, called a Markman hearing, which was already heard by Justice Andrews December 9, 2016. As per Wikipedia: "Markman hearings are before a judge, and generally take place before trial. A Markman hearing may occur before the close of discovery, along with a motion for preliminary injunction, or at the end of discovery, in relation to a motion for summary judgment. A Markman hearing may also be held after the trial begins, but before jury selection."
In any case, this Markman hearing was very important because the issues of law are adjudicated and it basically encourages settlement, particularly in Judge Andrews' court room. If you read about Andrews (who is set to try the case if you haven't been paying attention), it appears he has the fewest patent-specific procedures and guidelines out of all four Article III judges that sit on the Delaware court. He apparently has a unique procedure for these Markman hearings. I read that "instead of having the parties file separate claim construction charts and briefs for the Markman hearing, he requires the parties to exchange their proposed claim terms for construction, exchange their proposed constructions, confer, and file a Joint Claim Construction Chart, as well as a Joint Claim Construction Brief." In other words, he gets the parties to sit down and really pinpoint what the contentious issues are. This leads to less strong-arming and taking a tunnel-vision approach with one's own case. This makes the aspect of settlement more conducive, particularly as Andrews found in favor of ChanBond after the December 9th Markman hearing (http://www.morrisjames.com/assets/htmldocuments/patent%20blog%20-%20Chanbond%20-%201826.pdf). I encourage you to read Judge Andrews' decision as he outlines how the defendants were struggling to make a case and rules against every single one of the Defendants' proposed constructions. I also encourage everyone to read the last law review article in this post under the heading "New Changes in the Law Affecting this Case" and truly see how instrumental it was for ChanBond to win the Markman hearing.
BACKGROUND OF JUSTICE ANDREWS AND DELAWARE'S DISTRICT COURT From Law Review Article of 2016 (Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Stop for Summary Judgment: The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware’s Seemingly Disjunctive Yet Efficient Procedures in Hatch-Waxman Litigation, Katherine Rhoades, Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property):
It is no secret that the District of Delaware’s four Article III judges have extensive patent experience and are some of the most experienced in the country in handling patent infringement cases. The District of Delaware leads all other district courts with the most patent case filings per judge, which results in an experienced bench. In fact, Judge Andrews, Judge Robinson, Judge Sleet, and Chief Judge Stark are among the U.S. district court judges who hear the most patent cases, and they are the four judges that hear the most ANDA cases in the country.
The District of Delaware’s lack of local patent rules does not seem to have affected the district’s case efficiency or time-to-trial. Research “suggests that districts with local patent rules process patent cases faster than districts lacking such rules.” However, this research is not dispositive. Additionally, experienced judges can resolve cases more quickly. The District of Delaware has an overall faster time-to-trial - time from the day the complaint is filed to the first day of trial—than the District of New Jersey for patent cases that do not settle. While local patent rules can decrease the time-to-trial, Delaware’s experienced bench is efficient in resolving patent disputes.
In other words, due to the venue and the fact it's being heard by Judge Andrews, this isn't a case that will be bogged down by a slow court system or, worse, be adjudicated before an inexperienced judge. Efficient venue + reputable judge = quick route to trial or settlement.
NEW CHANGES IN THE LAW AFFECTING THIS CASE Maybe you think the Defendants will play strategic games and appeal Justice Andrews' ruling in the Markman hearing? Think again. On January 20, 2015, the Supreme Court changed the standard under which trial court claim construction rulings will be reviewed on appeal, holding that a trial court’s factual findings underlying its claim construction rulings must be given deference. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 831 (2014). In a 7-2 decision, the Teva Court concluded that a trial court’s findings of fact underpinning a claim construction ruling must be reviewed under a “clearly erroneous” standard, rather than under the general de novo standard previously applied by the Federal Circuit. Without getting into the details, this means that it's much harder for the Defendants to appeal Justice Andrews' Markman ruling due to this heightened review standard from Teva which, in turn, will lead to an increased likelihood of settlement.
MY OPINION So I personally think settlement will happen soon enough. Maybe not next week, but certainly quite soon given the mounting costs, the potential to have costs assessed against you even in the midst of settlement, the fact that the Markman hearing has already taken place and the issues of law have been adjudicated in favor of ChanBond as per Andrews' order (which also has to be submitted to the jury if it gets as far as a jury trial), and the fact that Markman hearings - after the Teva ruling - are now more important than ever in patent litigation.
Long term Saturday, 02/01/20 11:06:57 AM Re: long uoip post# 76368
0 Post # 76380 of 76412
The three cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach. In contrast to such data points, the market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements. StoneEagle Servs., Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc., 8:13-CV-2240, 2015 WL 3824170, at *9-*11 (M.D. Fla. June 19, 2015); D.I. 372, Ex. 1, Bakewell Rpt., §§ 273-274; see also AVN Technologies, LLC v. Intel Corp., 15-CV-33-RGA, 2017 WL 178752, at *3 (D. Del. May 1, 2017). ..
“has anybody responded privately or is there a way we can source this information ? are you suspecting same valuation method will be utilized with uoip ?
Waiting or others to respond....unsure where to get other jury instruction sheet in similar cases.....judge Johnson in the brings v Google case someone got the instruction sheet but didn’t know where they got it...u might be able to find out at Wordpress....go there enter vrng 24.....there’s a lot there to look through.....am under the weather presently..have enough energy to just read posts.
Suspecting the same valuation method to be utilized? Judge Andrews asked for other cases, perhaps that was just pointing the parties in a general direction, ...perhaps it was a hint as to what parameters he thinks is appropriate.... can’t really tell that’s why one must be familiar with multiple methods so when discussed in court in Feb we can pick up on inference as to what the parties are talking about......believe at the end of the hearing a plan will either be approved by judge and / or will send both sides with his guidance to further negotiate an agreed upon method ( this wouldn’t be bad) an acceptable delay if it prevents an appealable miss application of setting upon an agreed method.
=========== long uoip Saturday, 02/01/20 11:30:59 AM Re: Long term post# 76380
0 Post # 76381 of 76412
re: "Judge Andrews asked for other cases, perhaps that was just pointing the parties in a general direction, perhaps it was a hint as to what parameters he thinks is appropriate" ..I concur, certainly initiates genesis point
re: "3 cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach" ..another stall tactic or modus of operandi to veer case sideways
re:"market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements" ..I concur, thanks for the additional examples
re:"must be familiar with multiple methods so when discussed in court in Feb we can pick up on inference"..my research shows various modalities, court will reveal judge's sentiments which would be best suited
re:"am under the weather presently..have enough energy to just read posts" ..sorry to hear that (hope it's not what's on the news) thanks for responding despite your fatigue, hope you feel better
we need you.. . court 17 days ========================
Long term Saturday, 02/01/20 12:47:18 PM Re: long uoip post# 76381
0 Post # 76384 of 76412
“;another stall tactic or modus of operandi to veer case sideways “ Don’t think it’s a stall tactic...Andrews is being accommodating to the defense & pointing out to defendants to get real after what valuation methods they proposed ( what they proposed was ridiculous) the purpose is not to fall into a appealable trap....Andrews,as all judges have as an objective is not to be appealed for judicial mistake......his direction to 13 read those cases as a guide in developing a mutually agreed upon method that he could approve. The Feb hearing will further clarify what was said in the Nov25 hearing....if both sides have reached agreement of method of valuation & if Andrews is comfortable then the method will be applied & we’ll probably know by the end of the hearing. If the sides haven’t agreed I think he’ll give further instruction & set another date to determine method. As to setting trial date he could set it thus adding more pressure ( again demonstrating to an appeal court of his fairness rendering a non appealable point) =================
long uoip Saturday, February 1, 2020 6:26:26 PM Re: Long term post# 76384 Post # 76399 of 76411 re:"appealable trap" ..I shudder from even the inference I would rather go nice & slow then deal with weeks, months, years of appeals, seems like Judge Andrews track record is professional & methodical
re:"get real about evaluation" ..analogy between defendants offer of nov court hearing $5-10 million & figures that shareholders are submitting parallel to other similar cases @ $1.6 B (curious to what that amounts to per share) correct me if I'm wrong.. . 1,614,601,069 uoip shares $1.2 B = approx. $.75 share
I'm all for ~ "judges having an objective to not to be appealed for judicial mistakes"
re: "mutually agreed upon method"..ugh, Houston, we have a problem LOL
"probably know by the end of the hearing?".. wow, seriously ?
"MUST BE APPROVED by the judge"..dilemma for the defendants
re: "sides haven’t agreed I think he’ll give further instruction & set another date to determine method" ..I suspect this will be the great debate ================= Time line
case judge asked for December 2, 2019 VIA CM/ECF & HAND DELIVERY The Honorable Richard G. Andrews United States District Court for the District of Delaware 844 North King Street Wilmington, Delaware 19801 Re: ChanBond, LLC v. Atl. Broadband Group, LLC, et al., Cons. C.A. No. 15-842-RGA Dear Judge Andrews: At the November 25, 2019 hearing, the Court asked Defendants to identify their best case law concerning whether litigation financing agreements, requests for investment financing, or offers for sale of the asserted patents can be properly considered as comparable transactions under the market approach. (See Nov. 25, 2019 Hearing Tr. at 115:11-116:11.) On November 27, 2019, Defendants identified three cases not cited in Defendants’ briefing. (D.I. 470.) The three cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach. In contrast to such data points, the market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements. StoneEagle Servs., Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc., 8:13-CV-2240, 2015 WL 3824170, at *9-*11 (M.D. Fla. June 19, 2015); D.I. 372, Ex. 1, Bakewell Rpt., §§ 273-274; see also AVN Technologies, LLC v. Intel Corp., 15-CV-33-RGA, 2017 WL 178752, at *3 (D. Del. May 1, 2017). Respectfully submitted, /s/ Stephen B. Brauerman Stephen B. Brauerman (No. 4952)
case judge asked for December 2, 2019 VIA CM/ECF & HAND DELIVERY The Honorable Richard G. Andrews United States District Court for the District of Delaware 844 North King Street Wilmington, Delaware 19801 Re: ChanBond, LLC v. Atl. Broadband Group, LLC, et al., Cons. C.A. No. 15-842-RGA Dear Judge Andrews: At the November 25, 2019 hearing, the Court asked Defendants to identify their best case law concerning whether litigation financing agreements, requests for investment financing, or offers for sale of the asserted patents can be properly considered as comparable transactions under the market approach. (See Nov. 25, 2019 Hearing Tr. at 115:11-116:11.) On November 27, 2019, Defendants identified three cases not cited in Defendants’ briefing. (D.I. 470.) The three cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach. In contrast to such data points, the market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements. StoneEagle Servs., Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc., 8:13-CV-2240, 2015 WL 3824170, at *9-*11 (M.D. Fla. June 19, 2015); D.I. 372, Ex. 1, Bakewell Rpt., §§ 273-274; see also AVN Technologies, LLC v. Intel Corp., 15-CV-33-RGA, 2017 WL 178752, at *3 (D. Del. May 1, 2017). Respectfully submitted, /s/ Stephen B. Brauerman Stephen B. Brauerman (No. 4952)
Calculating intellectual property infringement damages; AICPA practice aid series 06-1
========================================= Billions in settlement dollars. No doubt.
64.35M cable subscribers $60 per month for one's internet connection or "ACCESS" only (NO CONTENT INCLUDED!) 12 months per year $46,332,000,000 per year 20 years (Suing for the life of the patent(s), via royalties) $926,640,000,000 (Almost a TRILLION DOLLARS) __@_______w/ ~1,614,601,069 shares O/S 0.1% == $926,640,000________$0.57/share (that's 1/10th of 1% for infringement) 0.25% = $2,316,600,000?______$1.44 (1/4th of 1%) 0.5% == $4,633,200,000______$2.87 (half a %) 1% === $9,266,400,000______$5.74
=============================== Thoughts on Judge Casper. 1. She is fully aware of what's been going on in the IP legal arena 2. A message was sent to her when the defense attorney said " this will cost billion's " that was not a plea for leniency but rather suggestion/ threat ....to delay send it to ptab & caft thus delay delay = ware out wddd / she'd be appealed. Judge Casper recognized this & gave them what they wanted by referring to PTAB knowing by doing so it could likely strengthen wddd,s case ( if they could do so successfully & wddd do so) Result, now the case returns to her court & wddd has a much stronger case . Activision recognized this possibility thus enter Google 3. No judge wants to be appealed by doing what she did strengthens what ever ruling is made & that's what's good about what she did. Remember TK wasn't happy about going through the gauntlet but recognized the value thus he really wasn't as upset by these delays because he believed wddd would come out on top. How's that for faith / confidence. 4. Unless there's a buy out(not likely) or a settlement Judge Casper will proceed with the trial with a personal objective ......of providing nothing that will be appellate as a result of judicial mistakes .
Will a judgement that comes out of her court be appealed? Likely, Activision will find something & we'll go through the appeals process. Again... time & delay.,
long uoip Friday, March 27, 2020 10:55:57 AM Re: A deleted message Post # 78575 of 78599 respectfully easyme, I concur with most of your analogy.. . bill gates metaphor "great corrector" analogy was in reference to our impending aug. 18th court date, opportunity for Stephen B. Brauerman to advocate on behalf of Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine (the 3 chanbond inventors) so the legal system can validate their innovative technology & their long overdue $ compensation Economics + Law = Damages p.s. I don't think covd19 is nothing, it is changing the trajectory of many people's lives, mostly the lower socioeconomic class, unfortunately ____________________________________________
Intelligent device system and method for distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system Patent number: 10136180 Abstract: A plurality of intelligent device systems for use with a wideband signal distribution network, and methods for transmitting digital information and receiving digital and non-digital information onto and off of an RF carrier through a wideband signal distribution network, are disclosed. The intelligent device systems provide networks of intelligent devices that modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, using existing EIA/TIA 568 standard wiring infrastructure. The methods modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, and separate IP portions from non-IP portions. Type: Grant Filed: April 6, 2015 Date of Patent: November 20, 2018 Assignee: CHANBOND LLC Inventors: Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine ____________________________________
Intelligent device system and method for distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system Patent number: 9363554 Abstract: A plurality of intelligent device systems for use with a wideband signal distribution network, and methods for transmitting digital information and receiving digital and non-digital information onto and off of an RF carrier through a wideband signal distribution network, are disclosed. The intelligent device systems provide networks of intelligent devices that modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, using existing EIA/TIA 568 standard wiring infrastructure. The methods modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, and separate IP portions from non-IP portions. Type: Grant Filed: January 29, 2014 Date of Patent: June 7, 2016 Assignee: CHANBOND LLC Inventors: Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine
t TIMELINE of UOIP legal actions, thanks to Magnus
page 1 Judge Andrews ~ A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice caused by the failure to interest anyone in the technology at the time and the waste of time needed to explain why the non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000- 2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 .
page 2 The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they are valuing the potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates by the parties of the likely outcomes of litigation are now offered to prove what the outcome of the litigation should be.
page 3 There has been no showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the agreement between two parties who want to be on one side of either a litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an input for determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus, the "contemporaneous valuations" including not only the two completed transactions but the various statements during the same time period are excluded as unreliable. ______________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (document in full) FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE IN RE CHANBOND, LLC PATENT LITIGATION C.A. No. 15-842-RGA CONSOLIDATED MEMORANDUM ORDER Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and Testimony of Defendants' Damages Expert. (D.I. 370). I have reviewed the parties' briefing and heard oral argument. (D.I. 371,398, 409,471). Defendant's damages expert, Mr. Bakewell, offers three quantitative analysis approaches in his 200 page "Rebuttal Expert Report," one of which is the "market approach." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at~ 171 ). Plaintiff argues that Mr. Bakewell' s market approach opinions should be excluded because Mr. Bakewell does not use reliable principles or methods. (D.I. 371 at 1). Plaintiff contends that Mr. Bakewell fails to establish that the evidence he relies on is comparable to a hypothetical licensing negotiation in December 2012 for the patents-in-suit. (Id.; D.I. 339, Ex. A at ~164). Mr. Bakewell's market approach is based on three valuation datapoints: (1) "pre-DOCSIS 3.0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit," (2) "2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations," and (3) "2012 AST offer to sell." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at~ 287). Plaintiff argues that each should be excluded, and thus I should exclude Mr. Bakewell's entire market approach opinion. (D.I. 371 at 8). 1. Pre-DOCSIS 3. 0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit The "Pre-DOCSIS 3.0" datapoint relies on investment solicitations by Z-Band, the company formed by the inventors of the patents-in-suit. In December 2000, Z-Band sought between $2 million and $5 million in venture capital funding. In 2001 , Z-Band received an offer for $5 million from an unidentified foreign company for a "minority interest," which it rejected. (D.I. 399, Ex. A at 11 178-79). Mr. Bakewell concludes from these two facts that a lump sum royalty in the "mid seven figures" would be appropriate. (Id. at 1 287). Plaintiff argues that the investment solicitations and rejected offer are not technologically or economically comparable to a hypothetical negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit. (D.I. 371 at 9). I agree. The solicitations and offer occurred approximately ten years before the first of the patents-in-suit issued on May 10, 2011. (Id.). The solicitations cannot be representative of a hypothetical negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit when the patents-in-suit did not yet exist. Therefore, Mr. Bakewell's opinion based on "pre-DOCSIS 3.0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit" is irrelevant and excluded. Further, any marginal relevance that such an analysis might have, even if it specifically related to a license for the patents-in-suit, is minimized by the fact that no agreement was reached and that the investment opportunity took place some ten to twelve years before the date of the hypothetical negotiation. A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice caused by the failure to interest anyone in the technology at the time and the waste of time needed to explain why the non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000- 2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 . 2 2. 2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations The lawsuit in this case was filed September 21 , 2015. Mr. Bakewell opines that the "2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations" datapoint reflects a reasonable royalty of "less than $20 million." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i 287). I am unsure why he uses the word "contemporaneous," but I assume he means valuations contemporaneous with each other rather than with the hypothetical negotiation date. The contemporaneous valuations datapoint is recited in the narrative of the expert report. It seems to consist of two transactions in which ownership of the patents-in-suit changed hands, and various statements made by interested parties during negotiations for the two successful transactions as well as ones that did not take place. (See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 210-286; D.I. 371 at 16-20; D.I. 398 at 5-7). The terms of the first completed transaction- sale by CBV to ChanBond on April 9, 2015-stated that the purchaser would pay an upfront fee and a percentage payout based on the recoveries associated with the enforcement of the patents-in-suit. (See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 232-233). These transaction terms are not representative of a hypothetical negotiation because they base the payment for the patents on the outcome of litigation. The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they are valuing the potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates by the parties of the likely outcomes of litigation are now offered to prove what the outcome of the litigation should be. The second completed transaction is the October 27, 2015 sale of ChanBond, a month after the lawsuits in this case had been filed, to UnifiedOnline. (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 244-248). ChanBond's only assets were the patents-in-suit, two other patents, two patent applications, and this litigation. (Id. at ,i 244). To purchase ChanBond, UnifiedOnline paid $5 million and 44.7 3 million shares of its common stock. 1 (Id.). Thus, as with the earlier 2015 transaction, and as the expert report makes clear, the thing being valued in the transaction was this litigation. This transaction therefore is not comparable to the hypothetical negotiation. A licensing transaction values the patents. All other things being equal, a licensing transaction is much preferred over a settlement agreement that licenses a patent. See Laser Dynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 694 F.3d 51, 77-78 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Estimating the hypothetical negotiation, that is, what a willing licensee and a willing licensor would agree to, is one step further removed from being comparable than a settlement agreement. Instead of its being an agreement between a party who has a patent and a party that wants to be able to use the patent, it is an agreement between two parties who want to be on one side of that transaction, that of the licensor. There has been no showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the agreement between two parties who want to be on one side of either a litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an input for determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus, the "contemporaneous valuations" including not only the two completed transactions but the various statements during the same time period are excluded as unreliable. Further, any marginal relevance that the two transactions and the related statements might have has so little probative value that the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of issues inherent in bringing into the litigation how trials are financed. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would exclude it. Fed. R. Evid. 403 . 1 Mr. Bakewell assigns negligible value to the 44.7 million shares of UnifiedOnline on the basis of the par value of the stock. I assume it did not have any known market value. At least at this stage, the value of the shares is not at issue. 4 3. 2012 AST offer to sell Mr. Bakewell's market approach opined that the 2012 offer to sell the patents by nonparty Allied Security Trust ("AST") reflected a reasonable royalty of "high seven figures." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at, 287). AST is a cooperative that helps member companies secure rights to patents. (Id. at, 192). Rights to the patents-in-suit were offered to AST member companies for "high seven figures." (Id. at, 198). While the fact that rights to the patents-in-suit were offered for "high seven figures" is relevant to the valuation of the patents-in-suit, this datapoint alone cannot serve as the basis for Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion. Neither Defendants nor their expert have shown that a single offer to sell rights to patents is a viable basis for a market approach calculation of a reasonable royalty. (See D.I. 470). The 2012 AST offer is therefore excluded from Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion. I am not concerned about excluding this last remaining datapoint of Mr. Bakewell's market approach, and thus his entire market approach opinion, because Mr. Bakewell offered two other damages theories aside from the market approach. The market approach is not essential to Defendants' damages analysis. See United States v. Driggs, 823 F.2d 52, 54-55 (3d Cir. 1987). Outside of the market approach, the 2012 AST offer itself is independently relevant to the valuation of the patents-in-suit and may come in as evidence of such. A word of caution. The fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is not only irrelevant to a reasonable royalty analysis but also would be unfairly prejudicial to Plaintiff, confuse the issues, and mislead the jury. A hypothetical negotiation assumes that the parties are a willing licensor and a willing licensee and that the patents are valid and infringed. Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc. , 580 F.3d 1301 , 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Because no company 5 responded to the 2012 AST offer, the situation does not represent a hypothetical negotiation with a willing licensee. Therefore, the fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is irrelevant and inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 402. Further, even if the nonresponse to the 2012 AST offer were relevant to a reasonable royalty analysis, any possible probative value it might have would be substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues that would result from evidence that AST' s offer was not accepted. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would exclude evidence that the offer was not accepted. Fed. R. Evid. 403 . For the reasons above, Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and Testimony of Defendants' Damages Expert (D.I. 370) is GRANTED.
Sunday, 06/18/17 10:59:07 AM Re: None
0 Post # 33853 of 78158
RECENT UOIP/CHANBOND WINS and what they mean for us as shareholders.
(I) ordinary infringement litigation and declaratory judgment actions in Article III courts ("Article III Courts") ; AND (II) administrative invalidation actions in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent and Trial Appeal Board ("PTAB").
ARTICLE III COURTS Now we are en route to a win in civil court with the patent litigation. In fact, we are probably closer to receiving a settlement given the way this case has gone. The scheduled stages in the case are, chronologically, (i) Fact Discovery, (ii) Status Conference, (iii) Any Summary Judgment/Daubert (i.e. expert witness testimony) motions, (iv) Pretrial Conference, and (v) Jury Trial.
Here's why I think settlement is imminent:
OBLIGATION TO TRY TO SETTLE Initially, for the joint submission brief, these parties were to discuss the possibility of settlement. By the time of (iv), they must specifically certify (basically affirm) that they have engaged in a good faith effort to explore the resolution of controversy by settlement (see Rule 16.3(c)(12) of the Local Rules of Civil Practice and Procedure of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware). Initially, they have to state whether there's a possibility of settlement whereas, later along in the case, they must undertake to engage in a good faith effort to settle. Despite getting smoked at the Markman hearing, it appears the Defendants haven't yet tried to engage in a good faith effort to settle.
COSTS ASSESSED AGAINST THE LOSING PARTY Also keep in mind that the longer the case drags on, the higher the costs that can be incurred against the losing party (even if the case settles). For example, it appears that you can get a jury cost assessment against you if the case is settled less than 3 days before the scheduled jury selection (Rule 54.2). It also appears that you can still apply for attorneys' fees even in connection with settled cases (Rule 54.3).
It doesn't leave much room to play games and push the matter to trial before you settle as costs can be assessed against you the further the case progresses. I read somewhere that the average cost of taking a patent case through trial is over $2 Million per case.
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING (A.K.A. MARKMAN HEARING) Keep in mind that there is also a pretrial hearing that the parties go through, called a Markman hearing, which was already heard by Justice Andrews December 9, 2016. As per Wikipedia: "Markman hearings are before a judge, and generally take place before trial. A Markman hearing may occur before the close of discovery, along with a motion for preliminary injunction, or at the end of discovery, in relation to a motion for summary judgment. A Markman hearing may also be held after the trial begins, but before jury selection."
In any case, this Markman hearing was very important because the issues of law are adjudicated and it basically encourages settlement, particularly in Judge Andrews' court room. If you read about Andrews (who is set to try the case if you haven't been paying attention), it appears he has the fewest patent-specific procedures and guidelines out of all four Article III judges that sit on the Delaware court. He apparently has a unique procedure for these Markman hearings. I read that "instead of having the parties file separate claim construction charts and briefs for the Markman hearing, he requires the parties to exchange their proposed claim terms for construction, exchange their proposed constructions, confer, and file a Joint Claim Construction Chart, as well as a Joint Claim Construction Brief." In other words, he gets the parties to sit down and really pinpoint what the contentious issues are. This leads to less strong-arming and taking a tunnel-vision approach with one's own case. This makes the aspect of settlement more conducive, particularly as Andrews found in favor of ChanBond after the December 9th Markman hearing (http://www.morrisjames.com/assets/htmldocuments/patent%20blog%20-%20Chanbond%20-%201826.pdf). I encourage you to read Judge Andrews' decision as he outlines how the defendants were struggling to make a case and rules against every single one of the Defendants' proposed constructions. I also encourage everyone to read the last law review article in this post under the heading "New Changes in the Law Affecting this Case" and truly see how instrumental it was for ChanBond to win the Markman hearing.
BACKGROUND OF JUSTICE ANDREWS AND DELAWARE'S DISTRICT COURT From Law Review Article of 2016 (Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Stop for Summary Judgment: The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware’s Seemingly Disjunctive Yet Efficient Procedures in Hatch-Waxman Litigation, Katherine Rhoades, Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property):
It is no secret that the District of Delaware’s four Article III judges have extensive patent experience and are some of the most experienced in the country in handling patent infringement cases. The District of Delaware leads all other district courts with the most patent case filings per judge, which results in an experienced bench. In fact, Judge Andrews, Judge Robinson, Judge Sleet, and Chief Judge Stark are among the U.S. district court judges who hear the most patent cases, and they are the four judges that hear the most ANDA cases in the country.
The District of Delaware’s lack of local patent rules does not seem to have affected the district’s case efficiency or time-to-trial. Research “suggests that districts with local patent rules process patent cases faster than districts lacking such rules.” However, this research is not dispositive. Additionally, experienced judges can resolve cases more quickly. The District of Delaware has an overall faster time-to-trial - time from the day the complaint is filed to the first day of trial—than the District of New Jersey for patent cases that do not settle. While local patent rules can decrease the time-to-trial, Delaware’s experienced bench is efficient in resolving patent disputes.
In other words, due to the venue and the fact it's being heard by Judge Andrews, this isn't a case that will be bogged down by a slow court system or, worse, be adjudicated before an inexperienced judge. Efficient venue + reputable judge = quick route to trial or settlement.
NEW CHANGES IN THE LAW AFFECTING THIS CASE Maybe you think the Defendants will play strategic games and appeal Justice Andrews' ruling in the Markman hearing? Think again. On January 20, 2015, the Supreme Court changed the standard under which trial court claim construction rulings will be reviewed on appeal, holding that a trial court’s factual findings underlying its claim construction rulings must be given deference. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 831 (2014). In a 7-2 decision, the Teva Court concluded that a trial court’s findings of fact underpinning a claim construction ruling must be reviewed under a “clearly erroneous” standard, rather than under the general de novo standard previously applied by the Federal Circuit. Without getting into the details, this means that it's much harder for the Defendants to appeal Justice Andrews' Markman ruling due to this heightened review standard from Teva which, in turn, will lead to an increased likelihood of settlement.
MY OPINION So I personally think settlement will happen soon enough. Maybe not next week, but certainly quite soon given the mounting costs, the potential to have costs assessed against you even in the midst of settlement, the fact that the Markman hearing has already taken place and the issues of law have been adjudicated in favor of ChanBond as per Andrews' order (which also has to be submitted to the jury if it gets as far as a jury trial), and the fact that Markman hearings - after the Teva ruling - are now more important than ever in patent litigation.
The three cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach. In contrast to such data points, the market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements. StoneEagle Servs., Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc., 8:13-CV-2240, 2015 WL 3824170, at *9-*11 (M.D. Fla. June 19, 2015); D.I. 372, Ex. 1, Bakewell Rpt., §§ 273-274; see also AVN Technologies, LLC v. Intel Corp., 15-CV-33-RGA, 2017 WL 178752, at *3 (D. Del. May 1, Long term Saturday, 02/01/20 11:06:57 AM Re: long uoip post# 76368
0 Post # 76380 of 76412
2017). ..
“has anybody responded privately or is there a way we can source this information ? are you suspecting same valuation method will be utilized with uoip ?
Waiting or others to respond....unsure where to get other jury instruction sheet in similar cases.....judge Johnson in the brings v Google case someone got the instruction sheet but didn’t know where they got it...u might be able to find out at Wordpress....go there enter vrng 24.....there’s a lot there to look through.....am under the weather presently..have enough energy to just read posts.
Suspecting the same valuation method to be utilized? Judge Andrews asked for other cases, perhaps that was just pointing the parties in a general direction, ...perhaps it was a hint as to what parameters he thinks is appropriate.... can’t really tell that’s why one must be familiar with multiple methods so when discussed in court in Feb we can pick up on inference as to what the parties are talking about......believe at the end of the hearing a plan will either be approved by judge and / or will send both sides with his guidance to further negotiate an agreed upon method ( this wouldn’t be bad) an acceptable delay if it prevents an appealable miss application of setting upon an agreed method.
=========== long uoip Saturday, 02/01/20 11:30:59 AM Re: Long term post# 76380
0 Post # 76381 of 76412
re: "Judge Andrews asked for other cases, perhaps that was just pointing the parties in a general direction, perhaps it was a hint as to what parameters he thinks is appropriate" ..I concur, certainly initiates genesis point
re: "3 cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach" ..another stall tactic or modus of operandi to veer case sideways
re:"market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements" ..I concur, thanks for the additional examples
re:"must be familiar with multiple methods so when discussed in court in Feb we can pick up on inference"..my research shows various modalities, court will reveal judge's sentiments which would be best suited
re:"am under the weather presently..have enough energy to just read posts" ..sorry to hear that (hope it's not what's on the news) thanks for responding despite your fatigue, hope you feel better
we need you.. . court 17 days ========================
Long term Saturday, 02/01/20 12:47:18 PM Re: long uoip post# 76381
0 Post # 76384 of 76412
“;another stall tactic or modus of operandi to veer case sideways “ Don’t think it’s a stall tactic...Andrews is being accommodating to the defense & pointing out to defendants to get real after what valuation methods they proposed ( what they proposed was ridiculous) the purpose is not to fall into a appealable trap....Andrews,as all judges have as an objective is not to be appealed for judicial mistake......his direction to 13 read those cases as a guide in developing a mutually agreed upon method that he could approve. The Feb hearing will further clarify what was said in the Nov25 hearing....if both sides have reached agreement of method of valuation & if Andrews is comfortable then the method will be applied & we’ll probably know by the end of the hearing. If the sides haven’t agreed I think he’ll give further instruction & set another date to determine method. As to setting trial date he could set it thus adding more pressure ( again demonstrating to an appeal court of his fairness rendering a non appealable point) =================
long uoip Saturday, February 1, 2020 6:26:26 PM Re: Long term post# 76384 Post # 76399 of 76411 re:"appealable trap" ..I shudder from even the inference I would rather go nice & slow then deal with weeks, months, years of appeals, seems like Judge Andrews track record is professional & methodical
re:"get real about evaluation" ..analogy between defendants offer of nov court hearing $5-10 million & figures that shareholders are submitting parallel to other similar cases @ $1.6 B (curious to what that amounts to per share) correct me if I'm wrong.. . 1,614,601,069 uoip shares $1.2 B = approx. $.75 share
I'm all for ~ "judges having an objective to not to be appealed for judicial mistakes"
re: "mutually agreed upon method"..ugh, Houston, we have a problem LOL
"probably know by the end of the hearing?".. wow, seriously ?
"MUST BE APPROVED by the judge"..dilemma for the defendants
re: "sides haven’t agreed I think he’ll give further instruction & set another date to determine method" ..I suspect this will be the great debate =================
Billions in settlement dollars. No doubt.
64.35M cable subscribers $60 per month for one's internet connection or "ACCESS" only (NO CONTENT INCLUDED!) 12 months per year $46,332,000,000 per year 20 years (Suing for the life of the patent(s), via royalties) $926,640,000,000 (Almost a TRILLION DOLLARS) __@_______w/ ~1,614,601,069 shares O/S 0.1% == $926,640,000________$0.57/share (that's 1/10th of 1% for infringement) 0.25% = $2,316,600,000?______$1.44 (1/4th of 1%) 0.5% == $4,633,200,000______$2.87 (half a %) 1% === $9,266,400,000______$5.74
Thoughts on Judge Casper. 1. She is fully aware of what's been going on in the IP legal arena 2. A message was sent to her when the defense attorney said " this will cost billion's " that was not a plea for leniency but rather suggestion/ threat ....to delay send it to ptab & caft thus delay delay = ware out wddd / she'd be appealed. Judge Casper recognized this & gave them what they wanted by referring to PTAB knowing by doing so it could likely strengthen wddd,s case ( if they could do so successfully & wddd do so) Result, now the case returns to her court & wddd has a much stronger case . Activision recognized this possibility thus enter Google 3. No judge wants to be appealed by doing what she did strengthens what ever ruling is made & that's what's good about what she did. Remember TK wasn't happy about going through the gauntlet but recognized the value thus he really wasn't as upset by these delays because he believed wddd would come out on top. How's that for faith / confidence. 4. Unless there's a buy out(not likely) or a settlement Judge Casper will proceed with the trial with a personal objective ......of providing nothing that will be appellate as a result of judicial mistakes .
Will a judgement that comes out of her court be appealed? Likely, Activision will find something & we'll go through the appeals process. Again... time & delay.,
long uoip Friday, March 27, 2020 10:55:57 AM Re: A deleted message Post # 78575 of 78599 respectfully easyme, I concur with most of your analogy.. . bill gates metaphor "great corrector" analogy was in reference to our impending aug. 18th court date, opportunity for Stephen B. Brauerman to advocate on behalf of Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine (the 3 chanbond inventors) so the legal system can validate their innovative technology & their long overdue $ compensation Economics + Law = Damages p.s. I don't think covd19 is nothing, it is changing the trajectory of many people's lives, mostly the lower socioeconomic class, unfortunately ____________________________________________
Intelligent device system and method for distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system Patent number: 10136180 Abstract: A plurality of intelligent device systems for use with a wideband signal distribution network, and methods for transmitting digital information and receiving digital and non-digital information onto and off of an RF carrier through a wideband signal distribution network, are disclosed. The intelligent device systems provide networks of intelligent devices that modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, using existing EIA/TIA 568 standard wiring infrastructure. The methods modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, and separate IP portions from non-IP portions. Type: Grant Filed: April 6, 2015 Date of Patent: November 20, 2018 Assignee: CHANBOND LLC Inventors: Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine ____________________________________
Intelligent device system and method for distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system Patent number: 9363554 Abstract: A plurality of intelligent device systems for use with a wideband signal distribution network, and methods for transmitting digital information and receiving digital and non-digital information onto and off of an RF carrier through a wideband signal distribution network, are disclosed. The intelligent device systems provide networks of intelligent devices that modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, using existing EIA/TIA 568 standard wiring infrastructure. The methods modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, and separate IP portions from non-IP portions. Type: Grant Filed: January 29, 2014 Date of Patent: June 7, 2016 Assignee: CHANBOND LLC Inventors: Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine
page 1 Judge Andrews ~ A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice caused by the failure to interest anyone in the technology at the time and the waste of time needed to explain why the non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000- 2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 .
page 2 The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they are valuing the potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates by the parties of the likely outcomes of litigation are now offered to prove what the outcome of the litigation should be.
page 3 There has been no showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the agreement between two parties who want to be on one side of either a litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an input for determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus, the "contemporaneous valuations" including not only the two completed transactions but the various statements during the same time period are excluded as unreliable. ______________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (document in full) FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE IN RE CHANBOND, LLC PATENT LITIGATION C.A. No. 15-842-RGA CONSOLIDATED MEMORANDUM ORDER Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and Testimony of Defendants' Damages Expert. (D.I. 370). I have reviewed the parties' briefing and heard oral argument. (D.I. 371,398, 409,471). Defendant's damages expert, Mr. Bakewell, offers three quantitative analysis approaches in his 200 page "Rebuttal Expert Report," one of which is the "market approach." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at~ 171 ). Plaintiff argues that Mr. Bakewell' s market approach opinions should be excluded because Mr. Bakewell does not use reliable principles or methods. (D.I. 371 at 1). Plaintiff contends that Mr. Bakewell fails to establish that the evidence he relies on is comparable to a hypothetical licensing negotiation in December 2012 for the patents-in-suit. (Id.; D.I. 339, Ex. A at ~164). Mr. Bakewell's market approach is based on three valuation datapoints: (1) "pre-DOCSIS 3.0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit," (2) "2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations," and (3) "2012 AST offer to sell." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at~ 287). Plaintiff argues that each should be excluded, and thus I should exclude Mr. Bakewell's entire market approach opinion. (D.I. 371 at 8). 1. Pre-DOCSIS 3. 0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit The "Pre-DOCSIS 3.0" datapoint relies on investment solicitations by Z-Band, the company formed by the inventors of the patents-in-suit. In December 2000, Z-Band sought between $2 million and $5 million in venture capital funding. In 2001 , Z-Band received an offer for $5 million from an unidentified foreign company for a "minority interest," which it rejected. (D.I. 399, Ex. A at 11 178-79). Mr. Bakewell concludes from these two facts that a lump sum royalty in the "mid seven figures" would be appropriate. (Id. at 1 287). Plaintiff argues that the investment solicitations and rejected offer are not technologically or economically comparable to a hypothetical negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit. (D.I. 371 at 9). I agree. The solicitations and offer occurred approximately ten years before the first of the patents-in-suit issued on May 10, 2011. (Id.). The solicitations cannot be representative of a hypothetical negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit when the patents-in-suit did not yet exist. Therefore, Mr. Bakewell's opinion based on "pre-DOCSIS 3.0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit" is irrelevant and excluded. Further, any marginal relevance that such an analysis might have, even if it specifically related to a license for the patents-in-suit, is minimized by the fact that no agreement was reached and that the investment opportunity took place some ten to twelve years before the date of the hypothetical negotiation. A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice caused by the failure to interest anyone in the technology at the time and the waste of time needed to explain why the non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000- 2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 . 2 2. 2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations The lawsuit in this case was filed September 21 , 2015. Mr. Bakewell opines that the "2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations" datapoint reflects a reasonable royalty of "less than $20 million." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i 287). I am unsure why he uses the word "contemporaneous," but I assume he means valuations contemporaneous with each other rather than with the hypothetical negotiation date. The contemporaneous valuations datapoint is recited in the narrative of the expert report. It seems to consist of two transactions in which ownership of the patents-in-suit changed hands, and various statements made by interested parties during negotiations for the two successful transactions as well as ones that did not take place. (See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 210-286; D.I. 371 at 16-20; D.I. 398 at 5-7). The terms of the first completed transaction- sale by CBV to ChanBond on April 9, 2015-stated that the purchaser would pay an upfront fee and a percentage payout based on the recoveries associated with the enforcement of the patents-in-suit. (See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 232-233). These transaction terms are not representative of a hypothetical negotiation because they base the payment for the patents on the outcome of litigation. The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they are valuing the potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates by the parties of the likely outcomes of litigation are now offered to prove what the outcome of the litigation should be. The second completed transaction is the October 27, 2015 sale of ChanBond, a month after the lawsuits in this case had been filed, to UnifiedOnline. (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 244-248). ChanBond's only assets were the patents-in-suit, two other patents, two patent applications, and this litigation. (Id. at ,i 244). To purchase ChanBond, UnifiedOnline paid $5 million and 44.7 3 million shares of its common stock. 1 (Id.). Thus, as with the earlier 2015 transaction, and as the expert report makes clear, the thing being valued in the transaction was this litigation. This transaction therefore is not comparable to the hypothetical negotiation. A licensing transaction values the patents. All other things being equal, a licensing transaction is much preferred over a settlement agreement that licenses a patent. See Laser Dynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 694 F.3d 51, 77-78 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Estimating the hypothetical negotiation, that is, what a willing licensee and a willing licensor would agree to, is one step further removed from being comparable than a settlement agreement. Instead of its being an agreement between a party who has a patent and a party that wants to be able to use the patent, it is an agreement between two parties who want to be on one side of that transaction, that of the licensor. There has been no showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the agreement between two parties who want to be on one side of either a litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an input for determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus, the "contemporaneous valuations" including not only the two completed transactions but the various statements during the same time period are excluded as unreliable. Further, any marginal relevance that the two transactions and the related statements might have has so little probative value that the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of issues inherent in bringing into the litigation how trials are financed. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would exclude it. Fed. R. Evid. 403 . 1 Mr. Bakewell assigns negligible value to the 44.7 million shares of UnifiedOnline on the basis of the par value of the stock. I assume it did not have any known market value. At least at this stage, the value of the shares is not at issue. 4 3. 2012 AST offer to sell Mr. Bakewell's market approach opined that the 2012 offer to sell the patents by nonparty Allied Security Trust ("AST") reflected a reasonable royalty of "high seven figures." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at, 287). AST is a cooperative that helps member companies secure rights to patents. (Id. at, 192). Rights to the patents-in-suit were offered to AST member companies for "high seven figures." (Id. at, 198). While the fact that rights to the patents-in-suit were offered for "high seven figures" is relevant to the valuation of the patents-in-suit, this datapoint alone cannot serve as the basis for Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion. Neither Defendants nor their expert have shown that a single offer to sell rights to patents is a viable basis for a market approach calculation of a reasonable royalty. (See D.I. 470). The 2012 AST offer is therefore excluded from Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion. I am not concerned about excluding this last remaining datapoint of Mr. Bakewell's market approach, and thus his entire market approach opinion, because Mr. Bakewell offered two other damages theories aside from the market approach. The market approach is not essential to Defendants' damages analysis. See United States v. Driggs, 823 F.2d 52, 54-55 (3d Cir. 1987). Outside of the market approach, the 2012 AST offer itself is independently relevant to the valuation of the patents-in-suit and may come in as evidence of such. A word of caution. The fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is not only irrelevant to a reasonable royalty analysis but also would be unfairly prejudicial to Plaintiff, confuse the issues, and mislead the jury. A hypothetical negotiation assumes that the parties are a willing licensor and a willing licensee and that the patents are valid and infringed. Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc. , 580 F.3d 1301 , 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Because no company 5 responded to the 2012 AST offer, the situation does not represent a hypothetical negotiation with a willing licensee. Therefore, the fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is irrelevant and inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 402. Further, even if the nonresponse to the 2012 AST offer were relevant to a reasonable royalty analysis, any possible probative value it might have would be substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues that would result from evidence that AST' s offer was not accepted. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would exclude evidence that the offer was not accepted. Fed. R. Evid. 403 . For the reasons above, Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and Testimony of Defendants' Damages Expert (D.I. 370) is GRANTED.
Tuesday, March 24, 2020 6:53:42 PM Re: Goodbuddy4863 post# 78508
page 1 Judge Andrews ~ A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice caused by the failure to interest anyone in the technology at the time and the waste of time needed to explain why the non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000- 2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 .
page 2 The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they are valuing the potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates by the parties of the likely outcomes of litigation are now offered to prove what the outcome of the litigation should be.
page 3 There has been no showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the agreement between two parties who want to be on one side of either a litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an input for determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus, the "contemporaneous valuations" including not only the two completed transactions but the various statements during the same time period are excluded as unreliable. ______________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (document in full) FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE IN RE CHANBOND, LLC PATENT LITIGATION C.A. No. 15-842-RGA CONSOLIDATED MEMORANDUM ORDER Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and Testimony of Defendants' Damages Expert. (D.I. 370). I have reviewed the parties' briefing and heard oral argument. (D.I. 371,398, 409,471). Defendant's damages expert, Mr. Bakewell, offers three quantitative analysis approaches in his 200 page "Rebuttal Expert Report," one of which is the "market approach." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at~ 171 ). Plaintiff argues that Mr. Bakewell' s market approach opinions should be excluded because Mr. Bakewell does not use reliable principles or methods. (D.I. 371 at 1). Plaintiff contends that Mr. Bakewell fails to establish that the evidence he relies on is comparable to a hypothetical licensing negotiation in December 2012 for the patents-in-suit. (Id.; D.I. 339, Ex. A at ~164). Mr. Bakewell's market approach is based on three valuation datapoints: (1) "pre-DOCSIS 3.0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit," (2) "2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations," and (3) "2012 AST offer to sell." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at~ 287). Plaintiff argues that each should be excluded, and thus I should exclude Mr. Bakewell's entire market approach opinion. (D.I. 371 at 8). 1. Pre-DOCSIS 3. 0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit The "Pre-DOCSIS 3.0" datapoint relies on investment solicitations by Z-Band, the company formed by the inventors of the patents-in-suit. In December 2000, Z-Band sought between $2 million and $5 million in venture capital funding. In 2001 , Z-Band received an offer for $5 million from an unidentified foreign company for a "minority interest," which it rejected. (D.I. 399, Ex. A at 11 178-79). Mr. Bakewell concludes from these two facts that a lump sum royalty in the "mid seven figures" would be appropriate. (Id. at 1 287). Plaintiff argues that the investment solicitations and rejected offer are not technologically or economically comparable to a hypothetical negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit. (D.I. 371 at 9). I agree. The solicitations and offer occurred approximately ten years before the first of the patents-in-suit issued on May 10, 2011. (Id.). The solicitations cannot be representative of a hypothetical negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit when the patents-in-suit did not yet exist. Therefore, Mr. Bakewell's opinion based on "pre-DOCSIS 3.0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit" is irrelevant and excluded. Further, any marginal relevance that such an analysis might have, even if it specifically related to a license for the patents-in-suit, is minimized by the fact that no agreement was reached and that the investment opportunity took place some ten to twelve years before the date of the hypothetical negotiation. A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice caused by the failure to interest anyone in the technology at the time and the waste of time needed to explain why the non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000- 2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 . 2 2. 2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations The lawsuit in this case was filed September 21 , 2015. Mr. Bakewell opines that the "2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations" datapoint reflects a reasonable royalty of "less than $20 million." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i 287). I am unsure why he uses the word "contemporaneous," but I assume he means valuations contemporaneous with each other rather than with the hypothetical negotiation date. The contemporaneous valuations datapoint is recited in the narrative of the expert report. It seems to consist of two transactions in which ownership of the patents-in-suit changed hands, and various statements made by interested parties during negotiations for the two successful transactions as well as ones that did not take place. (See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 210-286; D.I. 371 at 16-20; D.I. 398 at 5-7). The terms of the first completed transaction- sale by CBV to ChanBond on April 9, 2015-stated that the purchaser would pay an upfront fee and a percentage payout based on the recoveries associated with the enforcement of the patents-in-suit. (See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 232-233). These transaction terms are not representative of a hypothetical negotiation because they base the payment for the patents on the outcome of litigation. The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they are valuing the potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates by the parties of the likely outcomes of litigation are now offered to prove what the outcome of the litigation should be. The second completed transaction is the October 27, 2015 sale of ChanBond, a month after the lawsuits in this case had been filed, to UnifiedOnline. (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 244-248). ChanBond's only assets were the patents-in-suit, two other patents, two patent applications, and this litigation. (Id. at ,i 244). To purchase ChanBond, UnifiedOnline paid $5 million and 44.7 3 million shares of its common stock. 1 (Id.). Thus, as with the earlier 2015 transaction, and as the expert report makes clear, the thing being valued in the transaction was this litigation. This transaction therefore is not comparable to the hypothetical negotiation. A licensing transaction values the patents. All other things being equal, a licensing transaction is much preferred over a settlement agreement that licenses a patent. See Laser Dynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 694 F.3d 51, 77-78 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Estimating the hypothetical negotiation, that is, what a willing licensee and a willing licensor would agree to, is one step further removed from being comparable than a settlement agreement. Instead of its being an agreement between a party who has a patent and a party that wants to be able to use the patent, it is an agreement between two parties who want to be on one side of that transaction, that of the licensor. There has been no showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the agreement between two parties who want to be on one side of either a litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an input for determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus, the "contemporaneous valuations" including not only the two completed transactions but the various statements during the same time period are excluded as unreliable. Further, any marginal relevance that the two transactions and the related statements might have has so little probative value that the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of issues inherent in bringing into the litigation how trials are financed. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would exclude it. Fed. R. Evid. 403 . 1 Mr. Bakewell assigns negligible value to the 44.7 million shares of UnifiedOnline on the basis of the par value of the stock. I assume it did not have any known market value. At least at this stage, the value of the shares is not at issue. 4 3. 2012 AST offer to sell Mr. Bakewell's market approach opined that the 2012 offer to sell the patents by nonparty Allied Security Trust ("AST") reflected a reasonable royalty of "high seven figures." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at, 287). AST is a cooperative that helps member companies secure rights to patents. (Id. at, 192). Rights to the patents-in-suit were offered to AST member companies for "high seven figures." (Id. at, 198). While the fact that rights to the patents-in-suit were offered for "high seven figures" is relevant to the valuation of the patents-in-suit, this datapoint alone cannot serve as the basis for Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion. Neither Defendants nor their expert have shown that a single offer to sell rights to patents is a viable basis for a market approach calculation of a reasonable royalty. (See D.I. 470). The 2012 AST offer is therefore excluded from Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion. I am not concerned about excluding this last remaining datapoint of Mr. Bakewell's market approach, and thus his entire market approach opinion, because Mr. Bakewell offered two other damages theories aside from the market approach. The market approach is not essential to Defendants' damages analysis. See United States v. Driggs, 823 F.2d 52, 54-55 (3d Cir. 1987). Outside of the market approach, the 2012 AST offer itself is independently relevant to the valuation of the patents-in-suit and may come in as evidence of such. A word of caution. The fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is not only irrelevant to a reasonable royalty analysis but also would be unfairly prejudicial to Plaintiff, confuse the issues, and mislead the jury. A hypothetical negotiation assumes that the parties are a willing licensor and a willing licensee and that the patents are valid and infringed. Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc. , 580 F.3d 1301 , 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Because no company 5 responded to the 2012 AST offer, the situation does not represent a hypothetical negotiation with a willing licensee. Therefore, the fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is irrelevant and inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 402. Further, even if the nonresponse to the 2012 AST offer were relevant to a reasonable royalty analysis, any possible probative value it might have would be substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues that would result from evidence that AST' s offer was not accepted. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would exclude evidence that the offer was not accepted. Fed. R. Evid. 403 . For the reasons above, Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and Testimony of Defendants' Damages Expert (D.I. 370) is GRANTED.
case judge asked for December 2, 2019 VIA CM/ECF & HAND DELIVERY The Honorable Richard G. Andrews United States District Court for the District of Delaware 844 North King Street Wilmington, Delaware 19801 Re: ChanBond, LLC v. Atl. Broadband Group, LLC, et al., Cons. C.A. No. 15-842-RGA Dear Judge Andrews: At the November 25, 2019 hearing, the Court asked Defendants to identify their best case law concerning whether litigation financing agreements, requests for investment financing, or offers for sale of the asserted patents can be properly considered as comparable transactions under the market approach. (See Nov. 25, 2019 Hearing Tr. at 115:11-116:11.) On November 27, 2019, Defendants identified three cases not cited in Defendants’ briefing. (D.I. 470.) The three cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach. In contrast to such data points, the market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements. StoneEagle Servs., Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc., 8:13-CV-2240, 2015 WL 3824170, at *9-*11 (M.D. Fla. June 19, 2015); D.I. 372, Ex. 1, Bakewell Rpt., §§ 273-274; see also AVN Technologies, LLC v. Intel Corp., 15-CV-33-RGA, 2017 WL 178752, at *3 (D. Del. May 1, 2017). Respectfully submitted, /s/ Stephen B. Brauerman Stephen B. Brauerman (No. 4952)
Calculating intellectual property infringement damages; AICPA practice aid series 06-1
THU DEC 19, 2019 / 10:17 PM EST U.S. makes it easier for holders of industry-standard patents to block product sales Stephen Nellis • ? ? (Reuters) - United States antitrust and patent officials on Thursday said they no longer deem holders of industry-standard patents anti-competitive if they sue to stop the sale of infringing products, a far-reaching policy shift that they said supports innovation. The new position could have seen chipmaker Qualcomm Inc, for instance, sue in an attempt to stop the sale of all models of Apple Inc's iPhones in Germany last year - rather than the limited number that were ultimately affected - without fear of being investigated by the U.S. antitrust body. The U.S. Justice Department, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and National Institute of Standards and Technology jointly released a policy statement on so-called standard essential patents to replace its policy since 2013. Standard essential patents are often used in the technology industry when makers of different kinds of devices want them all to work together. In the case of cellular networks, for example, phones and cell towers must be compatible across makers and borders. To arrive at a single standard, companies such as Nokia, Ericsson and InterDigital Wireless contribute patents to a certain technology such as 5G, the upcoming generation of cellular data networks. Every company that makes a cellular device is required to adopt that technology and pay a license fee to patent holders. In exchange, the holders agree to license the patents on fair and reasonable terms. In 2013, the Justice Department and Patent Office said it was anti-competitive for patent holders to seek injunctions to block the sale of a products for infringing standards patents. Holders could still seek monetary damages without running afoul of the policy. The policy had real-world effects. When Qualcomm sued Apple to block the sale of iPhones during a wide-ranging legal dispute, Qualcomm did not use any of its standards patents to make its claims. As a result, Qualcomm's suits affected only a subset of models. Officials reversed their policy on Thursday, saying seeking to block sales in standards patents cases presented no harm to competition and that standards patents should be treated no differently than other patents. "Our patent system is what has made the American economy the innovation capital of the world, and we should not misapply the antitrust laws to diminish the incentive to innovate," Assistant Attorney General Delrahim said in a statement. Morgan Reed, president of The App Association, in a statement said the group which represents software developers was disappointed by the move. It "does not go far enough in protecting small businesses from abusive (standards patent) licensing behavior," Reed said.
(Reporting by Stephen Nellis in San Francisco; Editing by Christopher Cushing) Our standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. MORE FROM REUTERS
(D.1. 334, Ex. A~ 5). At best, Dr. Cox states a general rationale for using the "top-down" approach in the FRAND context. Dr. Cox fails to explain why that approach applies here, where the '488 patent is not subject to a FRAND obligation. Even more problematic, Dr. Cox never addresses why the specific rate associated with the ETSI standard essential patents should apply here, where the '488 patent was never accepted into the ETSI standard. (See D.I. 334, Ex. A~~ 8-10). Sprint argues that it is irrelevant that TC Tech was not actually part of a standards setting organization, because TC Tech alleges that the '488 patent is essential to the LTE standard. (D.1. 286 at 15). Sprint cites to Ericsson, Inc. v. D-LinkSystems, Inc., 773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014), which Sprint argues "identified 'special apportionment issues' that arise any time a 'standard requires that devices utilize specific technology' such that 'compliant devices necessarily infringe certain claims in patents that cover technology incorporated into the standard." (D.1. 286 at 15 (citing D-Link, 773 F.3d at 1209, 1232)). Sprint reads D-Link out of context. The patents at issue were Ericsson's standard essential patents, as defined by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ("IEEE"), a standards setting organization. Analogous to the situation in TCL, Ericsson had agreed to "grant a license under reasonable rates to an unrestricted number of applicants on a worldwide basis 29 with reasonable terms and conditions that are demonstrably free of unfair discrimination." DLink, 773 F.3d at 1208-09. In other words, Ericsson was subject to a FRAND obligation. Therefore, D-Link is inapposite for the same reasons as TCL. A "standard essential patent," as described in TCL and D-Link, is not merely a patent that is essential to practice a standard. It is a formal designation made by a standard setting organization that subjects the patent holder to a FRAND obligation in exchange for a defined set of benefits. It is undisputed that the '488 patent is not such a "standard essential patent." Because Dr. Cox fails to explain why the ETSI rates should apply to a non-standard essential patent, his "top-down" testimony is inadmissible as insufficiently tied to the facts of this case. See Fed. R. Evid. 702.
================================================= SEP speaks to:Teece 1. Standard setting and standards development .................................................................27 2. Standard essential patents (SEPs) and royalties...............................................................29
dillythekid Thursday, 11/28/19 02:55:40 PM Re: None 0 Post # 74933 of 74950
I believe these are the cases they brought back:
Dear Judge Andrews: Pursuant to the Court’s November 25, 2019 Oral Order requesting case authority supporting the use of technology investments in the assessment of damages calculations in patent cases, Defendants respectfully submit the following cases to the Court for consideration.
? Smartflash LLC, et al. v. Apple, Inc., No. 6:13-CV-447-JRG-KNM, 2015 WL 11072175, at *1-2 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 6, 2015)
? Ristvedt-Johnson, Inc. v. Brandt, Inc., 805 F. Supp. 557, 568 (N.D. Ill. 1992)
? TVIIM, LLC v. McAfee, Inc., No. 13-CV-04545-HSG, 2015 WL 4148354, at *4 (N.D. Cal. July 9, 2015) Counsel is available should the Court have any additional questions.
Respectfully, /s/ Jennifer Ying Jennifer Ying (#5550)
Case consolidation letter 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 473 Filed 12/04/19 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 28095 600 N. King Street ? Suite 400 Writer’s Direct Access: P.O. Box 25130 ? Wilmington, DE 19899 (302) 429-4232 Zip Code For Deliveries 19801 November 18, 2019 sbrauerman@bayardlaw.com VIA CM/ECF & HAND DELIVERY PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION The Honorable Richard G. Andrews United States District Court for the District of Delaware 844 North King Street Wilmington, Delaware 19801 Re: ChanBond, LLC v. Atl. Broadband Group, LLC, et al., Cons. C.A. No. 15-842-RGA Dear Judge Andrews: Pursuant to the Court’s November 4, 2019 Order (D.I. 449), ChanBond provides the following responses to the questions raised by the Court. 1. In Plaintiffs view, how many hours would it need for opening statement, direct and cross-examination for it to present its case if the case were consolidated as it proposes? ChanBond provides the following time estimates for its opening statement, direct examination, cross examination, and closing statement in both a consolidated trial and the trial of any single Defendant. Presumably, Defendants will need the same or a similar amount of total time for presentation of their case. Since there are many undisputed facts in these cases, ChanBond expects that, in either a single Defendant or consolidated trial, trial time will be reduced through stipulation. Trial Phase Individual Defendant Consolidated Opening 2 hours 2 hours Direct Exam – Fact Witnesses 4 hours 7.5 hours Direct Exam – Infringement 5 hours 6 hours Direct Exam – Damages 4 hours 6.5 hours Cross Exam – Infringement 2 hours 2 hours Cross Exam – Validity 2 hours 2 hours Cross Exam – Damages 1.5 hours 1.5 hours Direct Exam – Validity 2.5 hours 2.5 hours Closing 2 hours 2 hours TOTAL CHANBOND TIME 25 hours 32 hours 2. There seems to be a dispute about whether Defendants (as opposed to Cisco, Arris, and Casa) have any different views on infringement. (D.I. 445 at 5: D.I. 447 at 2). I see a lengthy (820 pages) report of Plaintiffs expert Nettles (D.I. 445-1 at 20) but I do not see the non-infringement report of Defendants’ expert Cromarty. I would like Defendants to file Cromarty’s complete report with a letter identifying the “top five” places where Defendants’ non-infringement arguments vary among Defendants. Not applicable to ChanBond. Case 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 473 Filed 12/04/19 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 28096 The Honorable Richard G. Andrews November 18, 2019 Page 2 3. I think it would also be helpful to have Plaintiffs and Defendants’ main damages reports filed, with Defendants identifying the most significant differences among the various Defendants' positions. ChanBond is providing herewith, via Notice of Lodging, an exemplary report (directed to Defendant Comcast) from Dr. David J. Teece, ChanBond’s main damages expert. The body of Dr. Teece’s reports is substantively identical for all Defendants. The reports differ in the Defendant- specific numbers and calculations presented in Exhibits 1-11. Should the Court so desire, ChanBond will lodge the remaining reports of Dr. Teece. 4. Are there any reasonable options other than all or nothing? For example, what about a consolidated invalidity trial? What about consolidating trials of Defendants who now have common ownership? What about consolidating infringement trials based on which of the three suppliers (Cisco, Arris, Casa) makes the equipment? What about having a first trial with either Cablevision or Time Warner Cable, who appear to use all the CMTSs at issue? (D .I. 442-1 at 2). ChanBond maintains that complete consolidation is the most practical and appropriate way to proceed. Defendants disagree and request thirteen separate trials. The Court has provided several criteria to consider in the determination, including a consolidated invalidity trial, consolidation based on common ownership, and consolidation based on common CMTS usage. Regarding invalidity, and as noted in the opening brief (D.I. 442 at 3), consolidation on the common theory of invalidity is warranted. But a single, consolidated invalidity trial would still require thirteen infringement and damages trials. Regarding common ownership, consolidation based on changes in corporate ownership would only result in a reduction to nine or ten separate trials. As an alternative to complete consolidation, ChanBond proposes partial consolidation based on the Defendants’ CMTS usage. Using this approach would reduce the number of trials to five or less. ChanBond proposes a first trial for Defendants that Focusing on the makes logical sense for multiple reasons. First, Second, this group includes the greatest number of Defendants (five in total). Third, Fourth, F as noted in the IPRs filed by Cisco and Arris in this case, both Cisco and Arris are in privity with the Defendants, and at least Arris is indemnifying Defendants. See, e.g., IPR2018-00570, Paper 21. ChanBond thus proposes that this group of five Defendants be tried first, which would be . . The next logical group of Defendants to be tried would comprise which are . . These two Defendants also happen to collectively represent the next largest percentage of total damages sought by ChanBond. The third group of Defendants would be those that , , Case 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 473 Filed 12/04/19 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 28097 The Honorable Richard G. Andrews November 18, 2019 Page 3 which also happen to represent the next largest percentage of total damages, then those Defendants , , and finally, the one Defendant (and smallest Defendant) that These groupings are noted in the table below. ChanBond further proposes that validity be tried only with the first group. Defendants are seeking separate trials because they, and their privies Cisco and Arris, desire to try invalidity and non-infringement as many times as possible. Group 1
Infringement Validity Damages Group 2 Infringement Damages Group 3 Infringement Damages Group 4 Infringement Damages Group 5 Infringement Damages 5. Finally, when should I decide this? I'll have a much better picture of the case at the time of the summary judgment argument. A Trial Scheduling Conference has been set for January 31, 2020. During the course of meeting and conferring, the parties agreed that this conference would be the most appropriate time for the Court to resolve the issues regarding consolidation and trial schedule. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Stephen B. Brauerman Stephen B. Brauerman (No. 4952)
Case consolidation letter 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 473 Filed 12/04/19 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 28095 600 N. King Street ? Suite 400 Writer’s Direct Access: P.O. Box 25130 ? Wilmington, DE 19899 (302) 429-4232 Zip Code For Deliveries 19801 November 18, 2019 sbrauerman@bayardlaw.com VIA CM/ECF & HAND DELIVERY PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION The Honorable Richard G. Andrews United States District Court for the District of Delaware 844 North King Street Wilmington, Delaware 19801 Re: ChanBond, LLC v. Atl. Broadband Group, LLC, et al., Cons. C.A. No. 15-842-RGA Dear Judge Andrews: Pursuant to the Court’s November 4, 2019 Order (D.I. 449), ChanBond provides the following responses to the questions raised by the Court. 1. In Plaintiffs view, how many hours would it need for opening statement, direct and cross-examination for it to present its case if the case were consolidated as it proposes? ChanBond provides the following time estimates for its opening statement, direct examination, cross examination, and closing statement in both a consolidated trial and the trial of any single Defendant. Presumably, Defendants will need the same or a similar amount of total time for presentation of their case. Since there are many undisputed facts in these cases, ChanBond expects that, in either a single Defendant or consolidated trial, trial time will be reduced through stipulation. Trial Phase Individual Defendant Consolidated Opening 2 hours 2 hours Direct Exam – Fact Witnesses 4 hours 7.5 hours Direct Exam – Infringement 5 hours 6 hours Direct Exam – Damages 4 hours 6.5 hours Cross Exam – Infringement 2 hours 2 hours Cross Exam – Validity 2 hours 2 hours Cross Exam – Damages 1.5 hours 1.5 hours Direct Exam – Validity 2.5 hours 2.5 hours Closing 2 hours 2 hours TOTAL CHANBOND TIME 25 hours 32 hours 2. There seems to be a dispute about whether Defendants (as opposed to Cisco, Arris, and Casa) have any different views on infringement. (D.I. 445 at 5: D.I. 447 at 2). I see a lengthy (820 pages) report of Plaintiffs expert Nettles (D.I. 445-1 at 20) but I do not see the non-infringement report of Defendants’ expert Cromarty. I would like Defendants to file Cromarty’s complete report with a letter identifying the “top five” places where Defendants’ non-infringement arguments vary among Defendants. Not applicable to ChanBond. Case 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 473 Filed 12/04/19 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 28096 The Honorable Richard G. Andrews November 18, 2019 Page 2 3. I think it would also be helpful to have Plaintiffs and Defendants’ main damages reports filed, with Defendants identifying the most significant differences among the various Defendants' positions. ChanBond is providing herewith, via Notice of Lodging, an exemplary report (directed to Defendant Comcast) from Dr. David J. Teece, ChanBond’s main damages expert. The body of Dr. Teece’s reports is substantively identical for all Defendants. The reports differ in the Defendant- specific numbers and calculations presented in Exhibits 1-11. Should the Court so desire, ChanBond will lodge the remaining reports of Dr. Teece. 4. Are there any reasonable options other than all or nothing? For example, what about a consolidated invalidity trial? What about consolidating trials of Defendants who now have common ownership? What about consolidating infringement trials based on which of the three suppliers (Cisco, Arris, Casa) makes the equipment? What about having a first trial with either Cablevision or Time Warner Cable, who appear to use all the CMTSs at issue? (D .I. 442-1 at 2). ChanBond maintains that complete consolidation is the most practical and appropriate way to proceed. Defendants disagree and request thirteen separate trials. The Court has provided several criteria to consider in the determination, including a consolidated invalidity trial, consolidation based on common ownership, and consolidation based on common CMTS usage. Regarding invalidity, and as noted in the opening brief (D.I. 442 at 3), consolidation on the common theory of invalidity is warranted. But a single, consolidated invalidity trial would still require thirteen infringement and damages trials. Regarding common ownership, consolidation based on changes in corporate ownership would only result in a reduction to nine or ten separate trials. As an alternative to complete consolidation, ChanBond proposes partial consolidation based on the Defendants’ CMTS usage. Using this approach would reduce the number of trials to five or less. ChanBond proposes a first trial for Defendants that Focusing on the makes logical sense for multiple reasons. First, Second, this group includes the greatest number of Defendants (five in total). Third, Fourth, F as noted in the IPRs filed by Cisco and Arris in this case, both Cisco and Arris are in privity with the Defendants, and at least Arris is indemnifying Defendants. See, e.g., IPR2018-00570, Paper 21. ChanBond thus proposes that this group of five Defendants be tried first, which would be . . The next logical group of Defendants to be tried would comprise which are . . These two Defendants also happen to collectively represent the next largest percentage of total damages sought by ChanBond. The third group of Defendants would be those that , , Case 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 473 Filed 12/04/19 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 28097 The Honorable Richard G. Andrews November 18, 2019 Page 3 which also happen to represent the next largest percentage of total damages, then those Defendants , , and finally, the one Defendant (and smallest Defendant) that These groupings are noted in the table below. ChanBond further proposes that validity be tried only with the first group. Defendants are seeking separate trials because they, and their privies Cisco and Arris, desire to try invalidity and non-infringement as many times as possible. Group 1
Infringement Validity Damages Group 2 Infringement Damages Group 3 Infringement Damages Group 4 Infringement Damages Group 5 Infringement Damages 5. Finally, when should I decide this? I'll have a much better picture of the case at the time of the summary judgment argument. A Trial Scheduling Conference has been set for January 31, 2020. During the course of meeting and conferring, the parties agreed that this conference would be the most appropriate time for the Court to resolve the issues regarding consolidation and trial schedule. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Stephen B. Brauerman Stephen B. Brauerman (No. 4952)
========================================== The three cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach. In contrast to such data points, the market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements. StoneEagle Servs., Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc., 8:13-CV-2240, 2015 WL 3824170, at *9-*11 (M.D. Fla. June 19, 2015); D.I. 372, Ex. 1, Bakewell Rpt., §§ 273-274; see also AVN Technologies, LLC v. Intel Corp., 15-CV-33-RGA, 2017 WL 178752, at *3 (D. Del. May 1, 2017).
Transforming the World of Tax The three main approaches are: 1. Cost Based Approach The cost approach measures the values of the intangible assets by assessing the expenditures necessary to replace the assets. The cost approach is based on the economic concept ofsubstitution, that is, people will pay no more for an asset than it would cost to develop or obtain another asset with similar functionality. Cost items that should be included when valuing the assets include the legal costs, registrations costs, personnel costs, development costs, production costs and marketing and advertising costs. 2. Market Based Approach Intangible assets are valued by comparing recent sales or similar transactions with similar assets involved in similar markets. This method is applicable when similar markets and similar transactions exist; however, more than often, comparable assets can’t be found due to the uniqueness of most intangibles which limits the application of this method. 3. Income Based Approach The income approach measures the value of an intangible asset based on the future income streams that are expected to be generated by the asset. Some income approach methods: • Relief from royalty method • Multi Period Excess Earnings method • Incremental cash flow method? Business Valuation Tool IP Valuation Tool Super IP-Calculator This tool enables you to do a rudimentary?business valuation.?All major items are incorporated in this setup.?Default values are shown in 'grey'. This tool enables you to do a rudimentary?IP valuation (patents, trademarks)?using the relief from royalty method.?Default values are shown in 'grey'. This tool allows to assess?internationally used multiples?in order to get a first indication?of a company's value in a particular?industry and country. START START START
The Economic Analysis Method The economic-analysis valuation method has three approaches: cost, income, and market.
Cost Approach
This approach states that a patent's value is the replacement cost or the amount that would be necessary to replace the protection right on the invention. The replacement cost of an item refers to the amount of money that would be paid, at the present time, to replace the item. If an inventor has an item that he or she has patented, the patent's value would be the amount of money required to replace that invention. A prospective client would not be willing to pay more for a patent than the amount he or she would have to pay to obtain an equivalent protection right.
Income Approach
This method looks to future cash flows in determining valuation. It states that a patent's value is the present value of the incremental cash flows or cost savings it will help provide. When a company or individual develops a product that has the potential to be patented, the underlying hope is that the patented product will cause an increase in sales, or at least be a cost-saving measure in the company. This approach states that the patent's value is the current cash value of these future benefits.
Market Approach
This methodology involves determining what a willing buyer would pay for similar property. In other words, the patent's value is approximately equal to the value of similar patents or patented products that have been sold and purchased before.
Two things must be in place for this approach to be used for patent valuation:
• Existence of an active market for the patent, or a similar one • Past transactions of comparable property
Look for similar values for the following items when looking for comparable patents:
• Industry characteristics • Market share or market share potential • Growth prospects
Methodologies for Determining Reasonable Royalty Damages
The fifteen Georgia-Pacific factors are as follows. Not all may be applicable in any given case. Further, some may, in certain cases, act to lower the damages royalty rather than increase it. Thus, in any given case, some factors may increase the royalty, while others could be neutral or tend to decrease it. The net result, however, can never be below the statutory minimum, which is really reflected by the last factor. • The royalties received by the patent owner for the licensing of the patent-in-suit, proving or tending to prove an established royalty;? • The rates paid by the licensee for the use of other patents comparable to the patent-in-suit;? • The nature and scope of the license, as exclusive or non-exclusive, or as restricted or non-restricted in terms of territory or with respect to whom the manufactured product may be sold;? • The licensor’s established policy and marketing program to maintain its patent monopoly by not licensing others to use the invention or by granting licenses under special conditions designed to preserve that monopoly;? • The commercial relationship between the licensor and the licensee, such as whether they are competitors in the same territory in the same line of business, or whether they are inventor and promoter;? • The effect of selling the patented specialty in promoting sales of other products of the licensee; the existing value of the invention to the licensor as a generator of sales of its non-patented items; and the extent of such derivative or convoyed sales;? • The duration of the patent and the term of the license;? • The established profitability of the product made under the patent; its commercial success; and its current popularity;? • The utility and advantages of the patent property over the old modes or devices, if any, that had been used for working out similar results;? • The nature of the patented invention; the character of the commercial embodiment of it as owned and produced by the licensor; and the benefits to those who have used the invention;? • The extent to which the infringer has made use of the invention, and any evidence probative of the value of that use;? • The portion of the profit or of the selling price that may be customary in the particular business or in comparable businesses to allow for the use of the invention or analogous inventions;? • The portion of the realizable profit that should be credited to the invention as distinguished from non-patented elements, the manufacturing process, business risks, or significant features or improvements added by the infringer;? • The opinion testimony of qualified experts; and? • The amount that a licensor (such as the patent owner) and a licensee (such as the infringer) would have agreed upon (at the time the infringement began) if both had been reasonably and voluntarily trying to reach an agreement; that is, the amount that a prudent licensee – who desired, as a business proposition, to obtain a license to manufacture and sell a particular article embodying the patented invention – would have been willing to pay as a royalty and yet be able to make a reasonable profit, and which amount would have been acceptable by a prudent patent owner who was willing to grant a license.?? https://www.fr.com/reasonableroyalty/
==========================================
The factors most often used are those enumerated in Georgia-Pacific v US Plywood Corp., 318 F.Supp 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970) and include, among other things, utility and advantages of the patented invention, commercial success of the patented invention, licenses for comparable products
ARTICLE U.S. Patent Damages September 2018 CIPA Journal By Timothy P. McAnulty; Jeffrey C. Totten; Nathan I. North
Significant 2018 Patent Decisions and a Look Ahead Thursday, December 20, 2018
The Supreme Court has entertained a cert. petition on behalf of RPX to determine whether this frequent patent challenger has standing to appeal a PTAB decision upholding a patent. RPX Corp. v. ChanBond LLC, 897 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Pending S. Ct. Cert. Petition). The Supreme Court recently requested the Solicitor General to provide briefing on the matter.
Cox Communications Fact Sheet Newsroom > Cox Communications is a broadband communications and entertainment company, providing advanced digital video, Internet, telephone and home security and automation services over its own nationwide IP network. The largest private telecom company in the U.S., Cox serves more than 6 million residences and businesses. Cox Business is a facilities-based provider of voice, video and data solutions for commercial customers, and Cox Media is a full-service provider of national and local cable spot and new media advertising. Cox is known for its pioneering efforts in broadband and commercial services, industry-leading customer care and its outstanding workplaces. For nine years, Cox has been recognized as the top operator for women by Women in Cable Telecommunications; Cox has ranked among DiversityInc's Top 50 Companies for Diversity 12 times. More information about Cox Communications, a wholly owned subsidiary of Cox Enterprises, is available at www.cox.com and www.coxmedia.com. Company Stats: • Cox has approximately 6 million total residential and commercial customers • Total revenues of $11 billion in 2016 • Cox operates 6 clustered cable systems in 18 states: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Virginia • Cox has approximately 20,000 employees nationwide • Approximately 2/3 of our customers are in a bundle, approximately 1/3 of customers are triple play • 350,000 commercial customers with more than 1.5 million business phone lines • In the last 10 years, Cox has invested more than $15 billion in its communities through infrastructure upgrades to deliver video, phone and high-speed Internet service to homes and businesses in the company’s service area. Cox plans to invest $10 billion in the next five years. • Cox’s in-kind and direct cash contributions totaled $70 million dollars in 2016, with a community outreach focus on youth and education initiatives. • Cox is a leader in customer satisfaction, earning a total of 34 awards from J.D. Power and Associates, including 10 consecutive wins for residential phone and 9 awards for business services. • Cox Communications is 55 years old, and remains a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cox Enterprises, a privately-held, family-owned corporation with $20 billion in annual revenues (2016) • Since 2012, Cox has connected more than 300,000 people to the Internet through the Connect2Compete program, most for the first time.
Here R the patents @ the USPTO
Inventors: Hennenhoefer; Earl (Harrisburg, PA), Snyder; Richard V. (Harrisburg, PA), Stine; Robert D. (Dillsburg, PA) Assignee: CBV, Inc. (Carlisle, PA)
And then the top one (# 9,363,554) with:
Inventors: Hennenhoefer; Earl (Carlisle, PA), Snyder; Richard (Harrisburg, PA), Stine; Robert (Mechanicsburg, PA) Applicant: Name City State Country Type CBV, Inc. Carlisle PA US Assignee: CHANBOND LLC (Dallas, TX)
The three cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach. In contrast to such data points, the market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements. StoneEagle Servs., Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc., 8:13-CV-2240, 2015 WL 3824170, at *9-*11 (M.D. Fla. June 19, 2015); D.I. 372, Ex. 1, Bakewell Rpt., §§ 273-274; see also AVN Technologies, LLC v. Intel Corp., 15-CV-33-RGA, 2017 WL 178752, at *3 (D. Del. May 1, Long term Saturday, 02/01/20 11:06:57 AM Re: long uoip post# 76368
0 Post # 76380 of 76412
2017). ..
“has anybody responded privately or is there a way we can source this information ? are you suspecting same valuation method will be utilized with uoip ?
Waiting or others to respond....unsure where to get other jury instruction sheet in similar cases.....judge Johnson in the brings v Google case someone got the instruction sheet but didn’t know where they got it...u might be able to find out at Wordpress....go there enter vrng 24.....there’s a lot there to look through.....am under the weather presently..have enough energy to just read posts.
Suspecting the same valuation method to be utilized? Judge Andrews asked for other cases, perhaps that was just pointing the parties in a general direction, ...perhaps it was a hint as to what parameters he thinks is appropriate.... can’t really tell that’s why one must be familiar with multiple methods so when discussed in court in Feb we can pick up on inference as to what the parties are talking about......believe at the end of the hearing a plan will either be approved by judge and / or will send both sides with his guidance to further negotiate an agreed upon method ( this wouldn’t be bad) an acceptable delay if it prevents an appealable miss application of setting upon an agreed method.
=========== long uoip Saturday, 02/01/20 11:30:59 AM Re: Long term post# 76380
0 Post # 76381 of 76412
re: "Judge Andrews asked for other cases, perhaps that was just pointing the parties in a general direction, perhaps it was a hint as to what parameters he thinks is appropriate" ..I concur, certainly initiates genesis point
re: "3 cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach" ..another stall tactic or modus of operandi to veer case sideways
re:"market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements" ..I concur, thanks for the additional examples
re:"must be familiar with multiple methods so when discussed in court in Feb we can pick up on inference"..my research shows various modalities, court will reveal judge's sentiments which would be best suited
re:"am under the weather presently..have enough energy to just read posts" ..sorry to hear that (hope it's not what's on the news) thanks for responding despite your fatigue, hope you feel better
we need you.. . court 17 days ========================
Long term Saturday, 02/01/20 12:47:18 PM Re: long uoip post# 76381
0 Post # 76384 of 76412
“;another stall tactic or modus of operandi to veer case sideways “ Don’t think it’s a stall tactic...Andrews is being accommodating to the defense & pointing out to defendants to get real after what valuation methods they proposed ( what they proposed was ridiculous) the purpose is not to fall into a appealable trap....Andrews,as all judges have as an objective is not to be appealed for judicial mistake......his direction to 13 read those cases as a guide in developing a mutually agreed upon method that he could approve. The Feb hearing will further clarify what was said in the Nov25 hearing....if both sides have reached agreement of method of valuation & if Andrews is comfortable then the method will be applied & we’ll probably know by the end of the hearing. If the sides haven’t agreed I think he’ll give further instruction & set another date to determine method. As to setting trial date he could set it thus adding more pressure ( again demonstrating to an appeal court of his fairness rendering a non appealable point) =================
long uoip Saturday, February 1, 2020 6:26:26 PM Re: Long term post# 76384 Post # 76399 of 76411 re:"appealable trap" ..I shudder from even the inference I would rather go nice & slow then deal with weeks, months, years of appeals, seems like Judge Andrews track record is professional & methodical
re:"get real about evaluation" ..analogy between defendants offer of nov court hearing $5-10 million & figures that shareholders are submitting parallel to other similar cases @ $1.6 B (curious to what that amounts to per share) correct me if I'm wrong.. . 1,614,601,069 uoip shares $1.2 B = approx. $.75 share
I'm all for ~ "judges having an objective to not to be appealed for judicial mistakes"
re: "mutually agreed upon method"..ugh, Houston, we have a problem LOL
"probably know by the end of the hearing?".. wow, seriously ?
"MUST BE APPROVED by the judge"..dilemma for the defendants
re: "sides haven’t agreed I think he’ll give further instruction & set another date to determine method" ..I suspect this will be the great debate =================
Billions in settlement dollars. No doubt.
64.35M cable subscribers $60 per month for one's internet connection or "ACCESS" only (NO CONTENT INCLUDED!) 12 months per year $46,332,000,000 per year 20 years (Suing for the life of the patent(s), via royalties) $926,640,000,000 (Almost a TRILLION DOLLARS) __@_______w/ ~1,614,601,069 shares O/S 0.1% == $926,640,000________$0.57/share (that's 1/10th of 1% for infringement) 0.25% = $2,316,600,000?______$1.44 (1/4th of 1%) 0.5% == $4,633,200,000______$2.87 (half a %) 1% === $9,266,400,000______$5.74
long uoip Friday, March 27, 2020 10:55:57 AM Re: A deleted message Post # 78575 of 78599 respectfully easyme, I concur with most of your analogy.. . bill gates metaphor "great corrector" analogy was in reference to our impending aug. 18th court date, opportunity for Stephen B. Brauerman to advocate on behalf of Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine (the 3 chanbond inventors) so the legal system can validate their innovative technology & their long overdue $ compensation Economics + Law = Damages p.s. I don't think covd19 is nothing, it is changing the trajectory of many people's lives, mostly the lower socioeconomic class, unfortunately ____________________________________________
Intelligent device system and method for distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system Patent number: 10136180 Abstract: A plurality of intelligent device systems for use with a wideband signal distribution network, and methods for transmitting digital information and receiving digital and non-digital information onto and off of an RF carrier through a wideband signal distribution network, are disclosed. The intelligent device systems provide networks of intelligent devices that modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, using existing EIA/TIA 568 standard wiring infrastructure. The methods modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, and separate IP portions from non-IP portions. Type: Grant Filed: April 6, 2015 Date of Patent: November 20, 2018 Assignee: CHANBOND LLC Inventors: Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine ____________________________________
Intelligent device system and method for distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system Patent number: 9363554 Abstract: A plurality of intelligent device systems for use with a wideband signal distribution network, and methods for transmitting digital information and receiving digital and non-digital information onto and off of an RF carrier through a wideband signal distribution network, are disclosed. The intelligent device systems provide networks of intelligent devices that modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, using existing EIA/TIA 568 standard wiring infrastructure. The methods modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, and separate IP portions from non-IP portions. Type: Grant Filed: January 29, 2014 Date of Patent: June 7, 2016 Assignee: CHANBOND LLC Inventors: Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine
PROVIDERS OFFERING CABLE SERVICE We've found 452 providers offering Cable service in the US. Below are stats on their coverage and speeds.
Philhump03 listed the following
listed the following Provider Est. Population Covered States Max Speed XFINITY from Comcast 111,710,288 40 987 mbps 2014 was 68.78B and 2018 was 91.51B. 1% of 2018 is $915,100,000
Charter Spectrum 102,473,344 43 940 mbps 43.634B in annual revenue/sales for 2018.... 1% of that is $43,634,000
Cox Communications 21,128,654 19 300 mbps 6 million total residential and commercial customers Total revenues of $11 billion in 2016
Optimum by Altice 12,437,931 4 400 mbps
Mediacom Cable 7,510,920 22 1000 mbps
WOW! 7,174,627 9 50 mbps
Suddenlink Communications 6,818,884 19 1000 mbps
RCN 4,103,162 7 1000 mbps
Cable ONE 3,358,492 20 1000 mbps
Wave Broadband 1,908,564 3 1000 mbps
Atlantic Broadband 1,871,420 13 1000 mbps
Midco 1,312,111 5 1000 mbps
Grande Communications 1,226,241 1 1000 mbps
Newwave Communications 1,057,601 7 100 mbps
Armstrong 982,867 5 1000 mbps
Service Electric Broadband Cable 969,100 2 150 mbps
Blue Ridge Communications 616,308 1 1000 mbps
Vyve Broadband 606,062 10 1000 mbps
GCI Communication 556,741 1 1000 mbps
Buckeye Broadband 544,140 2 300 mbps
En-Touch Systems 535,246 1 115 mbps
Northland Communications 492,413 8 100 mbps
TDS Telecom 475,628 10 600 mbps
Service Electric Cablevision 438,870 1 350 mbps
Shentel 411,731 3 150 mbps
Windstream 406,072 49 1000 mbps
Fidelity Communications 384,027 5 1000 mbps
Cablelynx Broadband 364,058 4 50 mbps
Comporium Communications 294,033 2 400 mbps
Vast Broadband 285,321 2 200 mbps
Zito Media 271,350 16 200 mbps
MaxxSouth Broadband 259,771 2 60 mbps
Consolidated Communications 207,589 8 100 mbps
Horry Telephone Cooperative 205,403 1 300 mbps
Blue Stream 186,428 1 1000 mbps
Massillon Cable TV 169,891 1 100 mbps
Cable America Missouri 144,579 2 100 mbps
BendBroadband 143,789 1 300 mbps
Morris Broadband 133,711 1 100 mbps
Hargray Communications 132,008 2 30 mbps
Antietam Broadband 131,986 1 200 mbps
Direct Communications 126,571 4 20 mbps
Ritter Communications 124,154 3 100 mbps
Continuum 104,611 1 200 mbps
Adams Cable Service 101,045 2 50 mbps
Summit Broadband 98,010 1 1000 mbps
TruVista 95,293 2 250 mbps
Reach Broadband 93,246 1 75 mbps
Inter Mountain Cable 90,008 3 300 mbps
Reserve Telecommunications 89,631 1 300 mbps
USA Communications 87,146 3 60 mbps
NuLink Digital 85,098 1 100 mbps
CTV Beam 83,932 1 102 mbps
CAS Cable 83,926 2 1000 mbps
Giggle Fiber 79,795 1 500 mbps
ImOn Communications 75,307 1 80 mbps
ComSouth 73,728 1 50 mbps
CentraCom 72,489 2 100 mbps
ETC Communications 71,927 3 150 mbps
OneSource Communications 70,808 1 35 mbps
Eagle Communications 69,886 3 100 mbps
Orbitel Communications 68,665 1 150 mbps
Mid-Hudson Cablevision 65,153 1 200 mbps
Thames Valley Communications 63,923 1 110 mbps
Conway Corporation 60,799 1 50 mbps
Home Telecom 59,774 1 100 mbps
Arvig 58,044 1 100 mbps
All West Communications 53,422 1 100 mbps
Golden West Telecommunications 52,372 1 50 mbps
Frankfort Plant Board 51,201 1 250 mbps
D&P Communications 51,053 2 110 mbps
Full Channel 49,612 1 320 mbps
Nittany Media 49,477 1 125 mbps
Thacker-Grigsby Telephone 49,081 1 50 mbps
ATMC 46,398 1 200 mbps
Rainier Connect 44,688 1 55 mbps
CASSCOMM 44,640 1 50 mbps
Bailey Cable TV 43,875 2 12 mbps
Spanish Fork Community Network 43,188 1 120 mbps
Indco Cable 41,849 4 4.0 mbps
Emery Telcom 41,800 1 40 mbps
commZoom 41,540 1 100 mbps
AllensTV 41,347 1 50 mbps
Long Lines 41,245 3 300 mbps
FiberVision Florida 41,098 1 90 mbps
Spirit Broadband 40,356 1 10 mbps
Access Cable Television 40,221 2 100 mbps
LivCom 39,774 1 25 mbps
HBC 38,057 1 1000 mbps
Vision Communications 37,474 1 25 mbps
USA Communications (Iowa) 37,432 1 6.0 mbps
Country Cablevision 36,919 1 100 mbps
Consolidated Smart Broadband Systems 36,760 2 1000 mbps
CableSouth Media3 35,893 2 10 mbps
SELCO 35,608 1 50 mbps
GVTC Communications 34,641 1 12 mbps
Satview Broadband 34,640 1 10 mbps
BELD Broadband 33,909 1 300 mbps
Kings Bay Communications 32,113 1 1000 mbps
CPWS Broadband 32,002 1 100 mbps
1% of 43.6 billion is 436 million.How bout as we waite to pass
the time w collectively do some DD on the following and post info to this post.
Name of 13 companies & their Annual income for each to present 12-31-2018
1 Atlantic Broadband Group, LLC,
2 Bright House Networks, LLC,
3 CSC Holdings, LLC,
4 Cable One, Inc.,
5 Cablevision Systems Corporation,
6 Cequel Communications Holdings I, LLC,
7 Cequel Communications, LLC,
8 Charter Communications, Inc.,
9 Comcast Cable Communications, LLC,
10 Comcast Corporation,
11 Cox Communications, Inc.,
12 Mediacom Communications Corporation,
13 RCN Telecom Services, LLC,
14 Time Warner Cable Enterprises LLC,TT
15 Time Warner Cable Inc.,
16 WaveDivision Holdings, LLC,
17 WideOpen West Finance, LLC.
x years infringement for each x 13=
Future licensing for each....????? Years ( not sure how many)=
Punitive damages for each = up to 3x final amount
Looser pays legal fees and costs ( if goes to trial) Cut & past edit pg # 1
Useing (.05%) A percentage historically 1-5% ( since the amt here may be very large I'd guess.5-1.5%)
All About News, DDs and Charts ****
#1-SISTER FORUM $Pistol Pete$, $Mick$ & Friends Stock Picks /news, DD and charts
#2-SISTER FORUM *** MICK, $Pistol Pete$ & FRIENDS STOCK PICKS *** M F S P''''''''
#3-SISTER FORUM Billionaire Boys Club Member Forum (BBCMF)
MARK IT FOLKS /////\\\\\ i'd like to see this happen. sanctuary placement for homeless as soon as possible. **** illegals have the sanctuary placement in most states.****
why not the homeless be sponsored by the sports leagues of america. ah special taxation on their salary to support the homeless.
heck figure how many would finally have an address to file claims to the gov't. the homeless have no speaker for them.
i think some lawyers could donate some time to this. mark this message for improvement for the homeless.
SHO LIST BUYINS.NET Chart Analysis Chart Video Lessons Charts Charts Charts Clinical Trials Corporate Bankruptcy Corporate Records Search Deregistering
Document Research Earnings Email Address Verifier EYE ON THE FDA FINRA Daily Short List Floats Form 4 Filings High Short Interest Stocks Insider Buy & Sell Info
Investing Glossary Investor Words Low Float Stocks Message, Blog & Twitter Postings Multicollinearity Patterns Platform Reverse Splits SEC Form Types and Definitions
Secretary Of State Sites - All states Shell Stocks SHO Threshold List Short Stocks Stock Chart Patterns Stock Promotions Stock Promotions Stock Research
Technical Analysis Technical Indicators/Overlays Trading Halts Trading Platform Trading Stations Transfer Agent Contact Information
Information Cannabis/
Jurisdiction with legalized cannabis. Jurisdiction with both medical and decriminalization laws.* Jurisdiction with legal psychoactive medical cannabis. Jurisdiction with legal non-psychoactive medical cannabis Jurisdiction with decriminalized cannabis possession laws. Jurisdiction with total cannabis prohibition * Mississippi has only legal non-psychoactive medical cannabis, and Illinois has decriminalized cannabis as of July 29th, 2016 Attribution: Lokal_Profil , CC-BY-SA-2.5
Post # 64456 of 64474 A few weeks/months back I posted a link to cnnmoney that forecasted a 12 month stock price of 1200.00. Most people laughed and shrugged it off without much thought. I’d like to present several thoughts why I feel the forecast while not totally accurate, does give an idea of the long term global potential of the plan zwolf spoke about recently and the relevancy to Mr. Spangenburgs current business models concerning patent monetization/analysis/reform. Many may not know that Mr. Spangenburg and Mr. Carter are close business partners and have founded and continue to run successful patent service companies. Many call them trolls but it doesn’t take much reading to see that they are far from that. They provide services and solutions to patent holders to better arm themselves against large corporations who prey on and benefit from small scale IP owners/creators. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity that we are fortunate to be in below the ground floor. All of Mr. Spangenburg and Mr. Carters companies are PRIVITELY held companies and I have no issues owning stock with these two guys running not only this show, but many, many others with outstanding success. I’m quite sure all the private noteholders across their many organizations are being paid proportionally to the amount of shares they own, and owning a personal stake in every company they finance litigation for says everything I need to hear honestly. What’s good for them is good for me and I’m grateful for this opportunity. To those who are that concerned, I would suggest you put on a pot of coffee, grab some snacks and start reading…that’s what I did back in 2017. I went back and read about 1-2 years of posts over the course or a week or so.
These links gave me a really good idea of Carter and Spangenburgs “big picture link, ipwe.com
The key words to listen for are smart contracts.link
This link is one I’m sure we have all seen, but I like it because its proof Carter is Spangenburgs right hand man and that they personally purchase a stake in every company they finance litigation for and are motivated to get the patent creators and thereby themselves, paid.link
Also some may have missed the info on carter from post 21698 from 2014
In closing, if I think about all the money ive spent on internet service from dial-up to gigabit and to know that the technology enabling comfortable internet use has not been going into the hands of the people who helped enhance it is a pure and utter shame. I hope Mr Spangenburg succeeds in his patent reform efforts and I hope this case sets a new precedent going forward.
Billy carter ice2014 Monday, 09/22/14 10:16:21 AM Re: None 0 Post # 21698 of 63460
UnifiedOnline! LLC is owned by Billy Carter, the person who bought ICEWEB and took all its debt by paying about 116K. IMO, he is not dumping shares in the market but is using these shares to pay the other debt holders, e.g. Asher enterprise who dumped theirs in the market.
IMO, it seems that the stock has been taken over by MMs and has been shorted like hell, and that's why you see 1+ billion on bids at 0.0001. It is a possibility that MMs have sold more than the float. These MMs may be turned upside down if any positive news is released on/before Sept. 30th, and they have to cover their short positions.
You can check more about Billy Carter at following sites:
Make a search on carter in 2nd and 3rd URL. It seems that new owner of IEWEB Mr. Carter really has deep pockets. He has probably invested in ICEWEB not to double or triple his 116K but probably to multiply his 116K by 100s of times. ICEWEB and KCNAP play in the hottest cloud space. It seems that Mr. Carter is involved in too many businesses that I can track. He is also the president of Plant Transformation Technology (PTT) with chairman Erich Spangenberg of IPNAV (check above links). He seems to be very much involved in IPNAV as well, which has sued 1600+ companies.
Again, IMO, Billy Carter probably didn't buy ICEWEB for 116K to double his money but to make it really big. This is probably the last week and we should hear news (official 10-K) from ICEWEB before Sept. 30th deadline.
Evilbean Thursday, February 21, 2019 7:27:31 AM Re: None Post # 62182 of 62222 If you want more understanding of where we sit, this court document is actually pretty good at explaining the issues with the appeal and the IPRs. It also discusses some of the 13s intent/strategy in what may be an argument against us in court. This is a court document filed 6/15/18. It is well worth the time to read and may help clarify issues in your mind.
This is not a slam dunk for us there is still a lot of legal wrangling that must go on and I think this document will show that.
long uoip Friday, March 27, 2020 10:55:57 AM Re: A deleted message Post # 78575 of 78599 respectfully easyme, I concur with most of your analogy.. . bill gates metaphor "great corrector" analogy was in reference to our impending aug. 18th court date, opportunity for Stephen B. Brauerman to advocate on behalf of Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine (the 3 chanbond inventors) so the legal system can validate their innovative technology & their long overdue $ compensation Economics + Law = Damages p.s. I don't think covd19 is nothing, it is changing the trajectory of many people's lives, mostly the lower socioeconomic class, unfortunately ____________________________________________
Intelligent device system and method for distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system Patent number: 10136180 Abstract: A plurality of intelligent device systems for use with a wideband signal distribution network, and methods for transmitting digital information and receiving digital and non-digital information onto and off of an RF carrier through a wideband signal distribution network, are disclosed. The intelligent device systems provide networks of intelligent devices that modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, using existing EIA/TIA 568 standard wiring infrastructure. The methods modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, and separate IP portions from non-IP portions. Type: Grant Filed: April 6, 2015 Date of Patent: November 20, 2018 Assignee: CHANBOND LLC Inventors: Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine ____________________________________
Intelligent device system and method for distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system Patent number: 9363554 Abstract: A plurality of intelligent device systems for use with a wideband signal distribution network, and methods for transmitting digital information and receiving digital and non-digital information onto and off of an RF carrier through a wideband signal distribution network, are disclosed. The intelligent device systems provide networks of intelligent devices that modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, using existing EIA/TIA 568 standard wiring infrastructure. The methods modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, and separate IP portions from non-IP portions. Type: Grant Filed: January 29, 2014 Date of Patent: June 7, 2016 Assignee: CHANBOND LLC Inventors: Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine
t TIMELINE of UOIP legal actions, thanks to Magnus
page 1 Judge Andrews ~ A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice caused by the failure to interest anyone in the technology at the time and the waste of time needed to explain why the non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000- 2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 .
page 2 The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they are valuing the potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates by the parties of the likely outcomes of litigation are now offered to prove what the outcome of the litigation should be.
page 3 There has been no showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the agreement between two parties who want to be on one side of either a litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an input for determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus, the "contemporaneous valuations" including not only the two completed transactions but the various statements during the same time period are excluded as unreliable. ______________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (document in full) FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE IN RE CHANBOND, LLC PATENT LITIGATION C.A. No. 15-842-RGA CONSOLIDATED MEMORANDUM ORDER Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and Testimony of Defendants' Damages Expert. (D.I. 370). I have reviewed the parties' briefing and heard oral argument. (D.I. 371,398, 409,471). Defendant's damages expert, Mr. Bakewell, offers three quantitative analysis approaches in his 200 page "Rebuttal Expert Report," one of which is the "market approach." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at~ 171 ). Plaintiff argues that Mr. Bakewell' s market approach opinions should be excluded because Mr. Bakewell does not use reliable principles or methods. (D.I. 371 at 1). Plaintiff contends that Mr. Bakewell fails to establish that the evidence he relies on is comparable to a hypothetical licensing negotiation in December 2012 for the patents-in-suit. (Id.; D.I. 339, Ex. A at ~164). Mr. Bakewell's market approach is based on three valuation datapoints: (1) "pre-DOCSIS 3.0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit," (2) "2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations," and (3) "2012 AST offer to sell." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at~ 287). Plaintiff argues that each should be excluded, and thus I should exclude Mr. Bakewell's entire market approach opinion. (D.I. 371 at 8). 1. Pre-DOCSIS 3. 0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit The "Pre-DOCSIS 3.0" datapoint relies on investment solicitations by Z-Band, the company formed by the inventors of the patents-in-suit. In December 2000, Z-Band sought between $2 million and $5 million in venture capital funding. In 2001 , Z-Band received an offer for $5 million from an unidentified foreign company for a "minority interest," which it rejected. (D.I. 399, Ex. A at 11 178-79). Mr. Bakewell concludes from these two facts that a lump sum royalty in the "mid seven figures" would be appropriate. (Id. at 1 287). Plaintiff argues that the investment solicitations and rejected offer are not technologically or economically comparable to a hypothetical negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit. (D.I. 371 at 9). I agree. The solicitations and offer occurred approximately ten years before the first of the patents-in-suit issued on May 10, 2011. (Id.). The solicitations cannot be representative of a hypothetical negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit when the patents-in-suit did not yet exist. Therefore, Mr. Bakewell's opinion based on "pre-DOCSIS 3.0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit" is irrelevant and excluded. Further, any marginal relevance that such an analysis might have, even if it specifically related to a license for the patents-in-suit, is minimized by the fact that no agreement was reached and that the investment opportunity took place some ten to twelve years before the date of the hypothetical negotiation. A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice caused by the failure to interest anyone in the technology at the time and the waste of time needed to explain why the non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000- 2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 . 2 2. 2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations The lawsuit in this case was filed September 21 , 2015. Mr. Bakewell opines that the "2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations" datapoint reflects a reasonable royalty of "less than $20 million." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i 287). I am unsure why he uses the word "contemporaneous," but I assume he means valuations contemporaneous with each other rather than with the hypothetical negotiation date. The contemporaneous valuations datapoint is recited in the narrative of the expert report. It seems to consist of two transactions in which ownership of the patents-in-suit changed hands, and various statements made by interested parties during negotiations for the two successful transactions as well as ones that did not take place. (See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 210-286; D.I. 371 at 16-20; D.I. 398 at 5-7). The terms of the first completed transaction- sale by CBV to ChanBond on April 9, 2015-stated that the purchaser would pay an upfront fee and a percentage payout based on the recoveries associated with the enforcement of the patents-in-suit. (See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 232-233). These transaction terms are not representative of a hypothetical negotiation because they base the payment for the patents on the outcome of litigation. The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they are valuing the potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates by the parties of the likely outcomes of litigation are now offered to prove what the outcome of the litigation should be. The second completed transaction is the October 27, 2015 sale of ChanBond, a month after the lawsuits in this case had been filed, to UnifiedOnline. (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 244-248). ChanBond's only assets were the patents-in-suit, two other patents, two patent applications, and this litigation. (Id. at ,i 244). To purchase ChanBond, UnifiedOnline paid $5 million and 44.7 3 million shares of its common stock. 1 (Id.). Thus, as with the earlier 2015 transaction, and as the expert report makes clear, the thing being valued in the transaction was this litigation. This transaction therefore is not comparable to the hypothetical negotiation. A licensing transaction values the patents. All other things being equal, a licensing transaction is much preferred over a settlement agreement that licenses a patent. See Laser Dynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 694 F.3d 51, 77-78 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Estimating the hypothetical negotiation, that is, what a willing licensee and a willing licensor would agree to, is one step further removed from being comparable than a settlement agreement. Instead of its being an agreement between a party who has a patent and a party that wants to be able to use the patent, it is an agreement between two parties who want to be on one side of that transaction, that of the licensor. There has been no showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the agreement between two parties who want to be on one side of either a litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an input for determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus, the "contemporaneous valuations" including not only the two completed transactions but the various statements during the same time period are excluded as unreliable. Further, any marginal relevance that the two transactions and the related statements might have has so little probative value that the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of issues inherent in bringing into the litigation how trials are financed. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would exclude it. Fed. R. Evid. 403 . 1 Mr. Bakewell assigns negligible value to the 44.7 million shares of UnifiedOnline on the basis of the par value of the stock. I assume it did not have any known market value. At least at this stage, the value of the shares is not at issue. 4 3. 2012 AST offer to sell Mr. Bakewell's market approach opined that the 2012 offer to sell the patents by nonparty Allied Security Trust ("AST") reflected a reasonable royalty of "high seven figures." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at, 287). AST is a cooperative that helps member companies secure rights to patents. (Id. at, 192). Rights to the patents-in-suit were offered to AST member companies for "high seven figures." (Id. at, 198). While the fact that rights to the patents-in-suit were offered for "high seven figures" is relevant to the valuation of the patents-in-suit, this datapoint alone cannot serve as the basis for Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion. Neither Defendants nor their expert have shown that a single offer to sell rights to patents is a viable basis for a market approach calculation of a reasonable royalty. (See D.I. 470). The 2012 AST offer is therefore excluded from Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion. I am not concerned about excluding this last remaining datapoint of Mr. Bakewell's market approach, and thus his entire market approach opinion, because Mr. Bakewell offered two other damages theories aside from the market approach. The market approach is not essential to Defendants' damages analysis. See United States v. Driggs, 823 F.2d 52, 54-55 (3d Cir. 1987). Outside of the market approach, the 2012 AST offer itself is independently relevant to the valuation of the patents-in-suit and may come in as evidence of such. A word of caution. The fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is not only irrelevant to a reasonable royalty analysis but also would be unfairly prejudicial to Plaintiff, confuse the issues, and mislead the jury. A hypothetical negotiation assumes that the parties are a willing licensor and a willing licensee and that the patents are valid and infringed. Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc. , 580 F.3d 1301 , 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Because no company 5 responded to the 2012 AST offer, the situation does not represent a hypothetical negotiation with a willing licensee. Therefore, the fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is irrelevant and inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 402. Further, even if the nonresponse to the 2012 AST offer were relevant to a reasonable royalty analysis, any possible probative value it might have would be substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues that would result from evidence that AST' s offer was not accepted. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would exclude evidence that the offer was not accepted. Fed. R. Evid. 403 . For the reasons above, Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and Testimony of Defendants' Damages Expert (D.I. 370) is GRANTED.
Sunday, 06/18/17 10:59:07 AM Re: None
0 Post # 33853 of 78158
RECENT UOIP/CHANBOND WINS and what they mean for us as shareholders.
(I) ordinary infringement litigation and declaratory judgment actions in Article III courts ("Article III Courts") ; AND (II) administrative invalidation actions in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent and Trial Appeal Board ("PTAB").
ARTICLE III COURTS Now we are en route to a win in civil court with the patent litigation. In fact, we are probably closer to receiving a settlement given the way this case has gone. The scheduled stages in the case are, chronologically, (i) Fact Discovery, (ii) Status Conference, (iii) Any Summary Judgment/Daubert (i.e. expert witness testimony) motions, (iv) Pretrial Conference, and (v) Jury Trial.
Here's why I think settlement is imminent:
OBLIGATION TO TRY TO SETTLE Initially, for the joint submission brief, these parties were to discuss the possibility of settlement. By the time of (iv), they must specifically certify (basically affirm) that they have engaged in a good faith effort to explore the resolution of controversy by settlement (see Rule 16.3(c)(12) of the Local Rules of Civil Practice and Procedure of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware). Initially, they have to state whether there's a possibility of settlement whereas, later along in the case, they must undertake to engage in a good faith effort to settle. Despite getting smoked at the Markman hearing, it appears the Defendants haven't yet tried to engage in a good faith effort to settle.
COSTS ASSESSED AGAINST THE LOSING PARTY Also keep in mind that the longer the case drags on, the higher the costs that can be incurred against the losing party (even if the case settles). For example, it appears that you can get a jury cost assessment against you if the case is settled less than 3 days before the scheduled jury selection (Rule 54.2). It also appears that you can still apply for attorneys' fees even in connection with settled cases (Rule 54.3).
It doesn't leave much room to play games and push the matter to trial before you settle as costs can be assessed against you the further the case progresses. I read somewhere that the average cost of taking a patent case through trial is over $2 Million per case.
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING (A.K.A. MARKMAN HEARING) Keep in mind that there is also a pretrial hearing that the parties go through, called a Markman hearing, which was already heard by Justice Andrews December 9, 2016. As per Wikipedia: "Markman hearings are before a judge, and generally take place before trial. A Markman hearing may occur before the close of discovery, along with a motion for preliminary injunction, or at the end of discovery, in relation to a motion for summary judgment. A Markman hearing may also be held after the trial begins, but before jury selection."
In any case, this Markman hearing was very important because the issues of law are adjudicated and it basically encourages settlement, particularly in Judge Andrews' court room. If you read about Andrews (who is set to try the case if you haven't been paying attention), it appears he has the fewest patent-specific procedures and guidelines out of all four Article III judges that sit on the Delaware court. He apparently has a unique procedure for these Markman hearings. I read that "instead of having the parties file separate claim construction charts and briefs for the Markman hearing, he requires the parties to exchange their proposed claim terms for construction, exchange their proposed constructions, confer, and file a Joint Claim Construction Chart, as well as a Joint Claim Construction Brief." In other words, he gets the parties to sit down and really pinpoint what the contentious issues are. This leads to less strong-arming and taking a tunnel-vision approach with one's own case. This makes the aspect of settlement more conducive, particularly as Andrews found in favor of ChanBond after the December 9th Markman hearing (http://www.morrisjames.com/assets/htmldocuments/patent%20blog%20-%20Chanbond%20-%201826.pdf). I encourage you to read Judge Andrews' decision as he outlines how the defendants were struggling to make a case and rules against every single one of the Defendants' proposed constructions. I also encourage everyone to read the last law review article in this post under the heading "New Changes in the Law Affecting this Case" and truly see how instrumental it was for ChanBond to win the Markman hearing.
BACKGROUND OF JUSTICE ANDREWS AND DELAWARE'S DISTRICT COURT From Law Review Article of 2016 (Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Stop for Summary Judgment: The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware’s Seemingly Disjunctive Yet Efficient Procedures in Hatch-Waxman Litigation, Katherine Rhoades, Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property):
It is no secret that the District of Delaware’s four Article III judges have extensive patent experience and are some of the most experienced in the country in handling patent infringement cases. The District of Delaware leads all other district courts with the most patent case filings per judge, which results in an experienced bench. In fact, Judge Andrews, Judge Robinson, Judge Sleet, and Chief Judge Stark are among the U.S. district court judges who hear the most patent cases, and they are the four judges that hear the most ANDA cases in the country.
The District of Delaware’s lack of local patent rules does not seem to have affected the district’s case efficiency or time-to-trial. Research “suggests that districts with local patent rules process patent cases faster than districts lacking such rules.” However, this research is not dispositive. Additionally, experienced judges can resolve cases more quickly. The District of Delaware has an overall faster time-to-trial - time from the day the complaint is filed to the first day of trial—than the District of New Jersey for patent cases that do not settle. While local patent rules can decrease the time-to-trial, Delaware’s experienced bench is efficient in resolving patent disputes.
In other words, due to the venue and the fact it's being heard by Judge Andrews, this isn't a case that will be bogged down by a slow court system or, worse, be adjudicated before an inexperienced judge. Efficient venue + reputable judge = quick route to trial or settlement.
NEW CHANGES IN THE LAW AFFECTING THIS CASE Maybe you think the Defendants will play strategic games and appeal Justice Andrews' ruling in the Markman hearing? Think again. On January 20, 2015, the Supreme Court changed the standard under which trial court claim construction rulings will be reviewed on appeal, holding that a trial court’s factual findings underlying its claim construction rulings must be given deference. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 831 (2014). In a 7-2 decision, the Teva Court concluded that a trial court’s findings of fact underpinning a claim construction ruling must be reviewed under a “clearly erroneous” standard, rather than under the general de novo standard previously applied by the Federal Circuit. Without getting into the details, this means that it's much harder for the Defendants to appeal Justice Andrews' Markman ruling due to this heightened review standard from Teva which, in turn, will lead to an increased likelihood of settlement.
MY OPINION So I personally think settlement will happen soon enough. Maybe not next week, but certainly quite soon given the mounting costs, the potential to have costs assessed against you even in the midst of settlement, the fact that the Markman hearing has already taken place and the issues of law have been adjudicated in favor of ChanBond as per Andrews' order (which also has to be submitted to the jury if it gets as far as a jury trial), and the fact that Markman hearings - after the Teva ruling - are now more important than ever in patent litigation.
Long term Saturday, 02/01/20 11:06:57 AM Re: long uoip post# 76368
0 Post # 76380 of 76412
The three cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach. In contrast to such data points, the market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements. StoneEagle Servs., Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc., 8:13-CV-2240, 2015 WL 3824170, at *9-*11 (M.D. Fla. June 19, 2015); D.I. 372, Ex. 1, Bakewell Rpt., §§ 273-274; see also AVN Technologies, LLC v. Intel Corp., 15-CV-33-RGA, 2017 WL 178752, at *3 (D. Del. May 1, 2017). ..
“has anybody responded privately or is there a way we can source this information ? are you suspecting same valuation method will be utilized with uoip ?
Waiting or others to respond....unsure where to get other jury instruction sheet in similar cases.....judge Johnson in the brings v Google case someone got the instruction sheet but didn’t know where they got it...u might be able to find out at Wordpress....go there enter vrng 24.....there’s a lot there to look through.....am under the weather presently..have enough energy to just read posts.
Suspecting the same valuation method to be utilized? Judge Andrews asked for other cases, perhaps that was just pointing the parties in a general direction, ...perhaps it was a hint as to what parameters he thinks is appropriate.... can’t really tell that’s why one must be familiar with multiple methods so when discussed in court in Feb we can pick up on inference as to what the parties are talking about......believe at the end of the hearing a plan will either be approved by judge and / or will send both sides with his guidance to further negotiate an agreed upon method ( this wouldn’t be bad) an acceptable delay if it prevents an appealable miss application of setting upon an agreed method.
=========== long uoip Saturday, 02/01/20 11:30:59 AM Re: Long term post# 76380
0 Post # 76381 of 76412
re: "Judge Andrews asked for other cases, perhaps that was just pointing the parties in a general direction, perhaps it was a hint as to what parameters he thinks is appropriate" ..I concur, certainly initiates genesis point
re: "3 cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach" ..another stall tactic or modus of operandi to veer case sideways
re:"market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements" ..I concur, thanks for the additional examples
re:"must be familiar with multiple methods so when discussed in court in Feb we can pick up on inference"..my research shows various modalities, court will reveal judge's sentiments which would be best suited
re:"am under the weather presently..have enough energy to just read posts" ..sorry to hear that (hope it's not what's on the news) thanks for responding despite your fatigue, hope you feel better
we need you.. . court 17 days ========================
Long term Saturday, 02/01/20 12:47:18 PM Re: long uoip post# 76381
0 Post # 76384 of 76412
“;another stall tactic or modus of operandi to veer case sideways “ Don’t think it’s a stall tactic...Andrews is being accommodating to the defense & pointing out to defendants to get real after what valuation methods they proposed ( what they proposed was ridiculous) the purpose is not to fall into a appealable trap....Andrews,as all judges have as an objective is not to be appealed for judicial mistake......his direction to 13 read those cases as a guide in developing a mutually agreed upon method that he could approve. The Feb hearing will further clarify what was said in the Nov25 hearing....if both sides have reached agreement of method of valuation & if Andrews is comfortable then the method will be applied & we’ll probably know by the end of the hearing. If the sides haven’t agreed I think he’ll give further instruction & set another date to determine method. As to setting trial date he could set it thus adding more pressure ( again demonstrating to an appeal court of his fairness rendering a non appealable point) =================
long uoip Saturday, February 1, 2020 6:26:26 PM Re: Long term post# 76384 Post # 76399 of 76411 re:"appealable trap" ..I shudder from even the inference I would rather go nice & slow then deal with weeks, months, years of appeals, seems like Judge Andrews track record is professional & methodical
re:"get real about evaluation" ..analogy between defendants offer of nov court hearing $5-10 million & figures that shareholders are submitting parallel to other similar cases @ $1.6 B (curious to what that amounts to per share) correct me if I'm wrong.. . 1,614,601,069 uoip shares $1.2 B = approx. $.75 share
I'm all for ~ "judges having an objective to not to be appealed for judicial mistakes"
re: "mutually agreed upon method"..ugh, Houston, we have a problem LOL
"probably know by the end of the hearing?".. wow, seriously ?
"MUST BE APPROVED by the judge"..dilemma for the defendants
re: "sides haven’t agreed I think he’ll give further instruction & set another date to determine method" ..I suspect this will be the great debate =================
Thoughts on Judge Casper. 1. She is fully aware of what's been going on in the IP legal arena 2. A message was sent to her when the defense attorney said " this will cost billion's " that was not a plea for leniency but rather suggestion/ threat ....to delay send it to ptab & caft thus delay delay = ware out wddd / she'd be appealed. Judge Casper recognized this & gave them what they wanted by referring to PTAB knowing by doing so it could likely strengthen wddd,s case ( if they could do so successfully & wddd do so) Result, now the case returns to her court & wddd has a much stronger case . Activision recognized this possibility thus enter Google 3. No judge wants to be appealed by doing what she did strengthens whatever ruling is made & that's what's good about what she did. Remember TK wasn't happy about going through the gauntlet but recognized the value thus he really wasn't as upset by these delays because he believed wddd would come out on top. How's that for faith / confidence. 4. Unless there's a buy out(not likely) or a settlement Judge Casper will proceed with the trial with a personal objective ......of providing nothing that will be appellate as a result of judicial mistakes .
Will a judgement that comes out of her court be appealed? Likely, Activision will find something & we'll go through the appeals process. Again... time & delay.,
long uoip Friday, March 27, 2020 10:55:57 AM Re: A deleted message Post # 78575 of 78599 respectfully easyme, I concur with most of your analogy.. . bill gates metaphor "great corrector" analogy was in reference to our impending aug. 18th court date, opportunity for Stephen B. Brauerman to advocate on behalf of Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine (the 3 chanbond inventors) so the legal system can validate their innovative technology & their long overdue $ compensation Economics + Law = Damages p.s. I don't think covd19 is nothing, it is changing the trajectory of many people's lives, mostly the lower socioeconomic class, unfortunately ____________________________________________
Intelligent device system and method for distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system Patent number: 10136180 Abstract: A plurality of intelligent device systems for use with a wideband signal distribution network, and methods for transmitting digital information and receiving digital and non-digital information onto and off of an RF carrier through a wideband signal distribution network, are disclosed. The intelligent device systems provide networks of intelligent devices that modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, using existing EIA/TIA 568 standard wiring infrastructure. The methods modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, and separate IP portions from non-IP portions. Type: Grant Filed: April 6, 2015 Date of Patent: November 20, 2018 Assignee: CHANBOND LLC Inventors: Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine ____________________________________
Intelligent device system and method for distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system Patent number: 9363554 Abstract: A plurality of intelligent device systems for use with a wideband signal distribution network, and methods for transmitting digital information and receiving digital and non-digital information onto and off of an RF carrier through a wideband signal distribution network, are disclosed. The intelligent device systems provide networks of intelligent devices that modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, using existing EIA/TIA 568 standard wiring infrastructure. The methods modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, and separate IP portions from non-IP portions. Type: Grant Filed: January 29, 2014 Date of Patent: June 7, 2016 Assignee: CHANBOND LLC Inventors: Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine
t TIMELINE of UOIP legal actions, thanks to Magnus
page 1 Judge Andrews ~ A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice caused by the failure to interest anyone in the technology at the time and the waste of time needed to explain why the non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000- 2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 .
page 2 The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they are valuing the potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates by the parties of the likely outcomes of litigation are now offered to prove what the outcome of the litigation should be.
page 3 There has been no showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the agreement between two parties who want to be on one side of either a litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an input for determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus, the "contemporaneous valuations" including not only the two completed transactions but the various statements during the same time period are excluded as unreliable. ______________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (document in full) FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE IN RE CHANBOND, LLC PATENT LITIGATION C.A. No. 15-842-RGA CONSOLIDATED MEMORANDUM ORDER Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and Testimony of Defendants' Damages Expert. (D.I. 370). I have reviewed the parties' briefing and heard oral argument. (D.I. 371,398, 409,471). Defendant's damages expert, Mr. Bakewell, offers three quantitative analysis approaches in his 200 page "Rebuttal Expert Report," one of which is the "market approach." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at~ 171 ). Plaintiff argues that Mr. Bakewell' s market approach opinions should be excluded because Mr. Bakewell does not use reliable principles or methods. (D.I. 371 at 1). Plaintiff contends that Mr. Bakewell fails to establish that the evidence he relies on is comparable to a hypothetical licensing negotiation in December 2012 for the patents-in-suit. (Id.; D.I. 339, Ex. A at ~164). Mr. Bakewell's market approach is based on three valuation datapoints: (1) "pre-DOCSIS 3.0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit," (2) "2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations," and (3) "2012 AST offer to sell." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at~ 287). Plaintiff argues that each should be excluded, and thus I should exclude Mr. Bakewell's entire market approach opinion. (D.I. 371 at 8). 1. Pre-DOCSIS 3. 0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit The "Pre-DOCSIS 3.0" datapoint relies on investment solicitations by Z-Band, the company formed by the inventors of the patents-in-suit. In December 2000, Z-Band sought between $2 million and $5 million in venture capital funding. In 2001 , Z-Band received an offer for $5 million from an unidentified foreign company for a "minority interest," which it rejected. (D.I. 399, Ex. A at 11 178-79). Mr. Bakewell concludes from these two facts that a lump sum royalty in the "mid seven figures" would be appropriate. (Id. at 1 287). Plaintiff argues that the investment solicitations and rejected offer are not technologically or economically comparable to a hypothetical negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit. (D.I. 371 at 9). I agree. The solicitations and offer occurred approximately ten years before the first of the patents-in-suit issued on May 10, 2011. (Id.). The solicitations cannot be representative of a hypothetical negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit when the patents-in-suit did not yet exist. Therefore, Mr. Bakewell's opinion based on "pre-DOCSIS 3.0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit" is irrelevant and excluded. Further, any marginal relevance that such an analysis might have, even if it specifically related to a license for the patents-in-suit, is minimized by the fact that no agreement was reached and that the investment opportunity took place some ten to twelve years before the date of the hypothetical negotiation. A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice caused by the failure to interest anyone in the technology at the time and the waste of time needed to explain why the non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000- 2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 . 2 2. 2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations The lawsuit in this case was filed September 21 , 2015. Mr. Bakewell opines that the "2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations" datapoint reflects a reasonable royalty of "less than $20 million." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i 287). I am unsure why he uses the word "contemporaneous," but I assume he means valuations contemporaneous with each other rather than with the hypothetical negotiation date. The contemporaneous valuations datapoint is recited in the narrative of the expert report. It seems to consist of two transactions in which ownership of the patents-in-suit changed hands, and various statements made by interested parties during negotiations for the two successful transactions as well as ones that did not take place. (See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 210-286; D.I. 371 at 16-20; D.I. 398 at 5-7). The terms of the first completed transaction- sale by CBV to ChanBond on April 9, 2015-stated that the purchaser would pay an upfront fee and a percentage payout based on the recoveries associated with the enforcement of the patents-in-suit. (See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 232-233). These transaction terms are not representative of a hypothetical negotiation because they base the payment for the patents on the outcome of litigation. The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they are valuing the potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates by the parties of the likely outcomes of litigation are now offered to prove what the outcome of the litigation should be. The second completed transaction is the October 27, 2015 sale of ChanBond, a month after the lawsuits in this case had been filed, to UnifiedOnline. (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 244-248). ChanBond's only assets were the patents-in-suit, two other patents, two patent applications, and this litigation. (Id. at ,i 244). To purchase ChanBond, UnifiedOnline paid $5 million and 44.7 3 million shares of its common stock. 1 (Id.). Thus, as with the earlier 2015 transaction, and as the expert report makes clear, the thing being valued in the transaction was this litigation. This transaction therefore is not comparable to the hypothetical negotiation. A licensing transaction values the patents. All other things being equal, a licensing transaction is much preferred over a settlement agreement that licenses a patent. See Laser Dynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 694 F.3d 51, 77-78 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Estimating the hypothetical negotiation, that is, what a willing licensee and a willing licensor would agree to, is one step further removed from being comparable than a settlement agreement. Instead of its being an agreement between a party who has a patent and a party that wants to be able to use the patent, it is an agreement between two parties who want to be on one side of that transaction, that of the licensor. There has been no showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the agreement between two parties who want to be on one side of either a litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an input for determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus, the "contemporaneous valuations" including not only the two completed transactions but the various statements during the same time period are excluded as unreliable. Further, any marginal relevance that the two transactions and the related statements might have has so little probative value that the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of issues inherent in bringing into the litigation how trials are financed. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would exclude it. Fed. R. Evid. 403 . 1 Mr. Bakewell assigns negligible value to the 44.7 million shares of UnifiedOnline on the basis of the par value of the stock. I assume it did not have any known market value. At least at this stage, the value of the shares is not at issue. 4 3. 2012 AST offer to sell Mr. Bakewell's market approach opined that the 2012 offer to sell the patents by nonparty Allied Security Trust ("AST") reflected a reasonable royalty of "high seven figures." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at, 287). AST is a cooperative that helps member companies secure rights to patents. (Id. at, 192). Rights to the patents-in-suit were offered to AST member companies for "high seven figures." (Id. at, 198). While the fact that rights to the patents-in-suit were offered for "high seven figures" is relevant to the valuation of the patents-in-suit, this datapoint alone cannot serve as the basis for Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion. Neither Defendants nor their expert have shown that a single offer to sell rights to patents is a viable basis for a market approach calculation of a reasonable royalty. (See D.I. 470). The 2012 AST offer is therefore excluded from Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion. I am not concerned about excluding this last remaining datapoint of Mr. Bakewell's market approach, and thus his entire market approach opinion, because Mr. Bakewell offered two other damages theories aside from the market approach. The market approach is not essential to Defendants' damages analysis. See United States v. Driggs, 823 F.2d 52, 54-55 (3d Cir. 1987). Outside of the market approach, the 2012 AST offer itself is independently relevant to the valuation of the patents-in-suit and may come in as evidence of such. A word of caution. The fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is not only irrelevant to a reasonable royalty analysis but also would be unfairly prejudicial to Plaintiff, confuse the issues, and mislead the jury. A hypothetical negotiation assumes that the parties are a willing licensor and a willing licensee and that the patents are valid and infringed. Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc. , 580 F.3d 1301 , 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Because no company 5 responded to the 2012 AST offer, the situation does not represent a hypothetical negotiation with a willing licensee. Therefore, the fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is irrelevant and inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 402. Further, even if the nonresponse to the 2012 AST offer were relevant to a reasonable royalty analysis, any possible probative value it might have would be substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues that would result from evidence that AST' s offer was not accepted. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would exclude evidence that the offer was not accepted. Fed. R. Evid. 403 . For the reasons above, Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and Testimony of Defendants' Damages Expert (D.I. 370) is GRANTED.
Sunday, 06/18/17 10:59:07 AM Re: None
0 Post # 33853 of 78158
RECENT UOIP/CHANBOND WINS and what they mean for us as shareholders.
(I) ordinary infringement litigation and declaratory judgment actions in Article III courts ("Article III Courts") ; AND (II) administrative invalidation actions in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent and Trial Appeal Board ("PTAB").
ARTICLE III COURTS Now we are en route to a win in civil court with the patent litigation. In fact, we are probably closer to receiving a settlement given the way this case has gone. The scheduled stages in the case are, chronologically, (i) Fact Discovery, (ii) Status Conference, (iii) Any Summary Judgment/Daubert (i.e. expert witness testimony) motions, (iv) Pretrial Conference, and (v) Jury Trial.
Here's why I think settlement is imminent:
OBLIGATION TO TRY TO SETTLE Initially, for the joint submission brief, these parties were to discuss the possibility of settlement. By the time of (iv), they must specifically certify (basically affirm) that they have engaged in a good faith effort to explore the resolution of controversy by settlement (see Rule 16.3(c)(12) of the Local Rules of Civil Practice and Procedure of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware). Initially, they have to state whether there's a possibility of settlement whereas, later along in the case, they must undertake to engage in a good faith effort to settle. Despite getting smoked at the Markman hearing, it appears the Defendants haven't yet tried to engage in a good faith effort to settle.
COSTS ASSESSED AGAINST THE LOSING PARTY Also keep in mind that the longer the case drags on, the higher the costs that can be incurred against the losing party (even if the case settles). For example, it appears that you can get a jury cost assessment against you if the case is settled less than 3 days before the scheduled jury selection (Rule 54.2). It also appears that you can still apply for attorneys' fees even in connection with settled cases (Rule 54.3).
It doesn't leave much room to play games and push the matter to trial before you settle as costs can be assessed against you the further the case progresses. I read somewhere that the average cost of taking a patent case through trial is over $2 Million per case.
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING (A.K.A. MARKMAN HEARING) Keep in mind that there is also a pretrial hearing that the parties go through, called a Markman hearing, which was already heard by Justice Andrews December 9, 2016. As per Wikipedia: "Markman hearings are before a judge, and generally take place before trial. A Markman hearing may occur before the close of discovery, along with a motion for preliminary injunction, or at the end of discovery, in relation to a motion for summary judgment. A Markman hearing may also be held after the trial begins, but before jury selection."
In any case, this Markman hearing was very important because the issues of law are adjudicated and it basically encourages settlement, particularly in Judge Andrews' court room. If you read about Andrews (who is set to try the case if you haven't been paying attention), it appears he has the fewest patent-specific procedures and guidelines out of all four Article III judges that sit on the Delaware court. He apparently has a unique procedure for these Markman hearings. I read that "instead of having the parties file separate claim construction charts and briefs for the Markman hearing, he requires the parties to exchange their proposed claim terms for construction, exchange their proposed constructions, confer, and file a Joint Claim Construction Chart, as well as a Joint Claim Construction Brief." In other words, he gets the parties to sit down and really pinpoint what the contentious issues are. This leads to less strong-arming and taking a tunnel-vision approach with one's own case. This makes the aspect of settlement more conducive, particularly as Andrews found in favor of ChanBond after the December 9th Markman hearing (http://www.morrisjames.com/assets/htmldocuments/patent%20blog%20-%20Chanbond%20-%201826.pdf). I encourage you to read Judge Andrews' decision as he outlines how the defendants were struggling to make a case and rules against every single one of the Defendants' proposed constructions. I also encourage everyone to read the last law review article in this post under the heading "New Changes in the Law Affecting this Case" and truly see how instrumental it was for ChanBond to win the Markman hearing.
BACKGROUND OF JUSTICE ANDREWS AND DELAWARE'S DISTRICT COURT From Law Review Article of 2016 (Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Stop for Summary Judgment: The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware’s Seemingly Disjunctive Yet Efficient Procedures in Hatch-Waxman Litigation, Katherine Rhoades, Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property):
It is no secret that the District of Delaware’s four Article III judges have extensive patent experience and are some of the most experienced in the country in handling patent infringement cases. The District of Delaware leads all other district courts with the most patent case filings per judge, which results in an experienced bench. In fact, Judge Andrews, Judge Robinson, Judge Sleet, and Chief Judge Stark are among the U.S. district court judges who hear the most patent cases, and they are the four judges that hear the most ANDA cases in the country.
The District of Delaware’s lack of local patent rules does not seem to have affected the district’s case efficiency or time-to-trial. Research “suggests that districts with local patent rules process patent cases faster than districts lacking such rules.” However, this research is not dispositive. Additionally, experienced judges can resolve cases more quickly. The District of Delaware has an overall faster time-to-trial - time from the day the complaint is filed to the first day of trial—than the District of New Jersey for patent cases that do not settle. While local patent rules can decrease the time-to-trial, Delaware’s experienced bench is efficient in resolving patent disputes.
In other words, due to the venue and the fact it's being heard by Judge Andrews, this isn't a case that will be bogged down by a slow court system or, worse, be adjudicated before an inexperienced judge. Efficient venue + reputable judge = quick route to trial or settlement.
NEW CHANGES IN THE LAW AFFECTING THIS CASE Maybe you think the Defendants will play strategic games and appeal Justice Andrews' ruling in the Markman hearing? Think again. On January 20, 2015, the Supreme Court changed the standard under which trial court claim construction rulings will be reviewed on appeal, holding that a trial court’s factual findings underlying its claim construction rulings must be given deference. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 831 (2014). In a 7-2 decision, the Teva Court concluded that a trial court’s findings of fact underpinning a claim construction ruling must be reviewed under a “clearly erroneous” standard, rather than under the general de novo standard previously applied by the Federal Circuit. Without getting into the details, this means that it's much harder for the Defendants to appeal Justice Andrews' Markman ruling due to this heightened review standard from Teva which, in turn, will lead to an increased likelihood of settlement.
MY OPINION So I personally think settlement will happen soon enough. Maybe not next week, but certainly quite soon given the mounting costs, the potential to have costs assessed against you even in the midst of settlement, the fact that the Markman hearing has already taken place and the issues of law have been adjudicated in favor of ChanBond as per Andrews' order (which also has to be submitted to the jury if it gets as far as a jury trial), and the fact that Markman hearings - after the Teva ruling - are now more important than ever in patent litigation.
Long term Saturday, 02/01/20 11:06:57 AM Re: long uoip post# 76368
0 Post # 76380 of 76412
The three cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach. In contrast to such data points, the market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements. StoneEagle Servs., Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc., 8:13-CV-2240, 2015 WL 3824170, at *9-*11 (M.D. Fla. June 19, 2015); D.I. 372, Ex. 1, Bakewell Rpt., §§ 273-274; see also AVN Technologies, LLC v. Intel Corp., 15-CV-33-RGA, 2017 WL 178752, at *3 (D. Del. May 1, 2017). ..
“has anybody responded privately or is there a way we can source this information ? are you suspecting same valuation method will be utilized with uoip ?
Waiting or others to respond....unsure where to get other jury instruction sheet in similar cases.....judge Johnson in the brings v Google case someone got the instruction sheet but didn’t know where they got it...u might be able to find out at Wordpress....go there enter vrng 24.....there’s a lot there to look through.....am under the weather presently..have enough energy to just read posts.
Suspecting the same valuation method to be utilized? Judge Andrews asked for other cases, perhaps that was just pointing the parties in a general direction, ...perhaps it was a hint as to what parameters he thinks is appropriate.... can’t really tell that’s why one must be familiar with multiple methods so when discussed in court in Feb we can pick up on inference as to what the parties are talking about......believe at the end of the hearing a plan will either be approved by judge and / or will send both sides with his guidance to further negotiate an agreed upon method ( this wouldn’t be bad) an acceptable delay if it prevents an appealable miss application of setting upon an agreed method.
=========== long uoip Saturday, 02/01/20 11:30:59 AM Re: Long term post# 76380
0 Post # 76381 of 76412
re: "Judge Andrews asked for other cases, perhaps that was just pointing the parties in a general direction, perhaps it was a hint as to what parameters he thinks is appropriate" ..I concur, certainly initiates genesis point
re: "3 cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach" ..another stall tactic or modus of operandi to veer case sideways
re:"market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements" ..I concur, thanks for the additional examples
re:"must be familiar with multiple methods so when discussed in court in Feb we can pick up on inference"..my research shows various modalities, court will reveal judge's sentiments which would be best suited
re:"am under the weather presently..have enough energy to just read posts" ..sorry to hear that (hope it's not what's on the news) thanks for responding despite your fatigue, hope you feel better
we need you.. . court 17 days ========================
Long term Saturday, 02/01/20 12:47:18 PM Re: long uoip post# 76381
0 Post # 76384 of 76412
“;another stall tactic or modus of operandi to veer case sideways “ Don’t think it’s a stall tactic...Andrews is being accommodating to the defense & pointing out to defendants to get real after what valuation methods they proposed ( what they proposed was ridiculous) the purpose is not to fall into a appealable trap....Andrews,as all judges have as an objective is not to be appealed for judicial mistake......his direction to 13 read those cases as a guide in developing a mutually agreed upon method that he could approve. The Feb hearing will further clarify what was said in the Nov25 hearing....if both sides have reached agreement of method of valuation & if Andrews is comfortable then the method will be applied & we’ll probably know by the end of the hearing. If the sides haven’t agreed I think he’ll give further instruction & set another date to determine method. As to setting trial date he could set it thus adding more pressure ( again demonstrating to an appeal court of his fairness rendering a non appealable point) =================
long uoip Saturday, February 1, 2020 6:26:26 PM Re: Long term post# 76384 Post # 76399 of 76411 re:"appealable trap" ..I shudder from even the inference I would rather go nice & slow then deal with weeks, months, years of appeals, seems like Judge Andrews track record is professional & methodical
re:"get real about evaluation" ..analogy between defendants offer of nov court hearing $5-10 million & figures that shareholders are submitting parallel to other similar cases @ $1.6 B (curious to what that amounts to per share) correct me if I'm wrong.. . 1,614,601,069 uoip shares $1.2 B = approx. $.75 share
I'm all for ~ "judges having an objective to not to be appealed for judicial mistakes"
re: "mutually agreed upon method"..ugh, Houston, we have a problem LOL
"probably know by the end of the hearing?".. wow, seriously ?
"MUST BE APPROVED by the judge"..dilemma for the defendants
re: "sides haven’t agreed I think he’ll give further instruction & set another date to determine method" ..I suspect this will be the great debate ================= Time line
case judge asked for December 2, 2019 VIA CM/ECF & HAND DELIVERY The Honorable Richard G. Andrews United States District Court for the District of Delaware 844 North King Street Wilmington, Delaware 19801 Re: ChanBond, LLC v. Atl. Broadband Group, LLC, et al., Cons. C.A. No. 15-842-RGA Dear Judge Andrews: At the November 25, 2019 hearing, the Court asked Defendants to identify their best case law concerning whether litigation financing agreements, requests for investment financing, or offers for sale of the asserted patents can be properly considered as comparable transactions under the market approach. (See Nov. 25, 2019 Hearing Tr. at 115:11-116:11.) On November 27, 2019, Defendants identified three cases not cited in Defendants’ briefing. (D.I. 470.) The three cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach. In contrast to such data points, the market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements. StoneEagle Servs., Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc., 8:13-CV-2240, 2015 WL 3824170, at *9-*11 (M.D. Fla. June 19, 2015); D.I. 372, Ex. 1, Bakewell Rpt., §§ 273-274; see also AVN Technologies, LLC v. Intel Corp., 15-CV-33-RGA, 2017 WL 178752, at *3 (D. Del. May 1, 2017). Respectfully submitted, /s/ Stephen B. Brauerman Stephen B. Brauerman (No. 4952)
case judge asked for December 2, 2019 VIA CM/ECF & HAND DELIVERY The Honorable Richard G. Andrews United States District Court for the District of Delaware 844 North King Street Wilmington, Delaware 19801 Re: ChanBond, LLC v. Atl. Broadband Group, LLC, et al., Cons. C.A. No. 15-842-RGA Dear Judge Andrews: At the November 25, 2019 hearing, the Court asked Defendants to identify their best case law concerning whether litigation financing agreements, requests for investment financing, or offers for sale of the asserted patents can be properly considered as comparable transactions under the market approach. (See Nov. 25, 2019 Hearing Tr. at 115:11-116:11.) On November 27, 2019, Defendants identified three cases not cited in Defendants’ briefing. (D.I. 470.) The three cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach. In contrast to such data points, the market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements. StoneEagle Servs., Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc., 8:13-CV-2240, 2015 WL 3824170, at *9-*11 (M.D. Fla. June 19, 2015); D.I. 372, Ex. 1, Bakewell Rpt., §§ 273-274; see also AVN Technologies, LLC v. Intel Corp., 15-CV-33-RGA, 2017 WL 178752, at *3 (D. Del. May 1, 2017). Respectfully submitted, /s/ Stephen B. Brauerman Stephen B. Brauerman (No. 4952)
Calculating intellectual property infringement damages; AICPA practice aid series 06-1
========================================= Billions in settlement dollars. No doubt.
64.35M cable subscribers $60 per month for one's internet connection or "ACCESS" only (NO CONTENT INCLUDED!) 12 months per year $46,332,000,000 per year 20 years (Suing for the life of the patent(s), via royalties) $926,640,000,000 (Almost a TRILLION DOLLARS) __@_______w/ ~1,614,601,069 shares O/S 0.1% == $926,640,000________$0.57/share (that's 1/10th of 1% for infringement) 0.25% = $2,316,600,000?______$1.44 (1/4th of 1%) 0.5% == $4,633,200,000______$2.87 (half a %) 1% === $9,266,400,000______$5.74
long uoip Friday, March 27, 2020 10:55:57 AM Re: A deleted message Post # 78575 of 78599 respectfully easyme, I concur with most of your analogy.. . bill gates metaphor "great corrector" analogy was in reference to our impending aug. 18th court date, opportunity for Stephen B. Brauerman to advocate on behalf of Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine (the 3 chanbond inventors) so the legal system can validate their innovative technology & their long overdue $ compensation Economics + Law = Damages p.s. I don't think covd19 is nothing, it is changing the trajectory of many people's lives, mostly the lower socioeconomic class, unfortunately ____________________________________________
Intelligent device system and method for distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system Patent number: 10136180 Abstract: A plurality of intelligent device systems for use with a wideband signal distribution network, and methods for transmitting digital information and receiving digital and non-digital information onto and off of an RF carrier through a wideband signal distribution network, are disclosed. The intelligent device systems provide networks of intelligent devices that modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, using existing EIA/TIA 568 standard wiring infrastructure. The methods modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, and separate IP portions from non-IP portions. Type: Grant Filed: April 6, 2015 Date of Patent: November 20, 2018 Assignee: CHANBOND LLC Inventors: Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine ____________________________________
Intelligent device system and method for distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system Patent number: 9363554 Abstract: A plurality of intelligent device systems for use with a wideband signal distribution network, and methods for transmitting digital information and receiving digital and non-digital information onto and off of an RF carrier through a wideband signal distribution network, are disclosed. The intelligent device systems provide networks of intelligent devices that modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, using existing EIA/TIA 568 standard wiring infrastructure. The methods modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, and separate IP portions from non-IP portions. Type: Grant Filed: January 29, 2014 Date of Patent: June 7, 2016 Assignee: CHANBOND LLC Inventors: Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine
t TIMELINE of UOIP legal actions, thanks to Magnus
page 1 Judge Andrews ~ A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice caused by the failure to interest anyone in the technology at the time and the waste of time needed to explain why the non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000- 2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 .
page 2 The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they are valuing the potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates by the parties of the likely outcomes of litigation are now offered to prove what the outcome of the litigation should be.
page 3 There has been no showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the agreement between two parties who want to be on one side of either a litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an input for determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus, the "contemporaneous valuations" including not only the two completed transactions but the various statements during the same time period are excluded as unreliable. ______________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (document in full) FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE IN RE CHANBOND, LLC PATENT LITIGATION C.A. No. 15-842-RGA CONSOLIDATED MEMORANDUM ORDER Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and Testimony of Defendants' Damages Expert. (D.I. 370). I have reviewed the parties' briefing and heard oral argument. (D.I. 371,398, 409,471). Defendant's damages expert, Mr. Bakewell, offers three quantitative analysis approaches in his 200 page "Rebuttal Expert Report," one of which is the "market approach." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at~ 171 ). Plaintiff argues that Mr. Bakewell' s market approach opinions should be excluded because Mr. Bakewell does not use reliable principles or methods. (D.I. 371 at 1). Plaintiff contends that Mr. Bakewell fails to establish that the evidence he relies on is comparable to a hypothetical licensing negotiation in December 2012 for the patents-in-suit. (Id.; D.I. 339, Ex. A at ~164). Mr. Bakewell's market approach is based on three valuation datapoints: (1) "pre-DOCSIS 3.0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit," (2) "2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations," and (3) "2012 AST offer to sell." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at~ 287). Plaintiff argues that each should be excluded, and thus I should exclude Mr. Bakewell's entire market approach opinion. (D.I. 371 at 8). 1. Pre-DOCSIS 3. 0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit The "Pre-DOCSIS 3.0" datapoint relies on investment solicitations by Z-Band, the company formed by the inventors of the patents-in-suit. In December 2000, Z-Band sought between $2 million and $5 million in venture capital funding. In 2001 , Z-Band received an offer for $5 million from an unidentified foreign company for a "minority interest," which it rejected. (D.I. 399, Ex. A at 11 178-79). Mr. Bakewell concludes from these two facts that a lump sum royalty in the "mid seven figures" would be appropriate. (Id. at 1 287). Plaintiff argues that the investment solicitations and rejected offer are not technologically or economically comparable to a hypothetical negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit. (D.I. 371 at 9). I agree. The solicitations and offer occurred approximately ten years before the first of the patents-in-suit issued on May 10, 2011. (Id.). The solicitations cannot be representative of a hypothetical negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit when the patents-in-suit did not yet exist. Therefore, Mr. Bakewell's opinion based on "pre-DOCSIS 3.0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit" is irrelevant and excluded. Further, any marginal relevance that such an analysis might have, even if it specifically related to a license for the patents-in-suit, is minimized by the fact that no agreement was reached and that the investment opportunity took place some ten to twelve years before the date of the hypothetical negotiation. A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice caused by the failure to interest anyone in the technology at the time and the waste of time needed to explain why the non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000- 2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 . 2 2. 2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations The lawsuit in this case was filed September 21 , 2015. Mr. Bakewell opines that the "2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations" datapoint reflects a reasonable royalty of "less than $20 million." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i 287). I am unsure why he uses the word "contemporaneous," but I assume he means valuations contemporaneous with each other rather than with the hypothetical negotiation date. The contemporaneous valuations datapoint is recited in the narrative of the expert report. It seems to consist of two transactions in which ownership of the patents-in-suit changed hands, and various statements made by interested parties during negotiations for the two successful transactions as well as ones that did not take place. (See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 210-286; D.I. 371 at 16-20; D.I. 398 at 5-7). The terms of the first completed transaction- sale by CBV to ChanBond on April 9, 2015-stated that the purchaser would pay an upfront fee and a percentage payout based on the recoveries associated with the enforcement of the patents-in-suit. (See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 232-233). These transaction terms are not representative of a hypothetical negotiation because they base the payment for the patents on the outcome of litigation. The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they are valuing the potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates by the parties of the likely outcomes of litigation are now offered to prove what the outcome of the litigation should be. The second completed transaction is the October 27, 2015 sale of ChanBond, a month after the lawsuits in this case had been filed, to UnifiedOnline. (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 244-248). ChanBond's only assets were the patents-in-suit, two other patents, two patent applications, and this litigation. (Id. at ,i 244). To purchase ChanBond, UnifiedOnline paid $5 million and 44.7 3 million shares of its common stock. 1 (Id.). Thus, as with the earlier 2015 transaction, and as the expert report makes clear, the thing being valued in the transaction was this litigation. This transaction therefore is not comparable to the hypothetical negotiation. A licensing transaction values the patents. All other things being equal, a licensing transaction is much preferred over a settlement agreement that licenses a patent. See Laser Dynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 694 F.3d 51, 77-78 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Estimating the hypothetical negotiation, that is, what a willing licensee and a willing licensor would agree to, is one step further removed from being comparable than a settlement agreement. Instead of its being an agreement between a party who has a patent and a party that wants to be able to use the patent, it is an agreement between two parties who want to be on one side of that transaction, that of the licensor. There has been no showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the agreement between two parties who want to be on one side of either a litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an input for determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus, the "contemporaneous valuations" including not only the two completed transactions but the various statements during the same time period are excluded as unreliable. Further, any marginal relevance that the two transactions and the related statements might have has so little probative value that the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of issues inherent in bringing into the litigation how trials are financed. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would exclude it. Fed. R. Evid. 403 . 1 Mr. Bakewell assigns negligible value to the 44.7 million shares of UnifiedOnline on the basis of the par value of the stock. I assume it did not have any known market value. At least at this stage, the value of the shares is not at issue. 4 3. 2012 AST offer to sell Mr. Bakewell's market approach opined that the 2012 offer to sell the patents by nonparty Allied Security Trust ("AST") reflected a reasonable royalty of "high seven figures." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at, 287). AST is a cooperative that helps member companies secure rights to patents. (Id. at, 192). Rights to the patents-in-suit were offered to AST member companies for "high seven figures." (Id. at, 198). While the fact that rights to the patents-in-suit were offered for "high seven figures" is relevant to the valuation of the patents-in-suit, this datapoint alone cannot serve as the basis for Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion. Neither Defendants nor their expert have shown that a single offer to sell rights to patents is a viable basis for a market approach calculation of a reasonable royalty. (See D.I. 470). The 2012 AST offer is therefore excluded from Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion. I am not concerned about excluding this last remaining datapoint of Mr. Bakewell's market approach, and thus his entire market approach opinion, because Mr. Bakewell offered two other damages theories aside from the market approach. The market approach is not essential to Defendants' damages analysis. See United States v. Driggs, 823 F.2d 52, 54-55 (3d Cir. 1987). Outside of the market approach, the 2012 AST offer itself is independently relevant to the valuation of the patents-in-suit and may come in as evidence of such. A word of caution. The fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is not only irrelevant to a reasonable royalty analysis but also would be unfairly prejudicial to Plaintiff, confuse the issues, and mislead the jury. A hypothetical negotiation assumes that the parties are a willing licensor and a willing licensee and that the patents are valid and infringed. Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc. , 580 F.3d 1301 , 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Because no company 5 responded to the 2012 AST offer, the situation does not represent a hypothetical negotiation with a willing licensee. Therefore, the fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is irrelevant and inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 402. Further, even if the nonresponse to the 2012 AST offer were relevant to a reasonable royalty analysis, any possible probative value it might have would be substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues that would result from evidence that AST' s offer was not accepted. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would exclude evidence that the offer was not accepted. Fed. R. Evid. 403 . For the reasons above, Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and Testimony of Defendants' Damages Expert (D.I. 370) is GRANTED.
Sunday, 06/18/17 10:59:07 AM Re: None
0 Post # 33853 of 78158
RECENT UOIP/CHANBOND WINS and what they mean for us as shareholders.
(I) ordinary infringement litigation and declaratory judgment actions in Article III courts ("Article III Courts") ; AND (II) administrative invalidation actions in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent and Trial Appeal Board ("PTAB").
ARTICLE III COURTS Now we are en route to a win in civil court with the patent litigation. In fact, we are probably closer to receiving a settlement given the way this case has gone. The scheduled stages in the case are, chronologically, (i) Fact Discovery, (ii) Status Conference, (iii) Any Summary Judgment/Daubert (i.e. expert witness testimony) motions, (iv) Pretrial Conference, and (v) Jury Trial.
Here's why I think settlement is imminent:
OBLIGATION TO TRY TO SETTLE Initially, for the joint submission brief, these parties were to discuss the possibility of settlement. By the time of (iv), they must specifically certify (basically affirm) that they have engaged in a good faith effort to explore the resolution of controversy by settlement (see Rule 16.3(c)(12) of the Local Rules of Civil Practice and Procedure of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware). Initially, they have to state whether there's a possibility of settlement whereas, later along in the case, they must undertake to engage in a good faith effort to settle. Despite getting smoked at the Markman hearing, it appears the Defendants haven't yet tried to engage in a good faith effort to settle.
COSTS ASSESSED AGAINST THE LOSING PARTY Also keep in mind that the longer the case drags on, the higher the costs that can be incurred against the losing party (even if the case settles). For example, it appears that you can get a jury cost assessment against you if the case is settled less than 3 days before the scheduled jury selection (Rule 54.2). It also appears that you can still apply for attorneys' fees even in connection with settled cases (Rule 54.3).
It doesn't leave much room to play games and push the matter to trial before you settle as costs can be assessed against you the further the case progresses. I read somewhere that the average cost of taking a patent case through trial is over $2 Million per case.
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING (A.K.A. MARKMAN HEARING) Keep in mind that there is also a pretrial hearing that the parties go through, called a Markman hearing, which was already heard by Justice Andrews December 9, 2016. As per Wikipedia: "Markman hearings are before a judge, and generally take place before trial. A Markman hearing may occur before the close of discovery, along with a motion for preliminary injunction, or at the end of discovery, in relation to a motion for summary judgment. A Markman hearing may also be held after the trial begins, but before jury selection."
In any case, this Markman hearing was very important because the issues of law are adjudicated and it basically encourages settlement, particularly in Judge Andrews' court room. If you read about Andrews (who is set to try the case if you haven't been paying attention), it appears he has the fewest patent-specific procedures and guidelines out of all four Article III judges that sit on the Delaware court. He apparently has a unique procedure for these Markman hearings. I read that "instead of having the parties file separate claim construction charts and briefs for the Markman hearing, he requires the parties to exchange their proposed claim terms for construction, exchange their proposed constructions, confer, and file a Joint Claim Construction Chart, as well as a Joint Claim Construction Brief." In other words, he gets the parties to sit down and really pinpoint what the contentious issues are. This leads to less strong-arming and taking a tunnel-vision approach with one's own case. This makes the aspect of settlement more conducive, particularly as Andrews found in favor of ChanBond after the December 9th Markman hearing (http://www.morrisjames.com/assets/htmldocuments/patent%20blog%20-%20Chanbond%20-%201826.pdf). I encourage you to read Judge Andrews' decision as he outlines how the defendants were struggling to make a case and rules against every single one of the Defendants' proposed constructions. I also encourage everyone to read the last law review article in this post under the heading "New Changes in the Law Affecting this Case" and truly see how instrumental it was for ChanBond to win the Markman hearing.
BACKGROUND OF JUSTICE ANDREWS AND DELAWARE'S DISTRICT COURT From Law Review Article of 2016 (Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Stop for Summary Judgment: The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware’s Seemingly Disjunctive Yet Efficient Procedures in Hatch-Waxman Litigation, Katherine Rhoades, Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property):
It is no secret that the District of Delaware’s four Article III judges have extensive patent experience and are some of the most experienced in the country in handling patent infringement cases. The District of Delaware leads all other district courts with the most patent case filings per judge, which results in an experienced bench. In fact, Judge Andrews, Judge Robinson, Judge Sleet, and Chief Judge Stark are among the U.S. district court judges who hear the most patent cases, and they are the four judges that hear the most ANDA cases in the country.
The District of Delaware’s lack of local patent rules does not seem to have affected the district’s case efficiency or time-to-trial. Research “suggests that districts with local patent rules process patent cases faster than districts lacking such rules.” However, this research is not dispositive. Additionally, experienced judges can resolve cases more quickly. The District of Delaware has an overall faster time-to-trial - time from the day the complaint is filed to the first day of trial—than the District of New Jersey for patent cases that do not settle. While local patent rules can decrease the time-to-trial, Delaware’s experienced bench is efficient in resolving patent disputes.
In other words, due to the venue and the fact it's being heard by Judge Andrews, this isn't a case that will be bogged down by a slow court system or, worse, be adjudicated before an inexperienced judge. Efficient venue + reputable judge = quick route to trial or settlement.
NEW CHANGES IN THE LAW AFFECTING THIS CASE Maybe you think the Defendants will play strategic games and appeal Justice Andrews' ruling in the Markman hearing? Think again. On January 20, 2015, the Supreme Court changed the standard under which trial court claim construction rulings will be reviewed on appeal, holding that a trial court’s factual findings underlying its claim construction rulings must be given deference. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 831 (2014). In a 7-2 decision, the Teva Court concluded that a trial court’s findings of fact underpinning a claim construction ruling must be reviewed under a “clearly erroneous” standard, rather than under the general de novo standard previously applied by the Federal Circuit. Without getting into the details, this means that it's much harder for the Defendants to appeal Justice Andrews' Markman ruling due to this heightened review standard from Teva which, in turn, will lead to an increased likelihood of settlement.
MY OPINION So I personally think settlement will happen soon enough. Maybe not next week, but certainly quite soon given the mounting costs, the potential to have costs assessed against you even in the midst of settlement, the fact that the Markman hearing has already taken place and the issues of law have been adjudicated in favor of ChanBond as per Andrews' order (which also has to be submitted to the jury if it gets as far as a jury trial), and the fact that Markman hearings - after the Teva ruling - are now more important than ever in patent litigation.
The three cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach. In contrast to such data points, the market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements. StoneEagle Servs., Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc., 8:13-CV-2240, 2015 WL 3824170, at *9-*11 (M.D. Fla. June 19, 2015); D.I. 372, Ex. 1, Bakewell Rpt., §§ 273-274; see also AVN Technologies, LLC v. Intel Corp., 15-CV-33-RGA, 2017 WL 178752, at *3 (D. Del. May 1, Long term Saturday, 02/01/20 11:06:57 AM Re: long uoip post# 76368
0 Post # 76380 of 76412
2017). ..
“has anybody responded privately or is there a way we can source this information ? are you suspecting same valuation method will be utilized with uoip ?
Waiting or others to respond....unsure where to get other jury instruction sheet in similar cases.....judge Johnson in the brings v Google case someone got the instruction sheet but didn’t know where they got it...u might be able to find out at Wordpress....go there enter vrng 24.....there’s a lot there to look through.....am under the weather presently..have enough energy to just read posts.
Suspecting the same valuation method to be utilized? Judge Andrews asked for other cases, perhaps that was just pointing the parties in a general direction, ...perhaps it was a hint as to what parameters he thinks is appropriate.... can’t really tell that’s why one must be familiar with multiple methods so when discussed in court in Feb we can pick up on inference as to what the parties are talking about......believe at the end of the hearing a plan will either be approved by judge and / or will send both sides with his guidance to further negotiate an agreed upon method ( this wouldn’t be bad) an acceptable delay if it prevents an appealable miss application of setting upon an agreed method.
=========== long uoip Saturday, 02/01/20 11:30:59 AM Re: Long term post# 76380
0 Post # 76381 of 76412
re: "Judge Andrews asked for other cases, perhaps that was just pointing the parties in a general direction, perhaps it was a hint as to what parameters he thinks is appropriate" ..I concur, certainly initiates genesis point
re: "3 cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach" ..another stall tactic or modus of operandi to veer case sideways
re:"market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements" ..I concur, thanks for the additional examples
re:"must be familiar with multiple methods so when discussed in court in Feb we can pick up on inference"..my research shows various modalities, court will reveal judge's sentiments which would be best suited
re:"am under the weather presently..have enough energy to just read posts" ..sorry to hear that (hope it's not what's on the news) thanks for responding despite your fatigue, hope you feel better
we need you.. . court 17 days ========================
Long term Saturday, 02/01/20 12:47:18 PM Re: long uoip post# 76381
0 Post # 76384 of 76412
“;another stall tactic or modus of operandi to veer case sideways “ Don’t think it’s a stall tactic...Andrews is being accommodating to the defense & pointing out to defendants to get real after what valuation methods they proposed ( what they proposed was ridiculous) the purpose is not to fall into a appealable trap....Andrews,as all judges have as an objective is not to be appealed for judicial mistake......his direction to 13 read those cases as a guide in developing a mutually agreed upon method that he could approve. The Feb hearing will further clarify what was said in the Nov25 hearing....if both sides have reached agreement of method of valuation & if Andrews is comfortable then the method will be applied & we’ll probably know by the end of the hearing. If the sides haven’t agreed I think he’ll give further instruction & set another date to determine method. As to setting trial date he could set it thus adding more pressure ( again demonstrating to an appeal court of his fairness rendering a non appealable point) =================
long uoip Saturday, February 1, 2020 6:26:26 PM Re: Long term post# 76384 Post # 76399 of 76411 re:"appealable trap" ..I shudder from even the inference I would rather go nice & slow then deal with weeks, months, years of appeals, seems like Judge Andrews track record is professional & methodical
re:"get real about evaluation" ..analogy between defendants offer of nov court hearing $5-10 million & figures that shareholders are submitting parallel to other similar cases @ $1.6 B (curious to what that amounts to per share) correct me if I'm wrong.. . 1,614,601,069 uoip shares $1.2 B = approx. $.75 share
I'm all for ~ "judges having an objective to not to be appealed for judicial mistakes"
re: "mutually agreed upon method"..ugh, Houston, we have a problem LOL
"probably know by the end of the hearing?".. wow, seriously ?
"MUST BE APPROVED by the judge"..dilemma for the defendants
re: "sides haven’t agreed I think he’ll give further instruction & set another date to determine method" ..I suspect this will be the great debate =================
Billions in settlement dollars. No doubt.
64.35M cable subscribers $60 per month for one's internet connection or "ACCESS" only (NO CONTENT INCLUDED!) 12 months per year $46,332,000,000 per year 20 years (Suing for the life of the patent(s), via royalties) $926,640,000,000 (Almost a TRILLION DOLLARS) __@_______w/ ~1,614,601,069 shares O/S 0.1% == $926,640,000________$0.57/share (that's 1/10th of 1% for infringement) 0.25% = $2,316,600,000?______$1.44 (1/4th of 1%) 0.5% == $4,633,200,000______$2.87 (half a %) 1% === $9,266,400,000______$5.74
long uoip Friday, March 27, 2020 10:55:57 AM Re: A deleted message Post # 78575 of 78599 respectfully easyme, I concur with most of your analogy.. . bill gates metaphor "great corrector" analogy was in reference to our impending aug. 18th court date, opportunity for Stephen B. Brauerman to advocate on behalf of Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine (the 3 chanbond inventors) so the legal system can validate their innovative technology & their long overdue $ compensation Economics + Law = Damages p.s. I don't think covd19 is nothing, it is changing the trajectory of many people's lives, mostly the lower socioeconomic class, unfortunately ____________________________________________
____________________________________
Intelligent device system and method for distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system Patent number: 9363554 Abstract: A plurality of intelligent device systems for use with a wideband signal distribution network, and methods for transmitting digital information and receiving digital and non-digital information onto and off of an RF carrier through a wideband signal distribution network, are disclosed. The intelligent device systems provide networks of intelligent devices that modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, using existing EIA/TIA 568 standard wiring infrastructure. The methods modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, and separate IP portions from non-IP portions. Type: Grant Filed: January 29, 2014 Date of Patent: June 7, 2016 Assignee: CHANBOND LLC Inventors: Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine
page 1 Judge Andrews ~ A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice caused by the failure to interest anyone in the technology at the time and the waste of time needed to explain why the non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000- 2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 .
page 2 The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they are valuing the potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates by the parties of the likely outcomes of litigation are now offered to prove what the outcome of the litigation should be.
page 3 There has been no showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the agreement between two parties who want to be on one side of either a litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an input for determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus, the "contemporaneous valuations" including not only the two completed transactions but the various statements during the same time period are excluded as unreliable. ______________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (document in full) FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE IN RE CHANBOND, LLC PATENT LITIGATION C.A. No. 15-842-RGA CONSOLIDATED MEMORANDUM ORDER Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and Testimony of Defendants' Damages Expert. (D.I. 370). I have reviewed the parties' briefing and heard oral argument. (D.I. 371,398, 409,471). Defendant's damages expert, Mr. Bakewell, offers three quantitative analysis approaches in his 200 page "Rebuttal Expert Report," one of which is the "market approach." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at~ 171 ). Plaintiff argues that Mr. Bakewell' s market approach opinions should be excluded because Mr. Bakewell does not use reliable principles or methods. (D.I. 371 at 1). Plaintiff contends that Mr. Bakewell fails to establish that the evidence he relies on is comparable to a hypothetical licensing negotiation in December 2012 for the patents-in-suit. (Id.; D.I. 339, Ex. A at ~164). Mr. Bakewell's market approach is based on three valuation datapoints: (1) "pre-DOCSIS 3.0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit," (2) "2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations," and (3) "2012 AST offer to sell." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at~ 287). Plaintiff argues that each should be excluded, and thus I should exclude Mr. Bakewell's entire market approach opinion. (D.I. 371 at 8). 1. Pre-DOCSIS 3. 0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit The "Pre-DOCSIS 3.0" datapoint relies on investment solicitations by Z-Band, the company formed by the inventors of the patents-in-suit. In December 2000, Z-Band sought between $2 million and $5 million in venture capital funding. In 2001 , Z-Band received an offer for $5 million from an unidentified foreign company for a "minority interest," which it rejected. (D.I. 399, Ex. A at 11 178-79). Mr. Bakewell concludes from these two facts that a lump sum royalty in the "mid seven figures" would be appropriate. (Id. at 1 287). Plaintiff argues that the investment solicitations and rejected offer are not technologically or economically comparable to a hypothetical negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit. (D.I. 371 at 9). I agree. The solicitations and offer occurred approximately ten years before the first of the patents-in-suit issued on May 10, 2011. (Id.). The solicitations cannot be representative of a hypothetical negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit when the patents-in-suit did not yet exist. Therefore, Mr. Bakewell's opinion based on "pre-DOCSIS 3.0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit" is irrelevant and excluded. Further, any marginal relevance that such an analysis might have, even if it specifically related to a license for the patents-in-suit, is minimized by the fact that no agreement was reached and that the investment opportunity took place some ten to twelve years before the date of the hypothetical negotiation. A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice caused by the failure to interest anyone in the technology at the time and the waste of time needed to explain why the non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000- 2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 . 2 2. 2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations The lawsuit in this case was filed September 21 , 2015. Mr. Bakewell opines that the "2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations" datapoint reflects a reasonable royalty of "less than $20 million." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i 287). I am unsure why he uses the word "contemporaneous," but I assume he means valuations contemporaneous with each other rather than with the hypothetical negotiation date. The contemporaneous valuations datapoint is recited in the narrative of the expert report. It seems to consist of two transactions in which ownership of the patents-in-suit changed hands, and various statements made by interested parties during negotiations for the two successful transactions as well as ones that did not take place. (See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 210-286; D.I. 371 at 16-20; D.I. 398 at 5-7). The terms of the first completed transaction- sale by CBV to ChanBond on April 9, 2015-stated that the purchaser would pay an upfront fee and a percentage payout based on the recoveries associated with the enforcement of the patents-in-suit. (See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 232-233). These transaction terms are not representative of a hypothetical negotiation because they base the payment for the patents on the outcome of litigation. The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they are valuing the potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates by the parties of the likely outcomes of litigation are now offered to prove what the outcome of the litigation should be. The second completed transaction is the October 27, 2015 sale of ChanBond, a month after the lawsuits in this case had been filed, to UnifiedOnline. (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 244-248). ChanBond's only assets were the patents-in-suit, two other patents, two patent applications, and this litigation. (Id. at ,i 244). To purchase ChanBond, UnifiedOnline paid $5 million and 44.7 3 million shares of its common stock. 1 (Id.). Thus, as with the earlier 2015 transaction, and as the expert report makes clear, the thing being valued in the transaction was this litigation. This transaction therefore is not comparable to the hypothetical negotiation. A licensing transaction values the patents. All other things being equal, a licensing transaction is much preferred over a settlement agreement that licenses a patent. See Laser Dynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 694 F.3d 51, 77-78 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Estimating the hypothetical negotiation, that is, what a willing licensee and a willing licensor would agree to, is one step further removed from being comparable than a settlement agreement. Instead of its being an agreement between a party who has a patent and a party that wants to be able to use the patent, it is an agreement between two parties who want to be on one side of that transaction, that of the licensor. There has been no showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the agreement between two parties who want to be on one side of either a litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an input for determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus, the "contemporaneous valuations" including not only the two completed transactions but the various statements during the same time period are excluded as unreliable. Further, any marginal relevance that the two transactions and the related statements might have has so little probative value that the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of issues inherent in bringing into the litigation how trials are financed. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would exclude it. Fed. R. Evid. 403 . 1 Mr. Bakewell assigns negligible value to the 44.7 million shares of UnifiedOnline on the basis of the par value of the stock. I assume it did not have any known market value. At least at this stage, the value of the shares is not at issue. 4 3. 2012 AST offer to sell Mr. Bakewell's market approach opined that the 2012 offer to sell the patents by nonparty Allied Security Trust ("AST") reflected a reasonable royalty of "high seven figures." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at, 287). AST is a cooperative that helps member companies secure rights to patents. (Id. at, 192). Rights to the patents-in-suit were offered to AST member companies for "high seven figures." (Id. at, 198). While the fact that rights to the patents-in-suit were offered for "high seven figures" is relevant to the valuation of the patents-in-suit, this datapoint alone cannot serve as the basis for Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion. Neither Defendants nor their expert have shown that a single offer to sell rights to patents is a viable basis for a market approach calculation of a reasonable royalty. (See D.I. 470). The 2012 AST offer is therefore excluded from Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion. I am not concerned about excluding this last remaining datapoint of Mr. Bakewell's market approach, and thus his entire market approach opinion, because Mr. Bakewell offered two other damages theories aside from the market approach. The market approach is not essential to Defendants' damages analysis. See United States v. Driggs, 823 F.2d 52, 54-55 (3d Cir. 1987). Outside of the market approach, the 2012 AST offer itself is independently relevant to the valuation of the patents-in-suit and may come in as evidence of such. A word of caution. The fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is not only irrelevant to a reasonable royalty analysis but also would be unfairly prejudicial to Plaintiff, confuse the issues, and mislead the jury. A hypothetical negotiation assumes that the parties are a willing licensor and a willing licensee and that the patents are valid and infringed. Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc. , 580 F.3d 1301 , 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Because no company 5 responded to the 2012 AST offer, the situation does not represent a hypothetical negotiation with a willing licensee. Therefore, the fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is irrelevant and inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 402. Further, even if the nonresponse to the 2012 AST offer were relevant to a reasonable royalty analysis, any possible probative value it might have would be substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues that would result from evidence that AST' s offer was not accepted. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would exclude evidence that the offer was not accepted. Fed. R. Evid. 403 . For the reasons above, Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and Testimony of Defendants' Damages Expert (D.I. 370) is GRANTED.
Tuesday, March 24, 2020 6:53:42 PM Re: Goodbuddy4863 post# 78508
page 1 Judge Andrews ~ A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice caused by the failure to interest anyone in the technology at the time and the waste of time needed to explain why the non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000- 2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 .
page 2 The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they are valuing the potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates by the parties of the likely outcomes of litigation are now offered to prove what the outcome of the litigation should be.
page 3 There has been no showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the agreement between two parties who want to be on one side of either a litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an input for determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus, the "contemporaneous valuations" including not only the two completed transactions but the various statements during the same time period are excluded as unreliable. ______________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (document in full) FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE IN RE CHANBOND, LLC PATENT LITIGATION C.A. No. 15-842-RGA CONSOLIDATED MEMORANDUM ORDER Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and Testimony of Defendants' Damages Expert. (D.I. 370). I have reviewed the parties' briefing and heard oral argument. (D.I. 371,398, 409,471). Defendant's damages expert, Mr. Bakewell, offers three quantitative analysis approaches in his 200 page "Rebuttal Expert Report," one of which is the "market approach." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at~ 171 ). Plaintiff argues that Mr. Bakewell' s market approach opinions should be excluded because Mr. Bakewell does not use reliable principles or methods. (D.I. 371 at 1). Plaintiff contends that Mr. Bakewell fails to establish that the evidence he relies on is comparable to a hypothetical licensing negotiation in December 2012 for the patents-in-suit. (Id.; D.I. 339, Ex. A at ~164). Mr. Bakewell's market approach is based on three valuation datapoints: (1) "pre-DOCSIS 3.0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit," (2) "2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations," and (3) "2012 AST offer to sell." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at~ 287). Plaintiff argues that each should be excluded, and thus I should exclude Mr. Bakewell's entire market approach opinion. (D.I. 371 at 8). 1. Pre-DOCSIS 3. 0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit The "Pre-DOCSIS 3.0" datapoint relies on investment solicitations by Z-Band, the company formed by the inventors of the patents-in-suit. In December 2000, Z-Band sought between $2 million and $5 million in venture capital funding. In 2001 , Z-Band received an offer for $5 million from an unidentified foreign company for a "minority interest," which it rejected. (D.I. 399, Ex. A at 11 178-79). Mr. Bakewell concludes from these two facts that a lump sum royalty in the "mid seven figures" would be appropriate. (Id. at 1 287). Plaintiff argues that the investment solicitations and rejected offer are not technologically or economically comparable to a hypothetical negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit. (D.I. 371 at 9). I agree. The solicitations and offer occurred approximately ten years before the first of the patents-in-suit issued on May 10, 2011. (Id.). The solicitations cannot be representative of a hypothetical negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit when the patents-in-suit did not yet exist. Therefore, Mr. Bakewell's opinion based on "pre-DOCSIS 3.0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit" is irrelevant and excluded. Further, any marginal relevance that such an analysis might have, even if it specifically related to a license for the patents-in-suit, is minimized by the fact that no agreement was reached and that the investment opportunity took place some ten to twelve years before the date of the hypothetical negotiation. A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice caused by the failure to interest anyone in the technology at the time and the waste of time needed to explain why the non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000- 2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 . 2 2. 2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations The lawsuit in this case was filed September 21 , 2015. Mr. Bakewell opines that the "2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations" datapoint reflects a reasonable royalty of "less than $20 million." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i 287). I am unsure why he uses the word "contemporaneous," but I assume he means valuations contemporaneous with each other rather than with the hypothetical negotiation date. The contemporaneous valuations datapoint is recited in the narrative of the expert report. It seems to consist of two transactions in which ownership of the patents-in-suit changed hands, and various statements made by interested parties during negotiations for the two successful transactions as well as ones that did not take place. (See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 210-286; D.I. 371 at 16-20; D.I. 398 at 5-7). The terms of the first completed transaction- sale by CBV to ChanBond on April 9, 2015-stated that the purchaser would pay an upfront fee and a percentage payout based on the recoveries associated with the enforcement of the patents-in-suit. (See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 232-233). These transaction terms are not representative of a hypothetical negotiation because they base the payment for the patents on the outcome of litigation. The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they are valuing the potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates by the parties of the likely outcomes of litigation are now offered to prove what the outcome of the litigation should be. The second completed transaction is the October 27, 2015 sale of ChanBond, a month after the lawsuits in this case had been filed, to UnifiedOnline. (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 244-248). ChanBond's only assets were the patents-in-suit, two other patents, two patent applications, and this litigation. (Id. at ,i 244). To purchase ChanBond, UnifiedOnline paid $5 million and 44.7 3 million shares of its common stock. 1 (Id.). Thus, as with the earlier 2015 transaction, and as the expert report makes clear, the thing being valued in the transaction was this litigation. This transaction therefore is not comparable to the hypothetical negotiation. A licensing transaction values the patents. All other things being equal, a licensing transaction is much preferred over a settlement agreement that licenses a patent. See Laser Dynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 694 F.3d 51, 77-78 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Estimating the hypothetical negotiation, that is, what a willing licensee and a willing licensor would agree to, is one step further removed from being comparable than a settlement agreement. Instead of its being an agreement between a party who has a patent and a party that wants to be able to use the patent, it is an agreement between two parties who want to be on one side of that transaction, that of the licensor. There has been no showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the agreement between two parties who want to be on one side of either a litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an input for determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus, the "contemporaneous valuations" including not only the two completed transactions but the various statements during the same time period are excluded as unreliable. Further, any marginal relevance that the two transactions and the related statements might have has so little probative value that the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of issues inherent in bringing into the litigation how trials are financed. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would exclude it. Fed. R. Evid. 403 . 1 Mr. Bakewell assigns negligible value to the 44.7 million shares of UnifiedOnline on the basis of the par value of the stock. I assume it did not have any known market value. At least at this stage, the value of the shares is not at issue. 4 3. 2012 AST offer to sell Mr. Bakewell's market approach opined that the 2012 offer to sell the patents by nonparty Allied Security Trust ("AST") reflected a reasonable royalty of "high seven figures." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at, 287). AST is a cooperative that helps member companies secure rights to patents. (Id. at, 192). Rights to the patents-in-suit were offered to AST member companies for "high seven figures." (Id. at, 198). While the fact that rights to the patents-in-suit were offered for "high seven figures" is relevant to the valuation of the patents-in-suit, this datapoint alone cannot serve as the basis for Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion. Neither Defendants nor their expert have shown that a single offer to sell rights to patents is a viable basis for a market approach calculation of a reasonable royalty. (See D.I. 470). The 2012 AST offer is therefore excluded from Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion. I am not concerned about excluding this last remaining datapoint of Mr. Bakewell's market approach, and thus his entire market approach opinion, because Mr. Bakewell offered two other damages theories aside from the market approach. The market approach is not essential to Defendants' damages analysis. See United States v. Driggs, 823 F.2d 52, 54-55 (3d Cir. 1987). Outside of the market approach, the 2012 AST offer itself is independently relevant to the valuation of the patents-in-suit and may come in as evidence of such. A word of caution. The fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is not only irrelevant to a reasonable royalty analysis but also would be unfairly prejudicial to Plaintiff, confuse the issues, and mislead the jury. A hypothetical negotiation assumes that the parties are a willing licensor and a willing licensee and that the patents are valid and infringed. Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc. , 580 F.3d 1301 , 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Because no company 5 responded to the 2012 AST offer, the situation does not represent a hypothetical negotiation with a willing licensee. Therefore, the fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is irrelevant and inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 402. Further, even if the nonresponse to the 2012 AST offer were relevant to a reasonable royalty analysis, any possible probative value it might have would be substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues that would result from evidence that AST' s offer was not accepted. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would exclude evidence that the offer was not accepted. Fed. R. Evid. 403 . For the reasons above, Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and Testimony of Defendants' Damages Expert (D.I. 370) is GRANTED.
case judge asked for December 2, 2019 VIA CM/ECF & HAND DELIVERY The Honorable Richard G. Andrews United States District Court for the District of Delaware 844 North King Street Wilmington, Delaware 19801 Re: ChanBond, LLC v. Atl. Broadband Group, LLC, et al., Cons. C.A. No. 15-842-RGA Dear Judge Andrews: At the November 25, 2019 hearing, the Court asked Defendants to identify their best case law concerning whether litigation financing agreements, requests for investment financing, or offers for sale of the asserted patents can be properly considered as comparable transactions under the market approach. (See Nov. 25, 2019 Hearing Tr. at 115:11-116:11.) On November 27, 2019, Defendants identified three cases not cited in Defendants’ briefing. (D.I. 470.) The three cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach. In contrast to such data points, the market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements. StoneEagle Servs., Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc., 8:13-CV-2240, 2015 WL 3824170, at *9-*11 (M.D. Fla. June 19, 2015); D.I. 372, Ex. 1, Bakewell Rpt., §§ 273-274; see also AVN Technologies, LLC v. Intel Corp., 15-CV-33-RGA, 2017 WL 178752, at *3 (D. Del. May 1, 2017). Respectfully submitted, /s/ Stephen B. Brauerman Stephen B. Brauerman (No. 4952)
Calculating intellectual property infringement damages; AICPA practice aid series 06-1
THU DEC 19, 2019 / 10:17 PM EST U.S. makes it easier for holders of industry-standard patents to block product sales Stephen Nellis • ? ? (Reuters) - United States antitrust and patent officials on Thursday said they no longer deem holders of industry-standard patents anti-competitive if they sue to stop the sale of infringing products, a far-reaching policy shift that they said supports innovation. The new position could have seen chipmaker Qualcomm Inc, for instance, sue in an attempt to stop the sale of all models of Apple Inc's iPhones in Germany last year - rather than the limited number that were ultimately affected - without fear of being investigated by the U.S. antitrust body. The U.S. Justice Department, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and National Institute of Standards and Technology jointly released a policy statement on so-called standard essential patents to replace its policy since 2013. Standard essential patents are often used in the technology industry when makers of different kinds of devices want them all to work together. In the case of cellular networks, for example, phones and cell towers must be compatible across makers and borders. To arrive at a single standard, companies such as Nokia, Ericsson and InterDigital Wireless contribute patents to a certain technology such as 5G, the upcoming generation of cellular data networks. Every company that makes a cellular device is required to adopt that technology and pay a license fee to patent holders. In exchange, the holders agree to license the patents on fair and reasonable terms. In 2013, the Justice Department and Patent Office said it was anti-competitive for patent holders to seek injunctions to block the sale of a products for infringing standards patents. Holders could still seek monetary damages without running afoul of the policy. The policy had real-world effects. When Qualcomm sued Apple to block the sale of iPhones during a wide-ranging legal dispute, Qualcomm did not use any of its standards patents to make its claims. As a result, Qualcomm's suits affected only a subset of models. Officials reversed their policy on Thursday, saying seeking to block sales in standards patents cases presented no harm to competition and that standards patents should be treated no differently than other patents. "Our patent system is what has made the American economy the innovation capital of the world, and we should not misapply the antitrust laws to diminish the incentive to innovate," Assistant Attorney General Delrahim said in a statement. Morgan Reed, president of The App Association, in a statement said the group which represents software developers was disappointed by the move. It "does not go far enough in protecting small businesses from abusive (standards patent) licensing behavior," Reed said.
(Reporting by Stephen Nellis in San Francisco; Editing by Christopher Cushing) Our standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. MORE FROM REUTERS
(D.1. 334, Ex. A~ 5). At best, Dr. Cox states a general rationale for using the "top-down" approach in the FRAND context. Dr. Cox fails to explain why that approach applies here, where the '488 patent is not subject to a FRAND obligation. Even more problematic, Dr. Cox never addresses why the specific rate associated with the ETSI standard essential patents should apply here, where the '488 patent was never accepted into the ETSI standard. (See D.I. 334, Ex. A~~ 8-10). Sprint argues that it is irrelevant that TC Tech was not actually part of a standards setting organization, because TC Tech alleges that the '488 patent is essential to the LTE standard. (D.1. 286 at 15). Sprint cites to Ericsson, Inc. v. D-LinkSystems, Inc., 773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014), which Sprint argues "identified 'special apportionment issues' that arise any time a 'standard requires that devices utilize specific technology' such that 'compliant devices necessarily infringe certain claims in patents that cover technology incorporated into the standard." (D.1. 286 at 15 (citing D-Link, 773 F.3d at 1209, 1232)). Sprint reads D-Link out of context. The patents at issue were Ericsson's standard essential patents, as defined by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ("IEEE"), a standards setting organization. Analogous to the situation in TCL, Ericsson had agreed to "grant a license under reasonable rates to an unrestricted number of applicants on a worldwide basis 29 with reasonable terms and conditions that are demonstrably free of unfair discrimination." DLink, 773 F.3d at 1208-09. In other words, Ericsson was subject to a FRAND obligation. Therefore, D-Link is inapposite for the same reasons as TCL. A "standard essential patent," as described in TCL and D-Link, is not merely a patent that is essential to practice a standard. It is a formal designation made by a standard setting organization that subjects the patent holder to a FRAND obligation in exchange for a defined set of benefits. It is undisputed that the '488 patent is not such a "standard essential patent." Because Dr. Cox fails to explain why the ETSI rates should apply to a non-standard essential patent, his "top-down" testimony is inadmissible as insufficiently tied to the facts of this case. See Fed. R. Evid. 702.
================================================= SEP speaks to:Teece 1. Standard setting and standards development .................................................................27 2. Standard essential patents (SEPs) and royalties...............................................................29
dillythekid Thursday, 11/28/19 02:55:40 PM Re: None 0 Post # 74933 of 74950
I believe these are the cases they brought back:
Dear Judge Andrews: Pursuant to the Court’s November 25, 2019 Oral Order requesting case authority supporting the use of technology investments in the assessment of damages calculations in patent cases, Defendants respectfully submit the following cases to the Court for consideration.
? Smartflash LLC, et al. v. Apple, Inc., No. 6:13-CV-447-JRG-KNM, 2015 WL 11072175, at *1-2 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 6, 2015)
? Ristvedt-Johnson, Inc. v. Brandt, Inc., 805 F. Supp. 557, 568 (N.D. Ill. 1992)
? TVIIM, LLC v. McAfee, Inc., No. 13-CV-04545-HSG, 2015 WL 4148354, at *4 (N.D. Cal. July 9, 2015) Counsel is available should the Court have any additional questions.
Respectfully, /s/ Jennifer Ying Jennifer Ying (#5550)
Case consolidation letter 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 473 Filed 12/04/19 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 28095 600 N. King Street ? Suite 400 Writer’s Direct Access: P.O. Box 25130 ? Wilmington, DE 19899 (302) 429-4232 Zip Code For Deliveries 19801 November 18, 2019 sbrauerman@bayardlaw.com VIA CM/ECF & HAND DELIVERY PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION The Honorable Richard G. Andrews United States District Court for the District of Delaware 844 North King Street Wilmington, Delaware 19801 Re: ChanBond, LLC v. Atl. Broadband Group, LLC, et al., Cons. C.A. No. 15-842-RGA Dear Judge Andrews: Pursuant to the Court’s November 4, 2019 Order (D.I. 449), ChanBond provides the following responses to the questions raised by the Court. 1. In Plaintiffs view, how many hours would it need for opening statement, direct and cross-examination for it to present its case if the case were consolidated as it proposes? ChanBond provides the following time estimates for its opening statement, direct examination, cross examination, and closing statement in both a consolidated trial and the trial of any single Defendant. Presumably, Defendants will need the same or a similar amount of total time for presentation of their case. Since there are many undisputed facts in these cases, ChanBond expects that, in either a single Defendant or consolidated trial, trial time will be reduced through stipulation. Trial Phase Individual Defendant Consolidated Opening 2 hours 2 hours Direct Exam – Fact Witnesses 4 hours 7.5 hours Direct Exam – Infringement 5 hours 6 hours Direct Exam – Damages 4 hours 6.5 hours Cross Exam – Infringement 2 hours 2 hours Cross Exam – Validity 2 hours 2 hours Cross Exam – Damages 1.5 hours 1.5 hours Direct Exam – Validity 2.5 hours 2.5 hours Closing 2 hours 2 hours TOTAL CHANBOND TIME 25 hours 32 hours 2. There seems to be a dispute about whether Defendants (as opposed to Cisco, Arris, and Casa) have any different views on infringement. (D.I. 445 at 5: D.I. 447 at 2). I see a lengthy (820 pages) report of Plaintiffs expert Nettles (D.I. 445-1 at 20) but I do not see the non-infringement report of Defendants’ expert Cromarty. I would like Defendants to file Cromarty’s complete report with a letter identifying the “top five” places where Defendants’ non-infringement arguments vary among Defendants. Not applicable to ChanBond. Case 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 473 Filed 12/04/19 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 28096 The Honorable Richard G. Andrews November 18, 2019 Page 2 3. I think it would also be helpful to have Plaintiffs and Defendants’ main damages reports filed, with Defendants identifying the most significant differences among the various Defendants' positions. ChanBond is providing herewith, via Notice of Lodging, an exemplary report (directed to Defendant Comcast) from Dr. David J. Teece, ChanBond’s main damages expert. The body of Dr. Teece’s reports is substantively identical for all Defendants. The reports differ in the Defendant- specific numbers and calculations presented in Exhibits 1-11. Should the Court so desire, ChanBond will lodge the remaining reports of Dr. Teece. 4. Are there any reasonable options other than all or nothing? For example, what about a consolidated invalidity trial? What about consolidating trials of Defendants who now have common ownership? What about consolidating infringement trials based on which of the three suppliers (Cisco, Arris, Casa) makes the equipment? What about having a first trial with either Cablevision or Time Warner Cable, who appear to use all the CMTSs at issue? (D .I. 442-1 at 2). ChanBond maintains that complete consolidation is the most practical and appropriate way to proceed. Defendants disagree and request thirteen separate trials. The Court has provided several criteria to consider in the determination, including a consolidated invalidity trial, consolidation based on common ownership, and consolidation based on common CMTS usage. Regarding invalidity, and as noted in the opening brief (D.I. 442 at 3), consolidation on the common theory of invalidity is warranted. But a single, consolidated invalidity trial would still require thirteen infringement and damages trials. Regarding common ownership, consolidation based on changes in corporate ownership would only result in a reduction to nine or ten separate trials. As an alternative to complete consolidation, ChanBond proposes partial consolidation based on the Defendants’ CMTS usage. Using this approach would reduce the number of trials to five or less. ChanBond proposes a first trial for Defendants that Focusing on the makes logical sense for multiple reasons. First, Second, this group includes the greatest number of Defendants (five in total). Third, Fourth, F as noted in the IPRs filed by Cisco and Arris in this case, both Cisco and Arris are in privity with the Defendants, and at least Arris is indemnifying Defendants. See, e.g., IPR2018-00570, Paper 21. ChanBond thus proposes that this group of five Defendants be tried first, which would be . . The next logical group of Defendants to be tried would comprise which are . . These two Defendants also happen to collectively represent the next largest percentage of total damages sought by ChanBond. The third group of Defendants would be those that , , Case 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 473 Filed 12/04/19 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 28097 The Honorable Richard G. Andrews November 18, 2019 Page 3 which also happen to represent the next largest percentage of total damages, then those Defendants , , and finally, the one Defendant (and smallest Defendant) that These groupings are noted in the table below. ChanBond further proposes that validity be tried only with the first group. Defendants are seeking separate trials because they, and their privies Cisco and Arris, desire to try invalidity and non-infringement as many times as possible. Group 1
Infringement Validity Damages Group 2 Infringement Damages Group 3 Infringement Damages Group 4 Infringement Damages Group 5 Infringement Damages 5. Finally, when should I decide this? I'll have a much better picture of the case at the time of the summary judgment argument. A Trial Scheduling Conference has been set for January 31, 2020. During the course of meeting and conferring, the parties agreed that this conference would be the most appropriate time for the Court to resolve the issues regarding consolidation and trial schedule. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Stephen B. Brauerman Stephen B. Brauerman (No. 4952)
Case consolidation letter 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 473 Filed 12/04/19 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 28095 600 N. King Street ? Suite 400 Writer’s Direct Access: P.O. Box 25130 ? Wilmington, DE 19899 (302) 429-4232 Zip Code For Deliveries 19801 November 18, 2019 sbrauerman@bayardlaw.com VIA CM/ECF & HAND DELIVERY PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION The Honorable Richard G. Andrews United States District Court for the District of Delaware 844 North King Street Wilmington, Delaware 19801 Re: ChanBond, LLC v. Atl. Broadband Group, LLC, et al., Cons. C.A. No. 15-842-RGA Dear Judge Andrews: Pursuant to the Court’s November 4, 2019 Order (D.I. 449), ChanBond provides the following responses to the questions raised by the Court. 1. In Plaintiffs view, how many hours would it need for opening statement, direct and cross-examination for it to present its case if the case were consolidated as it proposes? ChanBond provides the following time estimates for its opening statement, direct examination, cross examination, and closing statement in both a consolidated trial and the trial of any single Defendant. Presumably, Defendants will need the same or a similar amount of total time for presentation of their case. Since there are many undisputed facts in these cases, ChanBond expects that, in either a single Defendant or consolidated trial, trial time will be reduced through stipulation. Trial Phase Individual Defendant Consolidated Opening 2 hours 2 hours Direct Exam – Fact Witnesses 4 hours 7.5 hours Direct Exam – Infringement 5 hours 6 hours Direct Exam – Damages 4 hours 6.5 hours Cross Exam – Infringement 2 hours 2 hours Cross Exam – Validity 2 hours 2 hours Cross Exam – Damages 1.5 hours 1.5 hours Direct Exam – Validity 2.5 hours 2.5 hours Closing 2 hours 2 hours TOTAL CHANBOND TIME 25 hours 32 hours 2. There seems to be a dispute about whether Defendants (as opposed to Cisco, Arris, and Casa) have any different views on infringement. (D.I. 445 at 5: D.I. 447 at 2). I see a lengthy (820 pages) report of Plaintiffs expert Nettles (D.I. 445-1 at 20) but I do not see the non-infringement report of Defendants’ expert Cromarty. I would like Defendants to file Cromarty’s complete report with a letter identifying the “top five” places where Defendants’ non-infringement arguments vary among Defendants. Not applicable to ChanBond. Case 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 473 Filed 12/04/19 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 28096 The Honorable Richard G. Andrews November 18, 2019 Page 2 3. I think it would also be helpful to have Plaintiffs and Defendants’ main damages reports filed, with Defendants identifying the most significant differences among the various Defendants' positions. ChanBond is providing herewith, via Notice of Lodging, an exemplary report (directed to Defendant Comcast) from Dr. David J. Teece, ChanBond’s main damages expert. The body of Dr. Teece’s reports is substantively identical for all Defendants. The reports differ in the Defendant- specific numbers and calculations presented in Exhibits 1-11. Should the Court so desire, ChanBond will lodge the remaining reports of Dr. Teece. 4. Are there any reasonable options other than all or nothing? For example, what about a consolidated invalidity trial? What about consolidating trials of Defendants who now have common ownership? What about consolidating infringement trials based on which of the three suppliers (Cisco, Arris, Casa) makes the equipment? What about having a first trial with either Cablevision or Time Warner Cable, who appear to use all the CMTSs at issue? (D .I. 442-1 at 2). ChanBond maintains that complete consolidation is the most practical and appropriate way to proceed. Defendants disagree and request thirteen separate trials. The Court has provided several criteria to consider in the determination, including a consolidated invalidity trial, consolidation based on common ownership, and consolidation based on common CMTS usage. Regarding invalidity, and as noted in the opening brief (D.I. 442 at 3), consolidation on the common theory of invalidity is warranted. But a single, consolidated invalidity trial would still require thirteen infringement and damages trials. Regarding common ownership, consolidation based on changes in corporate ownership would only result in a reduction to nine or ten separate trials. As an alternative to complete consolidation, ChanBond proposes partial consolidation based on the Defendants’ CMTS usage. Using this approach would reduce the number of trials to five or less. ChanBond proposes a first trial for Defendants that Focusing on the makes logical sense for multiple reasons. First, Second, this group includes the greatest number of Defendants (five in total). Third, Fourth, F as noted in the IPRs filed by Cisco and Arris in this case, both Cisco and Arris are in privity with the Defendants, and at least Arris is indemnifying Defendants. See, e.g., IPR2018-00570, Paper 21. ChanBond thus proposes that this group of five Defendants be tried first, which would be . . The next logical group of Defendants to be tried would comprise which are . . These two Defendants also happen to collectively represent the next largest percentage of total damages sought by ChanBond. The third group of Defendants would be those that , , Case 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 473 Filed 12/04/19 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 28097 The Honorable Richard G. Andrews November 18, 2019 Page 3 which also happen to represent the next largest percentage of total damages, then those Defendants , , and finally, the one Defendant (and smallest Defendant) that These groupings are noted in the table below. ChanBond further proposes that validity be tried only with the first group. Defendants are seeking separate trials because they, and their privies Cisco and Arris, desire to try invalidity and non-infringement as many times as possible. Group 1
Infringement Validity Damages Group 2 Infringement Damages Group 3 Infringement Damages Group 4 Infringement Damages Group 5 Infringement Damages 5. Finally, when should I decide this? I'll have a much better picture of the case at the time of the summary judgment argument. A Trial Scheduling Conference has been set for January 31, 2020. During the course of meeting and conferring, the parties agreed that this conference would be the most appropriate time for the Court to resolve the issues regarding consolidation and trial schedule. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Stephen B. Brauerman Stephen B. Brauerman (No. 4952)
========================================== The three cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach. In contrast to such data points, the market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements. StoneEagle Servs., Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc., 8:13-CV-2240, 2015 WL 3824170, at *9-*11 (M.D. Fla. June 19, 2015); D.I. 372, Ex. 1, Bakewell Rpt., §§ 273-274; see also AVN Technologies, LLC v. Intel Corp., 15-CV-33-RGA, 2017 WL 178752, at *3 (D. Del. May 1, 2017).
Transforming the World of Tax The three main approaches are: 1. Cost Based Approach The cost approach measures the values of the intangible assets by assessing the expenditures necessary to replace the assets. The cost approach is based on the economic concept ofsubstitution, that is, people will pay no more for an asset than it would cost to develop or obtain another asset with similar functionality. Cost items that should be included when valuing the assets include the legal costs, registrations costs, personnel costs, development costs, production costs and marketing and advertising costs. 2. Market Based Approach Intangible assets are valued by comparing recent sales or similar transactions with similar assets involved in similar markets. This method is applicable when similar markets and similar transactions exist; however, more than often, comparable assets can’t be found due to the uniqueness of most intangibles which limits the application of this method. 3. Income Based Approach The income approach measures the value of an intangible asset based on the future income streams that are expected to be generated by the asset. Some income approach methods: • Relief from royalty method • Multi Period Excess Earnings method • Incremental cash flow method? Business Valuation Tool IP Valuation Tool Super IP-Calculator This tool enables you to do a rudimentary?business valuation.?All major items are incorporated in this setup.?Default values are shown in 'grey'. This tool enables you to do a rudimentary?IP valuation (patents, trademarks)?using the relief from royalty method.?Default values are shown in 'grey'. This tool allows to assess?internationally used multiples?in order to get a first indication?of a company's value in a particular?industry and country. START START START
The Economic Analysis Method The economic-analysis valuation method has three approaches: cost, income, and market.
Cost Approach
This approach states that a patent's value is the replacement cost or the amount that would be necessary to replace the protection right on the invention. The replacement cost of an item refers to the amount of money that would be paid, at the present time, to replace the item. If an inventor has an item that he or she has patented, the patent's value would be the amount of money required to replace that invention. A prospective client would not be willing to pay more for a patent than the amount he or she would have to pay to obtain an equivalent protection right.
Income Approach
This method looks to future cash flows in determining valuation. It states that a patent's value is the present value of the incremental cash flows or cost savings it will help provide. When a company or individual develops a product that has the potential to be patented, the underlying hope is that the patented product will cause an increase in sales, or at least be a cost-saving measure in the company. This approach states that the patent's value is the current cash value of these future benefits.
Market Approach
This methodology involves determining what a willing buyer would pay for similar property. In other words, the patent's value is approximately equal to the value of similar patents or patented products that have been sold and purchased before.
Two things must be in place for this approach to be used for patent valuation:
• Existence of an active market for the patent, or a similar one • Past transactions of comparable property
Look for similar values for the following items when looking for comparable patents:
• Industry characteristics • Market share or market share potential • Growth prospects
Methodologies for Determining Reasonable Royalty Damages
The fifteen Georgia-Pacific factors are as follows. Not all may be applicable in any given case. Further, some may, in certain cases, act to lower the damages royalty rather than increase it. Thus, in any given case, some factors may increase the royalty, while others could be neutral or tend to decrease it. The net result, however, can never be below the statutory minimum, which is really reflected by the last factor. • The royalties received by the patent owner for the licensing of the patent-in-suit, proving or tending to prove an established royalty;? • The rates paid by the licensee for the use of other patents comparable to the patent-in-suit;? • The nature and scope of the license, as exclusive or non-exclusive, or as restricted or non-restricted in terms of territory or with respect to whom the manufactured product may be sold;? • The licensor’s established policy and marketing program to maintain its patent monopoly by not licensing others to use the invention or by granting licenses under special conditions designed to preserve that monopoly;? • The commercial relationship between the licensor and the licensee, such as whether they are competitors in the same territory in the same line of business, or whether they are inventor and promoter;? • The effect of selling the patented specialty in promoting sales of other products of the licensee; the existing value of the invention to the licensor as a generator of sales of its non-patented items; and the extent of such derivative or convoyed sales;? • The duration of the patent and the term of the license;? • The established profitability of the product made under the patent; its commercial success; and its current popularity;? • The utility and advantages of the patent property over the old modes or devices, if any, that had been used for working out similar results;? • The nature of the patented invention; the character of the commercial embodiment of it as owned and produced by the licensor; and the benefits to those who have used the invention;? • The extent to which the infringer has made use of the invention, and any evidence probative of the value of that use;? • The portion of the profit or of the selling price that may be customary in the particular business or in comparable businesses to allow for the use of the invention or analogous inventions;? • The portion of the realizable profit that should be credited to the invention as distinguished from non-patented elements, the manufacturing process, business risks, or significant features or improvements added by the infringer;? • The opinion testimony of qualified experts; and? • The amount that a licensor (such as the patent owner) and a licensee (such as the infringer) would have agreed upon (at the time the infringement began) if both had been reasonably and voluntarily trying to reach an agreement; that is, the amount that a prudent licensee – who desired, as a business proposition, to obtain a license to manufacture and sell a particular article embodying the patented invention – would have been willing to pay as a royalty and yet be able to make a reasonable profit, and which amount would have been acceptable by a prudent patent owner who was willing to grant a license.?? https://www.fr.com/reasonableroyalty/
==========================================
The factors most often used are those enumerated in Georgia-Pacific v US Plywood Corp., 318 F.Supp 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970) and include, among other things, utility and advantages of the patented invention, commercial success of the patented invention, licenses for comparable products
ARTICLE U.S. Patent Damages September 2018 CIPA Journal By Timothy P. McAnulty; Jeffrey C. Totten; Nathan I. North
Significant 2018 Patent Decisions and a Look Ahead Thursday, December 20, 2018
The Supreme Court has entertained a cert. petition on behalf of RPX to determine whether this frequent patent challenger has standing to appeal a PTAB decision upholding a patent. RPX Corp. v. ChanBond LLC, 897 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Pending S. Ct. Cert. Petition). The Supreme Court recently requested the Solicitor General to provide briefing on the matter.
Cox Communications Fact Sheet Newsroom > Cox Communications is a broadband communications and entertainment company, providing advanced digital video, Internet, telephone and home security and automation services over its own nationwide IP network. The largest private telecom company in the U.S., Cox serves more than 6 million residences and businesses. Cox Business is a facilities-based provider of voice, video and data solutions for commercial customers, and Cox Media is a full-service provider of national and local cable spot and new media advertising. Cox is known for its pioneering efforts in broadband and commercial services, industry-leading customer care and its outstanding workplaces. For nine years, Cox has been recognized as the top operator for women by Women in Cable Telecommunications; Cox has ranked among DiversityInc's Top 50 Companies for Diversity 12 times. More information about Cox Communications, a wholly owned subsidiary of Cox Enterprises, is available at www.cox.com and www.coxmedia.com. Company Stats: • Cox has approximately 6 million total residential and commercial customers • Total revenues of $11 billion in 2016 • Cox operates 6 clustered cable systems in 18 states: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Virginia • Cox has approximately 20,000 employees nationwide • Approximately 2/3 of our customers are in a bundle, approximately 1/3 of customers are triple play • 350,000 commercial customers with more than 1.5 million business phone lines • In the last 10 years, Cox has invested more than $15 billion in its communities through infrastructure upgrades to deliver video, phone and high-speed Internet service to homes and businesses in the company’s service area. Cox plans to invest $10 billion in the next five years. • Cox’s in-kind and direct cash contributions totaled $70 million dollars in 2016, with a community outreach focus on youth and education initiatives. • Cox is a leader in customer satisfaction, earning a total of 34 awards from J.D. Power and Associates, including 10 consecutive wins for residential phone and 9 awards for business services. • Cox Communications is 55 years old, and remains a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cox Enterprises, a privately-held, family-owned corporation with $20 billion in annual revenues (2016) • Since 2012, Cox has connected more than 300,000 people to the Internet through the Connect2Compete program, most for the first time.
Here R the patents @ the USPTO
Inventors: Hennenhoefer; Earl (Harrisburg, PA), Snyder; Richard V. (Harrisburg, PA), Stine; Robert D. (Dillsburg, PA) Assignee: CBV, Inc. (Carlisle, PA)
And then the top one (# 9,363,554) with:
Inventors: Hennenhoefer; Earl (Carlisle, PA), Snyder; Richard (Harrisburg, PA), Stine; Robert (Mechanicsburg, PA) Applicant: Name City State Country Type CBV, Inc. Carlisle PA US Assignee: CHANBOND LLC (Dallas, TX)
The three cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach. In contrast to such data points, the market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements. StoneEagle Servs., Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc., 8:13-CV-2240, 2015 WL 3824170, at *9-*11 (M.D. Fla. June 19, 2015); D.I. 372, Ex. 1, Bakewell Rpt., §§ 273-274; see also AVN Technologies, LLC v. Intel Corp., 15-CV-33-RGA, 2017 WL 178752, at *3 (D. Del. May 1, Long term Saturday, 02/01/20 11:06:57 AM Re: long uoip post# 76368
0 Post # 76380 of 76412
2017). ..
“has anybody responded privately or is there a way we can source this information ? are you suspecting same valuation method will be utilized with uoip ?
Waiting or others to respond....unsure where to get other jury instruction sheet in similar cases.....judge Johnson in the brings v Google case someone got the instruction sheet but didn’t know where they got it...u might be able to find out at Wordpress....go there enter vrng 24.....there’s a lot there to look through.....am under the weather presently..have enough energy to just read posts.
Suspecting the same valuation method to be utilized? Judge Andrews asked for other cases, perhaps that was just pointing the parties in a general direction, ...perhaps it was a hint as to what parameters he thinks is appropriate.... can’t really tell that’s why one must be familiar with multiple methods so when discussed in court in Feb we can pick up on inference as to what the parties are talking about......believe at the end of the hearing a plan will either be approved by judge and / or will send both sides with his guidance to further negotiate an agreed upon method ( this wouldn’t be bad) an acceptable delay if it prevents an appealable miss application of setting upon an agreed method.
=========== long uoip Saturday, 02/01/20 11:30:59 AM Re: Long term post# 76380
0 Post # 76381 of 76412
re: "Judge Andrews asked for other cases, perhaps that was just pointing the parties in a general direction, perhaps it was a hint as to what parameters he thinks is appropriate" ..I concur, certainly initiates genesis point
re: "3 cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach" ..another stall tactic or modus of operandi to veer case sideways
re:"market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements" ..I concur, thanks for the additional examples
re:"must be familiar with multiple methods so when discussed in court in Feb we can pick up on inference"..my research shows various modalities, court will reveal judge's sentiments which would be best suited
re:"am under the weather presently..have enough energy to just read posts" ..sorry to hear that (hope it's not what's on the news) thanks for responding despite your fatigue, hope you feel better
we need you.. . court 17 days ========================
Long term Saturday, 02/01/20 12:47:18 PM Re: long uoip post# 76381
0 Post # 76384 of 76412
“;another stall tactic or modus of operandi to veer case sideways “ Don’t think it’s a stall tactic...Andrews is being accommodating to the defense & pointing out to defendants to get real after what valuation methods they proposed ( what they proposed was ridiculous) the purpose is not to fall into a appealable trap....Andrews,as all judges have as an objective is not to be appealed for judicial mistake......his direction to 13 read those cases as a guide in developing a mutually agreed upon method that he could approve. The Feb hearing will further clarify what was said in the Nov25 hearing....if both sides have reached agreement of method of valuation & if Andrews is comfortable then the method will be applied & we’ll probably know by the end of the hearing. If the sides haven’t agreed I think he’ll give further instruction & set another date to determine method. As to setting trial date he could set it thus adding more pressure ( again demonstrating to an appeal court of his fairness rendering a non appealable point) =================
long uoip Saturday, February 1, 2020 6:26:26 PM Re: Long term post# 76384 Post # 76399 of 76411 re:"appealable trap" ..I shudder from even the inference I would rather go nice & slow then deal with weeks, months, years of appeals, seems like Judge Andrews track record is professional & methodical
re:"get real about evaluation" ..analogy between defendants offer of nov court hearing $5-10 million & figures that shareholders are submitting parallel to other similar cases @ $1.6 B (curious to what that amounts to per share) correct me if I'm wrong.. . 1,614,601,069 uoip shares $1.2 B = approx. $.75 share
I'm all for ~ "judges having an objective to not to be appealed for judicial mistakes"
re: "mutually agreed upon method"..ugh, Houston, we have a problem LOL
"probably know by the end of the hearing?".. wow, seriously ?
"MUST BE APPROVED by the judge"..dilemma for the defendants
re: "sides haven’t agreed I think he’ll give further instruction & set another date to determine method" ..I suspect this will be the great debate =================
Billions in settlement dollars. No doubt.
64.35M cable subscribers $60 per month for one's internet connection or "ACCESS" only (NO CONTENT INCLUDED!) 12 months per year $46,332,000,000 per year 20 years (Suing for the life of the patent(s), via royalties) $926,640,000,000 (Almost a TRILLION DOLLARS) __@_______w/ ~1,614,601,069 shares O/S 0.1% == $926,640,000________$0.57/share (that's 1/10th of 1% for infringement) 0.25% = $2,316,600,000?______$1.44 (1/4th of 1%) 0.5% == $4,633,200,000______$2.87 (half a %) 1% === $9,266,400,000______$5.74
long uoip Friday, March 27, 2020 10:55:57 AM Re: A deleted message Post # 78575 of 78599 respectfully easyme, I concur with most of your analogy.. . bill gates metaphor "great corrector" analogy was in reference to our impending aug. 18th court date, opportunity for Stephen B. Brauerman to advocate on behalf of Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine (the 3 chanbond inventors) so the legal system can validate their innovative technology & their long overdue $ compensation Economics + Law = Damages p.s. I don't think covd19 is nothing, it is changing the trajectory of many people's lives, mostly the lower socioeconomic class, unfortunately ____________________________________________
Intelligent device system and method for distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system Patent number: 10136180 Abstract: A plurality of intelligent device systems for use with a wideband signal distribution network, and methods for transmitting digital information and receiving digital and non-digital information onto and off of an RF carrier through a wideband signal distribution network, are disclosed. The intelligent device systems provide networks of intelligent devices that modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, using existing EIA/TIA 568 standard wiring infrastructure. The methods modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, and separate IP portions from non-IP portions. Type: Grant Filed: April 6, 2015 Date of Patent: November 20, 2018 Assignee: CHANBOND LLC Inventors: Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine ____________________________________
Intelligent device system and method for distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system Patent number: 9363554 Abstract: A plurality of intelligent device systems for use with a wideband signal distribution network, and methods for transmitting digital information and receiving digital and non-digital information onto and off of an RF carrier through a wideband signal distribution network, are disclosed. The intelligent device systems provide networks of intelligent devices that modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, using existing EIA/TIA 568 standard wiring infrastructure. The methods modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, and separate IP portions from non-IP portions. Type: Grant Filed: January 29, 2014 Date of Patent: June 7, 2016 Assignee: CHANBOND LLC Inventors: Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine
PROVIDERS OFFERING CABLE SERVICE We've found 452 providers offering Cable service in the US. Below are stats on their coverage and speeds.
Philhump03 listed the following
listed the following Provider Est. Population Covered States Max Speed XFINITY from Comcast 111,710,288 40 987 mbps 2014 was 68.78B and 2018 was 91.51B. 1% of 2018 is $915,100,000
Charter Spectrum 102,473,344 43 940 mbps 43.634B in annual revenue/sales for 2018.... 1% of that is $43,634,000
Cox Communications 21,128,654 19 300 mbps 6 million total residential and commercial customers Total revenues of $11 billion in 2016
Optimum by Altice 12,437,931 4 400 mbps
Mediacom Cable 7,510,920 22 1000 mbps
WOW! 7,174,627 9 50 mbps
Suddenlink Communications 6,818,884 19 1000 mbps
RCN 4,103,162 7 1000 mbps
Cable ONE 3,358,492 20 1000 mbps
Wave Broadband 1,908,564 3 1000 mbps
Atlantic Broadband 1,871,420 13 1000 mbps
Midco 1,312,111 5 1000 mbps
Grande Communications 1,226,241 1 1000 mbps
Newwave Communications 1,057,601 7 100 mbps
Armstrong 982,867 5 1000 mbps
Service Electric Broadband Cable 969,100 2 150 mbps
Blue Ridge Communications 616,308 1 1000 mbps
Vyve Broadband 606,062 10 1000 mbps
GCI Communication 556,741 1 1000 mbps
Buckeye Broadband 544,140 2 300 mbps
En-Touch Systems 535,246 1 115 mbps
Northland Communications 492,413 8 100 mbps
TDS Telecom 475,628 10 600 mbps
Service Electric Cablevision 438,870 1 350 mbps
Shentel 411,731 3 150 mbps
Windstream 406,072 49 1000 mbps
Fidelity Communications 384,027 5 1000 mbps
Cablelynx Broadband 364,058 4 50 mbps
Comporium Communications 294,033 2 400 mbps
Vast Broadband 285,321 2 200 mbps
Zito Media 271,350 16 200 mbps
MaxxSouth Broadband 259,771 2 60 mbps
Consolidated Communications 207,589 8 100 mbps
Horry Telephone Cooperative 205,403 1 300 mbps
Blue Stream 186,428 1 1000 mbps
Massillon Cable TV 169,891 1 100 mbps
Cable America Missouri 144,579 2 100 mbps
BendBroadband 143,789 1 300 mbps
Morris Broadband 133,711 1 100 mbps
Hargray Communications 132,008 2 30 mbps
Antietam Broadband 131,986 1 200 mbps
Direct Communications 126,571 4 20 mbps
Ritter Communications 124,154 3 100 mbps
Continuum 104,611 1 200 mbps
Adams Cable Service 101,045 2 50 mbps
Summit Broadband 98,010 1 1000 mbps
TruVista 95,293 2 250 mbps
Reach Broadband 93,246 1 75 mbps
Inter Mountain Cable 90,008 3 300 mbps
Reserve Telecommunications 89,631 1 300 mbps
USA Communications 87,146 3 60 mbps
NuLink Digital 85,098 1 100 mbps
CTV Beam 83,932 1 102 mbps
CAS Cable 83,926 2 1000 mbps
Giggle Fiber 79,795 1 500 mbps
ImOn Communications 75,307 1 80 mbps
ComSouth 73,728 1 50 mbps
CentraCom 72,489 2 100 mbps
ETC Communications 71,927 3 150 mbps
OneSource Communications 70,808 1 35 mbps
Eagle Communications 69,886 3 100 mbps
Orbitel Communications 68,665 1 150 mbps
Mid-Hudson Cablevision 65,153 1 200 mbps
Thames Valley Communications 63,923 1 110 mbps
Conway Corporation 60,799 1 50 mbps
Home Telecom 59,774 1 100 mbps
Arvig 58,044 1 100 mbps
All West Communications 53,422 1 100 mbps
Golden West Telecommunications 52,372 1 50 mbps
Frankfort Plant Board 51,201 1 250 mbps
D&P Communications 51,053 2 110 mbps
Full Channel 49,612 1 320 mbps
Nittany Media 49,477 1 125 mbps
Thacker-Grigsby Telephone 49,081 1 50 mbps
ATMC 46,398 1 200 mbps
Rainier Connect 44,688 1 55 mbps
CASSCOMM 44,640 1 50 mbps
Bailey Cable TV 43,875 2 12 mbps
Spanish Fork Community Network 43,188 1 120 mbps
Indco Cable 41,849 4 4.0 mbps
Emery Telcom 41,800 1 40 mbps
commZoom 41,540 1 100 mbps
AllensTV 41,347 1 50 mbps
Long Lines 41,245 3 300 mbps
FiberVision Florida 41,098 1 90 mbps
Spirit Broadband 40,356 1 10 mbps
Access Cable Television 40,221 2 100 mbps
LivCom 39,774 1 25 mbps
HBC 38,057 1 1000 mbps
Vision Communications 37,474 1 25 mbps
USA Communications (Iowa) 37,432 1 6.0 mbps
Country Cablevision 36,919 1 100 mbps
Consolidated Smart Broadband Systems 36,760 2 1000 mbps
CableSouth Media3 35,893 2 10 mbps
SELCO 35,608 1 50 mbps
GVTC Communications 34,641 1 12 mbps
Satview Broadband 34,640 1 10 mbps
BELD Broadband 33,909 1 300 mbps
Kings Bay Communications 32,113 1 1000 mbps
CPWS Broadband 32,002 1 100 mbps
1% of 43.6 billion is 436 million.How bout as we waite to pass
the time w collectively do some DD on the following and post info to this post.
Name of 13 companies & their Annual income for each to present 12-31-2018
1 Atlantic Broadband Group, LLC,
2 Bright House Networks, LLC,
3 CSC Holdings, LLC,
4 Cable One, Inc.,
5 Cablevision Systems Corporation,
6 Cequel Communications Holdings I, LLC,
7 Cequel Communications, LLC,
8 Charter Communications, Inc.,
9 Comcast Cable Communications, LLC,
10 Comcast Corporation,
11 Cox Communications, Inc.,
12 Mediacom Communications Corporation,
13 RCN Telecom Services, LLC,
14 Time Warner Cable Enterprises LLC,TT
15 Time Warner Cable Inc.,
16 WaveDivision Holdings, LLC,
17 WideOpen West Finance, LLC.
x years infringement for each x 13=
Future licensing for each....????? Years ( not sure how many)=
Punitive damages for each = up to 3x final amount
Looser pays legal fees and costs ( if goes to trial) Cut & past edit pg # 1
Useing (.05%) A percentage historically 1-5% ( since the amt here may be very large I'd guess.5-1.5%)
All About News, DDs and Charts ****
#1-SISTER FORUM $Pistol Pete$, $Mick$ & Friends Stock Picks /news, DD and charts
#2-SISTER FORUM *** MICK, $Pistol Pete$ & FRIENDS STOCK PICKS *** M F S P''''''''
#3-SISTER FORUM Billionaire Boys Club Member Forum (BBCMF)
MARK IT FOLKS /////\\\\\ i'd like to see this happen. sanctuary placement for homeless as soon as possible. **** illegals have the sanctuary placement in most states.****
why not the homeless be sponsored by the sports leagues of america. ah special taxation on their salary to support the homeless.
heck figure how many would finally have an address to file claims to the gov't. the homeless have no speaker for them.
i think some lawyers could donate some time to this. mark this message for improvement for the homeless.
SHO LIST BUYINS.NET Chart Analysis Chart Video Lessons Charts Charts Charts Clinical Trials Corporate Bankruptcy Corporate Records Search Deregistering
Document Research Earnings Email Address Verifier EYE ON THE FDA FINRA Daily Short List Floats Form 4 Filings High Short Interest Stocks Insider Buy & Sell Info
Investing Glossary Investor Words Low Float Stocks Message, Blog & Twitter Postings Multicollinearity Patterns Platform Reverse Splits SEC Form Types and Definitions
Secretary Of State Sites - All states Shell Stocks SHO Threshold List Short Stocks Stock Chart Patterns Stock Promotions Stock Promotions Stock Research
Technical Analysis Technical Indicators/Overlays Trading Halts Trading Platform Trading Stations Transfer Agent Contact Information
Information Cannabis/
Jurisdiction with legalized cannabis. Jurisdiction with both medical and decriminalization laws.* Jurisdiction with legal psychoactive medical cannabis. Jurisdiction with legal non-psychoactive medical cannabis Jurisdiction with decriminalized cannabis possession laws. Jurisdiction with total cannabis prohibition * Mississippi has only legal non-psychoactive medical cannabis, and Illinois has decriminalized cannabis as of July 29th, 2016 Attribution: Lokal_Profil , CC-BY-SA-2.5
Post # 64456 of 64474 A few weeks/months back I posted a link to cnnmoney that forecasted a 12 month stock price of 1200.00. Most people laughed and shrugged it off without much thought. I’d like to present several thoughts why I feel the forecast while not totally accurate, does give an idea of the long term global potential of the plan zwolf spoke about recently and the relevancy to Mr. Spangenburgs current business models concerning patent monetization/analysis/reform. Many may not know that Mr. Spangenburg and Mr. Carter are close business partners and have founded and continue to run successful patent service companies. Many call them trolls but it doesn’t take much reading to see that they are far from that. They provide services and solutions to patent holders to better arm themselves against large corporations who prey on and benefit from small scale IP owners/creators. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity that we are fortunate to be in below the ground floor. All of Mr. Spangenburg and Mr. Carters companies are PRIVITELY held companies and I have no issues owning stock with these two guys running not only this show, but many, many others with outstanding success. I’m quite sure all the private noteholders across their many organizations are being paid proportionally to the amount of shares they own, and owning a personal stake in every company they finance litigation for says everything I need to hear honestly. What’s good for them is good for me and I’m grateful for this opportunity. To those who are that concerned, I would suggest you put on a pot of coffee, grab some snacks and start reading…that’s what I did back in 2017. I went back and read about 1-2 years of posts over the course or a week or so.
These links gave me a really good idea of Carter and Spangenburgs “big picture link, ipwe.com
The key words to listen for are smart contracts.link
This link is one I’m sure we have all seen, but I like it because its proof Carter is Spangenburgs right hand man and that they personally purchase a stake in every company they finance litigation for and are motivated to get the patent creators and thereby themselves, paid.link
Also some may have missed the info on carter from post 21698 from 2014
In closing, if I think about all the money ive spent on internet service from dial-up to gigabit and to know that the technology enabling comfortable internet use has not been going into the hands of the people who helped enhance it is a pure and utter shame. I hope Mr Spangenburg succeeds in his patent reform efforts and I hope this case sets a new precedent going forward.
Billy carter ice2014 Monday, 09/22/14 10:16:21 AM Re: None 0 Post # 21698 of 63460
UnifiedOnline! LLC is owned by Billy Carter, the person who bought ICEWEB and took all its debt by paying about 116K. IMO, he is not dumping shares in the market but is using these shares to pay the other debt holders, e.g. Asher enterprise who dumped theirs in the market.
IMO, it seems that the stock has been taken over by MMs and has been shorted like hell, and that's why you see 1+ billion on bids at 0.0001. It is a possibility that MMs have sold more than the float. These MMs may be turned upside down if any positive news is released on/before Sept. 30th, and they have to cover their short positions.
You can check more about Billy Carter at following sites:
Make a search on carter in 2nd and 3rd URL. It seems that new owner of IEWEB Mr. Carter really has deep pockets. He has probably invested in ICEWEB not to double or triple his 116K but probably to multiply his 116K by 100s of times. ICEWEB and KCNAP play in the hottest cloud space. It seems that Mr. Carter is involved in too many businesses that I can track. He is also the president of Plant Transformation Technology (PTT) with chairman Erich Spangenberg of IPNAV (check above links). He seems to be very much involved in IPNAV as well, which has sued 1600+ companies.
Again, IMO, Billy Carter probably didn't buy ICEWEB for 116K to double his money but to make it really big. This is probably the last week and we should hear news (official 10-K) from ICEWEB before Sept. 30th deadline.
ralevine@pa.gov
Puerto Rico Rafael Rodriguez Mercado, MD, FACS, FAANS Secretary of Health Catherine De La Cruz-Duran* S/THO Designee drrafael.rodriguez@salud.pr.gov
Rhode Island Nicole Alexander-Scott, MD, MPH [Bio] Director nicole.alexanderscott@health.ri.gov
South Carolina Richard Toomey, MHA, DHA [Bio] Director, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control Rick.Toomey@dhec.sc.gov
South Dakota Kim Malsam-Rysdon [Bio] Secretary kim.malsam-rysdon@state.sd.us
Tennessee Lisa Piercey MD, MBA, FAAP [Bio] Commissioner tn.health@tn.gov
Texas John Hellerstedt, MD [Bio] Commissioner john.hellerstedt@dshs.texas.gov
Utah Joseph Miner, MD [Bio] Executive Director joeminer@utah.gov
Vermont Mark Levine, MD [Bio] Commissioner of Health mark.levine@vermont.gov
Virginia M. Norman Oliver, MD, MA [Bio] State Health Commissioner norm.oliver@vdh.virginia.gov
Washington John M. Wiesman, DrPH, MPH [Bio] Secretary of Health secretary@doh.wa.gov
West Virginia Cathy Slemp, MD, MPH [Bio] Commissioner and State Health Officer catherine.slemp@wv.gov
Wisconsin Jeanne Ayers, RN, MPH [Bio] Administrator, Division of Public Health Jeanne.Ayers@dhs.wisconsin.gov
Wyoming Alexia Harrist, MD, PhD [Bio] State Health Officer alexia.harrist1@wyo.gov —————————————
davidsan Wednesday, April 1, 2020 4:57:18 PM Re: None Post # 78774 of 78834 Can PCTL's fluid turn sour crude oil into sweet?
I vaguely remember this was something said in discussing why that large unnamed oil&gas company was so interested in setting up the customized trial they are doing. I remember clearly that it helped make the liquid involved in fracking much more environmentally friendly, much more green, with a more pure and less costly product, something to that effect. There was some big reason why that oil&gas company was so excited about it. If the oil&gas industry incorporates this into their standard processes, with the sheer volume of this fluid they will need every day, that will be HUGE, just that one piece of all this alone. Somewhere in there I thought I remembered that in the process it helped turn sour crude into sweet, just don't recall how specific that point was.
Anyone here remember?
This is so much more than just hospitals and spraying to kill the coronavirus. The agricultural/cannabis industry and oil&gas industry customized trials are going on as well.
And, of course, the UK trials are about to hit (The UK hospital trial already completed, and the 2 university studies are supposed to complete the end of March to first week of April, meaning anytime now). Just waiting on results and orders, both expected to be very favorable.
Hypochlorous Acid Market Demand Would Increase Rapidly Hypochlorous Acid Market: Excellent Microbial and Oxidizing Properties Hypochlorous acid is a weak acid formed by dissolving chlorine in water. It possesses excellent microbial and oxidizing properties. It is used as a disinfectant agent in medical, water treatment, and food additives in food & beverages industry. Sodium hypochlorite and calcium hypochlorite are the two types of hypochlorous acid. Sodium hypochlorite is a widely consumed hypochlorous acid. Sodium hypochlorite can be easily stored and transported. It is more effective than chlorine gas in various applications. Read report Overview@ https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/hypochlorous-acid-market.html Hypochlorous acid is employed in various end-user industries such as water treatment, wound management, food & beverages, oil & gas, and personal care. Demand for hypochlorous acid in the wound management segment is projected to rise significantly in the near future. Hypochlorous acid acts as an excellent disinfectant in wound healing applications. It accelerates the healing process of any wound and other infections such as eye infection, ear infection, etc. Hypochlorous acid has excellent disinfectant properties, which help destroy pathogens, bacteria, and fungi. Request PDF Brochure@ https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/sample/sample.php?flag=B&rep_id=68783 Key drivers of Hypochlorous Acid market Rise in demand for oxidizing and disinfecting agents in order to provide quality water is driving the global hypochlorous acid market. Hypochlorous acid is highly cost effective. It is non-toxic to humans and animals. Therefore, it is highly preferred in the water treatment industry. Rise in usage of hypochlorous acid in sterilizing bacterial infection by drying out blood cells is boosting its demand in the medical industry. Hypochlorous acid is also used as an active sanitizing agent in swimming pools and skin cleansing agent in cosmetic applications. It is used in the manufacture of calcium hypochlorite (Ca(OCl)2) and sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), which are further used in the manufacture of disinfectants, bleaches, and deodorants. Food & Beverage Industry and Wound Management to offer attractive opportunities Increase in usage of hypochlorous acid in the food & beverages industry is estimated to provide lucrative opportunities to manufacturers of hypochlorous acid in the near future. Hypochlorous acid is used for cleaning food processing equipment and dish washers. It is also employed as food additive in processing poultry products and seafood products. Hypochlorous acid is gaining momentum as a potential wound care agent in the pharmaceutical industry. It is a highly effective wound irrigation solution, which is entirely safe for human tissues. It aids in elimination of unpleasant wound odor and removes bacteria from wound surface. Hypochlorous Acid may form Explosive Gas in Concentrated Form likely to Restrain Market Hypochlorous acid is highly dangerous and can form explosive gas if used in concentrated form. This is anticipated to restrain the market during the forecast period. When exposed to air, it disintegrates and causes nausea, abdomen pain, etc. If released in water bodies, hypochlorous acid may harm aquatic animals, thereby adversely affecting biodiversity. These factors are estimated to restrain the demand for hypochlorous acid during the forecast period. Stuck in a neck-to-neck competition with other brands? Request a custom report on competition on Hypochlorous Acid Market here Asia Pacific Expected to Hold Leading Share in the Global Hypochlorous Acid Market In terms of region, the demand for hypochlorous acid can be split across five regions: North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, Latin America, and Middle East & Africa. In terms of consumption, Asia Pacific dominated the global hypochlorous acid market in 2018. Developing economies such as China, India, Vietnam, and Indonesia are the leading consumers of hypochlorous acid in Asia Pacific. Rapid industrialization and increase in demand for sodium hypochlorite in chemical, agriculture, and pharmaceutical industries are anticipated to fuel the hypochlorous acid market during the forecast period. Demand for hypochlorous acid in countries in Europe such as Germany, France, and the U.K. is projected to increase during the forecast period primarily due to the rise in demand for sodium and calcium hypochlorite in the food & beverages industry in the region. The U.S. is the leading consumer of hypochlorous acid in North America. Increase in demand for hypochlorous acid in industrial applications such as cooling water treatment is propelling the market in the U.S. Latin America and Middle East & Africa are highly dependent on hypochlorous acid import. This is likely to hamper the sales of hypochlorous acid in these regions. However, production capacity expansion by various manufacturers in Brazil, Mexico, and GCC is expected to augment the demand for hypochlorous acid in Latin America and Middle East & Africa during the forecast period. Key Players in Hypochlorous Acid Market: New product launches and mergers & acquisitions are the key strategies adopted by top players operating in the market. For instance, in 2018, URGO Medical, a leading player in wound care products, entered into an asset purchasing agreement with REALM Therapeutics, a biopharmaceutical company based in the U.S. REALM Therapeutics engages in research activities to discover new hypochlorous acid based treatments for atopic dermatitis and allergic conjunctivitis. This acquisition is expected to help URGO Medical become the leading player in advanced wound care business across the globe. Key players operating in the global hypochlorous acid market include Lenntech B.V. BASF SE Arkema S.A. Lonza. Inovyn Chlorvinyls Limited Olin Corporation Nouryon (Previously under Akzo Nobel N.V.'s coating division) Occidental Petroleum Corporation Kuehne Company AGC Chemicals Surpass Chemical Company, Inc. Westlake Chemical Corporation Clorox Company Tianjin Ruifuxin Chemical Tosoh Corporation Aditya Birla Chemicals Aqualution Systems Ltd Ultrapure HOCL (Pty) Ltd Others
=================== Friday, April 3, 2020 10:10:28 AM Cherry Re: None Post # 80097 of 80187 WHY YOU WANT TO BUY ALL THE PCTL YOU CAN
Right now, IMO, before PCT LTD (ticker PCTL) announces the UK hospital results which might potentially lead to 600+ hospital installations in the UK, before the March 2020 revenues from increased fluid sales are known, before the scientific data on treating disease/mold/fungi in the citrus & cannabis industries is announced, before results from the oil & gas industry testing, and before the delayed 2019 Q3 of which will contain outdated information from over 6 months ago-
People reading here may have read and seen, in bits and pieces, all these things below.
How anyone interprets & verifies anything, and researches further, is up to them. Nothing here is advice.
Since late 2019: More hospitals, More distribution, More geographic regions, More production capacity, More sales of the fluid itself & increasing dramatically, EPA approved on List N to disinfect surfaces for NCOV-19-SARS-2, Existing clients are buying more systems or extending their contracts,
=============== Tuesday, 04/07/20 11:13:24 AM Re: Patience 1 post# 81708 0.005 Post # 81730 of 82300
Quote:
NEWS OUT!! 4/7/20, 9:55 AM LITTLE RIVER, S.C.--(BUSINESS WIRE)
PCT LTD (OTC Pink: PCTL) ("PCTL") is excited to announce they have increased production capacity at their Little River, South Carolina facility.
Updating an earlier release (March 25th), the South Carolina facility is now capable of producing up to 10,000 gallons of fluids per day. A marked increase over earlier capabilities. The company is now better positioned to meet the growing demand for its Hypochlorous Acid-based disinfecting fluids.
“Our team has been working around the clock over the last several weeks to make this happen,” says Stuart Emmons, PCTL Executive VP of Engineering and R & D. “The South Carolina facility is now better positioned to fulfill the daily orders we have been receiving.”
Due in part to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, the company has seen an exponential increase in sales and inquiries from current and prospective customers. Late last month the company shifted its short-term focus towards fluid production and sales to meet increasing demand.
“It’s supply and demand,” according to PCTL CEO Gary Grieco. “The demand is there and now so is the supply. We needed to shift our focus towards where we can have the most impact and do the most good for our customers and the communities they serve. At the same time, this presents an opportunity for us to elevate our profile, grow our business, and showcase how effective our products can be in the ongoing fight against the spread of infectious disease.”
The company has also been hiring additional support staff to support growing business operations. Most recently, the company engaged Joseph Tippmann, graduate of The University of Michigan’s Industrial Design and Architecture program, as a new design engineer. Tippmann joined the company on a contract basis initially and has spent the past two weeks performing design updates on Annihilyzer and Hydrolyte Rack systems in addition to helping design a more modular system for easier assembly.
Tippmann is also a co-owner of Werks Manufacturing, a Fort Wayne, Indiana based manufacturing company which PCTL engages for the purpose of manufacturing and assembling parts for use in the company’s Annihilyzer® Infection Control System and other systems.
Werks Manufacturing is expanding their operation and will increase parts and assembly production to meet PCTL’s growing demand. In addition, Werks will also serve as a fluid depot for PCTL’s clients in the northern Midwest part of the United States. Werks will initially be capable of producing up to 4,000 gallons per day of disinfecting fluids, including Hydrolyte®, for sale and use by PCTL to clients in Detroit, Chicago, and throughout the region. This fluid production capacity can be increased as needed to serve growing demand.
“We are continuing our rapid growth plans,” says Grieco. “Through strategic partnerships, distribution agreements, and more, we are gaining market share, increasing revenue at a rapid pace, and growing our business both quickly and efficiently.”
Additional News and Corporate Updates:
PCTL would like to warn its stockholders and potential investors that material corporate information regarding sales, areas of business and other corporate updates will only be made through press releases or filings with the SEC. PCTL does not utilize social media, chatrooms or other online sources to disclose material information. The public should only rely on official press releases and corporate filings for accurate and up to date information regarding PCTL. ====================
Wednesday, April 8, 2020 1:22:30 PM Beer money Re: None Post # 82319 of 82350 Yes Gary Grieco, PCTL CEO, stated, "As a result of the capabilities and benefits of our products, many companies and municipalities across a variety of industries and geographic locations are engaging in intense discussions with PCT LTD."
PCTL "The 800 pound gorilla, Corona-virus, that has opened up a huge opportunity for us and I can not say any more than that we have been contacted by, and are actively negotiating to address the problem with both companies and government officials and I can not say more than that."
In addition, Grieco further commented, "All of our hospital customers using our infection control system and disinfectant are utilizing the systems as a front-line defense throughout their facilities, including in all public area such as restrooms, lobbies, waiting rooms, elevators, corridors, cafeterias, etc. all throughout the day and night and in the presence of patients, staff and visitors."
============ Thursday, April 9, 2020 10:01:52 AM Re: None Post # 82599 of 82789 Hypochlorous Acid Okay For Easter Eggs Hypochlorous acid is cleared by the FDA for use on meat, poultry, fish & seafood, fruits & vegetables and shell eggs as a no-rinse sanitizer. FCN 1811 is a Food Contact Notification (FCN) from the FDA for using electrolytically generated hypochlorous acid as an antimicrobial agent in an aqueous solution in the production and preparation of whole or cut meat and poultry; processed and preformed meat and poultry; fish and seafood; fruits and vegetables; and shell eggs. To read more about food contact notification 1811, visit the FDA website in the link below. https://www.hypochlorousacid.com/regulation [Suppressed Image]
================== Thursday, April 9, 2020 10:35:37 AM Re: None Post # 82670 of 82807 Why the NHS and Private Clinics Should Look Further than Alcohol-Based Sanitisers The CoViD-19 pandemic has brought alcohol to the fore; whether it is the amount the British public is consuming to get through self-isolation or the level required in hand sanitiser to make it effective, the news stories are everywhere. Many of these revolving around the shortage of traditional alcohol-based hand sanitisers and how prices are soaring. With this being the case, why then don’t the NHS and other health care facilities look elsewhere? Is there no other option? In fact, there is another option which is rapidly emerging as the new go-to sanitiser during the CoViD-19 pandemic; Hypochlorous Acid (HOCl). What is Hypochlorous Acid? HOCI is generated when white blood cells attack harmful bacteria and is harmless to the human body. In December 2019 Optometry Times published an article on HOCl and they explain it much better than I can… “HOCl is a weak acid that occurs naturally in our body. Neutrophils are white blood cells that are the first to arrive on site when an invading pathogen is detected. Neutrophils will chase down and engulf the pathogen through phagocytosis. Upon contact, neutrophils release a burst of bactericidal chemicals including its most powerful oxidizing agent, HOCl. This kills the pathogen by tearing down the cell membranes and proteins”. Optometry Times called HOCl “the perfect weapon to fight germs. It hits hard against pathogens like Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) and Pseudomonas Aeroginosa. Yet this powerful weapon is 100 percent safe for humans, chemical free, non-toxic and all-natural”. Due to these attributes HOCl is being widely used in South Korea in their battle against CoViD-19, disinfecting everything from food to people to hospital wards and their mass transit systems. Looking at the way in which they have taken control of the spread of the virus it is clear to see that HOCl can also help the United Kingdom to gain the upper hand in this struggle. https://www.belle.org.uk/news-1/2020/4/2/why-the-nhs-and-private-clinics-should-look-to-hypochlorous-acid-rather-than-alcohol-based-sanitisers
=============
beer$$money ?
Sunday, April 12, 2020 8:04:27 PM Re: BIGBUCKS post# 83703
Post # 83709 of 83745 Alex Guttman Author> Huge interest being developed on LinkedIN VP marketing and Research at Ace Janitorial, Sales Mgr Escalator Cleaning company, Senior VP HAI Consultants
Randy Stiles can't mention names without permission but I can say that most of the major healthcare systems in NYC are now using our system
Randy Stiles +Executive Account Manager at Paylidify
Jon Pickett, MBA is this being used at all Memorial Healthcare Locations? The feedback on the system has been great.
Jody Read CEO at PCT Health, PCT LTD
Glad to see that the efforts of the entire team at ACE and PCT to bring this system to market has been a success and we are looking forward to placing these systems into every hospital, surgical center, nursing homes, and long-term care facilities!
Good am Mr Jody.could I represent your company in Dubai.? Tnx
Fritz Oehler Executive Director at Sprenger Health Care Systems Looks like this product could be an answer to many infection control issues in our industry.
Sunday, April 12, 2020 8:53:14 PM Re: BIGBUCKS post# 83629
Post # 83715 of 83745 Some additional DD. The full section in that recent PCTL release includes: Quote:
The company has also been hiring additional support staff to support growing business operations. Most recently, the company engaged Joseph Tippmann, graduate of The University of Michigan’s Industrial Design and Architecture program, as a new design engineer. Tippmann joined the company on a contract basis initially and has spent the past two weeks performing design updates on Annihilyzer and Hydrolyte Rack systems in addition to helping design a more modular system for easier assembly. Tippmann is also a co-owner of Werks Manufacturing, a Fort Wayne, Indiana based manufacturing company which PCTL engages for the purpose of manufacturing and assembling parts for use in the company’s Annihilyzer® Infection Control System and other systems. Werks Manufacturing is expanding their operation and will increase parts and assembly production to meet PCTL’s growing demand. In addition, Werks will also serve as a fluid depot for PCTL’s clients in the northern Midwest part of the United States. Werks will initially be capable of producing up to 4,000 gallons per day of disinfecting fluids, including Hydrolyte®, for sale and use by PCTL to clients in Detroit, Chicago, and throughout the region. This fluid production capacity can be increased as needed to serve growing demand.
I could not find much on google in regards to Joseph Tippmann. I did find Werks Manufacturing Inc. = http://werksmfg.com ;... but ... website is “under construction”. It appears to be located at 2300 Meyer Road Fort Wayne, IN 46803. It appears the phone number might be (260) 428-2698. Also at this address appears to be: Advanced Media Integration LLC = Video production service = Vincent P Tippmann. same phone number?
I did also find Vincent P. Tippmann at this website: https://vptag.com/ Tippmann Affiliated Group is a family owned organization with a diversified group of business segments throughout North America and around the world. Approaching a half-century in business, Tippmann Affiliated Group businesses hold 17 patents and numerous product and service awards in various industries, including Automotive, Food Service, Refrigeration, Medical Device and Transportation. As it stands today, Tippmann Affiliated Group remains a family owned organization with a diversified group of business segments throughout North America and around the world. Headquartered in Fort Wayne, IN, Tippmann Affiliated Group operates its main campus on 75 acres and 810,000 sq/ft. of manufacturing and office space. 4410 New Haven Ave Fort Wayne, IN 46803. Phone:(260) 428-2500. It appears that 2300 Meyer Road Fort Wayne, IN 46803 is immediately adjacent to 4410 New Haven Ave Fort Wayne, IN 46803. Father & son? Could Vincent Tippman be the co-owner of Werks Manufacturing (together with Joseph Tippmann?
=====================
Ronin Wednesday, 04/15/20 10:42:51 AM Re: TKane post# 86153 Post # 86171 of 86190
News hit DOW JONES and BUSINESS wire! Lots of eyes on this now!
Evaluate Wednesday, April 15, 2020 3:12:04 PM Re: Evaluate post# 86473 Post # 86479 of 86491 https://pureandclean.us/disinfectant-sanitizer-gallon/ It appears that Pure & Clean is a distributor for PCT's HOCl, at 460 PPM, since their web page shows it is a distributor of EPA Reg. No. 92108-1. Only available in the following states: Florida, Kansas Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, Oklahoma and Texas. For all other states, please order the Surface Cleaner Pro products: https://pureandclean.us/surface-cleanser-pro/ Pure&Clean Disinfectant/Sanitizer? 460 ppm HOCl. This is a New Generation Disinfectant formulated using Hypochlorous Acid (HOCl) that cleans, deodorizes, and disinfects. As a distributor of EPA Reg. No. 92108-1, the product pure&clean™ (EPA Reg. No. 92108-1-88098) is included on the list of products approved by the US
=====================
BIGBUCKS Wednesday, April 15, 2020 3:09:42 PM Re: None Post # 86478 of 86491 PCT LTD Reports Q3 2019 Financials; Revenue Increases 435%, Operating Expenses Decrease
At 0’37: it shows that the “Annihilyzer is “Presented By: Annihilare and Paradigm Convergence Technology Corp” I was surprised to see this. Question: Does Annihilare also share in the revenues/profits of selling/leasing Annihilyzers?
=========== BRITT2575 ? Friday, 04/17/20 12:41:50 AM Re: None ? 0 Post # 88648 of 88658
PCT EUROPE LTD SIGNS DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT WITH UK NHS COMPANY, RECEIVES ADDITIONAL NYC HOSPITAL ORDER April 17 2020 - 12:08AM InvestorsHub NewsWire Print PCT EUROPE LTD SIGNS DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT WITH UK NHS COMPANY, RECEIVES ADDITIONAL NYC HOSPITAL ORDER
Little River, SC -- April 17, 2020 -- InvestorsHub NewsWire -- PCT LTD (OTC Pink: PCTL) is pleased to announce new growth and expansion activities in the UK and NYC. PCT Europe Ltd, the UK-based partner of PCTL is pleased to announce they have signed an exclusive trading partnership/distributor agreement with an NHS (U.K. National Health Service) company.
In tandem with PCT Europe Ltd, the UK NHS company will introduce PCT technology to each NHS Hospital Trust with the intention of them rolling out PCT's unique technology and system throughout the health services 233 Trusts comprising over 600 hospitals. In addition, approximately 14,000 Care Homes in the U.K. will also be introduced to PCT's technology. A steady flow of orders is expected to commence throughout the remainder of 2020 and into 2021.
The first PCT system has now been installed in a large NHS hospital in the north of England. This system is expected to enter clinical service early in May once the final series of biological tests of the PCT hospital disinfectant solution have been completed. Results of these tests have so far demonstrated that the PCT disinfectant has met or exceeded its ability to kill the range of pathogens previously achieved during EPA tests in the United States.
"We couldn't be happier with the results thus far in our UK trials and are delighted with the progress our UK partner is making. This arrangement will introduce our system to thousands of hospitals and healthcare facilities," says PCTL CEO Gary Grieco. "At the same time, the reality of the current healthcare crisis both domestically and abroad is sobering. We're thrilled to be able to grow our business but nevertheless remain focused on our core mission which from day one has always been helping people."
The company continues to expand domestically as well. Following an earlier release dated April 14th, the company is also announcing an additional purchase order for PCT Corp.'s Annihilyzer® Infection Control Systems in New York City.
The order comes from a large NYC hospital with a current bed count in excess of 2,500. Installation will be made in coordination with PCT Corp's primary healthcare distributor, ACE Janitorial Services.
"With three PO's for our infection control system this week and more on the way, we continue to make strides both in growing our business as well as our goal of helping our clients fight the spread of infectious diseases," says Grieco. "We are on pace for unprecedented and record growth in all areas of our business."
Additional News and Corporate Updates:
PCTL would like to warn its stockholders and potential investors that material corporate information regarding sales, areas of business and other corporate updates will only be made through press releases or filings with the SEC. PCTL does not utilize social media, chatrooms or other online sources to disclose material information. The public should only rely on official press releases and corporate filings for accurate and up to date information regarding PCTL.
Post # 92362 of 92385 PCTL> UK NHS is the largest single healthcare delivery organisation in the world.
SELLING TO THE NHS
SUMMARY This guide outlines the structures that exist to help companies contact and sell existing and innovative products into the NHS, a huge organisation which can appear very complex.
IN BRIEF NHS Supply Chain Procurement routes – national, regional and local contracts
Products for GP prescription
Estates – capital equipment
Innovation – new products
The NHS is the largest single healthcare delivery organisation in the world. It constitutes a major opportunity for UK medical device companies. NHS trusts can purchase products through one of five main routes:
Directly from suppliers using National Framework Contracts
From the NHS Supply Chain which provides end-to-end supply chain services incorporating procurement, logistics, e-commerce and customer and supplier support
The NHS Supply Chain is a single organisation created for the benefit of NHS trusts, hospitals and other healthcare organisations. The organisation combines the former NHS Logistics Authority, significant parts of the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency, expertise in healthcare logistics from DHL and procurement experience from Novation.
PROCUREMENT ROUTES National contracts Tenders: Contracts for products and services valued at over £90,319 (01 Jan 2008) must be advertised in the Supplement to the daily Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU). Procurement levels change, but you can confirm the current level by visiting: http://www.ojec.com.
NHS-sid: This is the official NHS supplier information database on which companies can enter their information for free:
http://www.sid4health.nhs.uk. It rationalises the management of pre-qualification data during the procurement process and can only be fully accessed by authorised NHS personnel. Suppliers looking to compete for advertised NHS contracts must still submit applications in the required format. Any supplier is free to register its services on NHS-sid. The information published is made freely available to NHS users. Registering on this system does not imply that a supplier has any special or ‘approved’ status. Regional contracts Collaborative organisations: Most NHS trusts are now partners in ‘collaborative procurement organisations’ where, normally on a regional basis, they can share information and resources to achieve economies of scale.
Local contracts Individual trust contracts: Local contracts are often managed by a trust’s supplies department. Its approach to suppliers will vary according to the value, size and complexity of its requirements. DH has set down procurement guidelines indicating that for contracts valued below £3,000 a trust should ask for telephone quotes; for contracts valued between £3,000 and £10,000, it should request a minimum of three written quotes; for contracts valued above £10,000, a minimum of three formal written tenders should be sought. Actual interpretations of these guidelines vary from trust to trust.
PRODUCTS FOR GP PRESCRIPTION
Suppliers wishing to list their products under the Drug Tariff for prescription by GPs or nurses must seek approval from the NHS Business Service Authority (NHSBSA). These will usually be products for self-administration, possibly with a carer’s help, and will normally fall into the following categories: dressings, bandage and associated appliances, incontinence appliances, stoma appliances, and chemical reagents. If the NHSBSA grant approval, the cost, either comparatively with other similar products, or, if it is a new treatment regime, by comparison with alternatives, will be reimbursed. You can access the application form at: www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk.
ESTATES – CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
DH uses two major Public and Private Partnerships (PPPs) to deliver its NHS Plan: the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) and NHS Local Improvement Finance Trust (LIFT). The NHS ProCure 21 Framework brings the NHS and the construction industry together for new-build projects. You can find information on PPPs and associated procurement policies at: www.dh.gov.uk.
INNOVATION – NEW PRODUCTS
The procurement routes above apply to established products. If you are a supplier of innovative products, you should be aware of the organisations involved in product approval:
The UK Medicines and Healthcare product Regulatory Agency (MHRA) This is the government agency responsible for ensuring that medicines and medical devices work and are safe.
Regulatory affairs: Medical devices can only be placed on the market in the UK/EU if they are certified safe, are of the required quality to fulfill the manufacturer’s ‘intended purpose’ and comply with the appropriate Medical Device Directive (CE marking). The MHRA audits the performance of manufacturers and notifies bodies responsible for granting CE marks. You can find more details at: www.mhra.gov.uk.
Clinical trials: The MHRA approves clinical trials/investigations and provides guidance for manufacturers. To obtain a CE mark, a manufacturer must show that the device complies with the relevant ‘Essential Requirements’ of the appropriate Medical Device Directive. In some instances, a clinical investigation will be required. The MHRA website (listed above) provides guidance on this issue.
Small Business Research Initiative (SBRI): The new SBRI is a cross-government programme for the procurement of technology development projects, including the demonstration and evaluation of new technologies. DH has run a pilot SBRI competition in Healthcare Associated Infections in conjunction with the Technology Strategy Board. The benefit to the Department and the NHS is to make new developments available faster and more effectively. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) NICE (www.nice.org.uk) is responsible for providing national guidance on the promotion of good health and the prevention and treatment of ill health. Its activities include:
Technology appraisals – Recommendations on the use of new and existing medicines and treatments within the NHS, based upon a review of clinical and economic evidence Interventional procedure guidance – Many of the procedures that NICE investigates are new, but it also looks at more established procedures if there is uncertainty about their safety or how well they work
NHS National Innovation Centre (NIC): NIC determines the need for innovative products, particularly in the development stage, and speeds up the development and adoption of those that deliver the best results for patients. It provides a point of entry to innovators of healthcare technology via its website and through a web-based assessment process. By considering ideas and products at every stage, it can direct them to the most.
ACTION NEEDED Pctl has been trying to get in contact with the government to make them aware of our machine & what it can do We can help with & in our numbers send them copies of the DD that’s been posted
This is the contact point in government that needs to know about pctl Paradigm Convergence Technology. (Read below)
Info they’ll need: PODCAST LINK click Click in search....Pctl
This is who we can contact in government to make them aware of our machine.
point of entry for the submission of market research packages and meeting requests from interested stakeholders. The U.S. government, in response to the COVID-19 outbreak, seeks information from stakeholders on available medical countermeasures in development. We are particularly interested in products and technologies that have progressed into or beyond non-clinical trials, have established large-scale cGMP manufacturing capability, or utilize an approved platform. Information regarding diagnostics, therapeutics, vaccines, and other products or technologies relevant to addressing this outbreak are sought. At this time, we ask for a brief description of your product or technology, accompanied by a slide deck, manuscript, publications, or other non-confidential information of your choosing. Please note that while we will use any information you present as market research, submission is no guarantee of a meeting or funding and your submission will be shared across U.S. Government agencies involved in COVID-19 medical countermeasure research and development. Only U.S. government officials are invited to join a CoronaWatch meeting, and are bound by law to maintain confidentiality of what is presented and discussed. Ideal technologies and products would (but are not required to) be: * - Relevant to the U.S. government COVID-19 medical countermeasure research and development efforts and/or Emerging .Infectious Disease rapid response capabilities * - Utilize an already-approved platform, have non-clinical data suggesting efficacy, and/or have significant manufacturing capability * - Fully owned or licensed by your organization (you have full IP rights and/or freedom to operate)
Would you like to meet with a federal agency regarding a product that you are developing for COVID-19? If you are interested in requesting a CoronaWatch meeting, please Register for an account and Login, or if you have an account Login to submit some basic product information.
Paradigm Convergence Technologies Corporation Summarized Due Diligence Sheet for Investing [color=red]
ACTION NEEDEDPctl has been trying to get in contact with the government to make them aware of our machine & what it can do We can help with & in our numbers send them copies of the DD that’s been
This is the contact point in government that needs to know about pctl Paradigm Convergence Technology. (Read below)
This is who we can contact in government to make them aware of our machine.
point of entry for the submission of market research packages and meeting requests from interested stakeholders. The U.S. government, in response to the COVID-19 outbreak, seeks information from stakeholders on available medical countermeasures in development. We are particularly interested in products and technologies that have progressed into or beyond non-clinical trials, have established large-scale cGMP manufacturing capability, or utilize an approved platform. Information regarding diagnostics, therapeutics, vaccines, and other products or technologies relevant to addressing this outbreak are sought. At this time, we ask for a brief description of your product or technology, accompanied by a slide deck, manuscript, publications, or other non-confidential information of your choosing. Please note that while we will use any information you present as market research, submission is no guarantee of a meeting or funding and your submission will be shared across U.S. Government agencies involved in COVID-19 medical countermeasure research and development. Only U.S. government officials are invited to join a CoronaWatch meeting, and are bound by law to maintain confidentiality of what is presented and discussed. Ideal technologies and products would (but are not required to) be: * - Relevant to the U.S. government COVID-19 medical countermeasure research and development efforts and/or Emerging .Infectious Disease rapid response capabilities * - Utilize an already-approved platform, have non-clinical data suggesting efficacy, and/or have significant manufacturing capability * - Fully owned or licensed by your organization (you have full IP rights and/or freedom to operate)
Would you like to meet with a federal agency regarding a product that you are developing for COVID-19? If you are interested in requesting a CoronaWatch meeting, please Register for an account and Login, or if you have an account Login to submit some basic product information.
Company Site: para-con.com Twitter: @PCTL2020 Investor Relations Chesapeake Group - Get on the email list for news info@chesapeakegp.com
About: a technology licensing company specializing in environmentally safe solutions for global sustainability with products for various markets they serve.
Mission: Infectious Disease and Contamination Control
About Products: Products and solutions are designed to take an environmentally conscious approach to combating the spread of infectious disease in the Healthcare and Cleaning industries, as well as contributing to the sustainability of global natural resources in the energy and agriculture markets.
The PCT Annihilyzer® Patented Monitoring, Tracking & Reporting System The Kiosk, which sits on top of the Filling Station Cabinet, houses The PCT Annihilyzer® System’s computer controls, information system, RFID tagging and reading system and an interactive touch screen display.
---FINANCIAL INFO---
Filings: LINK
Current info as of 3/9/20 Authorized- 1,000,000,000 Outstanding- 511,315,300 Restricted- 35,139,690
Standard Registrar and Transfer Company 440 East 400 South, Suite 200 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Phone: 801-571-8844 or 801-596-2150 www.standardtransferco.com Amy Merrill Email: amy@standardregistrar.com
---CURRENT CLIENT LIST---
1: Morgan Stanley Presbyterian Children’s Hospital. (3959 Broadway At, W 165 St, New York NY 10032)
2: Mount Sinai South Nassau Hospital (1 Healthy Way, Oceanside NY 11572)
3: Carson Tahoe Regional Medical Center (1600 Medical Pkwy, Carson City NV 89703)
4: SUNY Downstate Medical Center (450 Clarkson Ave, Brooklyn NY 11203)
6: Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center ??? Maybe (1275 York Avenue New York, NY 10065)
7: North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust, (UK Trial underway began Jan 15th 2020 - 60 day trial) (University Hospital of Hartlepool, Holdforth Road, Hartlepool, TS24 9AH) (University Hospital of North Tees, Hardwick, Stockton on Tees, TS19 8PE)
8: New York Presbyterian Columbia Hospital (Ranked Top 5 in the Nation) (622 W 168th St, New York NY 10032) ---VP recently endorsed in a LinkedIn post---
9: New York Hospital -- as per PR Release (labeled #1 below)
---PR & RELATED INFORMATION---
1. 03/11/20 - PCT LTD Experiencing Rapid Increase in Interest and Receives Purchase Order from Additional Hospital in New York City PR LINK
2. 03/09/20 - Interview: PCT LTD Hospital Infection Control System installed in seven hospitals and expanding INTERVIEW LINK
3. 02/14/20 - PCT LTD Schedules Investor Call (Call took place on 2/20/20) PR LINK Audio Link (Written Summation below)
4. 01/30/20 - PCT LTD Executes Term Sheet for Debt Financing PR LINK
5. 01/08/20 - PCT LTD Discusses Their International Expansion and Growth Strategy with The Stock Day Podcast PR LINK
6. 12/16/19 - PCT LTD Issues Company Update and Signs Collaborative Agreement for Oil & Gas, and Cannabis Applications PR LINK
7. 10/31/19 - PCT LTD Continues to Expand By Signing Agreement with SUNY Downstate Medical Center Worth over $500,000 PR LINK
8. 10/25/19 - 3rd Quarter 8K released (see above FILINGS link)
9. 10/22/19 - Hospital-acquired Infection Control Market Is Estimated To Expand At a Healthy CAGR in the Upcoming Forecast Period MARKET RESEARCH PR
10. 10/22/19 - PCT LTD Deploys Initial Annihilyzer(R) Infection Control System to the United Kingdom PR LINK
11. 10/4/19 - PCT LTD Announces Additional Hospital Installation of Annihilyzer(R) Infection Control System PR LINK
12. 7/26/19 - The Infection Prevention Strategy is pleased to announce our Top Innovations of the Year: 2019 (Annihilyzer) PR LINK
13. 5/6/2019 - PCT LTD Announces New Purchase Order as the Result of a Successful Trial of Annihilyzer® Infection Control Systems (A TOP 5 hospital in the U.S. AND --#1 in NY-- CONVERTED from Trial to a customer AFTER a successful trial period) - Morgan Stanley Presbyterian Children’s Hospital PR LINK
14. 2/25/19 - PCT LTD Installs a Large Volume Hydrolyte® System with Option Agreement for 4 additional LVH Systems with Oil & Gas Industry Customer PR LINK
15. 1/10/19 - PCT LTD Executes New Master Service Agreement for Installation of Annihilyzer® Hospital Infection Control System at Carson Tahoe Regional Medical Center PR LINK
16. 11/08/18 - PCT LTD Announces Completion of Major Commercialization Milestones and Promotion of Jody Read to CEO Position PR LINK
17. 5/16/18 - Newly Launched Disinfecting System Reduces Hospital Acquired Infections PR LINK
18. 5/10/18 - PCT LTD Receives Patents for RFID Tracking Technology in Cleaning System (US Patent#9679170) PR LINK
3rd Quarter 10Q In final review with auditors & SEC Attorneys Expected to be completed in up to 3 weeks (updated per IR email--- expected in the next week)
10K Expected to be filed by April 13th
Convertible Notes "very active negotiations" to come to a resolve by time of 10K filing (April 13th)
No material change is O/S in months
very actively negotiating financing with negligible, if any, dissolution No anticipation of R/S
---Growth of about 400% in 2019--- on target to grow exponentially in 2020
G&A down significantly company become more efficicent, losses narrowed significantly down around 75% from 2018
---Currently Doing---
PCT UK joint venture partner Trial ongoing: Universities as well as hospitals involved to verify U.S. results "unless bacteria and virsuses are any different, which they aren't, don't anticipate any difficulty verifying claims"
"Preliminary discussions between PCT UK and National Healthcare system of the UK"
---Markets--- Primary Focus on healthcare sector - hospitals, medical centers assisted living, rehab facilities
Secondarily - Oil & Gas, remediation of Hydrogen Sulfide (very poisonous, corrosive, and flammable)
Recently - Cannabis Industry - purveyor of service "Happy to discover our product greatly mitigates or totally eliminates the 3 major problems they are having"
---Current Placement--- (Does not include newest NY Hospital announced above in PR on 3/11/20) 8 hospitals, 11 units installed with "3 more slated in next few weeks with more behind it"
Endorsement from VP of MY Presbyterian [Suppressed Image]
Not sure how many are aware of BARDA, but I came across a post on Twitter this evening and after doing a little digging, found this:
Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, was established to aid in securing our nation from chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) threats, as well as from pandemic influenza (PI) and emerging infectious diseases (EID).
In my eyes that's most certainly an organization that should be aware of the Annihilyzer product, so I connected with their Director, Rick B and provided a post on Linkedin for more exposure to their request of building out a comprehensive portfolio of COVID-19 countermeasures. See below.
(For my privacy, I did redact my information on the image)
Post made to BARDA Director, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Preparedness & Response - U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
[Suppressed Image]
Post made to BARDA Director, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Preparedness & Response - U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
UPDATED DUE DILIGENCE 3-17 - RESEARCH NOW Below is a good portion of the DD done here, by myself and others. Do YOURS now! (Also pinned on top of board)
Paradigm Convergence Technologies Corporation Summarized Due Diligence Sheet for Investing
---GENERAL INFORMATION---
Company Site: para-con.com Twitter: @PCTL2020 - (I urge you to follow them and review their posts) Investor Relations Chesapeake Group - Get on the email list for news info@chesapeakegp.com
About: a technology licensing company specializing in environmentally safe solutions for global sustainability with products for various markets they serve.
Mission: Infectious Disease and Contamination Control
About Products: Products and solutions are designed to take an environmentally conscious approach to combating the spread of infectious disease in the Healthcare and Cleaning industries, as well as contributing to the sustainability of global natural resources in the energy and agriculture markets.
The PCT Annihilyzer® Patented Monitoring, Tracking & Reporting System The Kiosk, which sits on top of the Filling Station Cabinet, houses The PCT Annihilyzer® System’s computer controls, information system, RFID tagging and reading system and an interactive touch screen display.
---FINANCIAL INFO---
Filings: LINK
Current info as of 3/9/20 Authorized- 1,000,000,000 Outstanding- 511,315,300 Restricted- 35,139,690
Standard Registrar and Transfer Company 440 East 400 South, Suite 200 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Phone: 801-571-8844 or 801-596-2150 www.standardtransferco.com Amy Merrill Email: amy@standardregistrar.com
---CURRENT CLIENT LIST---
1: Morgan Stanley Presbyterian Children’s Hospital. (3959 Broadway At, W 165 St, New York NY 10032)
2: Mount Sinai South Nassau Hospital (1 Healthy Way, Oceanside NY 11572)
3: Carson Tahoe Regional Medical Center (1600 Medical Pkwy, Carson City NV 89703)
4: SUNY Downstate Medical Center (450 Clarkson Ave, Brooklyn NY 11203)
6: Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center ??? Maybe (1275 York Avenue New York, NY 10065)
7: North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust, (UK Trial underway began Jan 15th 2020 - 60 day trial) (University Hospital of Hartlepool, Holdforth Road, Hartlepool, TS24 9AH) (University Hospital of North Tees, Hardwick, Stockton on Tees, TS19 8PE)
8: New York Presbyterian Columbia Hospital (Ranked Top 5 in the Nation) (622 W 168th St, New York NY 10032) ---VP recently endorsed in a LinkedIn post---
9: New York Hospital -- as per PR Release (labeled #1 below)
---PR & RELATED INFORMATION---
1. 03/18/20 - PCT LTD Receives Large Purchase Order for Recurring Sales of Fluids for Non-Medical Use and Explains Current Revenue Streams PR LINK
2. 03/16/20 - PCT LTD Interview with Stock Day Podcast (MUST LISTEN) PR LINK
3. 03/13/20 - PCT LTD Adds International Distributor and Sells High-Volume Equipment to Existing Customer as a Result of Heightened Demand PR LINK
4. 03/11/20 - PCT LTD Experiencing Rapid Increase in Interest and Receives Purchase Order from Additional Hospital in New York City PR LINK
5. 03/09/20 - Interview: PCT LTD Hospital Infection Control System installed in seven hospitals and expanding INTERVIEW LINK
6. 02/14/20 - PCT LTD Schedules Investor Call (Call took place on 2/20/20) PR LINK Audio Link (Written Summation below)
7. 01/30/20 - PCT LTD Executes Term Sheet for Debt Financing PR LINK
8. 01/08/20 - PCT LTD Discusses Their International Expansion and Growth Strategy with The Stock Day Podcast PR LINK
9. 12/16/19 - PCT LTD Issues Company Update and Signs Collaborative Agreement for Oil & Gas, and Cannabis Applications PR LINK
10. 10/31/19 - PCT LTD Continues to Expand By Signing Agreement with SUNY Downstate Medical Center Worth over $500,000 PR LINK
11. 10/25/19 - 3rd Quarter 8K released (see above FILINGS link)
12. 10/22/19 - Hospital-acquired Infection Control Market Is Estimated To Expand At a Healthy CAGR in the Upcoming Forecast Period MARKET RESEARCH PR
13. 10/22/19 - PCT LTD Deploys Initial Annihilyzer(R) Infection Control System to the United Kingdom PR LINK
14. 10/4/19 - PCT LTD Announces Additional Hospital Installation of Annihilyzer(R) Infection Control System PR LINK
15. 7/26/19 - The Infection Prevention Strategy is pleased to announce our Top Innovations of the Year: 2019 (Annihilyzer) PR LINK
16. 5/6/2019 - PCT LTD Announces New Purchase Order as the Result of a Successful Trial of Annihilyzer® Infection Control Systems (A TOP 5 hospital in the U.S. AND --#1 in NY-- CONVERTED from Trial to a customer AFTER a successful trial period) - Morgan Stanley Presbyterian Children’s Hospital PR LINK
17. 2/25/19 - PCT LTD Installs a Large Volume Hydrolyte® System with Option Agreement for 4 additional LVH Systems with Oil & Gas Industry Customer PR LINK
18. 1/10/19 - PCT LTD Executes New Master Service Agreement for Installation of Annihilyzer® Hospital Infection Control System at Carson Tahoe Regional Medical Center PR LINK
19. 11/08/18 - PCT LTD Announces Completion of Major Commercialization Milestones and Promotion of Jody Read to CEO Position PR LINK
20. 5/16/18 - Newly Launched Disinfecting System Reduces Hospital Acquired Infections PR LINK
21. 5/10/18 - PCT LTD Receives Patents for RFID Tracking Technology in Cleaning System (US Patent#9679170) PR LINK
3rd Quarter 10Q In final review with auditors & SEC Attorneys Expected to be completed in up to 3 weeks (updated per IR email--- expected in the next week)
10K Expected to be filed by April 13th
Convertible Notes "very active negotiations" to come to a resolve by time of 10K filing (April 13th)
No material change is O/S in months
very actively negotiating financing with negligible, if any, dissolution No anticipation of R/S
---Growth of about 400% in 2019--- on target to grow exponentially in 2020
G&A down significantly company become more efficicent, losses narrowed significantly down around 75% from 2018
---Currently Doing---
PCT UK joint venture partner Trial ongoing: Universities as well as hospitals involved to verify U.S. results "unless bacteria and virsuses are any different, which they aren't, don't anticipate any difficulty verifying claims"
"Preliminary discussions between PCT UK and National Healthcare system of the UK"
---Markets--- Primary Focus on healthcare sector - hospitals, medical centers assisted living, rehab facilities
Secondarily - Oil & Gas, remidiation of Hydrogen Sulfide (very poisonous, corrosive, and flammable)
Recently - Cannabis Industry - purveyor of service "Happy to discover our product greatly mitigates or totally elimiants the 3 major problems they are having"
---Current Placement--- (Does not include newest NY Hospital announced above in PR on 3/11/20) 8 hospitals, 11 units installed with "3 more slated in next few weeks with more behind it"
Endorsement from VP of MY Presbyterian and other execs [Suppressed Image]
[Suppressed Image]
[Suppressed Image]
[Suppressed Image]
Not sure how many are aware of BARDA, but I came across a post on Twitter this evening and after doing a little digging, found this:
Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, was established to aid in securing our nation from chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) threats, as well as from pandemic influenza (PI) and emerging infectious diseases (EID).
In my eyes that's most certainly an organization that should be aware of the Annihilyzer product, so I connected with their Director, Rick B and provided a post on Linkedin for more exposure to their request of building out a. comprehensive portfolio of COVID-19 countermeasures. See below.
(For my privacy, I did redact my information on the image)
Post made to BARDA Director, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Preparedness & Response - U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
================= exactly what the EPA said
Quote:
List N includes products that meet EPA’s criteria for use against SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus that causes the disease COVID-19.
The key word here is against The EPA does not come out and say any products on these lists will kill CV-19. However I doubt the EPA would use a strong word as against in the above statement.
Quote:
Note: Inclusion on this list does not constitute an endorsement by EPA. There may be additional disinfectants that meet the criteria for use against SARS-CoV-2. EPA will update this list with additional products as needed.
It's pretty obvious this disclaimer is stating the EPA does not endorse as in recommend any product that's listed. They do not because it would constitute marketing for that product.... The EPA also recognizes that there are other products that meet the criteria against SARS-CV-2 AKA Coronavirus. Why do they make this statement? Because there are other products that are registered with the EPA that are not on this list that meets the criteria against CV-19
Nothing hard to understand there. Here is the a pic of it below:
[Suppressed Image]
Lets move on
List N: Disinfectants for Use Against SARS-CoV-2 | Pesticide ...www.epa.gov › pesticide-registration › list-n-disinfectants-use-against-... If a product qualified for the Emerging Viral Pathogen Claim, it demonstrated efficacy against a harder-to-kill virus than the enveloped human coronavirus
From this statement we know that EXCELYTE which meets this criteria. How do we know this? We know because they are on the N list under EPA registration 92108-1. I also believe this Reg number can be used against the harder to lill Norovirus. Coronavirus is easier to kill than Norovirus. Any amount of basic DD will show that.
Below is the reg and product number for EXCELYTE [Suppressed Image]
Finally Below is the EPA reg link for EXCELYTE showing it's registered to PCT Ltd. This link is the original registration.
Pretty basic stuff is you ask me lol ============== Pics of the product - Sorry about it being sideways
[Suppressed Image]
[Suppressed Image]
[Suppressed Image]
============ PCT LTD Obtains EPA Approval for Emerging Pathogens Labeling for Use Against SARS-CoV-2, the Novel Coronavirus That Causes the Disease COVID-19 Business WireMarch 27, 2020, 9:49 AM CST
PCT LTD (OTC Pink: PCTL) ("PCTL") is pleased to announce that it has received approval for "emerging pathogens" labeling with the US EPA.
The application was filed under the guidance document "Guidance to Registrants: Process for Making Claims Against Emerging Viral Pathogens Not on EPA-Registered Disinfectant Labels." It was approved on March 26th, 2020. The guidance document provides the following information regarding different classes of viruses and their resistance to being killed by disinfectants:
EPA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recognize that certain microorganisms can be ranked with respect to their tolerance to chemical disinfectants. The Spaulding Classification model, used by CDC, tiers microorganisms in accordance with the level of resistance to being killed (inactivation) by typical disinfectant products. With this approach viruses are divided into three viral subgroups (small non-enveloped, large non-enveloped, and enveloped) based on their relative resistance to inactivation … According to this hierarchy, if an antimicrobial product can kill a small, non-enveloped virus it should be able to kill any large, non-enveloped virus or any enveloped virus. Similarly, a product that can kill a large, non-enveloped virus should be able to kill any enveloped virus.
Small, Non-Enveloped Viruses (<50 nm): These small, non-enveloped viruses can be highly resistant to inactivation by disinfection. Despite the lack of a lipid envelope, these organisms have a very resistant protein capsid…
Large, Non-Enveloped Viruses: Compared to small, non-enveloped viruses, these viruses are less resistant to inactivation by disinfection. Although they have a resistant protein capsid, their larger size (50-100nm) makes them more vulnerable than their smaller viral counterparts…
Enveloped Viruses: Enveloped viruses are the least resistant to inactivation by disinfection. The structure of these viruses includes a lipid envelope, which is easily compromised by most disinfectants. Once the lipid envelope is damaged, the integrity of the virus is compromised, thereby neutralizing its infectivity.
In addition to being "an EPA-registered, hospital/healthcare or broad-spectrum disinfectant …", in order to meet product eligibility criteria, the product "should have disinfectant efficacy claims against at least one of the following viral pathogen groupings:
a) A product should be approved by EPA to inactivate at least one large or one small non-enveloped virus to be eligible for use against an enveloped emerging viral pathogen.
b) A product should be approved by EPA to inactivate at least one small, non-enveloped virus to be eligible for use against a large, non-enveloped emerging viral pathogen.
c) A product should be approved by EPA to inactivate at least two small, non-enveloped viruses with each from a different viral family to be eligible for use against a small, non-enveloped emerging viral pathogen.
This approach, where disinfectant products registered for use against viral pathogens in one category of the Spaulding Classification model can be presumed effective against viral pathogens in less-resistant categories, is intended to serve as a conservative approach to identifying disinfectant products likely to be effective against emerging pathogens."
As a result of meeting all of the Product Eligibility Criteria, PCT LTD can now make the following statement "only through the following communication outlets: … "1-800" consumer information services, social media sites and company websites (non-label related) … [as well as] technical literature distributed exclusively to health care facilities, physicians, nurses and public health officials":
This Product meets the criteria to make claims against certain emerging viral pathogens from the following viral category[ies]:
Enveloped Viruses
Large Non-Enveloped Viruses
Small Non-Enveloped Viruses
For an emerging viral pathogen that is a/an… …follow the directions for use for the following organisms on the label: Enveloped virus Norovirus Large, non-enveloped virus Norovirus Small, non-enveloped virus Norovirus, Rhinovirus (Type 16)
Hydrolyte® has demonstrated effectiveness against viruses similar to SARS-CoV-2 virus on hard, non-porous surfaces. Therefore, Hydrolyte® can be used against SARS-CoV-2 virus when used in accordance with the directions for use against Norovirus and Rhinovirus type 16 on hard, non-porous surfaces. Refer to the CDC website at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/home/cleaning-disinfection.html for additional information.
COVID-19 is caused by SARS-CoV-2 virus. Hydrolyte® kills similar viruses and therefore can be used against SARS-CoV-2 virus when used in accordance with the directions for use against Norovirus and Rhinovirus type 16 on hard, non-porous surfaces. Refer to the CDC website at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/home/cleaning-disinfection.html for additional information.
"We are very pleased to receive approval for an "emerging pathogens" claim on our product label," says CEO Gary Grieco. "It represents an important step for us as a business and in helping to control the spread of infectious disease as a whole. Additionally, we are now prequalified for future emerging pathogens of any virus classification."
Due to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, PCT LTD has seen an increased number of inquiries from existing clients, sub-registrants, and distributors; in addition to new and prospective customers. The company recently announced that they had temporarily shifted their focus towards producing mass quantities of disinfecting fluids to meet growing demand.
"Fluid sales have been tremendous for us," says PCT Ltd CEO Gary Grieco. "To put it simply, we are routinely shipping fluids out at rapid pace and into the hands of trained professionals where our product can be put to good use fighting the spread of infectious disease in our communities. We are limited only by our capacity to produce the fluids, but we expect to double our production capacity by April 1st."
Additional News and Corporate Updates:
PCTL would like to warn its stockholders and potential investors that material corporate information regarding sales, areas of business and other corporate updates will only be made through press releases or filings with the SEC. PCTL does not utilize social media, chatrooms or other online sources to disclose material information. The public should only rely on official press releases and corporate filings for accurate and up to date information regarding PCTL.
About PCT LTD:
PCT LTD ("PCTL") focuses its business on acquiring, developing and providing sustainable, environmentally safe disinfecting, cleaning and tracking technologies. The company acquires and holds rights to innovative products and technologies, which are commercialized through its wholly-owned operating subsidiary, Paradigm Convergence Technologies Corporation (PCT Corp). Currently trading on OTC, "PCTL" aspires to and is actively engaged in preparations for up-listing its common stock to a national securities exchange. The Company established entry into its target markets with commercially viable products in the United States and now continues to gain market share in the U.S. and U.K.
Gary Grieco, CEO and Chairman, PCT LTD (843) 390-7900 Office (843) 390-2347 Fax www.para-con.com www.pctcorphealth.com www.survivalyte.com
Brokers and Analysts: Chesapeake Group +1-410-825-3930 info@chesapeakegp.com ==================================================================================================================. CANADA INFO & LINKS BokehRebl Tuesday, 03/31/20 10:29:25 PM Re: Long term post# 78282 ? 0 Post # 78283 of 78339
Here’s THE list I put together of all relevant contact in the US and Canadien Government, Feel free to add more!
Louisiana Alexander Billioux, MD, DPhil [Bio] Assistant Secretary of Health Alexander.Billioux@LA.GOV
Maine Nirav Shah, MD, JD* Director, Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention Nirav.Shah@Maine.Gov
Maryland Robert Neall Secretary of Health Frances B. Phillips, RN, MHA [Bio] Deputy Secretary for Public Health Services S/THO Designee robert.neall@maryland.gov
Michigan Joneigh Khaldun, MD, MPH, FACEP [Bio] Chief Deputy Director for Health and CME khaldunj@michigan.gov
Minnesota Jan Malcolm [Bio] Health Commissioner jan.malcolm@state.mn.us
Mississippi Thomas Dobbs, MD, MPH* State Health Officer thomas.dobbs@msdh.ms.gov
Missouri Randall W. Williams, MD, FACOG [Bio] Director randall.williams@health.mo.gov
Montana Sheila Hogan Director Gregory Holzman, MD [Bio] Chief Medical Officer S/THO Designee gHolzman@mt.gov
Nebraska Dannette Smith, MSW * Chief Executive Officer, Nebraska Department of Health & Human Services Gary Anthone, MD Chief Medical Officer and Director, Division of Public Health S/THO Designee Dannette.Smith@nebraska.gov
Nevada Lisa Sherych, MBA* Administrator lsherych@adsd.nv.gov
New Hampshire Lisa Morris, MSSW [Bio] Director, Division of Public Health Service lisa.morris@dhhs.nh.gov
New Jersey Judith Persichilli RN, BSN, MA* Commissioner of Health Judith.Pershichilli@doh.nj.gov
New York Howard Zucker, MD, JD [Bio] Commissioner of Health howard.zucker@health.ny.gov
North Carolina Mark Benton [Bio] Assistant Secretary for Public Health mark.benton@dhhs.nc.gov
North Dakota Mylynn K. Tufte, MBA, MSIM, RN [Bio] State Health Officer mylynntufte@nd.gov
Ohio Amy Acton, MD, MPH [Bio] Director of Health DirectorAmyActon@odh.ohio.gov
Oklahoma Gary Cox, JD* Commissioner of Health GaryC@health.ok.gov
Oregon Lillian M. Shirley, BSN, MPH, MPA [Bio] Public Health Director lillian.shirley@state.or.us
Pennsylvania Rachel Levine, MD [Bio] Secretary of Health ralevine@pa.gov
Puerto Rico Rafael Rodriguez Mercado, MD, FACS, FAANS Secretary of Health Catherine De La Cruz-Duran* S/THO Designee drrafael.rodriguez@salud.pr.gov
Rhode Island Nicole Alexander-Scott, MD, MPH [Bio] Director nicole.alexanderscott@health.ri.gov
South Carolina Richard Toomey, MHA, DHA [Bio] Director, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control Rick.Toomey@dhec.sc.gov
South Dakota Kim Malsam-Rysdon [Bio] Secretary kim.malsam-rysdon@state.sd.us
Tennessee Lisa Piercey MD, MBA, FAAP [Bio] Commissioner tn.health@tn.gov
Texas John Hellerstedt, MD [Bio] Commissioner john.hellerstedt@dshs.texas.gov
Utah Joseph Miner, MD [Bio] Executive Director joeminer@utah.gov
Vermont Mark Levine, MD [Bio] Commissioner of Health mark.levine@vermont.gov
Virginia M. Norman Oliver, MD, MA [Bio] State Health Commissioner norm.oliver@vdh.virginia.gov
Washington John M. Wiesman, DrPH, MPH [Bio] Secretary of Health secretary@doh.wa.gov
West Virginia Cathy Slemp, MD, MPH [Bio] Commissioner and State Health Officer catherine.slemp@wv.gov
Wisconsin Jeanne Ayers, RN, MPH [Bio] Administrator, Division of Public Health Jeanne.Ayers@dhs.wisconsin.gov
Wyoming Alexia Harrist, MD, PhD [Bio] State Health Officer alexia.harrist1@wyo.gov —————————————
davidsan Wednesday, April 1, 2020 4:57:18 PM Re: None Post # 78774 of 78834 Can PCTL's fluid turn sour crude oil into sweet?
I vaguely remember this was something said in discussing why that large unnamed oil&gas company was so interested in setting up the customized trial they are doing. I remember clearly that it helped make the liquid involved in fracking much more environmentally friendly, much more green, with a more pure and less costly product, something to that effect. There was some big reason why that oil&gas company was so excited about it. If the oil&gas industry incorporates this into their standard processes, with the sheer volume of this fluid they will need every day, that will be HUGE, just that one piece of all this alone. Somewhere in there I thought I remembered that in the process it helped turn sour crude into sweet, just don't recall how specific that point was.
Anyone here remember?
This is so much more than just hospitals and spraying to kill the coronavirus. The agricultural/cannabis industry and oil&gas industry customized trials are going on as well.
And, of course, the UK trials are about to hit (The UK hospital trial already completed, and the 2 university studies are supposed to complete the end of March to first week of April, meaning anytime now). Just waiting on results and orders, both expected to be very favorable.
Hypochlorous Acid Market Demand Would Increase Rapidly Hypochlorous Acid Market: Excellent Microbial and Oxidizing Properties Hypochlorous acid is a weak acid formed by dissolving chlorine in water. It possesses excellent microbial and oxidizing properties. It is used as a disinfectant agent in medical, water treatment, and food additives in food & beverages industry. Sodium hypochlorite and calcium hypochlorite are the two types of hypochlorous acid. Sodium hypochlorite is a widely consumed hypochlorous acid. Sodium hypochlorite can be easily stored and transported. It is more effective than chlorine gas in various applications. Read report Overview@ https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/hypochlorous-acid-market.html Hypochlorous acid is employed in various end-user industries such as water treatment, wound management, food & beverages, oil & gas, and personal care. Demand for hypochlorous acid in the wound management segment is projected to rise significantly in the near future. Hypochlorous acid acts as an excellent disinfectant in wound healing applications. It accelerates the healing process of any wound and other infections such as eye infection, ear infection, etc. Hypochlorous acid has excellent disinfectant properties, which help destroy pathogens, bacteria, and fungi. Request PDF Brochure@ https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/sample/sample.php?flag=B&rep_id=68783 Key drivers of Hypochlorous Acid market Rise in demand for oxidizing and disinfecting agents in order to provide quality water is driving the global hypochlorous acid market. Hypochlorous acid is highly cost effective. It is non-toxic to humans and animals. Therefore, it is highly preferred in the water treatment industry. Rise in usage of hypochlorous acid in sterilizing bacterial infection by drying out blood cells is boosting its demand in the medical industry. Hypochlorous acid is also used as an active sanitizing agent in swimming pools and skin cleansing agent in cosmetic applications. It is used in the manufacture of calcium hypochlorite (Ca(OCl)2) and sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), which are further used in the manufacture of disinfectants, bleaches, and deodorants. Food & Beverage Industry and Wound Management to offer attractive opportunities Increase in usage of hypochlorous acid in the food & beverages industry is estimated to provide lucrative opportunities to manufacturers of hypochlorous acid in the near future. Hypochlorous acid is used for cleaning food processing equipment and dish washers. It is also employed as food additive in processing poultry products and seafood products. Hypochlorous acid is gaining momentum as a potential wound care agent in the pharmaceutical industry. It is a highly effective wound irrigation solution, which is entirely safe for human tissues. It aids in elimination of unpleasant wound odor and removes bacteria from wound surface. Hypochlorous Acid may form Explosive Gas in Concentrated Form likely to Restrain Market Hypochlorous acid is highly dangerous and can form explosive gas if used in concentrated form. This is anticipated to restrain the market during the forecast period. When exposed to air, it disintegrates and causes nausea, abdomen pain, etc. If released in water bodies, hypochlorous acid may harm aquatic animals, thereby adversely affecting biodiversity. These factors are estimated to restrain the demand for hypochlorous acid during the forecast period. Stuck in a neck-to-neck competition with other brands? Request a custom report on competition on Hypochlorous Acid Market here Asia Pacific Expected to Hold Leading Share in the Global Hypochlorous Acid Market In terms of region, the demand for hypochlorous acid can be split across five regions: North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, Latin America, and Middle East & Africa. In terms of consumption, Asia Pacific dominated the global hypochlorous acid market in 2018. Developing economies such as China, India, Vietnam, and Indonesia are the leading consumers of hypochlorous acid in Asia Pacific. Rapid industrialization and increase in demand for sodium hypochlorite in chemical, agriculture, and pharmaceutical industries are anticipated to fuel the hypochlorous acid market during the forecast period. Demand for hypochlorous acid in countries in Europe such as Germany, France, and the U.K. is projected to increase during the forecast period primarily due to the rise in demand for sodium and calcium hypochlorite in the food & beverages industry in the region. The U.S. is the leading consumer of hypochlorous acid in North America. Increase in demand for hypochlorous acid in industrial applications such as cooling water treatment is propelling the market in the U.S. Latin America and Middle East & Africa are highly dependent on hypochlorous acid import. This is likely to hamper the sales of hypochlorous acid in these regions. However, production capacity expansion by various manufacturers in Brazil, Mexico, and GCC is expected to augment the demand for hypochlorous acid in Latin America and Middle East & Africa during the forecast period. Key Players in Hypochlorous Acid Market: New product launches and mergers & acquisitions are the key strategies adopted by top players operating in the market. For instance, in 2018, URGO Medical, a leading player in wound care products, entered into an asset purchasing agreement with REALM Therapeutics, a biopharmaceutical company based in the U.S. REALM Therapeutics engages in research activities to discover new hypochlorous acid based treatments for atopic dermatitis and allergic conjunctivitis. This acquisition is expected to help URGO Medical become the leading player in advanced wound care business across the globe. Key players operating in the global hypochlorous acid market include Lenntech B.V. BASF SE Arkema S.A. Lonza. Inovyn Chlorvinyls Limited Olin Corporation Nouryon (Previously under Akzo Nobel N.V.'s coating division) Occidental Petroleum Corporation Kuehne Company AGC Chemicals Surpass Chemical Company, Inc. Westlake Chemical Corporation Clorox Company Tianjin Ruifuxin Chemical Tosoh Corporation Aditya Birla Chemicals Aqualution Systems Ltd Ultrapure HOCL (Pty) Ltd Others
=================== Friday, April 3, 2020 10:10:28 AM Cherry Re: None Post # 80097 of 80187 WHY YOU WANT TO BUY ALL THE PCTL YOU CAN
Right now, IMO, before PCT LTD (ticker PCTL) announces the UK hospital results which might potentially lead to 600+ hospital installations in the UK, before the March 2020 revenues from increased fluid sales are known, before the scientific data on treating disease/mold/fungi in the citrus & cannabis industries is announced, before results from the oil & gas industry testing, and before the delayed 2019 Q3 of which will contain outdated information from over 6 months ago-
People reading here may have read and seen, in bits and pieces, all these things below.
How anyone interprets & verifies anything, and researches further, is up to them. Nothing here is advice.
Since late 2019: More hospitals, More distribution, More geographic regions, More production capacity, More sales of the fluid itself & increasing dramatically, EPA approved on List N to disinfect surfaces for NCOV-19-SARS-2, Existing clients are buying more systems or extending their contracts,
=============== Tuesday, 04/07/20 11:13:24 AM Re: Patience 1 post# 81708 0.005 Post # 81730 of 82300
Quote:
NEWS OUT!! 4/7/20, 9:55 AM LITTLE RIVER, S.C.--(BUSINESS WIRE)
PCT LTD (OTC Pink: PCTL) ("PCTL") is excited to announce they have increased production capacity at their Little River, South Carolina facility.
Updating an earlier release (March 25th), the South Carolina facility is now capable of producing up to 10,000 gallons of fluids per day. A marked increase over earlier capabilities. The company is now better positioned to meet the growing demand for its Hypochlorous Acid-based disinfecting fluids.
“Our team has been working around the clock over the last several weeks to make this happen,” says Stuart Emmons, PCTL Executive VP of Engineering and R & D. “The South Carolina facility is now better positioned to fulfill the daily orders we have been receiving.”
Due in part to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, the company has seen an exponential increase in sales and inquiries from current and prospective customers. Late last month the company shifted its short-term focus towards fluid production and sales to meet increasing demand.
“It’s supply and demand,” according to PCTL CEO Gary Grieco. “The demand is there and now so is the supply. We needed to shift our focus towards where we can have the most impact and do the most good for our customers and the communities they serve. At the same time, this presents an opportunity for us to elevate our profile, grow our business, and showcase how effective our products can be in the ongoing fight against the spread of infectious disease.”
The company has also been hiring additional support staff to support growing business operations. Most recently, the company engaged Joseph Tippmann, graduate of The University of Michigan’s Industrial Design and Architecture program, as a new design engineer. Tippmann joined the company on a contract basis initially and has spent the past two weeks performing design updates on Annihilyzer and Hydrolyte Rack systems in addition to helping design a more modular system for easier assembly.
Tippmann is also a co-owner of Werks Manufacturing, a Fort Wayne, Indiana based manufacturing company which PCTL engages for the purpose of manufacturing and assembling parts for use in the company’s Annihilyzer® Infection Control System and other systems.
Werks Manufacturing is expanding their operation and will increase parts and assembly production to meet PCTL’s growing demand. In addition, Werks will also serve as a fluid depot for PCTL’s clients in the northern Midwest part of the United States. Werks will initially be capable of producing up to 4,000 gallons per day of disinfecting fluids, including Hydrolyte®, for sale and use by PCTL to clients in Detroit, Chicago, and throughout the region. This fluid production capacity can be increased as needed to serve growing demand.
“We are continuing our rapid growth plans,” says Grieco. “Through strategic partnerships, distribution agreements, and more, we are gaining market share, increasing revenue at a rapid pace, and growing our business both quickly and efficiently.”
Additional News and Corporate Updates:
PCTL would like to warn its stockholders and potential investors that material corporate information regarding sales, areas of business and other corporate updates will only be made through press releases or filings with the SEC. PCTL does not utilize social media, chatrooms or other online sources to disclose material information. The public should only rely on official press releases and corporate filings for accurate and up to date information regarding PCTL. ====================
Wednesday, April 8, 2020 1:22:30 PM Beer money Re: None Post # 82319 of 82350 Yes Gary Grieco, PCTL CEO, stated, "As a result of the capabilities and benefits of our products, many companies and municipalities across a variety of industries and geographic locations are engaging in intense discussions with PCT LTD."
PCTL "The 800 pound gorilla, Corona-virus, that has opened up a huge opportunity for us and I can not say any more than that we have been contacted by, and are actively negotiating to address the problem with both companies and government officials and I can not say more than that."
In addition, Grieco further commented, "All of our hospital customers using our infection control system and disinfectant are utilizing the systems as a front-line defense throughout their facilities, including in all public area such as restrooms, lobbies, waiting rooms, elevators, corridors, cafeterias, etc. all throughout the day and night and in the presence of patients, staff and visitors."
============ Thursday, April 9, 2020 10:01:52 AM Re: None Post # 82599 of 82789 Hypochlorous Acid Okay For Easter Eggs Hypochlorous acid is cleared by the FDA for use on meat, poultry, fish & seafood, fruits & vegetables and shell eggs as a no-rinse sanitizer. FCN 1811 is a Food Contact Notification (FCN) from the FDA for using electrolytically generated hypochlorous acid as an antimicrobial agent in an aqueous solution in the production and preparation of whole or cut meat and poultry; processed and preformed meat and poultry; fish and seafood; fruits and vegetables; and shell eggs. To read more about food contact notification 1811, visit the FDA website in the link below. https://www.hypochlorousacid.com/regulation [Suppressed Image]
================== Thursday, April 9, 2020 10:35:37 AM Re: None Post # 82670 of 82807 Why the NHS and Private Clinics Should Look Further than Alcohol-Based Sanitisers The CoViD-19 pandemic has brought alcohol to the fore; whether it is the amount the British public is consuming to get through self-isolation or the level required in hand sanitiser to make it effective, the news stories are everywhere. Many of these revolving around the shortage of traditional alcohol-based hand sanitisers and how prices are soaring. With this being the case, why then don’t the NHS and other health care facilities look elsewhere? Is there no other option? In fact, there is another option which is rapidly emerging as the new go-to sanitiser during the CoViD-19 pandemic; Hypochlorous Acid (HOCl). What is Hypochlorous Acid? HOCI is generated when white blood cells attack harmful bacteria and is harmless to the human body. In December 2019 Optometry Times published an article on HOCl and they explain it much better than I can… “HOCl is a weak acid that occurs naturally in our body. Neutrophils are white blood cells that are the first to arrive on site when an invading pathogen is detected. Neutrophils will chase down and engulf the pathogen through phagocytosis. Upon contact, neutrophils release a burst of bactericidal chemicals including its most powerful oxidizing agent, HOCl. This kills the pathogen by tearing down the cell membranes and proteins”. Optometry Times called HOCl “the perfect weapon to fight germs. It hits hard against pathogens like Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) and Pseudomonas Aeroginosa. Yet this powerful weapon is 100 percent safe for humans, chemical free, non-toxic and all-natural”. Due to these attributes HOCl is being widely used in South Korea in their battle against CoViD-19, disinfecting everything from food to people to hospital wards and their mass transit systems. Looking at the way in which they have taken control of the spread of the virus it is clear to see that HOCl can also help the United Kingdom to gain the upper hand in this struggle. https://www.belle.org.uk/news-1/2020/4/2/why-the-nhs-and-private-clinics-should-look-to-hypochlorous-acid-rather-than-alcohol-based-sanitisers
=============
beer$$money ?
Sunday, April 12, 2020 8:04:27 PM Re: BIGBUCKS post# 83703
Post # 83709 of 83745 Alex Guttman Author> Huge interest being developed on LinkedIN VP marketing and Research at Ace Janitorial, Sales Mgr Escalator Cleaning company, Senior VP HAI Consultants
Randy Stiles can't mention names without permission but I can say that most of the major healthcare systems in NYC are now using our system
Randy Stiles +Executive Account Manager at Paylidify
Jon Pickett, MBA is this being used at all Memorial Healthcare Locations? The feedback on the system has been great.
Jody Read CEO at PCT Health, PCT LTD
Glad to see that the efforts of the entire team at ACE and PCT to bring this system to market has been a success and we are looking forward to placing these systems into every hospital, surgical center, nursing homes, and long-term care facilities!
Good am Mr Jody.could I represent your company in Dubai.? Tnx
Fritz Oehler Executive Director at Sprenger Health Care Systems Looks like this product could be an answer to many infection control issues in our industry.
Sunday, April 12, 2020 8:53:14 PM Re: BIGBUCKS post# 83629
Post # 83715 of 83745 Some additional DD. The full section in that recent PCTL release includes: Quote:
The company has also been hiring additional support staff to support growing business operations. Most recently, the company engaged Joseph Tippmann, graduate of The University of Michigan’s Industrial Design and Architecture program, as a new design engineer. Tippmann joined the company on a contract basis initially and has spent the past two weeks performing design updates on Annihilyzer and Hydrolyte Rack systems in addition to helping design a more modular system for easier assembly. Tippmann is also a co-owner of Werks Manufacturing, a Fort Wayne, Indiana based manufacturing company which PCTL engages for the purpose of manufacturing and assembling parts for use in the company’s Annihilyzer® Infection Control System and other systems. Werks Manufacturing is expanding their operation and will increase parts and assembly production to meet PCTL’s growing demand. In addition, Werks will also serve as a fluid depot for PCTL’s clients in the northern Midwest part of the United States. Werks will initially be capable of producing up to 4,000 gallons per day of disinfecting fluids, including Hydrolyte®, for sale and use by PCTL to clients in Detroit, Chicago, and throughout the region. This fluid production capacity can be increased as needed to serve growing demand.
I could not find much on google in regards to Joseph Tippmann. I did find Werks Manufacturing Inc. = http://werksmfg.com ;;... but ... website is “under construction”. It appears to be located at 2300 Meyer Road Fort Wayne, IN 46803. It appears the phone number might be (260) 428-2698. Also at this address appears to be: Advanced Media Integration LLC = Video production service = Vincent P Tippmann. same phone number?
I did also find Vincent P. Tippmann at this website: https://vptag.com/ Tippmann Affiliated Group is a family owned organization with a diversified group of business segments throughout North America and around the world. Approaching a half-century in business, Tippmann Affiliated Group businesses hold 17 patents and numerous product and service awards in various industries, including Automotive, Food Service, Refrigeration, Medical Device and Transportation. As it stands today, Tippmann Affiliated Group remains a family owned organization with a diversified group of business segments throughout North America and around the world. Headquartered in Fort Wayne, IN, Tippmann Affiliated Group operates its main campus on 75 acres and 810,000 sq/ft. of manufacturing and office space. 4410 New Haven Ave Fort Wayne, IN 46803. Phone:(260) 428-2500. It appears that 2300 Meyer Road Fort Wayne, IN 46803 is immediately adjacent to 4410 New Haven Ave Fort Wayne, IN 46803. Father & son? Could Vincent Tippman be the co-owner of Werks Manufacturing (together with Joseph Tippmann?
=====================
Ronin Wednesday, 04/15/20 10:42:51 AM Re: TKane post# 86153 Post # 86171 of 86190
News hit DOW JONES and BUSINESS wire! Lots of eyes on this now!
Evaluate Wednesday, April 15, 2020 3:12:04 PM Re: Evaluate post# 86473 Post # 86479 of 86491
https://pureandclean.us/disinfectant-sanitizer-gallon/ It appears that Pure & Clean is a distributor for PCT's HOCl, at 460 PPM, since their web page shows it is a distributor of EPA Reg. No. 92108-1. Only available in the following states: Florida, Kansas Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, Oklahoma and Texas. For all other states, please order the Surface Cleaner Pro products: https://pureandclean.us/surface-cleanser-pro/ Pure&Clean Disinfectant/Sanitizer? 460 ppm HOCl. This is a New Generation Disinfectant formulated using Hypochlorous Acid (HOCl) that cleans, deodorizes, and disinfects. As a distributor of EPA Reg. No. 92108-1, the product pure&clean™ (EPA Reg. No. 92108-1-88098) is included on the list of products approved by the US
=====================
BIGBUCKS Wednesday, April 15, 2020 3:09:42 PM Re: None Post # 86478 of 86491 PCT LTD Reports Q3 2019 Financials; Revenue Increases 435%, Operating Expenses Decrease
At 0’37: it shows that the “Annihilyzer is “Presented By: Annihilare and Paradigm Convergence Technology Corp” I was surprised to see this. Question: Does Annihilare also share in the revenues/profits of selling/leasing Annihilyzers?
=========== BRITT2575 ? Friday, 04/17/20 12:41:50 AM Re: None ? 0 Post # 88648 of 88658
PCT EUROPE LTD SIGNS DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT WITH UK NHS COMPANY, RECEIVES ADDITIONAL NYC HOSPITAL ORDER April 17 2020 - 12:08AM InvestorsHub NewsWire Print PCT EUROPE LTD SIGNS DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT WITH UK NHS COMPANY, RECEIVES ADDITIONAL NYC HOSPITAL ORDER
Little River, SC -- April 17, 2020 -- InvestorsHub NewsWire -- PCT LTD (OTC Pink: PCTL) is pleased to announce new growth and expansion activities in the UK and NYC. PCT Europe Ltd, the UK-based partner of PCTL is pleased to announce they have signed an exclusive trading partnership/distributor agreement with an NHS (U.K. National Health Service) company.
In tandem with PCT Europe Ltd, the UK NHS company will introduce PCT technology to each NHS Hospital Trust with the intention of them rolling out PCT's unique technology and system throughout the health services 233 Trusts comprising over 600 hospitals. In addition, approximately 14,000 Care Homes in the U.K. will also be introduced to PCT's technology. A steady flow of orders is expected to commence throughout the remainder of 2020 and into 2021.
The first PCT system has now been installed in a large NHS hospital in the north of England. This system is expected to enter clinical service early in May once the final series of biological tests of the PCT hospital disinfectant solution have been completed. Results of these tests have so far demonstrated that the PCT disinfectant has met or exceeded its ability to kill the range of pathogens previously achieved during EPA tests in the United States.
"We couldn't be happier with the results thus far in our UK trials and are delighted with the progress our UK partner is making. This arrangement will introduce our system to thousands of hospitals and healthcare facilities," says PCTL CEO Gary Grieco. "At the same time, the reality of the current healthcare crisis both domestically and abroad is sobering. We're thrilled to be able to grow our business but nevertheless remain focused on our core mission which from day one has always been helping people."
The company continues to expand domestically as well. Following an earlier release dated April 14th, the company is also announcing an additional purchase order for PCT Corp.'s Annihilyzer® Infection Control Systems in New York City.
The order comes from a large NYC hospital with a current bed count in excess of 2,500. Installation will be made in coordination with PCT Corp's primary healthcare distributor, ACE Janitorial Services.
"With three PO's for our infection control system this week and more on the way, we continue to make strides both in growing our business as well as our goal of helping our clients fight the spread of infectious diseases," says Grieco. "We are on pace for unprecedented and record growth in all areas of our business."
Additional News and Corporate Updates:
PCTL would like to warn its stockholders and potential investors that material corporate information regarding sales, areas of business and other corporate updates will only be made through press releases or filings with the SEC. PCTL does not utilize social media, chatrooms or other online sources to disclose material information. The public should only rely on official press releases and corporate filings for accurate and up to date information regarding PCTL.
========================
Details for EXCELYTE VET * EPA Contract Info EPA Contact Information
PM Re: None Post # 92362 of 92385 PCTL> UK NHS is the largest single healthcare delivery organisation in the world.
SELLING TO THE NHS
SUMMARY This guide outlines the structures that exist to help companies contact and sell existing and innovative products into the NHS, a huge organisation which can appear very complex.
IN BRIEF NHS Supply Chain Procurement routes – national, regional and local contracts
Products for GP prescription
Estates – capital equipment
Innovation – new products
The NHS is the largest single healthcare delivery organisation in the world. It constitutes a major opportunity for UK medical device companies. NHS trusts can purchase products through one of five main routes:
Directly from suppliers using National Framework Contracts
From the NHS Supply Chain which provides end-to-end supply chain services incorporating procurement, logistics, e-commerce and customer and supplier support
The NHS Supply Chain is a single organisation created for the benefit of NHS trusts, hospitals and other healthcare organisations. The organisation combines the former NHS Logistics Authority, significant parts of the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency, expertise in healthcare logistics from DHL and procurement experience from Novation.
PROCUREMENT ROUTES National contracts Tenders: Contracts for products and services valued at over £90,319 (01 Jan 2008) must be advertised in the Supplement to the daily Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU). Procurement levels change, but you can confirm the current level by visiting: http://www.ojec.com.
NHS-sid: This is the official NHS supplier information database on which companies can enter their information for free:
http://www.sid4health.nhs.uk. It rationalises the management of pre-qualification data during the procurement process and can only be fully accessed by authorised NHS personnel. Suppliers looking to compete for advertised NHS contracts must still submit applications in the required format. Any supplier is free to register its services on NHS-sid. The information published is made freely available to NHS users. Registering on this system does not imply that a supplier has any special or ‘approved’ status. Regional contracts Collaborative organisations: Most NHS trusts are now partners in ‘collaborative procurement organisations’ where, normally on a regional basis, they can share information and resources to achieve economies of scale.
Local contracts Individual trust contracts: Local contracts are often managed by a trust’s supplies department. Its approach to suppliers will vary according to the value, size and complexity of its requirements. DH has set down procurement guidelines indicating that for contracts valued below £3,000 a trust should ask for telephone quotes; for contracts valued between £3,000 and £10,000, it should request a minimum of three written quotes; for contracts valued above £10,000, a minimum of three formal written tenders should be sought. Actual interpretations of these guidelines vary from trust to trust.
PRODUCTS FOR GP PRESCRIPTION
Suppliers wishing to list their products under the Drug Tariff for prescription by GPs or nurses must seek approval from the NHS Business Service Authority (NHSBSA). These will usually be products for self-administration, possibly with a carer’s help, and will normally fall into the following categories: dressings, bandage and associated appliances, incontinence appliances, stoma appliances, and chemical reagents. If the NHSBSA grant approval, the cost, either comparatively with other similar products, or, if it is a new treatment regime, by comparison with alternatives, will be reimbursed. You can access the application form at: www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk.
ESTATES – CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
DH uses two major Public and Private Partnerships (PPPs) to deliver its NHS Plan: the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) and NHS Local Improvement Finance Trust (LIFT). The NHS ProCure 21 Framework brings the NHS and the construction industry together for new-build projects. You can find information on PPPs and associated procurement policies at: www.dh.gov.uk.
INNOVATION – NEW PRODUCTS
The procurement routes above apply to established products. If you are a supplier of innovative products, you should be aware of the organisations involved in product approval:
The UK Medicines and Healthcare product Regulatory Agency (MHRA) This is the government agency responsible for ensuring that medicines and medical devices work and are safe.
Regulatory affairs: Medical devices can only be placed on the market in the UK/EU if they are certified safe, are of the required quality to fulfill the manufacturer’s ‘intended purpose’ and comply with the appropriate Medical Device Directive (CE marking). The MHRA audits the performance of manufacturers and notifies bodies responsible for granting CE marks. You can find more details at: www.mhra.gov.uk.
Clinical trials: The MHRA approves clinical trials/investigations and provides guidance for manufacturers. To obtain a CE mark, a manufacturer must show that the device complies with the relevant ‘Essential Requirements’ of the appropriate Medical Device Directive. In some instances, a clinical investigation will be required. The MHRA website (listed above) provides guidance on this issue.
Small Business Research Initiative (SBRI): The new SBRI is a cross-government programme for the procurement of technology development projects, including the demonstration and evaluation of new technologies. DH has run a pilot SBRI competition in Healthcare Associated Infections in conjunction with the Technology Strategy Board. The benefit to the Department and the NHS is to make new developments available faster and more effectively. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) NICE (www.nice.org.uk) is responsible for providing national guidance on the promotion of good health and the prevention and treatment of ill health. Its activities include:
Technology appraisals – Recommendations on the use of new and existing medicines and treatments within the NHS, based upon a review of clinical and economic evidence Interventional procedure guidance – Many of the procedures that NICE investigates are new, but it also looks at more established procedures if there is uncertainty about their safety or how well they work
NHS National Innovation Centre (NIC): NIC determines the need for innovative products, particularly in the development stage, and speeds up the development and adoption of those that deliver the best results for patients. It provides a point of entry to innovators of healthcare technology via its website and through a web-based assessment process. By considering ideas and products at every stage, it can direct them to the most.
P&C is a preferred vendor for vision source Vision Source has over 3,300 locally owned optometry practices. Each one could carry Pure and Clean's products. https://visionsource.com/vendors/
========================== DesertEagle Saturday, 08/15/20 01:06:56 AM Re: None 0
Post # of 125226
It doesn't take a rocket scientist...
to figure out where PCT Ltd is heading and why the Q1 was average and each subsequent Q will be much better. As the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words...
1. PCT LTD Increases Fluid Capacity, Hires New Design Engineer, Ramps Up Midwest Fulfillment Capabilities. 2. PCT LTD Announces Receipts of New Purchase Orders for Annihilyzer Infection Control Systems in NYC Hospitals. 3. PCT LTD Reports Q3 2019 Financials; Revenue Increases 435%, Operating Expenses Decrease 4. PCT EUROPE LTD Signs Distribution Agreement with UK NHS Company, Receives Additional NYC Hospital Orders. 5. PCT LTD Discusses Its Rapid Growth and Expansion Plans. 6. PCT LTD Continues Accelerated Expansion with New Hospital Installations and Fluids Distributors. 7. PCT LTD Formalizes Agreement with PCT EUROPE and Provides Update on Current Business Operations. 8. PCT LTD Adds Additional Distributors, Announces New Hospital Installations and Provides Shareholder Update. 9. PCT LTD Discusses the Increasing Demand for Disinfecting Solutions. 10. PCT LTD Provides Update to Public, Distributors and Sub-Registrants Regarding Use of Products. 11. PCT LTD Provides Update on 2019 10-K Filing, Highlights Revenue Growth, Expense Decrease. 12. PCT LTD Provides Update on US Healthcare Related Activities. 13. PCT LTD Provides Update of Authorized Distributors and Supplemental Registrants.
When the "STOP" comes off and the Q2 comes out we go from Dip to Rip... that is my projection.
DesertEagle Saturday, 08/01/20 10:58:19 AM Re: beer$$money post# 122827 100.000
Post # of 122846
Yes sir, will be big business for PCTL...
Currently there are 225 NHS Trusts in the United Kingdom and anyone who knows how the social healthcare systems work knows that once one trust comes on board, the rest will normally follow suit.
One or two trusts doesn't sound like much to someone that doesn't understand how the system works, but each one of those is responsible for the approval and purchasing of equipment for multiple hospitals, clinics and long term care facilities.
As an example, Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust manages 14 Hospitals and Clinics and North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust manages 17 Hospitals and Clinics. And those 31 Hospitals and Clinics do not represent the Long Term Care facilities under their control as well.
As many people like "Facts not Fiction" and "Proof", the below list represents the current Trusts operating in the United Kingdom...
Airedale NHS Foundation Trust Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust Ashford and St Peter's Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health NHS Trust Barnsley Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Barts Health NHS Trust Bedford Hospital NHS Trust Berkshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust Birmingham Community Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust Birmingham Women's and Children's NHS Foundation Trust Black Country Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust Blackpool Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Bolton NHS Foundation Trust Bradford District NHS Foundation Trust Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Bridgewater Community Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust Burton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust Cambridgeshire Community Services NHS Trust Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust Central London Community Healthcare NHS Trust Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Foundation Trust Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust Cornwall Partnership NHS Foundation Trust Countess Of Chester Hospital NHS Foundation Trust County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust Coventry and Warwickshire Partnership NHS Trust Croydon Health Services NHS Trust Cumbria Northumberland Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust Derbyshire Community Health Services NHS Foundation Trust Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust Devon Partnership NHS Trust Doncaster and Bassetlaw Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Dorset County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust Dudley and Walsall Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust East Cheshire NHS Trust East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust East London NHS Foundation Trust East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust East Of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust East Suffolk and North Essex NHS Foundation Trust East Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust Gateshead Health NHS Foundation Trust George Eliot Hospital NHS Trust Gloucestershire Care Services NHS Trust Gloucestershire Health and Care NHS Foundation Trust Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust Great Western Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Harrogate and District NHS Foundation Trust Hertfordshire Community NHS Trust Hertfordshire Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust Homerton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Hounslow and Richmond Community Healthcare NHS Trust Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust Humber Teaching NHS Foundation Trust Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust Isle Of Wight NHS Trust James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Kent and Medway NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust Kent Community Health NHS Foundation Trust Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation Trust King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Kingston Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Lancashire & South Cumbria NHS Foundation Trust Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Leeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust Leeds Community Healthcare NHS Trust Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust Lincolnshire Community Health Services NHS Trust Lincolnshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust Liverpool Heart and Chest NHS Foundation Trust Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Liverpool Women's NHS Foundation Trust London Ambulance Service NHS Trust London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust Luton and Dunstable University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust Medway NHS Foundation Trust Mersey Care NHS Foundation Trust Mid and south Essex Foundation Trust Mid Cheshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust Midlands Partnership NHS Foundation Trust Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust Norfolk Community Health and Care NHS Trust North Bristol NHS Trust North Cumbria Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust North Cumbria University Hospitals NHS Trust North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust North East London NHS Foundation Trust North Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust North Staffordshire Combined Healthcare NHS Trust North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust North West Ambulance Service NHS Trust North West Anglia NHS Foundation Trust North West Boroughs Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust Northern Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Foundation Trust Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust Poole Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust Project Nightingale NHS Trust Queen Victoria Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic and District Hospital NHS Trust Rotherham Doncaster and South Humber NHS Foundation Trust Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust Royal Papworth Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust Sheffield Children's NHS Foundation Trust Sheffield Health and Social Care NHS Foundation Trust Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust Shropshire Community Health NHS Trust Solent NHS Trust Somerset Partnership NHS Foundation Trust South Central Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust South East Coast Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust South Tyneside And Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust South Tyneside NHS Foundation Trust South Warwickshire NHS Foundation Trust South West London and St George's Mental Health NHS Trust South West Yorkshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust South Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust Southport and Ormskirk Hospital NHS Trust St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust St Helens and Knowsley Hospitals NHS Trust Stockport NHS Foundation Trust Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust Sussex Community NHS Foundation Trust Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust Tameside Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Taunton and Somerset NHS Foundation Trust Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust The Christie NHS Foundation Trust The Clatterbridge Cancer Centre NHS Foundation Trust The Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust The Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust The Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust The Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn. NHS Foundation Trust The Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust The Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust The Royal Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Foundation Trust The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust The Walton Centre NHS Foundation Trust Torbay and South Devon NHS Foundation Trust United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust University Hospital of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust University Hospitals Of Leicester NHS Trust University Hospitals Of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust University Hospitals of North Midlands University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust Warrington and Halton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust West London NHS Trust West Midlands Ambulance Service University NHS Foundation Trust West Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Whittington Health NHS Trust Wirral Community NHS Foundation Trust Wirral University Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust Worcestershire Health and Care NHS Trust Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust Wye Valley NHS Trust Yeovil District Hospital NHS Foundation Trust York Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust
Now when people tell you that PCTL getting their foot into the door of the NHS system isn't a big deal, you can tell them you know better.
DE
aandt Saturday, August 1, 2020 9:32:43 AM Re: None Post # of 122844 Repur/Collaborative Technologies
Looks like they will be in the food industry, they were just approved by the USDA and added to the NSF (National Sanitation Foundation) list. https://info.nsf.org/USDA/Listings.asp (search for RePur).
Lots of interesting info. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7315945/ J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020 Jun 25 doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2020.06.029 [Epub ahead of print] PMCID: PMC7315945 PMID: 32653307 Hypochlorous Acid: A Review Michael S. Block, DMD** and Brian G. Rowan, DMD, MD† includes, for example: Quote:
Abstract The surgeon needs to have an inexpensive, available, nontoxic, and practical disinfectant that is effective in sanitizing against the COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease 2019) virus. The purpose of this article was to review the evidence for using hypochlorous acid in the office setting on a daily basis. The method used to assemble recommendations was a review of the literature including evidence for this solution when used in different locations and industries other than the oral-maxillofacial clinic facility. The results indicate that this material can be used with a high predictability for disinfecting against the COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease 2019) virus.
Quote:
Stability of Solution Rossi-Fedele et al35 investigated the shelf life of HOCl by being either exposed to or protected from sunlight. When the HOCl solution was exposed to sunlight, the chlorine reduction started on day 4. When it was sheltered from sunlight, the chlorine reduction started after day 14. The half-life increases with decreasing pH owing to the decreasing ratio of OCl–to HOCl.36 The parts per million (ppm) is the concentration of the –OCl, which is the active ingredient and is known as the available free chlorine (AFC) in the solution. HOCl solutions are less stable when exposed to UV radiation, sunlight, or contact with air or when the temperature of the solution is elevated greater than 25°C. HOCl solutions should be stored in cool, dark places, and contact with air should be minimized. The water for fabrication should be water that contains organic and inorganic ion concentrations that are as small as possible.37, 38, 39, 40
Concentration Related to Time Needed for Virucidal Action HOCl has been shown to inactivate a variety of viruses including coronaviruses in less than 1 minute.39 At a concentration of 200 ppm, HOCl is effective in decontaminating inert surfaces carrying noroviruses and other enteric viruses in a 1-minute contact time. When diluted 10-fold, HOCl solutions at 20 ppm were still effective in decontaminating environmental surfaces carrying viruses in a 10-minute contact time.
Quote:
Discussion The coronavirus pandemic has caused both a massive health care and economic disruption across the world. The current unavailability of an effective antiviral drug or approved vaccine means that the implementation of effective preventive measures is necessary to counteract COVID-19. Oral-maxillofacial surgeons are high-risk providers providing needed care to patients. As more OMS and surgical offices open during reopening in the United States and elsewhere in the world, the need to reduce the risk of transmission of COVID-19 between patients and providers is necessary. It is widely believed that with proper screening and discretion, along with adequate personal protective equipment, there is a low probability of becoming infected. The goal of this article is to provide information regarding disinfection in the clinical office setting using HOCl, a relatively inexpensive, nontoxic, noncorrosive, and well-studied compound.
HOCl has uses in many industries from farming and restaurants, regarding food, to health care applications, including chronic wound care and disinfection.34 , 36 , 43 , 45 , 46 , 63 In addition to the use of HOCl as a liquid-based disinfectant, fogging with hypochlorous vapor has shown virucidal activity against numerous types of viruses and bacteria.40 , 56 , 57 This is of potential benefit to disinfect large spaces such as medical and dental offices where aerosols can be airborne for extended periods.42 , 44 , 64 In terms of particle size, oral-maxillofacial surgeons may be at a slightly lower risk than their dental counterparts because ultrasonic scaling and high-speed handpieces create smaller particles that remain airborne longer.42 However, aerosols are still created with surgical handpieces. Additionally, the COVID-19 virus can be present on some surfaces for days, and the disinfection of all surfaces of an operatory is important to reduce transmission.9 , 10
Many properties of HOCl contribute to why it may be the disinfectant of choice in the OMS setting. Although the shelf life of HOCl is relatively short, it is effective for up to 2 weeks under ideal conditions.35 It can be made on-site inexpensively. A gallon of HOCl can be purchased from manufacturers but it is far more economical for an oral-maxillofacial surgeon to produce the solution on-site in the office.65 A variety of HOCl systems costing less than $275 are available on the market.66 By combining non-iodinated salt, water, and electricity,33 1 L of HOCl can be made in 8 minutes and the process can be repeated many times throughout the day. By comparison, a pack of common disinfecting wipes containing quaternary ammonium compounds costs between $4 and $15 for a pack containing 80 sheets. These wipes may only last a day or two depending the size of the office and area to clean. Shortages of these products can occur, making sourcing them difficult as well.67
In addition to using HOCl in the form of wipes for disinfecting, using HOCl vapors through a fogging machine is an economical way to disinfect a large operating room or suite in which aerosols were produced during surgery. Foggers or misting machines are handheld machines and can be purchased for a reasonable cost.68 The aerosol mist ideally should be less than 20 µm in size to maximally disinfect an area. It is important to note that the fogging process can alter the physical and chemical properties of the disinfectant, making it more dilute and basic. As mentioned before, the AFC concentration can be reduced by approximately 70% and the pH can increase by about 1.3.40 To make a vapor as effective as a solution containing 100 ppm of HOCl, the solution would need to be concentrated. The fine mist can be left in the empty surgical room without thought regarding harmful chemical effects; the surfaces are then wiped clean and dry after a few minutes and, for a more dilute solution, after 10 minutes.
HOCl is one disinfectant that, when combined with adequate personal protective equipment, screening and social-distancing techniques, hand washing, and high-volume evacuation suction, may help reduce the transmission of COVID-19 in the outpatient OMS setting. It comprises many of the desired effects of the ideal disinfectant: It is easy to use, is inexpensive, has a good safety profile, and can be used to disinfect large areas quickly and with a broad range of bactericidal and virucidal effects.
March 23, 2020 Hypochlorous acid (HClO) is recommended for hand washing and disinfecting the environment Oliver Ho, Ph.D. Candidate | Institute of Health and Welfare Policy, School of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan A study published by Allison E. Aiello in 2012 (1) suggested that in the early stages of an influenza outbreak, the government should promote anti-epidemic measures to wear masks and maintain hand hygiene. The community infection caused by the COVID-19 virus caused panic among the population, which caused insufficient resources for masks and disinfectant supplies.
In Japan, research on the use of hypochlorous acid was carried out 20 years ago (2). Hypochlorous acid has a good effect in disinfection. It is not as toxic as bleach and it is not as prone to fire as alcohol. In Japan it is also used for medical, food, and workplace disinfection, including hand washing or surgery, and even as a mouthwash (2, 3). However, too high a concentration may cause damage to the skin, and too low a concentration may lack bactericidal power. If hypochlorous acid water is used on the skin, like alcohol, excessive use may cause skin allergies. The use of hypochlorous acid in environmental disinfection should be avoided on iron and rust. Hypochlorous water for environmental disinfection is 100 ppm, If sprayed directly on the hands, 30-50 ppm is recommended to avoid excessive damage to the skin. To avoid skin irritation, rinse with water after use.
References: 1. Aiello, AE, Perez, V., Coulborn, RM, Davis, BM, Uddin, M., & Monto, AS (2012). Facemasks, hand hygiene, and influenza among young adults: a randomized intervention trial. PloS one, 7 (1).
2. OKUBO, K., URAKAMI, H., & TAMURA, A. (1999). Cytotoxicity and microbicidal activity of electrolyzed strong acid water and acidic hypochlorite solution under isotonic conditions. Journal of Infectious Diseases, 73 (10).
3. Ono Tomoko. (2012). Examples of application of various germ bactericidal effects of weakly acidic hypoglycinic acid aqueous solution. Journal of the Japan Society of Pharmaceutical Industry = Journal of the Brewing Society of Japan, 107 (2), 100-109.
========================= fourfive6 Wednesday, July 22, 2020 10:15:17 AM Re: None Post # of 121147 I’m hearing some chatter re: this G2/Blackstone mashup — Y2X Life Sciences — anyone hearing anything?
This all ties back to NY Presbyterian and allegedly, a handful of their board members making introductions — I’m wondering if the PR last Friday is related?
If nothing else, nice to see the sector continue its take off — this rising tide will continue to elevate PCTL and the IP.
I am a former dairy farmer and have family members still running farms, so I also have been curious about this. Here is some research I have found. Not specific to PCTL but general to HOCL applications
After 10K 0.048-0.066 After 1st 10Q 0.065-0.127 with certain news it could go much higher to the dollar range After 2nd 10Q 0.18-0.776 with certain news it could go well over a dollar on a run
From Me: Reasons for PCTL to run...
1) The patented Annihilyzer® Infection Control System, Annihilyzer® On Site Generator and Large Volume production unit sales and leases continue to grow in 2020. PCTL is expanding to meet the increase in demand with new facilities in Fort Wayne, Indiana.
2) PCT Ltd recently announced they had reached a final agreement with Paradigm Convergence Technologies (Europe) Ltd. The agreement was enacted on May 25th, 2020 and will secure a mutually beneficial business relationship between the two entities, in which PCTL will hold a beneficial stake. This agreement opens up the United Kingdom and 5 European countries to the PCT Ltd systems. The equipment will be manufactured in the United Sates and shipped to the United Kingdom and Europe.
3) PCT Ltd continues to increase hospital installations. In a recent interview, Mr. Grieco (CEO) indicated that 3 additional installations have been completed since May 18th 2020 and he sees PCT Ltd performing an additional 2 to 3 installations per month through the rest of the year. Each one of these systems represent recurring revenue to the company.
4) PCT Ltd is adding additional distributors to continue its expansion. BOX Bioscience (www.boxbioscience.com) of Mount Pleasant, SC with operations in North Carolina was recently approved as a Level 3 distributor. Ryan Cowell, CEO of BOX Bioscience stated “We were very excited to learn of this distributorship opportunity because our business was seeking this type of high-quality source for HOCL”.
5) Although PCT Ltd is primarily focused on the development and deployment of their patented Annihilyzer® Infection Control System and Annihilyzer® On Site Generator to address the 36 Billion Dollar per year Hospital Acquired Infections market, they have quickly adapted their business model to also supply their Hydrolyte® disinfecting fluids to all parts of the country due to the surge in demand caused by the current Covid-19 pandemic.
6) PCT Ltd’s Hydrolyte® is currently listed on 6 EPA lists of registered products. List B: Products Effective Against Mycobacterium tuberculosis List C: Products Effective Against Human HIV-1 Virus List F: Products Effective Against Hepatitis C List G: Products Effective Against Norovirus List H: Products Effective Against MRSA and/or VRE List N: Products for use against SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19
7) PCT Ltd’s revenue continue to increase year over year. 2015: $141 2016: $113,387 2017: $123,105 2018: $266,122 2019: $534,852 (9 months ending September 30, 2019) 2020: Record Breaking
8) Due to the current Covid-19 Pandemic, the Full Year 2019 10-K has been delayed. It is expected that the Full Year 2019 10-K will be released quickly followed by the 1st Quarter 10-Q and then the 2nd Quarter 10-Q soon after that.
Because we believe these releases will happen in quick succession and show that the company is increasing revenue while decreasing debt and at the same time expanding hospital installations and distributors to meet current and future demand, we feel that a substantial run up in share price is inevitable when the company becomes current.
9) As PCT Ltd expands their footprint in the United States, United Kingdom and Europe, we expect the company to move up to the OTCQB later in 2020 and move off the OTC and on to a major exchange early in 2021.
And the above is missing these 5 distributors: Advanced Environmental Solutions, Inc Collaborative Technologies Llc Danolyte Global, Inc. Earth Safe Solutions, Llc Net Zero Tools Inc
I am not trying to be controversial. It seems like you appreciate that proper DD is done. I am just adding to the DD for this stock, so that the correct info is posted. If you believe there are 77 sites instead of the above 47 sites, then what are your additional 30 sites?
======================================================= falon Wednesday, July 15, 2020 9:24:50 AM Re: None Post # of 119913 The evolution of Paradigm Convergence Technologies Corporation
PCTL's successful launch of the Annihilyzer System 18 months ago leads to a system in 20% of hospitals in New York City. PCTL’s flagship product Annihililyzer was, is and will be the foundation of the company’s success moving forward.
The company was on the brink of faltering due to its growing debt and had to execute toxic financing for its survival.
Then PCTL received an unexpected gift due to unprecedented demand for HOCI because of the Covid-19 pandemic.
What the CEO did by shifting the focus to supplying HOCI due to the high demand and need, enabled PCTL to establish a more stable financial condition that it has ever seen.
There are many companies selling HOCI so to increase PCTL’s footprint the CEO increased production and brought on more distributors. The high demand for HOCI will continue in the foreseeable future however it isn’t going to last forever and competition will increase moving forward.
What has given PCTL an edge is that we were already established providing HOCI, they have a supply chain already in place and have equipment to produce large quantities of product.
ALL the other areas PCTL has business interests including oil and gas, food safety, agriculture, and cannabis to name a few should be adding to the bottom line moving forward.
There are many types of whole room disinfection systems but none like the Annihilyzer.
It is my belief that the Annihilyzer is really going to be the ultimate game changer. It is just too versatile, cost effective and provides hospitals not only with a whole room disinfection system but a second product for the price of one.
FACTS about the Annihilyzer:
The best solution to a multi-billion dollar problem.
The Most Technologically Advanced Disinfection System Ever Created to Eliminate Hospital Associated Infections (HAIs) using Patented RFID Technology for Tracking and Disinfecting Protocols.
Why is the Annihilyzer Infection Control System one of the best and most versatile in the world ?
The Annihilyzer System is truly a cost-effective Green Seal Certified end-to-end total facility disinfection and cleaning system. This system generates both a hospital grade disinfectant and a very effective cleaning solution to cover virtually all of your cleaning and disinfection needs. These on-site generators produce stable electrochemically activated solutions, OSG 460D - Hospital Grade Disinfectant that is effective against C. diff, MRSA, and VRE, and an OSG 11-12 All Purpose Cleaner, and downtime for the process is only 15 - 20 minutes with no special preparation or precautions necessary.
The Annihilyzer System doesn't stop there, though. The icing on the cake is our state-of-the-art whole-room and handheld electrostatic sprayers that make quick work of completely disinfecting a room. Our 460D disinfectant can even be used to disinfect floors without leaving a haze or residue. We use a powerful non-synthetic disinfectant along with an automated electrostatic spray cart and/or electrostatic sprayers and patented RFID tracking technology that together are unmatched the industry to ensure proper and complete application.
What can the Annihilyzer do?
Save time and money by generating disinfectant and all-purpose cleaner on-site, on-demand
Eliminate the toughest bacteria, viruses, and fungi, including C. diff, C. auris, MRSA, VRE, blood-borne pathogens, and more.
Create 'industry best' protocols and 'push' them out to your cleaning staff in real-time with the Annihilist dashboard and mobile app
Generate reports that show when the areas were cleaned, who cleaned them, and what was done
Increase staff efficiency and effectiveness with process tracking, training, and accountability
How does the Annihilyzer save companies money?
Costs associated with purchasing and managing chemicals – eliminated
Freight charges for chemical deliveries – eliminated
Chemical container disposal or recycling costs – eliminated
Personal protection gear for cleaning – eliminated
Wastewater disposal costs and related fines for non-compliance – eliminated
Workers comp claims due to chemical burns and fume inhalation – eliminated
Happier, healthier and more productive workers
Same or better cleaning power than traditional hazardous chemicals for less
Eliminates costs associated with ordering, inventorying and disposing of chemicals and containers
How many hospitals are in NYC?
There are 62 acute care hospitals in New York City.
How many hospitals in NYC have at least one Annihilyzer System?
PCTL has installed at least 14 systems and gained 22.5% market share in NYC hospitals in less than 18 months.
Most Technologically Advanced Disinfection System Ever Created Annihilyzer the future for Healthcare and other Industries
During the Coronavirus Pandemic a Hospital with the Annihilyzer in place was in a better position than a hospital without it. Many hospitals will be asking themselves what could we have done differently? If they know about the Annihilyzer, having one will certainly be one of their answers. This is not the last so they have to put themselves in the best position for future events.
What is a better investment for a whole room Infection Control System:
Annihilyzer versus an UV system?
They both disinfect effectively however the Annihilyzer provides an additional products, an all purpose cleaner and handheld electrostatic sprayers that can be used in other parts of the hospital in the presence of people because it is “Green Certified”. Also the Annihilyzer cost less than half that of one of the best UV system on the market, the Xenex “LightStrike” cost about $125,000,
Annihilyzer versus a Chemical (Hydrogen Peroxide) based system?
They both disinfect effectively however the Annihilyzer provides an additional products, an all purpose cleaner and handheld electrostatic sprayers that can be used in other parts of the hospital in the presence of people because it is “Green Certified”. Chemical based solutions require protective equipment, are more expensive and are harsh on furniture and one company called Hanosil sells their machine for under $10,000 however it costs $20 in product to clean each room.
It cost $1 in HOCI to clean a room.
================================================
DesertEagle tv debut ( this will not be active till probably end of August) will post when an interview/ or when DE’s add’s begin appearing.
Anybody worried about PCTL ability to deliver their flagship product, "the Annihilyzer" just needs to look at the Family Corporate facilities of the Tippmann Group that will be producing them for PCTL! Check out the warehouse locations here:
Tippmann Affiliated Group is a family owned organization with a diversified group of business segments throughout North America and around the world. Current business segments include:
Manufacturing Sales and Marketing Warehousing Logistics Digital Media E-Commerce Approaching a half-century in business, Tippmann Affiliated Group businesses hold 17 patents and numerous product and service awards in various industries, including Automotive, Food Service, Refrigeration, Medical Device and Transportation.
More Cannabis DD.. PCTL distributors are killing it
The other day was posted a Cannabis connection to Growash. Continuing PCT Ltd. Research using the PCTL’s sub registrant number 92108-1-88098 Clean Republic there is another Cannabis connection. Clean Republic, Plantaid and Cause + Medic are associated with each other.
PlantAid has 2 products one designed to clean plants. (Due to EPA regulations they can’t say it does anything else in accordance with PCTL’s EPA reg number). The other product is used for equipment, tools and irrigation systems. Irrigation systems would be associated with hydroponic cultivation which is used in Cannabis growing besides fruits and veggies. You’ll also notice under “shop” they produce Hemp seeds. Again under “shop” you’ll see the connection back to Clean Republic.
============================================= beer$$money Sunday, May 10, 2020 5:16:39 PM Re: beer$$money post# 100472 Post # of 102445 Easy to make a sprayer! Tulsa Firefighters Use Hypochlorous Acid to clean their trucks.
My understanding these Firefighters are working with Advanced Environmental Solutions, Inc. ("AES, Inc.") of Meeker, Oklahoma.
Most recently, PCT Corp. has executed a collaborative agreement with Advanced Environmental Solutions, Inc. ("AES, Inc.") of Meeker, Oklahoma. AES, Inc. purchased two (2) high-volume units of PCT Corp.'s equipment and is building out a 2,500 s.f. production facility as it develops its oil & gas and Cannabis applications.
Re: None Post # of 102445 Only 3 trading days left before the 10-K.
PCT Ltd has...
* EPA Approved List N: Disinfectants for Use Against SARS-CoV-2 * EPA Approved List G: Antimicrobial Products Effective Against Norovirus * Green Seal Certified Equipment
May 8th, 2020 PCT LTD Continues Accelerated Expansion with NEW Hospital Installations and Fluid Distributors April 21st, 2020 PCT LTD Discusses Its Rapid Growth and Expansion Plans with The Stock Day Podcast April 16th, 2020 PCT Europe Ltd. Signs Distribution Agreement with UK NHS Company, Recieves Additional NYC Hospital Order April 15th, 2020 PCT LTD Reports Q3 2019 Financials; Revenue Increases 435%, Operating Expenses Decrease April 14th, 2020 PCT LTD Announces Receipts of New Purchase Orders for ANNIHILYZER Infection Control System in NYC Hospitals April 7th, 2020 PCT LTD Increases Fluid Capacity, Hires New Design Engineer, Ramps Up Midwest Fulfillment Capabilities March 27th, 2020 PCT LTD Obtains EPA Approval for Emerging Pathogens Labeling for use Against SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus that causes the disease COVID-19 March 25th, 2020 PCT LTD Expands Production Capacity and Accelerates Hypochlorous Acid Production and Sales March 18th, 2020 PCT LTD Receives Large Purchase Order for Recurring Sales of Fluids for Non-Medical Use and Explains Current Revenue Streams March 16th, 2020 PCT LTD Discusses Their Unique Annihilyzer™ Disinfecting System and Impact of The Coronavirus with The Stock Day Podcast March 13th, 2020 PCT LTD Adds International Distributor and Sells High-Volume Equipment to Existing Customer as a Result of Heightened Demand
Paradigm Convergence Technologies Corporation... The Right Company in the Right Place at the Right Time!
Don't get caught chasing it. =========================
Re: None Post # of 102018 New video from Alex G on LinkedIn
Medama HOCL being traditionally sprayed and electrostatically sprayed(via our Medama PCTL electrostatic cart)at a major Healthcare system in Westchester NY.
As the Director said to me, "hypochlorous, the new normal".
With the SDS HMIS ratings of O,O,O,O, this should definitely be the single choice/method for all institutions that are interested in disinfecting any surfaces; while ensuring that their customers understand, that their health and safety is their number one priority.
BIGBUCKS Member Level Friday, 05/01/20 12:27:58 PM Re: None 0 Post # 98897 of 98999 PCTL. EPA List N: Products with Emerging Viral Pathogens AND Human Coronavirus claims for use against SARS-CoV-2>the novel coronavirus that causes the disease COVID-19. EPA List N was last updated Today March 26, 2020 and added PCTL 92108-1 Hypochlorous acid Excelyte Vet How does EPA know that these products work on SARS-CoV-2? While these products have not been tested against SARS-CoV-2, the cause of COVID-19, they are expected to be effective based on: Demonstrated efficacy against a harder-to-kill virus; Qualified for the emerging viral pathogens claim; or Demonstrated efficacy against another human coronavirus similar to SARS-CoV-2. SARS-CoV-2 the novel coronavirus that causes the disease COVID-19 is a new virus. Such pathogens are often unavailable commercially for laboratory testing. https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/list-n-disinfectants-use-against-sars-cov-2https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/frequently-asked-questions-about-list-n-disinfectants-use-against-sars-cov-2#Q1 on[fq2D505A0D-3F24-4D0D-B592-02E1BCE41BBB.jpeg 1,125×1,033 pixels ======================= Chapmax Re: lucky,mydog post# 98713 0 Post # 98907of 98994
ACTION NEEDED Pctl has been trying to get in contact with the government to make them aware of our machine & what it can do We can help with & in our numbers send them copies of the DD that’s been posted
This is the contact point in government that needs to know about pctl Paradigm Convergence Technology. (Read below)
Info they’ll need: PODCAST LINK click Click in search....Pctl
This is who we can contact in government to make them aware of our machine.
point of entry for the submission of market research packages and meeting requests from interested stakeholders. The U.S. government, in response to the COVID-19 outbreak, seeks information from stakeholders on available medical countermeasures in development. We are particularly interested in products and technologies that have progressed into or beyond non-clinical trials, have established large-scale cGMP manufacturing capability, or utilize an approved platform. Information regarding diagnostics, therapeutics, vaccines, and other products or technologies relevant to addressing this outbreak are sought. At this time, we ask for a brief description of your product or technology, accompanied by a slide deck, manuscript, publications, or other non-confidential information of your choosing. Please note that while we will use any information you present as market research, submission is no guarantee of a meeting or funding and your submission will be shared across U.S. Government agencies involved in COVID-19 medical countermeasure research and development. Only U.S. government officials are invited to join a CoronaWatch meeting, and are bound by law to maintain confidentiality of what is presented and discussed. Ideal technologies and products would (but are not required to) be: * - Relevant to the U.S. government COVID-19 medical countermeasure research and development efforts and/or Emerging .Infectious Disease rapid response capabilities * - Utilize an already-approved platform, have non-clinical data suggesting efficacy, and/or have significant manufacturing capability * - Fully owned or licensed by your organization (you have full IP rights and/or freedom to operate)
Would you like to meet with a federal agency regarding a product that you are developing for COVID-19? If you are interested in requesting a CoronaWatch meeting, please Register for an account and Login, or if you have an account Login to submit some basic product information.
Paradigm Convergence Technologies Corporation Summarized Due Diligence Sheet for Investing [color=red]
ACTION NEEDEDPctl has been trying to get in contact with the government to make them aware of our machine & what it can do We can help with & in our numbers send them copies of the DD that’s been
This is the contact point in government that needs to know about pctl Paradigm Convergence Technology. (Read below)
This is who we can contact in government to make them aware of our machine.
point of entry for the submission of market research packages and meeting requests from interested stakeholders. The U.S. government, in response to the COVID-19 outbreak, seeks information from stakeholders on available medical countermeasures in development. We are particularly interested in products and technologies that have progressed into or beyond non-clinical trials, have established large-scale cGMP manufacturing capability, or utilize an approved platform. Information regarding diagnostics, therapeutics, vaccines, and other products or technologies relevant to addressing this outbreak are sought. At this time, we ask for a brief description of your product or technology, accompanied by a slide deck, manuscript, publications, or other non-confidential information of your choosing. Please note that while we will use any information you present as market research, submission is no guarantee of a meeting or funding and your submission will be shared across U.S. Government agencies involved in COVID-19 medical countermeasure research and development. Only U.S. government officials are invited to join a CoronaWatch meeting, and are bound by law to maintain confidentiality of what is presented and discussed. Ideal technologies and products would (but are not required to) be: * - Relevant to the U.S. government COVID-19 medical countermeasure research and development efforts and/or Emerging .Infectious Disease rapid response capabilities * - Utilize an already-approved platform, have non-clinical data suggesting efficacy, and/or have significant manufacturing capability * - Fully owned or licensed by your organization (you have full IP rights and/or freedom to operate)
Would you like to meet with a federal agency regarding a product that you are developing for COVID-19? If you are interested in requesting a CoronaWatch meeting, please Register for an account and Login, or if you have an account Login to submit some basic product information.
Company Site: para-con.com Twitter: @PCTL2020 Investor Relations Chesapeake Group - Get on the email list for news info@chesapeakegp.com
About: a technology licensing company specializing in environmentally safe solutions for global sustainability with products for various markets they serve.
Mission: Infectious Disease and Contamination Control
About Products: Products and solutions are designed to take an environmentally conscious approach to combating the spread of infectious disease in the Healthcare and Cleaning industries, as well as contributing to the sustainability of global natural resources in the energy and agriculture markets.
The PCT Annihilyzer® Patented Monitoring, Tracking & Reporting System The Kiosk, which sits on top of the Filling Station Cabinet, houses The PCT Annihilyzer® System’s computer controls, information system, RFID tagging and reading system and an interactive touch screen display.
---FINANCIAL INFO---
Filings: LINK
Current info as of 3/9/20 Authorized- 1,000,000,000 Outstanding- 511,315,300 Restricted- 35,139,690
Standard Registrar and Transfer Company 440 East 400 South, Suite 200 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Phone: 801-571-8844 or 801-596-2150 www.standardtransferco.com Amy Merrill Email: amy@standardregistrar.com
---CURRENT CLIENT LIST---
1: Morgan Stanley Presbyterian Children’s Hospital. (3959 Broadway At, W 165 St, New York NY 10032)
2: Mount Sinai South Nassau Hospital (1 Healthy Way, Oceanside NY 11572)
3: Carson Tahoe Regional Medical Center (1600 Medical Pkwy, Carson City NV 89703)
4: SUNY Downstate Medical Center (450 Clarkson Ave, Brooklyn NY 11203)
6: Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center ??? Maybe (1275 York Avenue New York, NY 10065)
7: North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust, (UK Trial underway began Jan 15th 2020 - 60 day trial) (University Hospital of Hartlepool, Holdforth Road, Hartlepool, TS24 9AH) (University Hospital of North Tees, Hardwick, Stockton on Tees, TS19 8PE)
8: New York Presbyterian Columbia Hospital (Ranked Top 5 in the Nation) (622 W 168th St, New York NY 10032) ---VP recently endorsed in a LinkedIn post---
9: New York Hospital -- as per PR Release (labeled #1 below)
---PR & RELATED INFORMATION---
1. 03/11/20 - PCT LTD Experiencing Rapid Increase in Interest and Receives Purchase Order from Additional Hospital in New York City PR LINK
2. 03/09/20 - Interview: PCT LTD Hospital Infection Control System installed in seven hospitals and expanding INTERVIEW LINK
3. 02/14/20 - PCT LTD Schedules Investor Call (Call took place on 2/20/20) PR LINK Audio Link (Written Summation below)
4. 01/30/20 - PCT LTD Executes Term Sheet for Debt Financing PR LINK
5. 01/08/20 - PCT LTD Discusses Their International Expansion and Growth Strategy with The Stock Day Podcast PR LINK
6. 12/16/19 - PCT LTD Issues Company Update and Signs Collaborative Agreement for Oil & Gas, and Cannabis Applications PR LINK
7. 10/31/19 - PCT LTD Continues to Expand By Signing Agreement with SUNY Downstate Medical Center Worth over $500,000 PR LINK
8. 10/25/19 - 3rd Quarter 8K released (see above FILINGS link)
9. 10/22/19 - Hospital-acquired Infection Control Market Is Estimated To Expand At a Healthy CAGR in the Upcoming Forecast Period MARKET RESEARCH PR
10. 10/22/19 - PCT LTD Deploys Initial Annihilyzer(R) Infection Control System to the United Kingdom PR LINK
11. 10/4/19 - PCT LTD Announces Additional Hospital Installation of Annihilyzer(R) Infection Control System PR LINK
12. 7/26/19 - The Infection Prevention Strategy is pleased to announce our Top Innovations of the Year: 2019 (Annihilyzer) PR LINK
13. 5/6/2019 - PCT LTD Announces New Purchase Order as the Result of a Successful Trial of Annihilyzer® Infection Control Systems (A TOP 5 hospital in the U.S. AND --#1 in NY-- CONVERTED from Trial to a customer AFTER a successful trial period) - Morgan Stanley Presbyterian Children’s Hospital PR LINK
14. 2/25/19 - PCT LTD Installs a Large Volume Hydrolyte® System with Option Agreement for 4 additional LVH Systems with Oil & Gas Industry Customer PR LINK
15. 1/10/19 - PCT LTD Executes New Master Service Agreement for Installation of Annihilyzer® Hospital Infection Control System at Carson Tahoe Regional Medical Center PR LINK
16. 11/08/18 - PCT LTD Announces Completion of Major Commercialization Milestones and Promotion of Jody Read to CEO Position PR LINK
17. 5/16/18 - Newly Launched Disinfecting System Reduces Hospital Acquired Infections PR LINK
18. 5/10/18 - PCT LTD Receives Patents for RFID Tracking Technology in Cleaning System (US Patent#9679170) PR LINK
3rd Quarter 10Q In final review with auditors & SEC Attorneys Expected to be completed in up to 3 weeks (updated per IR email--- expected in the next week)
10K Expected to be filed by April 13th
Convertible Notes "very active negotiations" to come to a resolve by time of 10K filing (April 13th)
No material change is O/S in months
very actively negotiating financing with negligible, if any, dissolution No anticipation of R/S
---Growth of about 400% in 2019--- on target to grow exponentially in 2020
G&A down significantly company become more efficicent, losses narrowed significantly down around 75% from 2018
---Currently Doing---
PCT UK joint venture partner Trial ongoing: Universities as well as hospitals involved to verify U.S. results "unless bacteria and virsuses are any different, which they aren't, don't anticipate any difficulty verifying claims"
"Preliminary discussions between PCT UK and National Healthcare system of the UK"
---Markets--- Primary Focus on healthcare sector - hospitals, medical centers assisted living, rehab facilities
Secondarily - Oil & Gas, remediation of Hydrogen Sulfide (very poisonous, corrosive, and flammable)
Recently - Cannabis Industry - purveyor of service "Happy to discover our product greatly mitigates or totally eliminates the 3 major problems they are having"
---Current Placement--- (Does not include newest NY Hospital announced above in PR on 3/11/20) 8 hospitals, 11 units installed with "3 more slated in next few weeks with more behind it"
Endorsement from VP of MY Presbyterian [Suppressed Image]
Not sure how many are aware of BARDA, but I came across a post on Twitter this evening and after doing a little digging, found this:
Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, was established to aid in securing our nation from chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) threats, as well as from pandemic influenza (PI) and emerging infectious diseases (EID).
In my eyes that's most certainly an organization that should be aware of the Annihilyzer product, so I connected with their Director, Rick B and provided a post on Linkedin for more exposure to their request of building out a comprehensive portfolio of COVID-19 countermeasures. See below.
(For my privacy, I did redact my information on the image)
Post made to BARDA Director, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Preparedness & Response - U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
[Suppressed Image]
Post made to BARDA Director, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Preparedness & Response - U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
UPDATED DUE DILIGENCE 3-17 - RESEARCH NOW Below is a good portion of the DD done here, by myself and others. Do YOURS now! (Also pinned on top of board)
Paradigm Convergence Technologies Corporation Summarized Due Diligence Sheet for Investing
---GENERAL INFORMATION---
Company Site: para-con.com Twitter: @PCTL2020 - (I urge you to follow them and review their posts) Investor Relations Chesapeake Group - Get on the email list for news info@chesapeakegp.com
About: a technology licensing company specializing in environmentally safe solutions for global sustainability with products for various markets they serve.
Mission: Infectious Disease and Contamination Control
About Products: Products and solutions are designed to take an environmentally conscious approach to combating the spread of infectious disease in the Healthcare and Cleaning industries, as well as contributing to the sustainability of global natural resources in the energy and agriculture markets.
The PCT Annihilyzer® Patented Monitoring, Tracking & Reporting System The Kiosk, which sits on top of the Filling Station Cabinet, houses The PCT Annihilyzer® System’s computer controls, information system, RFID tagging and reading system and an interactive touch screen display.
---FINANCIAL INFO---
Filings: LINK
Current info as of 3/9/20 Authorized- 1,000,000,000 Outstanding- 511,315,300 Restricted- 35,139,690
Standard Registrar and Transfer Company 440 East 400 South, Suite 200 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Phone: 801-571-8844 or 801-596-2150 www.standardtransferco.com Amy Merrill Email: amy@standardregistrar.com
---CURRENT CLIENT LIST---
1: Morgan Stanley Presbyterian Children’s Hospital. (3959 Broadway At, W 165 St, New York NY 10032)
2: Mount Sinai South Nassau Hospital (1 Healthy Way, Oceanside NY 11572)
3: Carson Tahoe Regional Medical Center (1600 Medical Pkwy, Carson City NV 89703)
4: SUNY Downstate Medical Center (450 Clarkson Ave, Brooklyn NY 11203)
6: Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center ??? Maybe (1275 York Avenue New York, NY 10065)
7: North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust, (UK Trial underway began Jan 15th 2020 - 60 day trial) (University Hospital of Hartlepool, Holdforth Road, Hartlepool, TS24 9AH) (University Hospital of North Tees, Hardwick, Stockton on Tees, TS19 8PE)
8: New York Presbyterian Columbia Hospital (Ranked Top 5 in the Nation) (622 W 168th St, New York NY 10032) ---VP recently endorsed in a LinkedIn post---
9: New York Hospital -- as per PR Release (labeled #1 below)
---PR & RELATED INFORMATION---
1. 03/18/20 - PCT LTD Receives Large Purchase Order for Recurring Sales of Fluids for Non-Medical Use and Explains Current Revenue Streams PR LINK
2. 03/16/20 - PCT LTD Interview with Stock Day Podcast (MUST LISTEN) PR LINK
3. 03/13/20 - PCT LTD Adds International Distributor and Sells High-Volume Equipment to Existing Customer as a Result of Heightened Demand PR LINK
4. 03/11/20 - PCT LTD Experiencing Rapid Increase in Interest and Receives Purchase Order from Additional Hospital in New York City PR LINK
5. 03/09/20 - Interview: PCT LTD Hospital Infection Control System installed in seven hospitals and expanding INTERVIEW LINK
6. 02/14/20 - PCT LTD Schedules Investor Call (Call took place on 2/20/20) PR LINK Audio Link (Written Summation below)
7. 01/30/20 - PCT LTD Executes Term Sheet for Debt Financing PR LINK
8. 01/08/20 - PCT LTD Discusses Their International Expansion and Growth Strategy with The Stock Day Podcast PR LINK
9. 12/16/19 - PCT LTD Issues Company Update and Signs Collaborative Agreement for Oil & Gas, and Cannabis Applications PR LINK
10. 10/31/19 - PCT LTD Continues to Expand By Signing Agreement with SUNY Downstate Medical Center Worth over $500,000 PR LINK
11. 10/25/19 - 3rd Quarter 8K released (see above FILINGS link)
12. 10/22/19 - Hospital-acquired Infection Control Market Is Estimated To Expand At a Healthy CAGR in the Upcoming Forecast Period MARKET RESEARCH PR
13. 10/22/19 - PCT LTD Deploys Initial Annihilyzer(R) Infection Control System to the United Kingdom PR LINK
14. 10/4/19 - PCT LTD Announces Additional Hospital Installation of Annihilyzer(R) Infection Control System PR LINK
15. 7/26/19 - The Infection Prevention Strategy is pleased to announce our Top Innovations of the Year: 2019 (Annihilyzer) PR LINK
16. 5/6/2019 - PCT LTD Announces New Purchase Order as the Result of a Successful Trial of Annihilyzer® Infection Control Systems (A TOP 5 hospital in the U.S. AND --#1 in NY-- CONVERTED from Trial to a customer AFTER a successful trial period) - Morgan Stanley Presbyterian Children’s Hospital PR LINK
17. 2/25/19 - PCT LTD Installs a Large Volume Hydrolyte® System with Option Agreement for 4 additional LVH Systems with Oil & Gas Industry Customer PR LINK
18. 1/10/19 - PCT LTD Executes New Master Service Agreement for Installation of Annihilyzer® Hospital Infection Control System at Carson Tahoe Regional Medical Center PR LINK
19. 11/08/18 - PCT LTD Announces Completion of Major Commercialization Milestones and Promotion of Jody Read to CEO Position PR LINK
20. 5/16/18 - Newly Launched Disinfecting System Reduces Hospital Acquired Infections PR LINK
21. 5/10/18 - PCT LTD Receives Patents for RFID Tracking Technology in Cleaning System (US Patent#9679170) PR LINK
3rd Quarter 10Q In final review with auditors & SEC Attorneys Expected to be completed in up to 3 weeks (updated per IR email--- expected in the next week)
10K Expected to be filed by April 13th
Convertible Notes "very active negotiations" to come to a resolve by time of 10K filing (April 13th)
No material change is O/S in months
very actively negotiating financing with negligible, if any, dissolution No anticipation of R/S
---Growth of about 400% in 2019--- on target to grow exponentially in 2020
G&A down significantly company become more efficicent, losses narrowed significantly down around 75% from 2018
---Currently Doing---
PCT UK joint venture partner Trial ongoing: Universities as well as hospitals involved to verify U.S. results "unless bacteria and virsuses are any different, which they aren't, don't anticipate any difficulty verifying claims"
"Preliminary discussions between PCT UK and National Healthcare system of the UK"
---Markets--- Primary Focus on healthcare sector - hospitals, medical centers assisted living, rehab facilities
Secondarily - Oil & Gas, remidiation of Hydrogen Sulfide (very poisonous, corrosive, and flammable)
Recently - Cannabis Industry - purveyor of service "Happy to discover our product greatly mitigates or totally elimiants the 3 major problems they are having"
---Current Placement--- (Does not include newest NY Hospital announced above in PR on 3/11/20) 8 hospitals, 11 units installed with "3 more slated in next few weeks with more behind it"
Endorsement from VP of MY Presbyterian and other execs [Suppressed Image]
[Suppressed Image]
[Suppressed Image]
[Suppressed Image]
Not sure how many are aware of BARDA, but I came across a post on Twitter this evening and after doing a little digging, found this:
Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, was established to aid in securing our nation from chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) threats, as well as from pandemic influenza (PI) and emerging infectious diseases (EID).
In my eyes that's most certainly an organization that should be aware of the Annihilyzer product, so I connected with their Director, Rick B and provided a post on Linkedin for more exposure to their request of building out a. comprehensive portfolio of COVID-19 countermeasures. See below.
(For my privacy, I did redact my information on the image)
Post made to BARDA Director, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Preparedness & Response - U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
================= exactly what the EPA said
Quote:
List N includes products that meet EPA’s criteria for use against SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus that causes the disease COVID-19.
The key word here is against The EPA does not come out and say any products on these lists will kill CV-19. However I doubt the EPA would use a strong word as against in the above statement.
Quote:
Note: Inclusion on this list does not constitute an endorsement by EPA. There may be additional disinfectants that meet the criteria for use against SARS-CoV-2. EPA will update this list with additional products as needed.
It's pretty obvious this disclaimer is stating the EPA does not endorse as in recommend any product that's listed. They do not because it would constitute marketing for that product.... The EPA also recognizes that there are other products that meet the criteria against SARS-CV-2 AKA Coronavirus. Why do they make this statement? Because there are other products that are registered with the EPA that are not on this list that meets the criteria against CV-19
Nothing hard to understand there. Here is the a pic of it below:
[Suppressed Image]
Lets move on
List N: Disinfectants for Use Against SARS-CoV-2 | Pesticide ...www.epa.gov › pesticide-registration › list-n-disinfectants-use-against-... If a product qualified for the Emerging Viral Pathogen Claim, it demonstrated efficacy against a harder-to-kill virus than the enveloped human coronavirus
From this statement we know that EXCELYTE which meets this criteria. How do we know this? We know because they are on the N list under EPA registration 92108-1. I also believe this Reg number can be used against the harder to lill Norovirus. Coronavirus is easier to kill than Norovirus. Any amount of basic DD will show that.
Below is the reg and product number for EXCELYTE [Suppressed Image]
Finally Below is the EPA reg link for EXCELYTE showing it's registered to PCT Ltd. This link is the original registration.
Pretty basic stuff is you ask me lol ============== Pics of the product - Sorry about it being sideways
[Suppressed Image]
[Suppressed Image]
[Suppressed Image]
============ PCT LTD Obtains EPA Approval for Emerging Pathogens Labeling for Use Against SARS-CoV-2, the Novel Coronavirus That Causes the Disease COVID-19 Business WireMarch 27, 2020, 9:49 AM CST
PCT LTD (OTC Pink: PCTL) ("PCTL") is pleased to announce that it has received approval for "emerging pathogens" labeling with the US EPA.
The application was filed under the guidance document "Guidance to Registrants: Process for Making Claims Against Emerging Viral Pathogens Not on EPA-Registered Disinfectant Labels." It was approved on March 26th, 2020. The guidance document provides the following information regarding different classes of viruses and their resistance to being killed by disinfectants:
EPA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recognize that certain microorganisms can be ranked with respect to their tolerance to chemical disinfectants. The Spaulding Classification model, used by CDC, tiers microorganisms in accordance with the level of resistance to being killed (inactivation) by typical disinfectant products. With this approach viruses are divided into three viral subgroups (small non-enveloped, large non-enveloped, and enveloped) based on their relative resistance to inactivation … According to this hierarchy, if an antimicrobial product can kill a small, non-enveloped virus it should be able to kill any large, non-enveloped virus or any enveloped virus. Similarly, a product that can kill a large, non-enveloped virus should be able to kill any enveloped virus.
Small, Non-Enveloped Viruses (<50 nm): These small, non-enveloped viruses can be highly resistant to inactivation by disinfection. Despite the lack of a lipid envelope, these organisms have a very resistant protein capsid…
Large, Non-Enveloped Viruses: Compared to small, non-enveloped viruses, these viruses are less resistant to inactivation by disinfection. Although they have a resistant protein capsid, their larger size (50-100nm) makes them more vulnerable than their smaller viral counterparts…
Enveloped Viruses: Enveloped viruses are the least resistant to inactivation by disinfection. The structure of these viruses includes a lipid envelope, which is easily compromised by most disinfectants. Once the lipid envelope is damaged, the integrity of the virus is compromised, thereby neutralizing its infectivity.
In addition to being "an EPA-registered, hospital/healthcare or broad-spectrum disinfectant …", in order to meet product eligibility criteria, the product "should have disinfectant efficacy claims against at least one of the following viral pathogen groupings:
a) A product should be approved by EPA to inactivate at least one large or one small non-enveloped virus to be eligible for use against an enveloped emerging viral pathogen.
b) A product should be approved by EPA to inactivate at least one small, non-enveloped virus to be eligible for use against a large, non-enveloped emerging viral pathogen.
c) A product should be approved by EPA to inactivate at least two small, non-enveloped viruses with each from a different viral family to be eligible for use against a small, non-enveloped emerging viral pathogen.
This approach, where disinfectant products registered for use against viral pathogens in one category of the Spaulding Classification model can be presumed effective against viral pathogens in less-resistant categories, is intended to serve as a conservative approach to identifying disinfectant products likely to be effective against emerging pathogens."
As a result of meeting all of the Product Eligibility Criteria, PCT LTD can now make the following statement "only through the following communication outlets: … "1-800" consumer information services, social media sites and company websites (non-label related) … [as well as] technical literature distributed exclusively to health care facilities, physicians, nurses and public health officials":
This Product meets the criteria to make claims against certain emerging viral pathogens from the following viral category[ies]:
Enveloped Viruses
Large Non-Enveloped Viruses
Small Non-Enveloped Viruses
For an emerging viral pathogen that is a/an… …follow the directions for use for the following organisms on the label: Enveloped virus Norovirus Large, non-enveloped virus Norovirus Small, non-enveloped virus Norovirus, Rhinovirus (Type 16)
Hydrolyte® has demonstrated effectiveness against viruses similar to SARS-CoV-2 virus on hard, non-porous surfaces. Therefore, Hydrolyte® can be used against SARS-CoV-2 virus when used in accordance with the directions for use against Norovirus and Rhinovirus type 16 on hard, non-porous surfaces. Refer to the CDC website at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/home/cleaning-disinfection.html for additional information.
COVID-19 is caused by SARS-CoV-2 virus. Hydrolyte® kills similar viruses and therefore can be used against SARS-CoV-2 virus when used in accordance with the directions for use against Norovirus and Rhinovirus type 16 on hard, non-porous surfaces. Refer to the CDC website at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/home/cleaning-disinfection.html for additional information.
"We are very pleased to receive approval for an "emerging pathogens" claim on our product label," says CEO Gary Grieco. "It represents an important step for us as a business and in helping to control the spread of infectious disease as a whole. Additionally, we are now prequalified for future emerging pathogens of any virus classification."
Due to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, PCT LTD has seen an increased number of inquiries from existing clients, sub-registrants, and distributors; in addition to new and prospective customers. The company recently announced that they had temporarily shifted their focus towards producing mass quantities of disinfecting fluids to meet growing demand.
"Fluid sales have been tremendous for us," says PCT Ltd CEO Gary Grieco. "To put it simply, we are routinely shipping fluids out at rapid pace and into the hands of trained professionals where our product can be put to good use fighting the spread of infectious disease in our communities. We are limited only by our capacity to produce the fluids, but we expect to double our production capacity by April 1st."
Additional News and Corporate Updates:
PCTL would like to warn its stockholders and potential investors that material corporate information regarding sales, areas of business and other corporate updates will only be made through press releases or filings with the SEC. PCTL does not utilize social media, chatrooms or other online sources to disclose material information. The public should only rely on official press releases and corporate filings for accurate and up to date information regarding PCTL.
About PCT LTD:
PCT LTD ("PCTL") focuses its business on acquiring, developing and providing sustainable, environmentally safe disinfecting, cleaning and tracking technologies. The company acquires and holds rights to innovative products and technologies, which are commercialized through its wholly-owned operating subsidiary, Paradigm Convergence Technologies Corporation (PCT Corp). Currently trading on OTC, "PCTL" aspires to and is actively engaged in preparations for up-listing its common stock to a national securities exchange. The Company established entry into its target markets with commercially viable products in the United States and now continues to gain market share in the U.S. and U.K.
Forward-Looking Statements:
This press release contains "forward-looking statements" as defined in Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21B of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Any statements that express or involve discussions with respect to predictions, expectations, beliefs, plans, projections, objectives, goals, assumptions or future events or performance are not statements of historical fact and may be "forward-looking statements."
Such statements are based on expectations, estimates and projections at the time the statements are made that involve a number of risks and uncertainties, which could cause actual results or events to differ materially from those presently anticipated. Such statements involve risks and uncertainties, including but not limited to: the impact of having met the EPA Criteria for use Against SARS-CoV-2, actual sales derived by the Company; the transition to producing large quantities of fluids; PCTL's and its subsidiary's business prospects; PCTL's ability to raise sufficient funds to satisfy its working capital requirements; the ability of PCTL to execute its business plan; any other effects resulting from the information disclosed above; risks and effects of legal and administrative proceedings and government regulation; future financial and operational results; competition; general economic conditions; and the ability to manage and continue growth. Should one or more of these risks or uncertainties materialize, or should underlying assumptions prove incorrect, actual outcomes may vary materially from those indicated. Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking statements PCTL makes in this press release include market conditions and those set forth in reports or documents it files from time to time with the SEC. PCTL undertakes no obligation to revise or update such statements to reflect current events or circumstances after the date hereof or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.
Gary Grieco, CEO and Chairman, PCT LTD (843) 390-7900 Office (843) 390-2347 Fax www.para-con.com www.pctcorphealth.com www.survivalyte.com
Brokers and Analysts: Chesapeake Group +1-410-825-3930 info@chesapeakegp.com ==================================================================================================================. CANADA INFO & LINKS BokehRebl Tuesday, 03/31/20 10:29:25 PM Re: Long term post# 78282 ? 0 Post # 78283 of 78339
Here’s THE list I put together of all relevant contact in the US and Canadien Government, Feel free to add more!
Louisiana Alexander Billioux, MD, DPhil [Bio] Assistant Secretary of Health Alexander.Billioux@LA.GOV
Maine Nirav Shah, MD, JD* Director, Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention Nirav.Shah@Maine.Gov
Maryland Robert Neall Secretary of Health Frances B. Phillips, RN, MHA [Bio] Deputy Secretary for Public Health Services S/THO Designee robert.neall@maryland.gov
Michigan Joneigh Khaldun, MD, MPH, FACEP [Bio] Chief Deputy Director for Health and CME khaldunj@michigan.gov
Minnesota Jan Malcolm [Bio] Health Commissioner jan.malcolm@state.mn.us
Mississippi Thomas Dobbs, MD, MPH* State Health Officer thomas.dobbs@msdh.ms.gov
Missouri Randall W. Williams, MD, FACOG [Bio] Director randall.williams@health.mo.gov
Montana Sheila Hogan Director Gregory Holzman, MD [Bio] Chief Medical Officer S/THO Designee gHolzman@mt.gov
Nebraska Dannette Smith, MSW * Chief Executive Officer, Nebraska Department of Health & Human Services Gary Anthone, MD Chief Medical Officer and Director, Division of Public Health S/THO Designee Dannette.Smith@nebraska.gov
Nevada Lisa Sherych, MBA* Administrator lsherych@adsd.nv.gov
New Hampshire Lisa Morris, MSSW [Bio] Director, Division of Public Health Service lisa.morris@dhhs.nh.gov
New Jersey Judith Persichilli RN, BSN, MA* Commissioner of Health Judith.Pershichilli@doh.nj.gov
New York Howard Zucker, MD, JD [Bio] Commissioner of Health howard.zucker@health.ny.gov
North Carolina Mark Benton [Bio] Assistant Secretary for Public Health mark.benton@dhhs.nc.gov
North Dakota Mylynn K. Tufte, MBA, MSIM, RN [Bio] State Health Officer mylynntufte@nd.gov
Ohio Amy Acton, MD, MPH [Bio] Director of Health DirectorAmyActon@odh.ohio.gov
Oklahoma Gary Cox, JD* Commissioner of Health GaryC@health.ok.gov
Oregon Lillian M. Shirley, BSN, MPH, MPA [Bio] Public Health Director lillian.shirley@state.or.us
Pennsylvania Rachel Levine, MD [Bio] Secretary of Health ralevine@pa.gov
Puerto Rico Rafael Rodriguez Mercado, MD, FACS, FAANS Secretary of Health Catherine De La Cruz-Duran* S/THO Designee drrafael.rodriguez@salud.pr.gov
Rhode Island Nicole Alexander-Scott, MD, MPH [Bio] Director nicole.alexanderscott@health.ri.gov
South Carolina Richard Toomey, MHA, DHA [Bio] Director, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control Rick.Toomey@dhec.sc.gov
South Dakota Kim Malsam-Rysdon [Bio] Secretary kim.malsam-rysdon@state.sd.us
Tennessee Lisa Piercey MD, MBA, FAAP [Bio] Commissioner tn.health@tn.gov
Texas John Hellerstedt, MD [Bio] Commissioner john.hellerstedt@dshs.texas.gov
Utah Joseph Miner, MD [Bio] Executive Director joeminer@utah.gov
Vermont Mark Levine, MD [Bio] Commissioner of Health mark.levine@vermont.gov
Virginia M. Norman Oliver, MD, MA [Bio] State Health Commissioner norm.oliver@vdh.virginia.gov
Washington John M. Wiesman, DrPH, MPH [Bio] Secretary of Health secretary@doh.wa.gov
West Virginia Cathy Slemp, MD, MPH [Bio] Commissioner and State Health Officer catherine.slemp@wv.gov
Wisconsin Jeanne Ayers, RN, MPH [Bio] Administrator, Division of Public Health Jeanne.Ayers@dhs.wisconsin.gov
Wyoming Alexia Harrist, MD, PhD [Bio] State Health Officer alexia.harrist1@wyo.gov —————————————
davidsan Wednesday, April 1, 2020 4:57:18 PM Re: None Post # 78774 of 78834 Can PCTL's fluid turn sour crude oil into sweet?
I vaguely remember this was something said in discussing why that large unnamed oil&gas company was so interested in setting up the customized trial they are doing. I remember clearly that it helped make the liquid involved in fracking much more environmentally friendly, much more green, with a more pure and less costly product, something to that effect. There was some big reason why that oil&gas company was so excited about it. If the oil&gas industry incorporates this into their standard processes, with the sheer volume of this fluid they will need every day, that will be HUGE, just that one piece of all this alone. Somewhere in there I thought I remembered that in the process it helped turn sour crude into sweet, just don't recall how specific that point was.
Anyone here remember?
This is so much more than just hospitals and spraying to kill the coronavirus. The agricultural/cannabis industry and oil&gas industry customized trials are going on as well.
And, of course, the UK trials are about to hit (The UK hospital trial already completed, and the 2 university studies are supposed to complete the end of March to first week of April, meaning anytime now). Just waiting on results and orders, both expected to be very favorable.
Hypochlorous Acid Market Demand Would Increase Rapidly Hypochlorous Acid Market: Excellent Microbial and Oxidizing Properties Hypochlorous acid is a weak acid formed by dissolving chlorine in water. It possesses excellent microbial and oxidizing properties. It is used as a disinfectant agent in medical, water treatment, and food additives in food & beverages industry. Sodium hypochlorite and calcium hypochlorite are the two types of hypochlorous acid. Sodium hypochlorite is a widely consumed hypochlorous acid. Sodium hypochlorite can be easily stored and transported. It is more effective than chlorine gas in various applications. Read report Overview@ https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/hypochlorous-acid-market.html Hypochlorous acid is employed in various end-user industries such as water treatment, wound management, food & beverages, oil & gas, and personal care. Demand for hypochlorous acid in the wound management segment is projected to rise significantly in the near future. Hypochlorous acid acts as an excellent disinfectant in wound healing applications. It accelerates the healing process of any wound and other infections such as eye infection, ear infection, etc. Hypochlorous acid has excellent disinfectant properties, which help destroy pathogens, bacteria, and fungi. Request PDF Brochure@ https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/sample/sample.php?flag=B&rep_id=68783 Key drivers of Hypochlorous Acid market Rise in demand for oxidizing and disinfecting agents in order to provide quality water is driving the global hypochlorous acid market. Hypochlorous acid is highly cost effective. It is non-toxic to humans and animals. Therefore, it is highly preferred in the water treatment industry. Rise in usage of hypochlorous acid in sterilizing bacterial infection by drying out blood cells is boosting its demand in the medical industry. Hypochlorous acid is also used as an active sanitizing agent in swimming pools and skin cleansing agent in cosmetic applications. It is used in the manufacture of calcium hypochlorite (Ca(OCl)2) and sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), which are further used in the manufacture of disinfectants, bleaches, and deodorants. Food & Beverage Industry and Wound Management to offer attractive opportunities Increase in usage of hypochlorous acid in the food & beverages industry is estimated to provide lucrative opportunities to manufacturers of hypochlorous acid in the near future. Hypochlorous acid is used for cleaning food processing equipment and dish washers. It is also employed as food additive in processing poultry products and seafood products. Hypochlorous acid is gaining momentum as a potential wound care agent in the pharmaceutical industry. It is a highly effective wound irrigation solution, which is entirely safe for human tissues. It aids in elimination of unpleasant wound odor and removes bacteria from wound surface. Hypochlorous Acid may form Explosive Gas in Concentrated Form likely to Restrain Market Hypochlorous acid is highly dangerous and can form explosive gas if used in concentrated form. This is anticipated to restrain the market during the forecast period. When exposed to air, it disintegrates and causes nausea, abdomen pain, etc. If released in water bodies, hypochlorous acid may harm aquatic animals, thereby adversely affecting biodiversity. These factors are estimated to restrain the demand for hypochlorous acid during the forecast period. Stuck in a neck-to-neck competition with other brands? Request a custom report on competition on Hypochlorous Acid Market here Asia Pacific Expected to Hold Leading Share in the Global Hypochlorous Acid Market In terms of region, the demand for hypochlorous acid can be split across five regions: North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, Latin America, and Middle East & Africa. In terms of consumption, Asia Pacific dominated the global hypochlorous acid market in 2018. Developing economies such as China, India, Vietnam, and Indonesia are the leading consumers of hypochlorous acid in Asia Pacific. Rapid industrialization and increase in demand for sodium hypochlorite in chemical, agriculture, and pharmaceutical industries are anticipated to fuel the hypochlorous acid market during the forecast period. Demand for hypochlorous acid in countries in Europe such as Germany, France, and the U.K. is projected to increase during the forecast period primarily due to the rise in demand for sodium and calcium hypochlorite in the food & beverages industry in the region. The U.S. is the leading consumer of hypochlorous acid in North America. Increase in demand for hypochlorous acid in industrial applications such as cooling water treatment is propelling the market in the U.S. Latin America and Middle East & Africa are highly dependent on hypochlorous acid import. This is likely to hamper the sales of hypochlorous acid in these regions. However, production capacity expansion by various manufacturers in Brazil, Mexico, and GCC is expected to augment the demand for hypochlorous acid in Latin America and Middle East & Africa during the forecast period. Key Players in Hypochlorous Acid Market: New product launches and mergers & acquisitions are the key strategies adopted by top players operating in the market. For instance, in 2018, URGO Medical, a leading player in wound care products, entered into an asset purchasing agreement with REALM Therapeutics, a biopharmaceutical company based in the U.S. REALM Therapeutics engages in research activities to discover new hypochlorous acid based treatments for atopic dermatitis and allergic conjunctivitis. This acquisition is expected to help URGO Medical become the leading player in advanced wound care business across the globe. Key players operating in the global hypochlorous acid market include Lenntech B.V. BASF SE Arkema S.A. Lonza. Inovyn Chlorvinyls Limited Olin Corporation Nouryon (Previously under Akzo Nobel N.V.'s coating division) Occidental Petroleum Corporation Kuehne Company AGC Chemicals Surpass Chemical Company, Inc. Westlake Chemical Corporation Clorox Company Tianjin Ruifuxin Chemical Tosoh Corporation Aditya Birla Chemicals Aqualution Systems Ltd Ultrapure HOCL (Pty) Ltd Others
=================== Friday, April 3, 2020 10:10:28 AM Cherry Re: None Post # 80097 of 80187 WHY YOU WANT TO BUY ALL THE PCTL YOU CAN
Right now, IMO, before PCT LTD (ticker PCTL) announces the UK hospital results which might potentially lead to 600+ hospital installations in the UK, before the March 2020 revenues from increased fluid sales are known, before the scientific data on treating disease/mold/fungi in the citrus & cannabis industries is announced, before results from the oil & gas industry testing, and before the delayed 2019 Q3 of which will contain outdated information from over 6 months ago-
People reading here may have read and seen, in bits and pieces, all these things below.
How anyone interprets & verifies anything, and researches further, is up to them. Nothing here is advice.
Since late 2019: More hospitals, More distribution, More geographic regions, More production capacity, More sales of the fluid itself & increasing dramatically, EPA approved on List N to disinfect surfaces for NCOV-19-SARS-2, Existing clients are buying more systems or extending their contracts,
=============== Tuesday, 04/07/20 11:13:24 AM Re: Patience 1 post# 81708 0.005 Post # 81730 of 82300
Quote:
NEWS OUT!! 4/7/20, 9:55 AM LITTLE RIVER, S.C.--(BUSINESS WIRE)
PCT LTD (OTC Pink: PCTL) ("PCTL") is excited to announce they have increased production capacity at their Little River, South Carolina facility.
Updating an earlier release (March 25th), the South Carolina facility is now capable of producing up to 10,000 gallons of fluids per day. A marked increase over earlier capabilities. The company is now better positioned to meet the growing demand for its Hypochlorous Acid-based disinfecting fluids.
“Our team has been working around the clock over the last several weeks to make this happen,” says Stuart Emmons, PCTL Executive VP of Engineering and R & D. “The South Carolina facility is now better positioned to fulfill the daily orders we have been receiving.”
Due in part to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, the company has seen an exponential increase in sales and inquiries from current and prospective customers. Late last month the company shifted its short-term focus towards fluid production and sales to meet increasing demand.
“It’s supply and demand,” according to PCTL CEO Gary Grieco. “The demand is there and now so is the supply. We needed to shift our focus towards where we can have the most impact and do the most good for our customers and the communities they serve. At the same time, this presents an opportunity for us to elevate our profile, grow our business, and showcase how effective our products can be in the ongoing fight against the spread of infectious disease.”
The company has also been hiring additional support staff to support growing business operations. Most recently, the company engaged Joseph Tippmann, graduate of The University of Michigan’s Industrial Design and Architecture program, as a new design engineer. Tippmann joined the company on a contract basis initially and has spent the past two weeks performing design updates on Annihilyzer and Hydrolyte Rack systems in addition to helping design a more modular system for easier assembly.
Tippmann is also a co-owner of Werks Manufacturing, a Fort Wayne, Indiana based manufacturing company which PCTL engages for the purpose of manufacturing and assembling parts for use in the company’s Annihilyzer® Infection Control System and other systems.
Werks Manufacturing is expanding their operation and will increase parts and assembly production to meet PCTL’s growing demand. In addition, Werks will also serve as a fluid depot for PCTL’s clients in the northern Midwest part of the United States. Werks will initially be capable of producing up to 4,000 gallons per day of disinfecting fluids, including Hydrolyte®, for sale and use by PCTL to clients in Detroit, Chicago, and throughout the region. This fluid production capacity can be increased as needed to serve growing demand.
“We are continuing our rapid growth plans,” says Grieco. “Through strategic partnerships, distribution agreements, and more, we are gaining market share, increasing revenue at a rapid pace, and growing our business both quickly and efficiently.”
Additional News and Corporate Updates:
PCTL would like to warn its stockholders and potential investors that material corporate information regarding sales, areas of business and other corporate updates will only be made through press releases or filings with the SEC. PCTL does not utilize social media, chatrooms or other online sources to disclose material information. The public should only rely on official press releases and corporate filings for accurate and up to date information regarding PCTL. ====================
Wednesday, April 8, 2020 1:22:30 PM Beer money Re: None Post # 82319 of 82350 Yes Gary Grieco, PCTL CEO, stated, "As a result of the capabilities and benefits of our products, many companies and municipalities across a variety of industries and geographic locations are engaging in intense discussions with PCT LTD."
PCTL "The 800 pound gorilla, Corona-virus, that has opened up a huge opportunity for us and I can not say any more than that we have been contacted by, and are actively negotiating to address the problem with both companies and government officials and I can not say more than that."
In addition, Grieco further commented, "All of our hospital customers using our infection control system and disinfectant are utilizing the systems as a front-line defense throughout their facilities, including in all public area such as restrooms, lobbies, waiting rooms, elevators, corridors, cafeterias, etc. all throughout the day and night and in the presence of patients, staff and visitors."
============ Thursday, April 9, 2020 10:01:52 AM Re: None Post # 82599 of 82789 Hypochlorous Acid Okay For Easter Eggs Hypochlorous acid is cleared by the FDA for use on meat, poultry, fish & seafood, fruits & vegetables and shell eggs as a no-rinse sanitizer. FCN 1811 is a Food Contact Notification (FCN) from the FDA for using electrolytically generated hypochlorous acid as an antimicrobial agent in an aqueous solution in the production and preparation of whole or cut meat and poultry; processed and preformed meat and poultry; fish and seafood; fruits and vegetables; and shell eggs. To read more about food contact notification 1811, visit the FDA website in the link below. https://www.hypochlorousacid.com/regulation [Suppressed Image]
================== Thursday, April 9, 2020 10:35:37 AM Re: None Post # 82670 of 82807 Why the NHS and Private Clinics Should Look Further than Alcohol-Based Sanitisers The CoViD-19 pandemic has brought alcohol to the fore; whether it is the amount the British public is consuming to get through self-isolation or the level required in hand sanitiser to make it effective, the news stories are everywhere. Many of these revolving around the shortage of traditional alcohol-based hand sanitisers and how prices are soaring. With this being the case, why then don’t the NHS and other health care facilities look elsewhere? Is there no other option? In fact, there is another option which is rapidly emerging as the new go-to sanitiser during the CoViD-19 pandemic; Hypochlorous Acid (HOCl). What is Hypochlorous Acid? HOCI is generated when white blood cells attack harmful bacteria and is harmless to the human body. In December 2019 Optometry Times published an article on HOCl and they explain it much better than I can… “HOCl is a weak acid that occurs naturally in our body. Neutrophils are white blood cells that are the first to arrive on site when an invading pathogen is detected. Neutrophils will chase down and engulf the pathogen through phagocytosis. Upon contact, neutrophils release a burst of bactericidal chemicals including its most powerful oxidizing agent, HOCl. This kills the pathogen by tearing down the cell membranes and proteins”. Optometry Times called HOCl “the perfect weapon to fight germs. It hits hard against pathogens like Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) and Pseudomonas Aeroginosa. Yet this powerful weapon is 100 percent safe for humans, chemical free, non-toxic and all-natural”. Due to these attributes HOCl is being widely used in South Korea in their battle against CoViD-19, disinfecting everything from food to people to hospital wards and their mass transit systems. Looking at the way in which they have taken control of the spread of the virus it is clear to see that HOCl can also help the United Kingdom to gain the upper hand in this struggle. https://www.belle.org.uk/news-1/2020/4/2/why-the-nhs-and-private-clinics-should-look-to-hypochlorous-acid-rather-than-alcohol-based-sanitisers
=============
beer$$money ?
Sunday, April 12, 2020 8:04:27 PM Re: BIGBUCKS post# 83703
Post # 83709 of 83745 Alex Guttman Author> Huge interest being developed on LinkedIN VP marketing and Research at Ace Janitorial, Sales Mgr Escalator Cleaning company, Senior VP HAI Consultants
Randy Stiles can't mention names without permission but I can say that most of the major healthcare systems in NYC are now using our system
Randy Stiles +Executive Account Manager at Paylidify
Jon Pickett, MBA is this being used at all Memorial Healthcare Locations? The feedback on the system has been great.
Jody Read CEO at PCT Health, PCT LTD
Glad to see that the efforts of the entire team at ACE and PCT to bring this system to market has been a success and we are looking forward to placing these systems into every hospital, surgical center, nursing homes, and long-term care facilities!
Good am Mr Jody.could I represent your company in Dubai.? Tnx
Fritz Oehler Executive Director at Sprenger Health Care Systems Looks like this product could be an answer to many infection control issues in our industry.
Sunday, April 12, 2020 8:53:14 PM Re: BIGBUCKS post# 83629
Post # 83715 of 83745 Some additional DD. The full section in that recent PCTL release includes: Quote:
The company has also been hiring additional support staff to support growing business operations. Most recently, the company engaged Joseph Tippmann, graduate of The University of Michigan’s Industrial Design and Architecture program, as a new design engineer. Tippmann joined the company on a contract basis initially and has spent the past two weeks performing design updates on Annihilyzer and Hydrolyte Rack systems in addition to helping design a more modular system for easier assembly. Tippmann is also a co-owner of Werks Manufacturing, a Fort Wayne, Indiana based manufacturing company which PCTL engages for the purpose of manufacturing and assembling parts for use in the company’s Annihilyzer® Infection Control System and other systems. Werks Manufacturing is expanding their operation and will increase parts and assembly production to meet PCTL’s growing demand. In addition, Werks will also serve as a fluid depot for PCTL’s clients in the northern Midwest part of the United States. Werks will initially be capable of producing up to 4,000 gallons per day of disinfecting fluids, including Hydrolyte®, for sale and use by PCTL to clients in Detroit, Chicago, and throughout the region. This fluid production capacity can be increased as needed to serve growing demand.
I could not find much on google in regards to Joseph Tippmann. I did find Werks Manufacturing Inc. = http://werksmfg.com ;... but ... website is “under construction”. It appears to be located at 2300 Meyer Road Fort Wayne, IN 46803. It appears the phone number might be (260) 428-2698. Also at this address appears to be: Advanced Media Integration LLC = Video production service = Vincent P Tippmann. same phone number?
I did also find Vincent P. Tippmann at this website: https://vptag.com/ Tippmann Affiliated Group is a family owned organization with a diversified group of business segments throughout North America and around the world. Approaching a half-century in business, Tippmann Affiliated Group businesses hold 17 patents and numerous product and service awards in various industries, including Automotive, Food Service, Refrigeration, Medical Device and Transportation. As it stands today, Tippmann Affiliated Group remains a family owned organization with a diversified group of business segments throughout North America and around the world. Headquartered in Fort Wayne, IN, Tippmann Affiliated Group operates its main campus on 75 acres and 810,000 sq/ft. of manufacturing and office space. 4410 New Haven Ave Fort Wayne, IN 46803. Phone:(260) 428-2500. It appears that 2300 Meyer Road Fort Wayne, IN 46803 is immediately adjacent to 4410 New Haven Ave Fort Wayne, IN 46803. Father & son? Could Vincent Tippman be the co-owner of Werks Manufacturing (together with Joseph Tippmann?
=====================
Ronin Wednesday, 04/15/20 10:42:51 AM Re: TKane post# 86153 Post # 86171 of 86190
News hit DOW JONES and BUSINESS wire! Lots of eyes on this now!
Evaluate Wednesday, April 15, 2020 3:12:04 PM Re: Evaluate post# 86473 Post # 86479 of 86491 https://pureandclean.us/disinfectant-sanitizer-gallon/ It appears that Pure & Clean is a distributor for PCT's HOCl, at 460 PPM, since their web page shows it is a distributor of EPA Reg. No. 92108-1. Only available in the following states: Florida, Kansas Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, Oklahoma and Texas. For all other states, please order the Surface Cleaner Pro products: https://pureandclean.us/surface-cleanser-pro/ Pure&Clean Disinfectant/Sanitizer? 460 ppm HOCl. This is a New Generation Disinfectant formulated using Hypochlorous Acid (HOCl) that cleans, deodorizes, and disinfects. As a distributor of EPA Reg. No. 92108-1, the product pure&clean™ (EPA Reg. No. 92108-1-88098) is included on the list of products approved by the US
=====================
BIGBUCKS Wednesday, April 15, 2020 3:09:42 PM Re: None Post # 86478 of 86491 PCT LTD Reports Q3 2019 Financials; Revenue Increases 435%, Operating Expenses Decrease
At 0’37: it shows that the “Annihilyzer is “Presented By: Annihilare and Paradigm Convergence Technology Corp” I was surprised to see this. Question: Does Annihilare also share in the revenues/profits of selling/leasing Annihilyzers?
=========== BRITT2575 ? Friday, 04/17/20 12:41:50 AM Re: None ? 0 Post # 88648 of 88658
PCT EUROPE LTD SIGNS DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT WITH UK NHS COMPANY, RECEIVES ADDITIONAL NYC HOSPITAL ORDER April 17 2020 - 12:08AM InvestorsHub NewsWire Print PCT EUROPE LTD SIGNS DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT WITH UK NHS COMPANY, RECEIVES ADDITIONAL NYC HOSPITAL ORDER
Little River, SC -- April 17, 2020 -- InvestorsHub NewsWire -- PCT LTD (OTC Pink: PCTL) is pleased to announce new growth and expansion activities in the UK and NYC. PCT Europe Ltd, the UK-based partner of PCTL is pleased to announce they have signed an exclusive trading partnership/distributor agreement with an NHS (U.K. National Health Service) company.
In tandem with PCT Europe Ltd, the UK NHS company will introduce PCT technology to each NHS Hospital Trust with the intention of them rolling out PCT's unique technology and system throughout the health services 233 Trusts comprising over 600 hospitals. In addition, approximately 14,000 Care Homes in the U.K. will also be introduced to PCT's technology. A steady flow of orders is expected to commence throughout the remainder of 2020 and into 2021.
The first PCT system has now been installed in a large NHS hospital in the north of England. This system is expected to enter clinical service early in May once the final series of biological tests of the PCT hospital disinfectant solution have been completed. Results of these tests have so far demonstrated that the PCT disinfectant has met or exceeded its ability to kill the range of pathogens previously achieved during EPA tests in the United States.
"We couldn't be happier with the results thus far in our UK trials and are delighted with the progress our UK partner is making. This arrangement will introduce our system to thousands of hospitals and healthcare facilities," says PCTL CEO Gary Grieco. "At the same time, the reality of the current healthcare crisis both domestically and abroad is sobering. We're thrilled to be able to grow our business but nevertheless remain focused on our core mission which from day one has always been helping people."
The company continues to expand domestically as well. Following an earlier release dated April 14th, the company is also announcing an additional purchase order for PCT Corp.'s Annihilyzer® Infection Control Systems in New York City.
The order comes from a large NYC hospital with a current bed count in excess of 2,500. Installation will be made in coordination with PCT Corp's primary healthcare distributor, ACE Janitorial Services.
"With three PO's for our infection control system this week and more on the way, we continue to make strides both in growing our business as well as our goal of helping our clients fight the spread of infectious diseases," says Grieco. "We are on pace for unprecedented and record growth in all areas of our business."
Additional News and Corporate Updates:
PCTL would like to warn its stockholders and potential investors that material corporate information regarding sales, areas of business and other corporate updates will only be made through press releases or filings with the SEC. PCTL does not utilize social media, chatrooms or other online sources to disclose material information. The public should only rely on official press releases and corporate filings for accurate and up to date information regarding PCTL.
Post # 92362 of 92385 PCTL> UK NHS is the largest single healthcare delivery organisation in the world.
SELLING TO THE NHS
SUMMARY This guide outlines the structures that exist to help companies contact and sell existing and innovative products into the NHS, a huge organisation which can appear very complex.
IN BRIEF NHS Supply Chain Procurement routes – national, regional and local contracts
Products for GP prescription
Estates – capital equipment
Innovation – new products
The NHS is the largest single healthcare delivery organisation in the world. It constitutes a major opportunity for UK medical device companies. NHS trusts can purchase products through one of five main routes:
Directly from suppliers using National Framework Contracts
From the NHS Supply Chain which provides end-to-end supply chain services incorporating procurement, logistics, e-commerce and customer and supplier support
The NHS Supply Chain is a single organisation created for the benefit of NHS trusts, hospitals and other healthcare organisations. The organisation combines the former NHS Logistics Authority, significant parts of the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency, expertise in healthcare logistics from DHL and procurement experience from Novation.
PROCUREMENT ROUTES National contracts Tenders: Contracts for products and services valued at over £90,319 (01 Jan 2008) must be advertised in the Supplement to the daily Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU). Procurement levels change, but you can confirm the current level by visiting: http://www.ojec.com.
NHS-sid: This is the official NHS supplier information database on which companies can enter their information for free:
http://www.sid4health.nhs.uk. It rationalises the management of pre-qualification data during the procurement process and can only be fully accessed by authorised NHS personnel. Suppliers looking to compete for advertised NHS contracts must still submit applications in the required format. Any supplier is free to register its services on NHS-sid. The information published is made freely available to NHS users. Registering on this system does not imply that a supplier has any special or ‘approved’ status. Regional contracts Collaborative organisations: Most NHS trusts are now partners in ‘collaborative procurement organisations’ where, normally on a regional basis, they can share information and resources to achieve economies of scale.
Local contracts Individual trust contracts: Local contracts are often managed by a trust’s supplies department. Its approach to suppliers will vary according to the value, size and complexity of its requirements. DH has set down procurement guidelines indicating that for contracts valued below £3,000 a trust should ask for telephone quotes; for contracts valued between £3,000 and £10,000, it should request a minimum of three written quotes; for contracts valued above £10,000, a minimum of three formal written tenders should be sought. Actual interpretations of these guidelines vary from trust to trust.
PRODUCTS FOR GP PRESCRIPTION
Suppliers wishing to list their products under the Drug Tariff for prescription by GPs or nurses must seek approval from the NHS Business Service Authority (NHSBSA). These will usually be products for self-administration, possibly with a carer’s help, and will normally fall into the following categories: dressings, bandage and associated appliances, incontinence appliances, stoma appliances, and chemical reagents. If the NHSBSA grant approval, the cost, either comparatively with other similar products, or, if it is a new treatment regime, by comparison with alternatives, will be reimbursed. You can access the application form at: www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk.
ESTATES – CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
DH uses two major Public and Private Partnerships (PPPs) to deliver its NHS Plan: the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) and NHS Local Improvement Finance Trust (LIFT). The NHS ProCure 21 Framework brings the NHS and the construction industry together for new-build projects. You can find information on PPPs and associated procurement policies at: www.dh.gov.uk.
INNOVATION – NEW PRODUCTS
The procurement routes above apply to established products. If you are a supplier of innovative products, you should be aware of the organisations involved in product approval:
The UK Medicines and Healthcare product Regulatory Agency (MHRA) This is the government agency responsible for ensuring that medicines and medical devices work and are safe.
Regulatory affairs: Medical devices can only be placed on the market in the UK/EU if they are certified safe, are of the required quality to fulfill the manufacturer’s ‘intended purpose’ and comply with the appropriate Medical Device Directive (CE marking). The MHRA audits the performance of manufacturers and notifies bodies responsible for granting CE marks. You can find more details at: www.mhra.gov.uk.
Clinical trials: The MHRA approves clinical trials/investigations and provides guidance for manufacturers. To obtain a CE mark, a manufacturer must show that the device complies with the relevant ‘Essential Requirements’ of the appropriate Medical Device Directive. In some instances, a clinical investigation will be required. The MHRA website (listed above) provides guidance on this issue.
Small Business Research Initiative (SBRI): The new SBRI is a cross-government programme for the procurement of technology development projects, including the demonstration and evaluation of new technologies. DH has run a pilot SBRI competition in Healthcare Associated Infections in conjunction with the Technology Strategy Board. The benefit to the Department and the NHS is to make new developments available faster and more effectively. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) NICE (www.nice.org.uk) is responsible for providing national guidance on the promotion of good health and the prevention and treatment of ill health. Its activities include:
Technology appraisals – Recommendations on the use of new and existing medicines and treatments within the NHS, based upon a review of clinical and economic evidence Interventional procedure guidance – Many of the procedures that NICE investigates are new, but it also looks at more established procedures if there is uncertainty about their safety or how well they work
NHS National Innovation Centre (NIC): NIC determines the need for innovative products, particularly in the development stage, and speeds up the development and adoption of those that deliver the best results for patients. It provides a point of entry to innovators of healthcare technology via its website and through a web-based assessment process. By considering ideas and products at every stage, it can direct them to the most.
ACTION NEEDED Pctl has been trying to get in contact with the government to make them aware of our machine & what it can do We can help with & in our numbers send them copies of the DD that’s been posted
This is the contact point in government that needs to know about pctl Paradigm Convergence Technology. (Read below)
Info they’ll need: PODCAST LINK click Click in search....Pctl
This is who we can contact in government to make them aware of our machine.
point of entry for the submission of market research packages and meeting requests from interested stakeholders. The U.S. government, in response to the COVID-19 outbreak, seeks information from stakeholders on available medical countermeasures in development. We are particularly interested in products and technologies that have progressed into or beyond non-clinical trials, have established large-scale cGMP manufacturing capability, or utilize an approved platform. Information regarding diagnostics, therapeutics, vaccines, and other products or technologies relevant to addressing this outbreak are sought. At this time, we ask for a brief description of your product or technology, accompanied by a slide deck, manuscript, publications, or other non-confidential information of your choosing. Please note that while we will use any information you present as market research, submission is no guarantee of a meeting or funding and your submission will be shared across U.S. Government agencies involved in COVID-19 medical countermeasure research and development. Only U.S. government officials are invited to join a CoronaWatch meeting, and are bound by law to maintain confidentiality of what is presented and discussed. Ideal technologies and products would (but are not required to) be: * - Relevant to the U.S. government COVID-19 medical countermeasure research and development efforts and/or Emerging .Infectious Disease rapid response capabilities * - Utilize an already-approved platform, have non-clinical data suggesting efficacy, and/or have significant manufacturing capability * - Fully owned or licensed by your organization (you have full IP rights and/or freedom to operate)
Would you like to meet with a federal agency regarding a product that you are developing for COVID-19? If you are interested in requesting a CoronaWatch meeting, please Register for an account and Login, or if you have an account Login to submit some basic product information.
Paradigm Convergence Technologies Corporation Summarized Due Diligence Sheet for Investing [color=red]
ACTION NEEDEDPctl has been trying to get in contact with the government to make them aware of our machine & what it can do We can help with & in our numbers send them copies of the DD that’s been
This is the contact point in government that needs to know about pctl Paradigm Convergence Technology. (Read below)
This is who we can contact in government to make them aware of our machine.
point of entry for the submission of market research packages and meeting requests from interested stakeholders. The U.S. government, in response to the COVID-19 outbreak, seeks information from stakeholders on available medical countermeasures in development. We are particularly interested in products and technologies that have progressed into or beyond non-clinical trials, have established large-scale cGMP manufacturing capability, or utilize an approved platform. Information regarding diagnostics, therapeutics, vaccines, and other products or technologies relevant to addressing this outbreak are sought. At this time, we ask for a brief description of your product or technology, accompanied by a slide deck, manuscript, publications, or other non-confidential information of your choosing. Please note that while we will use any information you present as market research, submission is no guarantee of a meeting or funding and your submission will be shared across U.S. Government agencies involved in COVID-19 medical countermeasure research and development. Only U.S. government officials are invited to join a CoronaWatch meeting, and are bound by law to maintain confidentiality of what is presented and discussed. Ideal technologies and products would (but are not required to) be: * - Relevant to the U.S. government COVID-19 medical countermeasure research and development efforts and/or Emerging .Infectious Disease rapid response capabilities * - Utilize an already-approved platform, have non-clinical data suggesting efficacy, and/or have significant manufacturing capability * - Fully owned or licensed by your organization (you have full IP rights and/or freedom to operate)
Would you like to meet with a federal agency regarding a product that you are developing for COVID-19? If you are interested in requesting a CoronaWatch meeting, please Register for an account and Login, or if you have an account Login to submit some basic product information.
Company Site: para-con.com Twitter: @PCTL2020 Investor Relations Chesapeake Group - Get on the email list for news info@chesapeakegp.com
About: a technology licensing company specializing in environmentally safe solutions for global sustainability with products for various markets they serve.
Mission: Infectious Disease and Contamination Control
About Products: Products and solutions are designed to take an environmentally conscious approach to combating the spread of infectious disease in the Healthcare and Cleaning industries, as well as contributing to the sustainability of global natural resources in the energy and agriculture markets.
The PCT Annihilyzer® Patented Monitoring, Tracking & Reporting System The Kiosk, which sits on top of the Filling Station Cabinet, houses The PCT Annihilyzer® System’s computer controls, information system, RFID tagging and reading system and an interactive touch screen display.
---FINANCIAL INFO---
Filings: LINK
Current info as of 3/9/20 Authorized- 1,000,000,000 Outstanding- 511,315,300 Restricted- 35,139,690
Standard Registrar and Transfer Company 440 East 400 South, Suite 200 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Phone: 801-571-8844 or 801-596-2150 www.standardtransferco.com Amy Merrill Email: amy@standardregistrar.com
---CURRENT CLIENT LIST---
1: Morgan Stanley Presbyterian Children’s Hospital. (3959 Broadway At, W 165 St, New York NY 10032)
2: Mount Sinai South Nassau Hospital (1 Healthy Way, Oceanside NY 11572)
3: Carson Tahoe Regional Medical Center (1600 Medical Pkwy, Carson City NV 89703)
4: SUNY Downstate Medical Center (450 Clarkson Ave, Brooklyn NY 11203)
6: Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center ??? Maybe (1275 York Avenue New York, NY 10065)
7: North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust, (UK Trial underway began Jan 15th 2020 - 60 day trial) (University Hospital of Hartlepool, Holdforth Road, Hartlepool, TS24 9AH) (University Hospital of North Tees, Hardwick, Stockton on Tees, TS19 8PE)
8: New York Presbyterian Columbia Hospital (Ranked Top 5 in the Nation) (622 W 168th St, New York NY 10032) ---VP recently endorsed in a LinkedIn post---
9: New York Hospital -- as per PR Release (labeled #1 below)
---PR & RELATED INFORMATION---
1. 03/11/20 - PCT LTD Experiencing Rapid Increase in Interest and Receives Purchase Order from Additional Hospital in New York City PR LINK
2. 03/09/20 - Interview: PCT LTD Hospital Infection Control System installed in seven hospitals and expanding INTERVIEW LINK
3. 02/14/20 - PCT LTD Schedules Investor Call (Call took place on 2/20/20) PR LINK Audio Link (Written Summation below)
4. 01/30/20 - PCT LTD Executes Term Sheet for Debt Financing PR LINK
5. 01/08/20 - PCT LTD Discusses Their International Expansion and Growth Strategy with The Stock Day Podcast PR LINK
6. 12/16/19 - PCT LTD Issues Company Update and Signs Collaborative Agreement for Oil & Gas, and Cannabis Applications PR LINK
7. 10/31/19 - PCT LTD Continues to Expand By Signing Agreement with SUNY Downstate Medical Center Worth over $500,000 PR LINK
8. 10/25/19 - 3rd Quarter 8K released (see above FILINGS link)
9. 10/22/19 - Hospital-acquired Infection Control Market Is Estimated To Expand At a Healthy CAGR in the Upcoming Forecast Period MARKET RESEARCH PR
10. 10/22/19 - PCT LTD Deploys Initial Annihilyzer(R) Infection Control System to the United Kingdom PR LINK
11. 10/4/19 - PCT LTD Announces Additional Hospital Installation of Annihilyzer(R) Infection Control System PR LINK
12. 7/26/19 - The Infection Prevention Strategy is pleased to announce our Top Innovations of the Year: 2019 (Annihilyzer) PR LINK
13. 5/6/2019 - PCT LTD Announces New Purchase Order as the Result of a Successful Trial of Annihilyzer® Infection Control Systems (A TOP 5 hospital in the U.S. AND --#1 in NY-- CONVERTED from Trial to a customer AFTER a successful trial period) - Morgan Stanley Presbyterian Children’s Hospital PR LINK
14. 2/25/19 - PCT LTD Installs a Large Volume Hydrolyte® System with Option Agreement for 4 additional LVH Systems with Oil & Gas Industry Customer PR LINK
15. 1/10/19 - PCT LTD Executes New Master Service Agreement for Installation of Annihilyzer® Hospital Infection Control System at Carson Tahoe Regional Medical Center PR LINK
16. 11/08/18 - PCT LTD Announces Completion of Major Commercialization Milestones and Promotion of Jody Read to CEO Position PR LINK
17. 5/16/18 - Newly Launched Disinfecting System Reduces Hospital Acquired Infections PR LINK
18. 5/10/18 - PCT LTD Receives Patents for RFID Tracking Technology in Cleaning System (US Patent#9679170) PR LINK
3rd Quarter 10Q In final review with auditors & SEC Attorneys Expected to be completed in up to 3 weeks (updated per IR email--- expected in the next week)
10K Expected to be filed by April 13th
Convertible Notes "very active negotiations" to come to a resolve by time of 10K filing (April 13th)
No material change is O/S in months
very actively negotiating financing with negligible, if any, dissolution No anticipation of R/S
---Growth of about 400% in 2019--- on target to grow exponentially in 2020
G&A down significantly company become more efficicent, losses narrowed significantly down around 75% from 2018
---Currently Doing---
PCT UK joint venture partner Trial ongoing: Universities as well as hospitals involved to verify U.S. results "unless bacteria and virsuses are any different, which they aren't, don't anticipate any difficulty verifying claims"
"Preliminary discussions between PCT UK and National Healthcare system of the UK"
---Markets--- Primary Focus on healthcare sector - hospitals, medical centers assisted living, rehab facilities
Secondarily - Oil & Gas, remediation of Hydrogen Sulfide (very poisonous, corrosive, and flammable)
Recently - Cannabis Industry - purveyor of service "Happy to discover our product greatly mitigates or totally eliminates the 3 major problems they are having"
---Current Placement--- (Does not include newest NY Hospital announced above in PR on 3/11/20) 8 hospitals, 11 units installed with "3 more slated in next few weeks with more behind it"
Endorsement from VP of MY Presbyterian [Suppressed Image]
Not sure how many are aware of BARDA, but I came across a post on Twitter this evening and after doing a little digging, found this:
Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, was established to aid in securing our nation from chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) threats, as well as from pandemic influenza (PI) and emerging infectious diseases (EID).
In my eyes that's most certainly an organization that should be aware of the Annihilyzer product, so I connected with their Director, Rick B and provided a post on Linkedin for more exposure to their request of building out a comprehensive portfolio of COVID-19 countermeasures. See below.
(For my privacy, I did redact my information on the image)
Post made to BARDA Director, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Preparedness & Response - U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
[Suppressed Image]
Post made to BARDA Director, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Preparedness & Response - U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
UPDATED DUE DILIGENCE 3-17 - RESEARCH NOW Below is a good portion of the DD done here, by myself and others. Do YOURS now! (Also pinned on top of board)
Paradigm Convergence Technologies Corporation Summarized Due Diligence Sheet for Investing
---GENERAL INFORMATION---
Company Site: para-con.com Twitter: @PCTL2020 - (I urge you to follow them and review their posts) Investor Relations Chesapeake Group - Get on the email list for news info@chesapeakegp.com
About: a technology licensing company specializing in environmentally safe solutions for global sustainability with products for various markets they serve.
Mission: Infectious Disease and Contamination Control
About Products: Products and solutions are designed to take an environmentally conscious approach to combating the spread of infectious disease in the Healthcare and Cleaning industries, as well as contributing to the sustainability of global natural resources in the energy and agriculture markets.
The PCT Annihilyzer® Patented Monitoring, Tracking & Reporting System The Kiosk, which sits on top of the Filling Station Cabinet, houses The PCT Annihilyzer® System’s computer controls, information system, RFID tagging and reading system and an interactive touch screen display.
---FINANCIAL INFO---
Filings: LINK
Current info as of 3/9/20 Authorized- 1,000,000,000 Outstanding- 511,315,300 Restricted- 35,139,690
Standard Registrar and Transfer Company 440 East 400 South, Suite 200 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Phone: 801-571-8844 or 801-596-2150 www.standardtransferco.com Amy Merrill Email: amy@standardregistrar.com
---CURRENT CLIENT LIST---
1: Morgan Stanley Presbyterian Children’s Hospital. (3959 Broadway At, W 165 St, New York NY 10032)
2: Mount Sinai South Nassau Hospital (1 Healthy Way, Oceanside NY 11572)
3: Carson Tahoe Regional Medical Center (1600 Medical Pkwy, Carson City NV 89703)
4: SUNY Downstate Medical Center (450 Clarkson Ave, Brooklyn NY 11203)
6: Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center ??? Maybe (1275 York Avenue New York, NY 10065)
7: North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust, (UK Trial underway began Jan 15th 2020 - 60 day trial) (University Hospital of Hartlepool, Holdforth Road, Hartlepool, TS24 9AH) (University Hospital of North Tees, Hardwick, Stockton on Tees, TS19 8PE)
8: New York Presbyterian Columbia Hospital (Ranked Top 5 in the Nation) (622 W 168th St, New York NY 10032) ---VP recently endorsed in a LinkedIn post---
9: New York Hospital -- as per PR Release (labeled #1 below)
---PR & RELATED INFORMATION---
1. 03/18/20 - PCT LTD Receives Large Purchase Order for Recurring Sales of Fluids for Non-Medical Use and Explains Current Revenue Streams PR LINK
2. 03/16/20 - PCT LTD Interview with Stock Day Podcast (MUST LISTEN) PR LINK
3. 03/13/20 - PCT LTD Adds International Distributor and Sells High-Volume Equipment to Existing Customer as a Result of Heightened Demand PR LINK
4. 03/11/20 - PCT LTD Experiencing Rapid Increase in Interest and Receives Purchase Order from Additional Hospital in New York City PR LINK
5. 03/09/20 - Interview: PCT LTD Hospital Infection Control System installed in seven hospitals and expanding INTERVIEW LINK
6. 02/14/20 - PCT LTD Schedules Investor Call (Call took place on 2/20/20) PR LINK Audio Link (Written Summation below)
7. 01/30/20 - PCT LTD Executes Term Sheet for Debt Financing PR LINK
8. 01/08/20 - PCT LTD Discusses Their International Expansion and Growth Strategy with The Stock Day Podcast PR LINK
9. 12/16/19 - PCT LTD Issues Company Update and Signs Collaborative Agreement for Oil & Gas, and Cannabis Applications PR LINK
10. 10/31/19 - PCT LTD Continues to Expand By Signing Agreement with SUNY Downstate Medical Center Worth over $500,000 PR LINK
11. 10/25/19 - 3rd Quarter 8K released (see above FILINGS link)
12. 10/22/19 - Hospital-acquired Infection Control Market Is Estimated To Expand At a Healthy CAGR in the Upcoming Forecast Period MARKET RESEARCH PR
13. 10/22/19 - PCT LTD Deploys Initial Annihilyzer(R) Infection Control System to the United Kingdom PR LINK
14. 10/4/19 - PCT LTD Announces Additional Hospital Installation of Annihilyzer(R) Infection Control System PR LINK
15. 7/26/19 - The Infection Prevention Strategy is pleased to announce our Top Innovations of the Year: 2019 (Annihilyzer) PR LINK
16. 5/6/2019 - PCT LTD Announces New Purchase Order as the Result of a Successful Trial of Annihilyzer® Infection Control Systems (A TOP 5 hospital in the U.S. AND --#1 in NY-- CONVERTED from Trial to a customer AFTER a successful trial period) - Morgan Stanley Presbyterian Children’s Hospital PR LINK
17. 2/25/19 - PCT LTD Installs a Large Volume Hydrolyte® System with Option Agreement for 4 additional LVH Systems with Oil & Gas Industry Customer PR LINK
18. 1/10/19 - PCT LTD Executes New Master Service Agreement for Installation of Annihilyzer® Hospital Infection Control System at Carson Tahoe Regional Medical Center PR LINK
19. 11/08/18 - PCT LTD Announces Completion of Major Commercialization Milestones and Promotion of Jody Read to CEO Position PR LINK
20. 5/16/18 - Newly Launched Disinfecting System Reduces Hospital Acquired Infections PR LINK
21. 5/10/18 - PCT LTD Receives Patents for RFID Tracking Technology in Cleaning System (US Patent#9679170) PR LINK
3rd Quarter 10Q In final review with auditors & SEC Attorneys Expected to be completed in up to 3 weeks (updated per IR email--- expected in the next week)
10K Expected to be filed by April 13th
Convertible Notes "very active negotiations" to come to a resolve by time of 10K filing (April 13th)
No material change is O/S in months
very actively negotiating financing with negligible, if any, dissolution No anticipation of R/S
---Growth of about 400% in 2019--- on target to grow exponentially in 2020
G&A down significantly company become more efficicent, losses narrowed significantly down around 75% from 2018
---Currently Doing---
PCT UK joint venture partner Trial ongoing: Universities as well as hospitals involved to verify U.S. results "unless bacteria and virsuses are any different, which they aren't, don't anticipate any difficulty verifying claims"
"Preliminary discussions between PCT UK and National Healthcare system of the UK"
---Markets--- Primary Focus on healthcare sector - hospitals, medical centers assisted living, rehab facilities
Secondarily - Oil & Gas, remidiation of Hydrogen Sulfide (very poisonous, corrosive, and flammable)
Recently - Cannabis Industry - purveyor of service "Happy to discover our product greatly mitigates or totally elimiants the 3 major problems they are having"
---Current Placement--- (Does not include newest NY Hospital announced above in PR on 3/11/20) 8 hospitals, 11 units installed with "3 more slated in next few weeks with more behind it"
Endorsement from VP of MY Presbyterian and other execs [Suppressed Image]
[Suppressed Image]
[Suppressed Image]
[Suppressed Image]
Not sure how many are aware of BARDA, but I came across a post on Twitter this evening and after doing a little digging, found this:
Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, was established to aid in securing our nation from chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) threats, as well as from pandemic influenza (PI) and emerging infectious diseases (EID).
In my eyes that's most certainly an organization that should be aware of the Annihilyzer product, so I connected with their Director, Rick B and provided a post on Linkedin for more exposure to their request of building out a. comprehensive portfolio of COVID-19 countermeasures. See below.
(For my privacy, I did redact my information on the image)
Post made to BARDA Director, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Preparedness & Response - U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
================= exactly what the EPA said
Quote:
List N includes products that meet EPA’s criteria for use against SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus that causes the disease COVID-19.
The key word here is against The EPA does not come out and say any products on these lists will kill CV-19. However I doubt the EPA would use a strong word as against in the above statement.
Quote:
Note: Inclusion on this list does not constitute an endorsement by EPA. There may be additional disinfectants that meet the criteria for use against SARS-CoV-2. EPA will update this list with additional products as needed.
It's pretty obvious this disclaimer is stating the EPA does not endorse as in recommend any product that's listed. They do not because it would constitute marketing for that product.... The EPA also recognizes that there are other products that meet the criteria against SARS-CV-2 AKA Coronavirus. Why do they make this statement? Because there are other products that are registered with the EPA that are not on this list that meets the criteria against CV-19
Nothing hard to understand there. Here is the a pic of it below:
[Suppressed Image]
Lets move on
List N: Disinfectants for Use Against SARS-CoV-2 | Pesticide ...www.epa.gov › pesticide-registration › list-n-disinfectants-use-against-... If a product qualified for the Emerging Viral Pathogen Claim, it demonstrated efficacy against a harder-to-kill virus than the enveloped human coronavirus
From this statement we know that EXCELYTE which meets this criteria. How do we know this? We know because they are on the N list under EPA registration 92108-1. I also believe this Reg number can be used against the harder to lill Norovirus. Coronavirus is easier to kill than Norovirus. Any amount of basic DD will show that.
Below is the reg and product number for EXCELYTE [Suppressed Image]
Finally Below is the EPA reg link for EXCELYTE showing it's registered to PCT Ltd. This link is the original registration.
Pretty basic stuff is you ask me lol ============== Pics of the product - Sorry about it being sideways
[Suppressed Image]
[Suppressed Image]
[Suppressed Image]
============ PCT LTD Obtains EPA Approval for Emerging Pathogens Labeling for Use Against SARS-CoV-2, the Novel Coronavirus That Causes the Disease COVID-19 Business WireMarch 27, 2020, 9:49 AM CST
PCT LTD (OTC Pink: PCTL) ("PCTL") is pleased to announce that it has received approval for "emerging pathogens" labeling with the US EPA.
The application was filed under the guidance document "Guidance to Registrants: Process for Making Claims Against Emerging Viral Pathogens Not on EPA-Registered Disinfectant Labels." It was approved on March 26th, 2020. The guidance document provides the following information regarding different classes of viruses and their resistance to being killed by disinfectants:
EPA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recognize that certain microorganisms can be ranked with respect to their tolerance to chemical disinfectants. The Spaulding Classification model, used by CDC, tiers microorganisms in accordance with the level of resistance to being killed (inactivation) by typical disinfectant products. With this approach viruses are divided into three viral subgroups (small non-enveloped, large non-enveloped, and enveloped) based on their relative resistance to inactivation … According to this hierarchy, if an antimicrobial product can kill a small, non-enveloped virus it should be able to kill any large, non-enveloped virus or any enveloped virus. Similarly, a product that can kill a large, non-enveloped virus should be able to kill any enveloped virus.
Small, Non-Enveloped Viruses (<50 nm): These small, non-enveloped viruses can be highly resistant to inactivation by disinfection. Despite the lack of a lipid envelope, these organisms have a very resistant protein capsid…
Large, Non-Enveloped Viruses: Compared to small, non-enveloped viruses, these viruses are less resistant to inactivation by disinfection. Although they have a resistant protein capsid, their larger size (50-100nm) makes them more vulnerable than their smaller viral counterparts…
Enveloped Viruses: Enveloped viruses are the least resistant to inactivation by disinfection. The structure of these viruses includes a lipid envelope, which is easily compromised by most disinfectants. Once the lipid envelope is damaged, the integrity of the virus is compromised, thereby neutralizing its infectivity.
In addition to being "an EPA-registered, hospital/healthcare or broad-spectrum disinfectant …", in order to meet product eligibility criteria, the product "should have disinfectant efficacy claims against at least one of the following viral pathogen groupings:
a) A product should be approved by EPA to inactivate at least one large or one small non-enveloped virus to be eligible for use against an enveloped emerging viral pathogen.
b) A product should be approved by EPA to inactivate at least one small, non-enveloped virus to be eligible for use against a large, non-enveloped emerging viral pathogen.
c) A product should be approved by EPA to inactivate at least two small, non-enveloped viruses with each from a different viral family to be eligible for use against a small, non-enveloped emerging viral pathogen.
This approach, where disinfectant products registered for use against viral pathogens in one category of the Spaulding Classification model can be presumed effective against viral pathogens in less-resistant categories, is intended to serve as a conservative approach to identifying disinfectant products likely to be effective against emerging pathogens."
As a result of meeting all of the Product Eligibility Criteria, PCT LTD can now make the following statement "only through the following communication outlets: … "1-800" consumer information services, social media sites and company websites (non-label related) … [as well as] technical literature distributed exclusively to health care facilities, physicians, nurses and public health officials":
This Product meets the criteria to make claims against certain emerging viral pathogens from the following viral category[ies]:
Enveloped Viruses
Large Non-Enveloped Viruses
Small Non-Enveloped Viruses
For an emerging viral pathogen that is a/an… …follow the directions for use for the following organisms on the label: Enveloped virus Norovirus Large, non-enveloped virus Norovirus Small, non-enveloped virus Norovirus, Rhinovirus (Type 16)
Hydrolyte® has demonstrated effectiveness against viruses similar to SARS-CoV-2 virus on hard, non-porous surfaces. Therefore, Hydrolyte® can be used against SARS-CoV-2 virus when used in accordance with the directions for use against Norovirus and Rhinovirus type 16 on hard, non-porous surfaces. Refer to the CDC website at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/home/cleaning-disinfection.html for additional information.
COVID-19 is caused by SARS-CoV-2 virus. Hydrolyte® kills similar viruses and therefore can be used against SARS-CoV-2 virus when used in accordance with the directions for use against Norovirus and Rhinovirus type 16 on hard, non-porous surfaces. Refer to the CDC website at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/home/cleaning-disinfection.html for additional information.
"We are very pleased to receive approval for an "emerging pathogens" claim on our product label," says CEO Gary Grieco. "It represents an important step for us as a business and in helping to control the spread of infectious disease as a whole. Additionally, we are now prequalified for future emerging pathogens of any virus classification."
Due to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, PCT LTD has seen an increased number of inquiries from existing clients, sub-registrants, and distributors; in addition to new and prospective customers. The company recently announced that they had temporarily shifted their focus towards producing mass quantities of disinfecting fluids to meet growing demand.
"Fluid sales have been tremendous for us," says PCT Ltd CEO Gary Grieco. "To put it simply, we are routinely shipping fluids out at rapid pace and into the hands of trained professionals where our product can be put to good use fighting the spread of infectious disease in our communities. We are limited only by our capacity to produce the fluids, but we expect to double our production capacity by April 1st."
Additional News and Corporate Updates:
PCTL would like to warn its stockholders and potential investors that material corporate information regarding sales, areas of business and other corporate updates will only be made through press releases or filings with the SEC. PCTL does not utilize social media, chatrooms or other online sources to disclose material information. The public should only rely on official press releases and corporate filings for accurate and up to date information regarding PCTL.
About PCT LTD:
PCT LTD ("PCTL") focuses its business on acquiring, developing and providing sustainable, environmentally safe disinfecting, cleaning and tracking technologies. The company acquires and holds rights to innovative products and technologies, which are commercialized through its wholly-owned operating subsidiary, Paradigm Convergence Technologies Corporation (PCT Corp). Currently trading on OTC, "PCTL" aspires to and is actively engaged in preparations for up-listing its common stock to a national securities exchange. The Company established entry into its target markets with commercially viable products in the United States and now continues to gain market share in the U.S. and U.K.
Forward-Looking Statements:
This press release contains "forward-looking statements" as defined in Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21B of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Any statements that express or involve discussions with respect to predictions, expectations, beliefs, plans, projections, objectives, goals, assumptions or future events or performance are not statements of historical fact and may be "forward-looking statements."
Such statements are based on expectations, estimates and projections at the time the statements are made that involve a number of risks and uncertainties, which could cause actual results or events to differ materially from those presently anticipated. Such statements involve risks and uncertainties, including but not limited to: the impact of having met the EPA Criteria for use Against SARS-CoV-2, actual sales derived by the Company; the transition to producing large quantities of fluids; PCTL's and its subsidiary's business prospects; PCTL's ability to raise sufficient funds to satisfy its working capital requirements; the ability of PCTL to execute its business plan; any other effects resulting from the information disclosed above; risks and effects of legal and administrative proceedings and government regulation; future financial and operational results; competition; general economic conditions; and the ability to manage and continue growth. Should one or more of these risks or uncertainties materialize, or should underlying assumptions prove incorrect, actual outcomes may vary materially from those indicated. Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking statements PCTL makes in this press release include market conditions and those set forth in reports or documents it files from time to time with the SEC. PCTL undertakes no obligation to revise or update such statements to reflect current events or circumstances after the date hereof or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.
Gary Grieco, CEO and Chairman, PCT LTD (843) 390-7900 Office (843) 390-2347 Fax www.para-con.com www.pctcorphealth.com www.survivalyte.com
Brokers and Analysts: Chesapeake Group +1-410-825-3930 info@chesapeakegp.com ==================================================================================================================. CANADA INFO & LINKS BokehRebl Tuesday, 03/31/20 10:29:25 PM Re: Long term post# 78282 ? 0 Post # 78283 of 78339
Here’s THE list I put together of all relevant contact in the US and Canadien Government, Feel free to add more!
Louisiana Alexander Billioux, MD, DPhil [Bio] Assistant Secretary of Health Alexander.Billioux@LA.GOV
Maine Nirav Shah, MD, JD* Director, Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention Nirav.Shah@Maine.Gov
Maryland Robert Neall Secretary of Health Frances B. Phillips, RN, MHA [Bio] Deputy Secretary for Public Health Services S/THO Designee robert.neall@maryland.gov
Michigan Joneigh Khaldun, MD, MPH, FACEP [Bio] Chief Deputy Director for Health and CME khaldunj@michigan.gov
Minnesota Jan Malcolm [Bio] Health Commissioner jan.malcolm@state.mn.us
Mississippi Thomas Dobbs, MD, MPH* State Health Officer thomas.dobbs@msdh.ms.gov
Missouri Randall W. Williams, MD, FACOG [Bio] Director randall.williams@health.mo.gov
Montana Sheila Hogan Director Gregory Holzman, MD [Bio] Chief Medical Officer S/THO Designee gHolzman@mt.gov
Nebraska Dannette Smith, MSW * Chief Executive Officer, Nebraska Department of Health & Human Services Gary Anthone, MD Chief Medical Officer and Director, Division of Public Health S/THO Designee Dannette.Smith@nebraska.gov
Nevada Lisa Sherych, MBA* Administrator lsherych@adsd.nv.gov
New Hampshire Lisa Morris, MSSW [Bio] Director, Division of Public Health Service lisa.morris@dhhs.nh.gov
New Jersey Judith Persichilli RN, BSN, MA* Commissioner of Health Judith.Pershichilli@doh.nj.gov
New York Howard Zucker, MD, JD [Bio] Commissioner of Health howard.zucker@health.ny.gov
North Carolina Mark Benton [Bio] Assistant Secretary for Public Health mark.benton@dhhs.nc.gov
North Dakota Mylynn K. Tufte, MBA, MSIM, RN [Bio] State Health Officer mylynntufte@nd.gov
Ohio Amy Acton, MD, MPH [Bio] Director of Health DirectorAmyActon@odh.ohio.gov
Oklahoma Gary Cox, JD* Commissioner of Health GaryC@health.ok.gov
Oregon Lillian M. Shirley, BSN, MPH, MPA [Bio] Public Health Director lillian.shirley@state.or.us
Pennsylvania Rachel Levine, MD [Bio] Secretary of Health ralevine@pa.gov
Puerto Rico Rafael Rodriguez Mercado, MD, FACS, FAANS Secretary of Health Catherine De La Cruz-Duran* S/THO Designee drrafael.rodriguez@salud.pr.gov
Rhode Island Nicole Alexander-Scott, MD, MPH [Bio] Director nicole.alexanderscott@health.ri.gov
South Carolina Richard Toomey, MHA, DHA [Bio] Director, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control Rick.Toomey@dhec.sc.gov
South Dakota Kim Malsam-Rysdon [Bio] Secretary kim.malsam-rysdon@state.sd.us
Tennessee Lisa Piercey MD, MBA, FAAP [Bio] Commissioner tn.health@tn.gov
Texas John Hellerstedt, MD [Bio] Commissioner john.hellerstedt@dshs.texas.gov
Utah Joseph Miner, MD [Bio] Executive Director joeminer@utah.gov
Vermont Mark Levine, MD [Bio] Commissioner of Health mark.levine@vermont.gov
Virginia M. Norman Oliver, MD, MA [Bio] State Health Commissioner norm.oliver@vdh.virginia.gov
Washington John M. Wiesman, DrPH, MPH [Bio] Secretary of Health secretary@doh.wa.gov
West Virginia Cathy Slemp, MD, MPH [Bio] Commissioner and State Health Officer catherine.slemp@wv.gov
Wisconsin Jeanne Ayers, RN, MPH [Bio] Administrator, Division of Public Health Jeanne.Ayers@dhs.wisconsin.gov
Wyoming Alexia Harrist, MD, PhD [Bio] State Health Officer alexia.harrist1@wyo.gov —————————————
davidsan Wednesday, April 1, 2020 4:57:18 PM Re: None Post # 78774 of 78834 Can PCTL's fluid turn sour crude oil into sweet?
I vaguely remember this was something said in discussing why that large unnamed oil&gas company was so interested in setting up the customized trial they are doing. I remember clearly that it helped make the liquid involved in fracking much more environmentally friendly, much more green, with a more pure and less costly product, something to that effect. There was some big reason why that oil&gas company was so excited about it. If the oil&gas industry incorporates this into their standard processes, with the sheer volume of this fluid they will need every day, that will be HUGE, just that one piece of all this alone. Somewhere in there I thought I remembered that in the process it helped turn sour crude into sweet, just don't recall how specific that point was.
Anyone here remember?
This is so much more than just hospitals and spraying to kill the coronavirus. The agricultural/cannabis industry and oil&gas industry customized trials are going on as well.
And, of course, the UK trials are about to hit (The UK hospital trial already completed, and the 2 university studies are supposed to complete the end of March to first week of April, meaning anytime now). Just waiting on results and orders, both expected to be very favorable.
Hypochlorous Acid Market Demand Would Increase Rapidly Hypochlorous Acid Market: Excellent Microbial and Oxidizing Properties Hypochlorous acid is a weak acid formed by dissolving chlorine in water. It possesses excellent microbial and oxidizing properties. It is used as a disinfectant agent in medical, water treatment, and food additives in food & beverages industry. Sodium hypochlorite and calcium hypochlorite are the two types of hypochlorous acid. Sodium hypochlorite is a widely consumed hypochlorous acid. Sodium hypochlorite can be easily stored and transported. It is more effective than chlorine gas in various applications. Read report Overview@ https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/hypochlorous-acid-market.html Hypochlorous acid is employed in various end-user industries such as water treatment, wound management, food & beverages, oil & gas, and personal care. Demand for hypochlorous acid in the wound management segment is projected to rise significantly in the near future. Hypochlorous acid acts as an excellent disinfectant in wound healing applications. It accelerates the healing process of any wound and other infections such as eye infection, ear infection, etc. Hypochlorous acid has excellent disinfectant properties, which help destroy pathogens, bacteria, and fungi. Request PDF Brochure@ https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/sample/sample.php?flag=B&rep_id=68783 Key drivers of Hypochlorous Acid market Rise in demand for oxidizing and disinfecting agents in order to provide quality water is driving the global hypochlorous acid market. Hypochlorous acid is highly cost effective. It is non-toxic to humans and animals. Therefore, it is highly preferred in the water treatment industry. Rise in usage of hypochlorous acid in sterilizing bacterial infection by drying out blood cells is boosting its demand in the medical industry. Hypochlorous acid is also used as an active sanitizing agent in swimming pools and skin cleansing agent in cosmetic applications. It is used in the manufacture of calcium hypochlorite (Ca(OCl)2) and sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), which are further used in the manufacture of disinfectants, bleaches, and deodorants. Food & Beverage Industry and Wound Management to offer attractive opportunities Increase in usage of hypochlorous acid in the food & beverages industry is estimated to provide lucrative opportunities to manufacturers of hypochlorous acid in the near future. Hypochlorous acid is used for cleaning food processing equipment and dish washers. It is also employed as food additive in processing poultry products and seafood products. Hypochlorous acid is gaining momentum as a potential wound care agent in the pharmaceutical industry. It is a highly effective wound irrigation solution, which is entirely safe for human tissues. It aids in elimination of unpleasant wound odor and removes bacteria from wound surface. Hypochlorous Acid may form Explosive Gas in Concentrated Form likely to Restrain Market Hypochlorous acid is highly dangerous and can form explosive gas if used in concentrated form. This is anticipated to restrain the market during the forecast period. When exposed to air, it disintegrates and causes nausea, abdomen pain, etc. If released in water bodies, hypochlorous acid may harm aquatic animals, thereby adversely affecting biodiversity. These factors are estimated to restrain the demand for hypochlorous acid during the forecast period. Stuck in a neck-to-neck competition with other brands? Request a custom report on competition on Hypochlorous Acid Market here Asia Pacific Expected to Hold Leading Share in the Global Hypochlorous Acid Market In terms of region, the demand for hypochlorous acid can be split across five regions: North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, Latin America, and Middle East & Africa. In terms of consumption, Asia Pacific dominated the global hypochlorous acid market in 2018. Developing economies such as China, India, Vietnam, and Indonesia are the leading consumers of hypochlorous acid in Asia Pacific. Rapid industrialization and increase in demand for sodium hypochlorite in chemical, agriculture, and pharmaceutical industries are anticipated to fuel the hypochlorous acid market during the forecast period. Demand for hypochlorous acid in countries in Europe such as Germany, France, and the U.K. is projected to increase during the forecast period primarily due to the rise in demand for sodium and calcium hypochlorite in the food & beverages industry in the region. The U.S. is the leading consumer of hypochlorous acid in North America. Increase in demand for hypochlorous acid in industrial applications such as cooling water treatment is propelling the market in the U.S. Latin America and Middle East & Africa are highly dependent on hypochlorous acid import. This is likely to hamper the sales of hypochlorous acid in these regions. However, production capacity expansion by various manufacturers in Brazil, Mexico, and GCC is expected to augment the demand for hypochlorous acid in Latin America and Middle East & Africa during the forecast period. Key Players in Hypochlorous Acid Market: New product launches and mergers & acquisitions are the key strategies adopted by top players operating in the market. For instance, in 2018, URGO Medical, a leading player in wound care products, entered into an asset purchasing agreement with REALM Therapeutics, a biopharmaceutical company based in the U.S. REALM Therapeutics engages in research activities to discover new hypochlorous acid based treatments for atopic dermatitis and allergic conjunctivitis. This acquisition is expected to help URGO Medical become the leading player in advanced wound care business across the globe. Key players operating in the global hypochlorous acid market include Lenntech B.V. BASF SE Arkema S.A. Lonza. Inovyn Chlorvinyls Limited Olin Corporation Nouryon (Previously under Akzo Nobel N.V.'s coating division) Occidental Petroleum Corporation Kuehne Company AGC Chemicals Surpass Chemical Company, Inc. Westlake Chemical Corporation Clorox Company Tianjin Ruifuxin Chemical Tosoh Corporation Aditya Birla Chemicals Aqualution Systems Ltd Ultrapure HOCL (Pty) Ltd Others
=================== Friday, April 3, 2020 10:10:28 AM Cherry Re: None Post # 80097 of 80187 WHY YOU WANT TO BUY ALL THE PCTL YOU CAN
Right now, IMO, before PCT LTD (ticker PCTL) announces the UK hospital results which might potentially lead to 600+ hospital installations in the UK, before the March 2020 revenues from increased fluid sales are known, before the scientific data on treating disease/mold/fungi in the citrus & cannabis industries is announced, before results from the oil & gas industry testing, and before the delayed 2019 Q3 of which will contain outdated information from over 6 months ago-
People reading here may have read and seen, in bits and pieces, all these things below.
How anyone interprets & verifies anything, and researches further, is up to them. Nothing here is advice.
Since late 2019: More hospitals, More distribution, More geographic regions, More production capacity, More sales of the fluid itself & increasing dramatically, EPA approved on List N to disinfect surfaces for NCOV-19-SARS-2, Existing clients are buying more systems or extending their contracts,
=============== Tuesday, 04/07/20 11:13:24 AM Re: Patience 1 post# 81708 0.005 Post # 81730 of 82300
Quote:
NEWS OUT!! 4/7/20, 9:55 AM LITTLE RIVER, S.C.--(BUSINESS WIRE)
PCT LTD (OTC Pink: PCTL) ("PCTL") is excited to announce they have increased production capacity at their Little River, South Carolina facility.
Updating an earlier release (March 25th), the South Carolina facility is now capable of producing up to 10,000 gallons of fluids per day. A marked increase over earlier capabilities. The company is now better positioned to meet the growing demand for its Hypochlorous Acid-based disinfecting fluids.
“Our team has been working around the clock over the last several weeks to make this happen,” says Stuart Emmons, PCTL Executive VP of Engineering and R & D. “The South Carolina facility is now better positioned to fulfill the daily orders we have been receiving.”
Due in part to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, the company has seen an exponential increase in sales and inquiries from current and prospective customers. Late last month the company shifted its short-term focus towards fluid production and sales to meet increasing demand.
“It’s supply and demand,” according to PCTL CEO Gary Grieco. “The demand is there and now so is the supply. We needed to shift our focus towards where we can have the most impact and do the most good for our customers and the communities they serve. At the same time, this presents an opportunity for us to elevate our profile, grow our business, and showcase how effective our products can be in the ongoing fight against the spread of infectious disease.”
The company has also been hiring additional support staff to support growing business operations. Most recently, the company engaged Joseph Tippmann, graduate of The University of Michigan’s Industrial Design and Architecture program, as a new design engineer. Tippmann joined the company on a contract basis initially and has spent the past two weeks performing design updates on Annihilyzer and Hydrolyte Rack systems in addition to helping design a more modular system for easier assembly.
Tippmann is also a co-owner of Werks Manufacturing, a Fort Wayne, Indiana based manufacturing company which PCTL engages for the purpose of manufacturing and assembling parts for use in the company’s Annihilyzer® Infection Control System and other systems.
Werks Manufacturing is expanding their operation and will increase parts and assembly production to meet PCTL’s growing demand. In addition, Werks will also serve as a fluid depot for PCTL’s clients in the northern Midwest part of the United States. Werks will initially be capable of producing up to 4,000 gallons per day of disinfecting fluids, including Hydrolyte®, for sale and use by PCTL to clients in Detroit, Chicago, and throughout the region. This fluid production capacity can be increased as needed to serve growing demand.
“We are continuing our rapid growth plans,” says Grieco. “Through strategic partnerships, distribution agreements, and more, we are gaining market share, increasing revenue at a rapid pace, and growing our business both quickly and efficiently.”
Additional News and Corporate Updates:
PCTL would like to warn its stockholders and potential investors that material corporate information regarding sales, areas of business and other corporate updates will only be made through press releases or filings with the SEC. PCTL does not utilize social media, chatrooms or other online sources to disclose material information. The public should only rely on official press releases and corporate filings for accurate and up to date information regarding PCTL. ====================
Wednesday, April 8, 2020 1:22:30 PM Beer money Re: None Post # 82319 of 82350 Yes Gary Grieco, PCTL CEO, stated, "As a result of the capabilities and benefits of our products, many companies and municipalities across a variety of industries and geographic locations are engaging in intense discussions with PCT LTD."
PCTL "The 800 pound gorilla, Corona-virus, that has opened up a huge opportunity for us and I can not say any more than that we have been contacted by, and are actively negotiating to address the problem with both companies and government officials and I can not say more than that."
In addition, Grieco further commented, "All of our hospital customers using our infection control system and disinfectant are utilizing the systems as a front-line defense throughout their facilities, including in all public area such as restrooms, lobbies, waiting rooms, elevators, corridors, cafeterias, etc. all throughout the day and night and in the presence of patients, staff and visitors."
============ Thursday, April 9, 2020 10:01:52 AM Re: None Post # 82599 of 82789 Hypochlorous Acid Okay For Easter Eggs Hypochlorous acid is cleared by the FDA for use on meat, poultry, fish & seafood, fruits & vegetables and shell eggs as a no-rinse sanitizer. FCN 1811 is a Food Contact Notification (FCN) from the FDA for using electrolytically generated hypochlorous acid as an antimicrobial agent in an aqueous solution in the production and preparation of whole or cut meat and poultry; processed and preformed meat and poultry; fish and seafood; fruits and vegetables; and shell eggs. To read more about food contact notification 1811, visit the FDA website in the link below. https://www.hypochlorousacid.com/regulation [Suppressed Image]
================== Thursday, April 9, 2020 10:35:37 AM Re: None Post # 82670 of 82807 Why the NHS and Private Clinics Should Look Further than Alcohol-Based Sanitisers The CoViD-19 pandemic has brought alcohol to the fore; whether it is the amount the British public is consuming to get through self-isolation or the level required in hand sanitiser to make it effective, the news stories are everywhere. Many of these revolving around the shortage of traditional alcohol-based hand sanitisers and how prices are soaring. With this being the case, why then don’t the NHS and other health care facilities look elsewhere? Is there no other option? In fact, there is another option which is rapidly emerging as the new go-to sanitiser during the CoViD-19 pandemic; Hypochlorous Acid (HOCl). What is Hypochlorous Acid? HOCI is generated when white blood cells attack harmful bacteria and is harmless to the human body. In December 2019 Optometry Times published an article on HOCl and they explain it much better than I can… “HOCl is a weak acid that occurs naturally in our body. Neutrophils are white blood cells that are the first to arrive on site when an invading pathogen is detected. Neutrophils will chase down and engulf the pathogen through phagocytosis. Upon contact, neutrophils release a burst of bactericidal chemicals including its most powerful oxidizing agent, HOCl. This kills the pathogen by tearing down the cell membranes and proteins”. Optometry Times called HOCl “the perfect weapon to fight germs. It hits hard against pathogens like Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) and Pseudomonas Aeroginosa. Yet this powerful weapon is 100 percent safe for humans, chemical free, non-toxic and all-natural”. Due to these attributes HOCl is being widely used in South Korea in their battle against CoViD-19, disinfecting everything from food to people to hospital wards and their mass transit systems. Looking at the way in which they have taken control of the spread of the virus it is clear to see that HOCl can also help the United Kingdom to gain the upper hand in this struggle. https://www.belle.org.uk/news-1/2020/4/2/why-the-nhs-and-private-clinics-should-look-to-hypochlorous-acid-rather-than-alcohol-based-sanitisers
=============
beer$$money ?
Sunday, April 12, 2020 8:04:27 PM Re: BIGBUCKS post# 83703
Post # 83709 of 83745 Alex Guttman Author> Huge interest being developed on LinkedIN VP marketing and Research at Ace Janitorial, Sales Mgr Escalator Cleaning company, Senior VP HAI Consultants
Randy Stiles can't mention names without permission but I can say that most of the major healthcare systems in NYC are now using our system
Randy Stiles +Executive Account Manager at Paylidify
Jon Pickett, MBA is this being used at all Memorial Healthcare Locations? The feedback on the system has been great.
Jody Read CEO at PCT Health, PCT LTD
Glad to see that the efforts of the entire team at ACE and PCT to bring this system to market has been a success and we are looking forward to placing these systems into every hospital, surgical center, nursing homes, and long-term care facilities!
Good am Mr Jody.could I represent your company in Dubai.? Tnx
Fritz Oehler Executive Director at Sprenger Health Care Systems Looks like this product could be an answer to many infection control issues in our industry.
Sunday, April 12, 2020 8:53:14 PM Re: BIGBUCKS post# 83629
Post # 83715 of 83745 Some additional DD. The full section in that recent PCTL release includes: Quote:
The company has also been hiring additional support staff to support growing business operations. Most recently, the company engaged Joseph Tippmann, graduate of The University of Michigan’s Industrial Design and Architecture program, as a new design engineer. Tippmann joined the company on a contract basis initially and has spent the past two weeks performing design updates on Annihilyzer and Hydrolyte Rack systems in addition to helping design a more modular system for easier assembly. Tippmann is also a co-owner of Werks Manufacturing, a Fort Wayne, Indiana based manufacturing company which PCTL engages for the purpose of manufacturing and assembling parts for use in the company’s Annihilyzer® Infection Control System and other systems. Werks Manufacturing is expanding their operation and will increase parts and assembly production to meet PCTL’s growing demand. In addition, Werks will also serve as a fluid depot for PCTL’s clients in the northern Midwest part of the United States. Werks will initially be capable of producing up to 4,000 gallons per day of disinfecting fluids, including Hydrolyte®, for sale and use by PCTL to clients in Detroit, Chicago, and throughout the region. This fluid production capacity can be increased as needed to serve growing demand.
I could not find much on google in regards to Joseph Tippmann. I did find Werks Manufacturing Inc. = http://werksmfg.com ;;... but ... website is “under construction”. It appears to be located at 2300 Meyer Road Fort Wayne, IN 46803. It appears the phone number might be (260) 428-2698. Also at this address appears to be: Advanced Media Integration LLC = Video production service = Vincent P Tippmann. same phone number?
I did also find Vincent P. Tippmann at this website: https://vptag.com/ Tippmann Affiliated Group is a family owned organization with a diversified group of business segments throughout North America and around the world. Approaching a half-century in business, Tippmann Affiliated Group businesses hold 17 patents and numerous product and service awards in various industries, including Automotive, Food Service, Refrigeration, Medical Device and Transportation. As it stands today, Tippmann Affiliated Group remains a family owned organization with a diversified group of business segments throughout North America and around the world. Headquartered in Fort Wayne, IN, Tippmann Affiliated Group operates its main campus on 75 acres and 810,000 sq/ft. of manufacturing and office space. 4410 New Haven Ave Fort Wayne, IN 46803. Phone:(260) 428-2500. It appears that 2300 Meyer Road Fort Wayne, IN 46803 is immediately adjacent to 4410 New Haven Ave Fort Wayne, IN 46803. Father & son? Could Vincent Tippman be the co-owner of Werks Manufacturing (together with Joseph Tippmann?
=====================
Ronin Wednesday, 04/15/20 10:42:51 AM Re: TKane post# 86153 Post # 86171 of 86190
News hit DOW JONES and BUSINESS wire! Lots of eyes on this now!
Evaluate Wednesday, April 15, 2020 3:12:04 PM Re: Evaluate post# 86473 Post # 86479 of 86491 https://pureandclean.us/disinfectant-sanitizer-gallon/ It appears that Pure & Clean is a distributor for PCT's HOCl, at 460 PPM, since their web page shows it is a distributor of EPA Reg. No. 92108-1. Only available in the following states: Florida, Kansas Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, Oklahoma and Texas. For all other states, please order the Surface Cleaner Pro products: https://pureandclean.us/surface-cleanser-pro/ Pure&Clean Disinfectant/Sanitizer? 460 ppm HOCl. This is a New Generation Disinfectant formulated using Hypochlorous Acid (HOCl) that cleans, deodorizes, and disinfects. As a distributor of EPA Reg. No. 92108-1, the product pure&clean™ (EPA Reg. No. 92108-1-88098) is included on the list of products approved by the US
=====================
BIGBUCKS Wednesday, April 15, 2020 3:09:42 PM Re: None Post # 86478 of 86491 PCT LTD Reports Q3 2019 Financials; Revenue Increases 435%, Operating Expenses Decrease
At 0’37: it shows that the “Annihilyzer is “Presented By: Annihilare and Paradigm Convergence Technology Corp” I was surprised to see this. Question: Does Annihilare also share in the revenues/profits of selling/leasing Annihilyzers?
=========== BRITT2575 ? Friday, 04/17/20 12:41:50 AM Re: None ? 0 Post # 88648 of 88658
PCT EUROPE LTD SIGNS DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT WITH UK NHS COMPANY, RECEIVES ADDITIONAL NYC HOSPITAL ORDER April 17 2020 - 12:08AM InvestorsHub NewsWire Print PCT EUROPE LTD SIGNS DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT WITH UK NHS COMPANY, RECEIVES ADDITIONAL NYC HOSPITAL ORDER
Little River, SC -- April 17, 2020 -- InvestorsHub NewsWire -- PCT LTD (OTC Pink: PCTL) is pleased to announce new growth and expansion activities in the UK and NYC. PCT Europe Ltd, the UK-based partner of PCTL is pleased to announce they have signed an exclusive trading partnership/distributor agreement with an NHS (U.K. National Health Service) company.
In tandem with PCT Europe Ltd, the UK NHS company will introduce PCT technology to each NHS Hospital Trust with the intention of them rolling out PCT's unique technology and system throughout the health services 233 Trusts comprising over 600 hospitals. In addition, approximately 14,000 Care Homes in the U.K. will also be introduced to PCT's technology. A steady flow of orders is expected to commence throughout the remainder of 2020 and into 2021.
The first PCT system has now been installed in a large NHS hospital in the north of England. This system is expected to enter clinical service early in May once the final series of biological tests of the PCT hospital disinfectant solution have been completed. Results of these tests have so far demonstrated that the PCT disinfectant has met or exceeded its ability to kill the range of pathogens previously achieved during EPA tests in the United States.
"We couldn't be happier with the results thus far in our UK trials and are delighted with the progress our UK partner is making. This arrangement will introduce our system to thousands of hospitals and healthcare facilities," says PCTL CEO Gary Grieco. "At the same time, the reality of the current healthcare crisis both domestically and abroad is sobering. We're thrilled to be able to grow our business but nevertheless remain focused on our core mission which from day one has always been helping people."
The company continues to expand domestically as well. Following an earlier release dated April 14th, the company is also announcing an additional purchase order for PCT Corp.'s Annihilyzer® Infection Control Systems in New York City.
The order comes from a large NYC hospital with a current bed count in excess of 2,500. Installation will be made in coordination with PCT Corp's primary healthcare distributor, ACE Janitorial Services.
"With three PO's for our infection control system this week and more on the way, we continue to make strides both in growing our business as well as our goal of helping our clients fight the spread of infectious diseases," says Grieco. "We are on pace for unprecedented and record growth in all areas of our business."
Additional News and Corporate Updates:
PCTL would like to warn its stockholders and potential investors that material corporate information regarding sales, areas of business and other corporate updates will only be made through press releases or filings with the SEC. PCTL does not utilize social media, chatrooms or other online sources to disclose material information. The public should only rely on official press releases and corporate filings for accurate and up to date information regarding PCTL.
========================
Details for EXCELYTE VET * EPA Contract Info EPA Contact Information
PM Re: None Post # 92362 of 92385 PCTL> UK NHS is the largest single healthcare delivery organisation in the world.
SELLING TO THE NHS
SUMMARY This guide outlines the structures that exist to help companies contact and sell existing and innovative products into the NHS, a huge organisation which can appear very complex.
IN BRIEF NHS Supply Chain Procurement routes – national, regional and local contracts
Products for GP prescription
Estates – capital equipment
Innovation – new products
The NHS is the largest single healthcare delivery organisation in the world. It constitutes a major opportunity for UK medical device companies. NHS trusts can purchase products through one of five main routes:
Directly from suppliers using National Framework Contracts
From the NHS Supply Chain which provides end-to-end supply chain services incorporating procurement, logistics, e-commerce and customer and supplier support
The NHS Supply Chain is a single organisation created for the benefit of NHS trusts, hospitals and other healthcare organisations. The organisation combines the former NHS Logistics Authority, significant parts of the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency, expertise in healthcare logistics from DHL and procurement experience from Novation.
PROCUREMENT ROUTES National contracts Tenders: Contracts for products and services valued at over £90,319 (01 Jan 2008) must be advertised in the Supplement to the daily Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU). Procurement levels change, but you can confirm the current level by visiting: http://www.ojec.com.
NHS-sid: This is the official NHS supplier information database on which companies can enter their information for free:
http://www.sid4health.nhs.uk. It rationalises the management of pre-qualification data during the procurement process and can only be fully accessed by authorised NHS personnel. Suppliers looking to compete for advertised NHS contracts must still submit applications in the required format. Any supplier is free to register its services on NHS-sid. The information published is made freely available to NHS users. Registering on this system does not imply that a supplier has any special or ‘approved’ status. Regional contracts Collaborative organisations: Most NHS trusts are now partners in ‘collaborative procurement organisations’ where, normally on a regional basis, they can share information and resources to achieve economies of scale.
Local contracts Individual trust contracts: Local contracts are often managed by a trust’s supplies department. Its approach to suppliers will vary according to the value, size and complexity of its requirements. DH has set down procurement guidelines indicating that for contracts valued below £3,000 a trust should ask for telephone quotes; for contracts valued between £3,000 and £10,000, it should request a minimum of three written quotes; for contracts valued above £10,000, a minimum of three formal written tenders should be sought. Actual interpretations of these guidelines vary from trust to trust.
PRODUCTS FOR GP PRESCRIPTION
Suppliers wishing to list their products under the Drug Tariff for prescription by GPs or nurses must seek approval from the NHS Business Service Authority (NHSBSA). These will usually be products for self-administration, possibly with a carer’s help, and will normally fall into the following categories: dressings, bandage and associated appliances, incontinence appliances, stoma appliances, and chemical reagents. If the NHSBSA grant approval, the cost, either comparatively with other similar products, or, if it is a new treatment regime, by comparison with alternatives, will be reimbursed. You can access the application form at: www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk.
ESTATES – CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
DH uses two major Public and Private Partnerships (PPPs) to deliver its NHS Plan: the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) and NHS Local Improvement Finance Trust (LIFT). The NHS ProCure 21 Framework brings the NHS and the construction industry together for new-build projects. You can find information on PPPs and associated procurement policies at: www.dh.gov.uk.
INNOVATION – NEW PRODUCTS
The procurement routes above apply to established products. If you are a supplier of innovative products, you should be aware of the organisations involved in product approval:
The UK Medicines and Healthcare product Regulatory Agency (MHRA) This is the government agency responsible for ensuring that medicines and medical devices work and are safe.
Regulatory affairs: Medical devices can only be placed on the market in the UK/EU if they are certified safe, are of the required quality to fulfill the manufacturer’s ‘intended purpose’ and comply with the appropriate Medical Device Directive (CE marking). The MHRA audits the performance of manufacturers and notifies bodies responsible for granting CE marks. You can find more details at: www.mhra.gov.uk.
Clinical trials: The MHRA approves clinical trials/investigations and provides guidance for manufacturers. To obtain a CE mark, a manufacturer must show that the device complies with the relevant ‘Essential Requirements’ of the appropriate Medical Device Directive. In some instances, a clinical investigation will be required. The MHRA website (listed above) provides guidance on this issue.
Small Business Research Initiative (SBRI): The new SBRI is a cross-government programme for the procurement of technology development projects, including the demonstration and evaluation of new technologies. DH has run a pilot SBRI competition in Healthcare Associated Infections in conjunction with the Technology Strategy Board. The benefit to the Department and the NHS is to make new developments available faster and more effectively. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) NICE (www.nice.org.uk) is responsible for providing national guidance on the promotion of good health and the prevention and treatment of ill health. Its activities include:
Technology appraisals – Recommendations on the use of new and existing medicines and treatments within the NHS, based upon a review of clinical and economic evidence Interventional procedure guidance – Many of the procedures that NICE investigates are new, but it also looks at more established procedures if there is uncertainty about their safety or how well they work
NHS National Innovation Centre (NIC): NIC determines the need for innovative products, particularly in the development stage, and speeds up the development and adoption of those that deliver the best results for patients. It provides a point of entry to innovators of healthcare technology via its website and through a web-based assessment process. By considering ideas and products at every stage, it can direct them to the most.
========================== DesertEagle Saturday, 08/15/20 01:06:56 AM Re: None 0
Post # of 125226
It doesn't take a rocket scientist...
to figure out where PCT Ltd is heading and why the Q1 was average and each subsequent Q will be much better. As the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words...
1. PCT LTD Increases Fluid Capacity, Hires New Design Engineer, Ramps Up Midwest Fulfillment Capabilities. 2. PCT LTD Announces Receipts of New Purchase Orders for Annihilyzer Infection Control Systems in NYC Hospitals. 3. PCT LTD Reports Q3 2019 Financials; Revenue Increases 435%, Operating Expenses Decrease 4. PCT EUROPE LTD Signs Distribution Agreement with UK NHS Company, Receives Additional NYC Hospital Orders. 5. PCT LTD Discusses Its Rapid Growth and Expansion Plans. 6. PCT LTD Continues Accelerated Expansion with New Hospital Installations and Fluids Distributors. 7. PCT LTD Formalizes Agreement with PCT EUROPE and Provides Update on Current Business Operations. 8. PCT LTD Adds Additional Distributors, Announces New Hospital Installations and Provides Shareholder Update. 9. PCT LTD Discusses the Increasing Demand for Disinfecting Solutions. 10. PCT LTD Provides Update to Public, Distributors and Sub-Registrants Regarding Use of Products. 11. PCT LTD Provides Update on 2019 10-K Filing, Highlights Revenue Growth, Expense Decrease. 12. PCT LTD Provides Update on US Healthcare Related Activities. 13. PCT LTD Provides Update of Authorized Distributors and Supplemental Registrants.
When the "STOP" comes off and the Q2 comes out we go from Dip to Rip... that is my projection.
Updated list as of 8/14/20 of businesses using PCT Ltd. fluids in some part of their product line. With yesterday's PR I changed the format. I listed by level and retail. I have a separate listing for Seriously clean bc their to big.
PCTL level 2 and 3 distributors/ fluid manufactures with EPA Registrations by year registered off the EPA site
Year Registered 2014 PCT LTD. EXCELYTE VET Hydrolyte vetrinox 92108-1 registered 2/6/2014
Year registered 2018 DANOLYTE DANOLYTE GLOBAL, INC. 92108-1-91582 Registered 2/13/2018 Bio Blasting BIOBLAST DISINFECTANT 92108-1-91707 Registered 9/12/2018
Year Registered 2019 Seriously Clean CuraClean Disinfectant/Sanitizer GROW WASH RX GRUNGEWASH RX HOCL SOLUTIONS DISINFECTANT/SANITIZER NIXALL DISINFECTANT/SANITIZER PURE & CLEAN DISINFECTANT/SANITIZER PURE & CLEAN SPORTS DISINFECTANT/SANITIZER 92108-1-88098 Registered 12/9/2019
DesertEagle Saturday, 08/01/20 10:58:19 AM Re: beer$$money post# 122827 100.000
Post # of 122846
Yes sir, will be big business for PCTL...
Currently there are 225 NHS Trusts in the United Kingdom and anyone who knows how the social healthcare systems work knows that once one trust comes on board, the rest will normally follow suit.
One or two trusts doesn't sound like much to someone that doesn't understand how the system works, but each one of those is responsible for the approval and purchasing of equipment for multiple hospitals, clinics and long term care facilities.
As an example, Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust manages 14 Hospitals and Clinics and North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust manages 17 Hospitals and Clinics. And those 31 Hospitals and Clinics do not represent the Long Term Care facilities under their control as well.
As many people like "Facts not Fiction" and "Proof", the below list represents the current Trusts operating in the United Kingdom...
Airedale NHS Foundation Trust Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust Ashford and St Peter's Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health NHS Trust Barnsley Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Barts Health NHS Trust Bedford Hospital NHS Trust Berkshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust Birmingham Community Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust Birmingham Women's and Children's NHS Foundation Trust Black Country Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust Blackpool Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Bolton NHS Foundation Trust Bradford District NHS Foundation Trust Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Bridgewater Community Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust Burton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust Cambridgeshire Community Services NHS Trust Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust Central London Community Healthcare NHS Trust Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Foundation Trust Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust Cornwall Partnership NHS Foundation Trust Countess Of Chester Hospital NHS Foundation Trust County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust Coventry and Warwickshire Partnership NHS Trust Croydon Health Services NHS Trust Cumbria Northumberland Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust Derbyshire Community Health Services NHS Foundation Trust Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust Devon Partnership NHS Trust Doncaster and Bassetlaw Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Dorset County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust Dudley and Walsall Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust East Cheshire NHS Trust East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust East London NHS Foundation Trust East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust East Of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust East Suffolk and North Essex NHS Foundation Trust East Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust Gateshead Health NHS Foundation Trust George Eliot Hospital NHS Trust Gloucestershire Care Services NHS Trust Gloucestershire Health and Care NHS Foundation Trust Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust Great Western Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Harrogate and District NHS Foundation Trust Hertfordshire Community NHS Trust Hertfordshire Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust Homerton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Hounslow and Richmond Community Healthcare NHS Trust Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust Humber Teaching NHS Foundation Trust Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust Isle Of Wight NHS Trust James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Kent and Medway NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust Kent Community Health NHS Foundation Trust Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation Trust King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Kingston Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Lancashire & South Cumbria NHS Foundation Trust Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Leeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust Leeds Community Healthcare NHS Trust Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust Lincolnshire Community Health Services NHS Trust Lincolnshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust Liverpool Heart and Chest NHS Foundation Trust Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Liverpool Women's NHS Foundation Trust London Ambulance Service NHS Trust London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust Luton and Dunstable University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust Medway NHS Foundation Trust Mersey Care NHS Foundation Trust Mid and south Essex Foundation Trust Mid Cheshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust Midlands Partnership NHS Foundation Trust Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust Norfolk Community Health and Care NHS Trust North Bristol NHS Trust North Cumbria Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust North Cumbria University Hospitals NHS Trust North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust North East London NHS Foundation Trust North Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust North Staffordshire Combined Healthcare NHS Trust North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust North West Ambulance Service NHS Trust North West Anglia NHS Foundation Trust North West Boroughs Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust Northern Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Foundation Trust Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust Poole Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust Project Nightingale NHS Trust Queen Victoria Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic and District Hospital NHS Trust Rotherham Doncaster and South Humber NHS Foundation Trust Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust Royal Papworth Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust Sheffield Children's NHS Foundation Trust Sheffield Health and Social Care NHS Foundation Trust Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust Shropshire Community Health NHS Trust Solent NHS Trust Somerset Partnership NHS Foundation Trust South Central Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust South East Coast Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust South Tyneside And Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust South Tyneside NHS Foundation Trust South Warwickshire NHS Foundation Trust South West London and St George's Mental Health NHS Trust South West Yorkshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust South Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust Southport and Ormskirk Hospital NHS Trust St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust St Helens and Knowsley Hospitals NHS Trust Stockport NHS Foundation Trust Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust Sussex Community NHS Foundation Trust Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust Tameside Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Taunton and Somerset NHS Foundation Trust Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust The Christie NHS Foundation Trust The Clatterbridge Cancer Centre NHS Foundation Trust The Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust The Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust The Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust The Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn. NHS Foundation Trust The Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust The Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust The Royal Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Foundation Trust The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust The Walton Centre NHS Foundation Trust Torbay and South Devon NHS Foundation Trust United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust University Hospital of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust University Hospitals Of Leicester NHS Trust University Hospitals Of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust University Hospitals of North Midlands University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust Warrington and Halton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust West London NHS Trust West Midlands Ambulance Service University NHS Foundation Trust West Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Whittington Health NHS Trust Wirral Community NHS Foundation Trust Wirral University Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust Worcestershire Health and Care NHS Trust Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust Wye Valley NHS Trust Yeovil District Hospital NHS Foundation Trust York Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust
Now when people tell you that PCTL getting their foot into the door of the NHS system isn't a big deal, you can tell them you know better.
DE
aandt Saturday, August 1, 2020 9:32:43 AM Re: None Post # of 122844 Repur/Collaborative Technologies
Looks like they will be in the food industry, they were just approved by the USDA and added to the NSF (National Sanitation Foundation) list. https://info.nsf.org/USDA/Listings.asp (search for RePur).
Egold Monday, July 27, 2020 1:48:03 PM Re: None Post # of 121773 New updated list Looks a lot better. Stick this one if ya want
Updated list as of 7/27/20 of businesses using PCT Ltd. fluids in some part of their product line. PCTL level 2 and 3 distributors/ fluid manufactures with EPA Registrations by year registered
Year Registered 2014 PCT LTD. EXCELYTE VET Hydrolyte vetrinox 92108-1 registered 2/6/2014
Year registered 2018 DANOLYTE DANOLYTE GLOBAL, INC. 92108-1-91582 Registered 2/13/2018 Bio Blasting BIOBLAST DISINFECTANT 92108-1-91707 Registered 9/12/2018 Bio Blasting BIOBLAST DISINFECTANT KYUNG NONG CORPORATION S. Korea 92108-1-91707 Registered 9/12/2018
Vision source Vision Source has over 3,300 locally owned optometry practices. Each one could carry Pure and Clean's products. https://visionsource.com/vendors/ Pure and Clean's website for Vision source https://pncvision.com/
Lots of interesting info. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7315945/ J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020 Jun 25 doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2020.06.029 [Epub ahead of print] PMCID: PMC7315945 PMID: 32653307 Hypochlorous Acid: A Review Michael S. Block, DMD** and Brian G. Rowan, DMD, MD† includes, for example: Quote:
Abstract The surgeon needs to have an inexpensive, available, nontoxic, and practical disinfectant that is effective in sanitizing against the COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease 2019) virus. The purpose of this article was to review the evidence for using hypochlorous acid in the office setting on a daily basis. The method used to assemble recommendations was a review of the literature including evidence for this solution when used in different locations and industries other than the oral-maxillofacial clinic facility. The results indicate that this material can be used with a high predictability for disinfecting against the COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease 2019) virus.
Quote:
Stability of Solution Rossi-Fedele et al35 investigated the shelf life of HOCl by being either exposed to or protected from sunlight. When the HOCl solution was exposed to sunlight, the chlorine reduction started on day 4. When it was sheltered from sunlight, the chlorine reduction started after day 14. The half-life increases with decreasing pH owing to the decreasing ratio of OCl–to HOCl.36 The parts per million (ppm) is the concentration of the –OCl, which is the active ingredient and is known as the available free chlorine (AFC) in the solution. HOCl solutions are less stable when exposed to UV radiation, sunlight, or contact with air or when the temperature of the solution is elevated greater than 25°C. HOCl solutions should be stored in cool, dark places, and contact with air should be minimized. The water for fabrication should be water that contains organic and inorganic ion concentrations that are as small as possible.37, 38, 39, 40
Concentration Related to Time Needed for Virucidal Action HOCl has been shown to inactivate a variety of viruses including coronaviruses in less than 1 minute.39 At a concentration of 200 ppm, HOCl is effective in decontaminating inert surfaces carrying noroviruses and other enteric viruses in a 1-minute contact time. When diluted 10-fold, HOCl solutions at 20 ppm were still effective in decontaminating environmental surfaces carrying viruses in a 10-minute contact time.
Quote:
Discussion The coronavirus pandemic has caused both a massive health care and economic disruption across the world. The current unavailability of an effective antiviral drug or approved vaccine means that the implementation of effective preventive measures is necessary to counteract COVID-19. Oral-maxillofacial surgeons are high-risk providers providing needed care to patients. As more OMS and surgical offices open during reopening in the United States and elsewhere in the world, the need to reduce the risk of transmission of COVID-19 between patients and providers is necessary. It is widely believed that with proper screening and discretion, along with adequate personal protective equipment, there is a low probability of becoming infected. The goal of this article is to provide information regarding disinfection in the clinical office setting using HOCl, a relatively inexpensive, nontoxic, noncorrosive, and well-studied compound.
HOCl has uses in many industries from farming and restaurants, regarding food, to health care applications, including chronic wound care and disinfection.34 , 36 , 43 , 45 , 46 , 63 In addition to the use of HOCl as a liquid-based disinfectant, fogging with hypochlorous vapor has shown virucidal activity against numerous types of viruses and bacteria.40 , 56 , 57 This is of potential benefit to disinfect large spaces such as medical and dental offices where aerosols can be airborne for extended periods.42 , 44 , 64 In terms of particle size, oral-maxillofacial surgeons may be at a slightly lower risk than their dental counterparts because ultrasonic scaling and high-speed handpieces create smaller particles that remain airborne longer.42 However, aerosols are still created with surgical handpieces. Additionally, the COVID-19 virus can be present on some surfaces for days, and the disinfection of all surfaces of an operatory is important to reduce transmission.9 , 10
Many properties of HOCl contribute to why it may be the disinfectant of choice in the OMS setting. Although the shelf life of HOCl is relatively short, it is effective for up to 2 weeks under ideal conditions.35 It can be made on-site inexpensively. A gallon of HOCl can be purchased from manufacturers but it is far more economical for an oral-maxillofacial surgeon to produce the solution on-site in the office.65 A variety of HOCl systems costing less than $275 are available on the market.66 By combining non-iodinated salt, water, and electricity,33 1 L of HOCl can be made in 8 minutes and the process can be repeated many times throughout the day. By comparison, a pack of common disinfecting wipes containing quaternary ammonium compounds costs between $4 and $15 for a pack containing 80 sheets. These wipes may only last a day or two depending the size of the office and area to clean. Shortages of these products can occur, making sourcing them difficult as well.67
In addition to using HOCl in the form of wipes for disinfecting, using HOCl vapors through a fogging machine is an economical way to disinfect a large operating room or suite in which aerosols were produced during surgery. Foggers or misting machines are handheld machines and can be purchased for a reasonable cost.68 The aerosol mist ideally should be less than 20 µm in size to maximally disinfect an area. It is important to note that the fogging process can alter the physical and chemical properties of the disinfectant, making it more dilute and basic. As mentioned before, the AFC concentration can be reduced by approximately 70% and the pH can increase by about 1.3.40 To make a vapor as effective as a solution containing 100 ppm of HOCl, the solution would need to be concentrated. The fine mist can be left in the empty surgical room without thought regarding harmful chemical effects; the surfaces are then wiped clean and dry after a few minutes and, for a more dilute solution, after 10 minutes.
HOCl is one disinfectant that, when combined with adequate personal protective equipment, screening and social-distancing techniques, hand washing, and high-volume evacuation suction, may help reduce the transmission of COVID-19 in the outpatient OMS setting. It comprises many of the desired effects of the ideal disinfectant: It is easy to use, is inexpensive, has a good safety profile, and can be used to disinfect large areas quickly and with a broad range of bactericidal and virucidal effects.
March 23, 2020 Hypochlorous acid (HClO) is recommended for hand washing and disinfecting the environment Oliver Ho, Ph.D. Candidate | Institute of Health and Welfare Policy, School of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan A study published by Allison E. Aiello in 2012 (1) suggested that in the early stages of an influenza outbreak, the government should promote anti-epidemic measures to wear masks and maintain hand hygiene. The community infection caused by the COVID-19 virus caused panic among the population, which caused insufficient resources for masks and disinfectant supplies.
In Japan, research on the use of hypochlorous acid was carried out 20 years ago (2). Hypochlorous acid has a good effect in disinfection. It is not as toxic as bleach and it is not as prone to fire as alcohol. In Japan it is also used for medical, food, and workplace disinfection, including hand washing or surgery, and even as a mouthwash (2, 3). However, too high a concentration may cause damage to the skin, and too low a concentration may lack bactericidal power. If hypochlorous acid water is used on the skin, like alcohol, excessive use may cause skin allergies. The use of hypochlorous acid in environmental disinfection should be avoided on iron and rust. Hypochlorous water for environmental disinfection is 100 ppm, If sprayed directly on the hands, 30-50 ppm is recommended to avoid excessive damage to the skin. To avoid skin irritation, rinse with water after use.
References: 1. Aiello, AE, Perez, V., Coulborn, RM, Davis, BM, Uddin, M., & Monto, AS (2012). Facemasks, hand hygiene, and influenza among young adults: a randomized intervention trial. PloS one, 7 (1).
2. OKUBO, K., URAKAMI, H., & TAMURA, A. (1999). Cytotoxicity and microbicidal activity of electrolyzed strong acid water and acidic hypochlorite solution under isotonic conditions. Journal of Infectious Diseases, 73 (10).
3. Ono Tomoko. (2012). Examples of application of various germ bactericidal effects of weakly acidic hypoglycinic acid aqueous solution. Journal of the Japan Society of Pharmaceutical Industry = Journal of the Brewing Society of Japan, 107 (2), 100-109.
========================= fourfive6 Wednesday, July 22, 2020 10:15:17 AM Re: None Post # of 121147 I’m hearing some chatter re: this G2/Blackstone mashup — Y2X Life Sciences — anyone hearing anything?
This all ties back to NY Presbyterian and allegedly, a handful of their board members making introductions — I’m wondering if the PR last Friday is related?
If nothing else, nice to see the sector continue its take off — this rising tide will continue to elevate PCTL and the IP.
I am a former dairy farmer and have family members still running farms, so I also have been curious about this. Here is some research I have found. Not specific to PCTL but general to HOCL applications
After 10K 0.048-0.066 After 1st 10Q 0.065-0.127 with certain news it could go much higher to the dollar range After 2nd 10Q 0.18-0.776 with certain news it could go well over a dollar on a run
From Me: Reasons for PCTL to run...
1) The patented Annihilyzer® Infection Control System, Annihilyzer® On Site Generator and Large Volume production unit sales and leases continue to grow in 2020. PCTL is expanding to meet the increase in demand with new facilities in Fort Wayne, Indiana.
2) PCT Ltd recently announced they had reached a final agreement with Paradigm Convergence Technologies (Europe) Ltd. The agreement was enacted on May 25th, 2020 and will secure a mutually beneficial business relationship between the two entities, in which PCTL will hold a beneficial stake. This agreement opens up the United Kingdom and 5 European countries to the PCT Ltd systems. The equipment will be manufactured in the United Sates and shipped to the United Kingdom and Europe.
3) PCT Ltd continues to increase hospital installations. In a recent interview, Mr. Grieco (CEO) indicated that 3 additional installations have been completed since May 18th 2020 and he sees PCT Ltd performing an additional 2 to 3 installations per month through the rest of the year. Each one of these systems represent recurring revenue to the company.
4) PCT Ltd is adding additional distributors to continue its expansion. BOX Bioscience (www.boxbioscience.com) of Mount Pleasant, SC with operations in North Carolina was recently approved as a Level 3 distributor. Ryan Cowell, CEO of BOX Bioscience stated “We were very excited to learn of this distributorship opportunity because our business was seeking this type of high-quality source for HOCL”.
5) Although PCT Ltd is primarily focused on the development and deployment of their patented Annihilyzer® Infection Control System and Annihilyzer® On Site Generator to address the 36 Billion Dollar per year Hospital Acquired Infections market, they have quickly adapted their business model to also supply their Hydrolyte® disinfecting fluids to all parts of the country due to the surge in demand caused by the current Covid-19 pandemic.
6) PCT Ltd’s Hydrolyte® is currently listed on 6 EPA lists of registered products. List B: Products Effective Against Mycobacterium tuberculosis List C: Products Effective Against Human HIV-1 Virus List F: Products Effective Against Hepatitis C List G: Products Effective Against Norovirus List H: Products Effective Against MRSA and/or VRE List N: Products for use against SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19
7) PCT Ltd’s revenue continue to increase year over year. 2015: $141 2016: $113,387 2017: $123,105 2018: $266,122 2019: $534,852 (9 months ending September 30, 2019) 2020: Record Breaking
8) Due to the current Covid-19 Pandemic, the Full Year 2019 10-K has been delayed. It is expected that the Full Year 2019 10-K will be released quickly followed by the 1st Quarter 10-Q and then the 2nd Quarter 10-Q soon after that.
Because we believe these releases will happen in quick succession and show that the company is increasing revenue while decreasing debt and at the same time expanding hospital installations and distributors to meet current and future demand, we feel that a substantial run up in share price is inevitable when the company becomes current.
9) As PCT Ltd expands their footprint in the United States, United Kingdom and Europe, we expect the company to move up to the OTCQB later in 2020 and move off the OTC and on to a major exchange early in 2021.
Here is my updated list as of 7/16/20 including a few that were not on the list you are referring to. I did include NetZero since you brought them up.
Updated list as of 7/16/20 78+ businesses using PCT Ltd. fluids in some part of their product line. PCTL level 2 and 3 distributors/ fluid manufactures with EPA Registrations by year registered
Year Registered 2014 PCT LTD. EXCELYTE VET Hydrolyte vetrinox 92108-1 registered 2/6/2014
Year registered 2018 DANOLYTE DANOLYTE GLOBAL, INC. 92108-1-91582 Registered 2/13/2018 Bio Blasting BIOBLAST DISINFECTANT 92108-1-91707 Registered 9/12/2018 Bio Blasting BIOBLAST DISINFECTANT KYUNG NONG CORPORATION S. Korea 92108-1-91707 Registered 9/12/2018
Vision source Vision Source has over 3,300 locally owned optometry practices. Each one could carry Pure and Clean's products. https://visionsource.com/vendors/ Pure and Clean's website for Vision source https://pncvision.com/
And the above is missing these 5 distributors: Advanced Environmental Solutions, Inc Collaborative Technologies Llc Danolyte Global, Inc. Earth Safe Solutions, Llc Net Zero Tools Inc
I am not trying to be controversial. It seems like you appreciate that proper DD is done. I am just adding to the DD for this stock, so that the correct info is posted. If you believe there are 77 sites instead of the above 47 sites, then what are your additional 30 sites?
======================================================= falon Wednesday, July 15, 2020 9:24:50 AM Re: None Post # of 119913 The evolution of Paradigm Convergence Technologies Corporation
PCTL's successful launch of the Annihilyzer System 18 months ago leads to a system in 20% of hospitals in New York City. PCTL’s flagship product Annihililyzer was, is and will be the foundation of the company’s success moving forward.
The company was on the brink of faltering due to its growing debt and had to execute toxic financing for its survival.
Then PCTL received an unexpected gift due to unprecedented demand for HOCI because of the Covid-19 pandemic.
What the CEO did by shifting the focus to supplying HOCI due to the high demand and need, enabled PCTL to establish a more stable financial condition that it has ever seen.
There are many companies selling HOCI so to increase PCTL’s footprint the CEO increased production and brought on more distributors. The high demand for HOCI will continue in the foreseeable future however it isn’t going to last forever and competition will increase moving forward.
What has given PCTL an edge is that we were already established providing HOCI, they have a supply chain already in place and have equipment to produce large quantities of product.
ALL the other areas PCTL has business interests including oil and gas, food safety, agriculture, and cannabis to name a few should be adding to the bottom line moving forward.
There are many types of whole room disinfection systems but none like the Annihilyzer.
It is my belief that the Annihilyzer is really going to be the ultimate game changer. It is just too versatile, cost effective and provides hospitals not only with a whole room disinfection system but a second product for the price of one.
FACTS about the Annihilyzer:
The best solution to a multi-billion dollar problem.
The Most Technologically Advanced Disinfection System Ever Created to Eliminate Hospital Associated Infections (HAIs) using Patented RFID Technology for Tracking and Disinfecting Protocols.
Why is the Annihilyzer Infection Control System one of the best and most versatile in the world ?
The Annihilyzer System is truly a cost-effective Green Seal Certified end-to-end total facility disinfection and cleaning system. This system generates both a hospital grade disinfectant and a very effective cleaning solution to cover virtually all of your cleaning and disinfection needs. These on-site generators produce stable electrochemically activated solutions, OSG 460D - Hospital Grade Disinfectant that is effective against C. diff, MRSA, and VRE, and an OSG 11-12 All Purpose Cleaner, and downtime for the process is only 15 - 20 minutes with no special preparation or precautions necessary.
The Annihilyzer System doesn't stop there, though. The icing on the cake is our state-of-the-art whole-room and handheld electrostatic sprayers that make quick work of completely disinfecting a room. Our 460D disinfectant can even be used to disinfect floors without leaving a haze or residue. We use a powerful non-synthetic disinfectant along with an automated electrostatic spray cart and/or electrostatic sprayers and patented RFID tracking technology that together are unmatched the industry to ensure proper and complete application.
What can the Annihilyzer do?
Save time and money by generating disinfectant and all-purpose cleaner on-site, on-demand
Eliminate the toughest bacteria, viruses, and fungi, including C. diff, C. auris, MRSA, VRE, blood-borne pathogens, and more.
Create 'industry best' protocols and 'push' them out to your cleaning staff in real-time with the Annihilist dashboard and mobile app
Generate reports that show when the areas were cleaned, who cleaned them, and what was done
Increase staff efficiency and effectiveness with process tracking, training, and accountability
How does the Annihilyzer save companies money?
Costs associated with purchasing and managing chemicals – eliminated
Freight charges for chemical deliveries – eliminated
Chemical container disposal or recycling costs – eliminated
Personal protection gear for cleaning – eliminated
Wastewater disposal costs and related fines for non-compliance – eliminated
Workers comp claims due to chemical burns and fume inhalation – eliminated
Happier, healthier and more productive workers
Same or better cleaning power than traditional hazardous chemicals for less
Eliminates costs associated with ordering, inventorying and disposing of chemicals and containers
How many hospitals are in NYC?
There are 62 acute care hospitals in New York City.
How many hospitals in NYC have at least one Annihilyzer System?
PCTL has installed at least 14 systems and gained 22.5% market share in NYC hospitals in less than 18 months.
Most Technologically Advanced Disinfection System Ever Created Annihilyzer the future for Healthcare and other Industries
During the Coronavirus Pandemic a Hospital with the Annihilyzer in place was in a better position than a hospital without it. Many hospitals will be asking themselves what could we have done differently? If they know about the Annihilyzer, having one will certainly be one of their answers. This is not the last so they have to put themselves in the best position for future events.
What is a better investment for a whole room Infection Control System:
Annihilyzer versus an UV system?
They both disinfect effectively however the Annihilyzer provides an additional products, an all purpose cleaner and handheld electrostatic sprayers that can be used in other parts of the hospital in the presence of people because it is “Green Certified”. Also the Annihilyzer cost less than half that of one of the best UV system on the market, the Xenex “LightStrike” cost about $125,000,
Annihilyzer versus a Chemical (Hydrogen Peroxide) based system?
They both disinfect effectively however the Annihilyzer provides an additional products, an all purpose cleaner and handheld electrostatic sprayers that can be used in other parts of the hospital in the presence of people because it is “Green Certified”. Chemical based solutions require protective equipment, are more expensive and are harsh on furniture and one company called Hanosil sells their machine for under $10,000 however it costs $20 in product to clean each room.
It cost $1 in HOCI to clean a room.
================================================
DesertEagle tv debut ( this will not be active till probably end of August) will post when an interview/ or when DE’s add’s begin appearing.
——————————————— Friday, 07/10/20 01:18:54 PM Re: None 0 Post # of 119239 Updated list as of 7/10/20 77+ businesses using PCT Ltd. fluids in some part of their product line.
In 2020 PCT brought on 10 new level 2 or 3 sub registrants. This is only in 7 months. The last one was yesterday. As these distributors develop their businesses they will add to revs. Doesn't happen over night unless your like Germinator who already has 17 franchises.
In 2019 seriously clean/ clean republic and nixall all became EPA subs. These companies with the companies they started in the AG, Human eye and wound use, disinfectants are already becoming a major force.
So many are stuck on the financials well this little company in litter river SC started selling Annihilyzer systems to health care facilities in 11/2018. Slowly they have been building the business. Not one hospital has ever returned a system. They announced a steady supply of hospital installations since bringing the Annihilyzer to market less then 2 years ago. Revs were up over 500% from 2018 to 2019 probably from the Annihilyzer sales and those large capacity machines.
All of a sudden CV-19 becomes a pandemic. PCT's business model was not of retail sales but selling Annihilyzer systems and large capacity machines gets slammed with orders for disinfectant. Infrastructure gets slammed also. As Gary said they shifted gears to the profit center of retail. Staff are doing multiple jobs and Gary hires more staff. The company is hiring more staff for the increase in demand. Takes time to hire and train.
Meanwhile demand is increasing for distributors and sub registrants. like I said 10 in just the 7 months of 2020.
Oh but I want my 2019 10k and 202o Q1 10Q.. No I don't want it I demand it. Something has to be wrong. Gary already said the issue is with the pandemic. Naaaa can't still be that the pandemic is getting better. Umm wrong it's getting worse in many states.
Look at what's happening the company is growing even as the fins are late. Oh, but maybe Gary doesn't give a damn about fins. Maybe Gary can get financing with a SS. Maybe he can get big investors to come in with a SS. lol Wrong if you don't think he wants the SS down as quickly as possible think again. The company is on the verge of being a dominant player in the HOCL industry if they aren't already.
So many with their eyes closed oh well. I've been adding and will continue to do so.
Good luck to everyone hope ya'll make the right decision when it comes to PCTL
PCTL level 2 and 3 distributors/ fluid manufactures with EPA Registrations by year registered
Year Registered 2014 PCT LTD. EXCELYTE VET Hydrolyte vetrinox 92108-1 registered 2/6/2014
Year registered 2018 DANOLYTE DANOLYTE GLOBAL, INC. 92108-1-91582 Registered 2/13/2018 Bio Blasting BIOBLAST DISINFECTANT 92108-1-91707 Registered 9/12/2018 Bio Blasting BIOBLAST DISINFECTANT KYUNG NONG CORPORATION S. Korea 92108-1-91707 Registered 9/12/2018
Anybody worried about PCTL ability to deliver their flagship product, "the Annihilyzer" just needs to look at the Family Corporate facilities of the Tippmann Group that will be producing them for PCTL! Check out the warehouse locations here:
Tippmann Affiliated Group is a family owned organization with a diversified group of business segments throughout North America and around the world. Current business segments include:
Manufacturing Sales and Marketing Warehousing Logistics Digital Media E-Commerce Approaching a half-century in business, Tippmann Affiliated Group businesses hold 17 patents and numerous product and service awards in various industries, including Automotive, Food Service, Refrigeration, Medical Device and Transportation.
My list of companies using PCTL fluids. If I missed any let me know. The list grows all the time. If you think PCTL isn't making money think again. If you think PCTL is a scam think again and check the websites. If you think a late financial is going to change the list below think again.
PCTL Distributors that have large capacity machines.
======================================================== falon Member Profile falon Wednesday, June 17, 2020 5:31:53 PM Re: None Post # of 114170 HOCI the gift that keeps giving.
Hypochlorous Acid was the catalyst that gave PCTL a financial boost that relieved the company of the burden of a continuous debt load. It also enabled them to prepare for a build out of their flagship product, the Annihilyzer/Large Volume Hydrolyte System for orders they received due to Covid-19 and eventually the UK and beyond.
So just what are the installation numbers of PCTL’s Annihilyzer/Large Volume Hydrolyte Systems?
I really don’t know however below is what I do know:
Oh Yea
FACTS not fiction
At least 36 Hospitals/Distributors using The PCTL Annihilyzer/Large Volume Hydrolyte Systems!
Hospitals (25)
Johnston UNC Health Care Hospital
Carson Tahoe Regional Medical Center
New York-Presbyterian?
NewYork-Presbyterian Morgan Stanley Children's Hospital
NewYork-Presbyterian / Weill Cornell Medical Center
NewYork-Presbyterian Lower Manhattan Hospital (NewYork-Presbyterian has another 5 hospitals in its network)
Yale New Haven Medical Center
UMass Medical Center
Coler/Goldwater Hospital
Metropolitan Hospital
Mount Sinai South Nassau Medical Center
Bellevue Hospital
NYU Langhorne
Lincoln hospital
Westchester County Medical Center
Harlem Hospital
Wyckoff Hospital
SUNY Downstate Medical Center
Coney Island Hospital
Kings county Medical Center
Queens Hospital
Methodist Hospital
Jacobi Medical Center
UK North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust
UK ?
Level 3 Distributors or Large Volume Hydrolyte System users (11):
4 systems to a Food Processing Customer
1 System Pure and Clean
1 System to Puerto Rico
1+ System to Ace Janitorial
2 Systems H2S Safe Treat Inc of Ada, OK
2 Systems BioBlasting LLC of Egg Harbor Township, New Jersey
1 System BOX Bioscience of Mount Pleasant, SC
1 System Colorado Springs, CO
I believe there are other Level 3 distributors, however I have not quite put the information together to confirm it. Pod cast interview https://stockdaymedia.com/?s=Pctl =================================== Re: None 0
Post # of 107661
More Cannabis DD.. PCTL distributors are killing it
The other day was posted a Cannabis connection to Growash. Continuing PCT Ltd. Research using the PCTL’s sub registrant number 92108-1-88098 Clean Republic there is another Cannabis connection. Clean Republic, Plantaid and Cause + Medic are associated with each other.
PlantAid has 2 products one designed to clean plants. (Due to EPA regulations they can’t say it does anything else in accordance with PCTL’s EPA reg number). The other product is used for equipment, tools and irrigation systems. Irrigation systems would be associated with hydroponic cultivation which is used in Cannabis growing besides fruits and veggies. You’ll also notice under “shop” they produce Hemp seeds. Again under “shop” you’ll see the connection back to Clean Republic.
============================================= beer$$money Sunday, May 10, 2020 5:16:39 PM Re: beer$$money post# 100472 Post # of 102445 Easy to make a sprayer! Tulsa Firefighters Use Hypochlorous Acid to clean their trucks.
My understanding these Firefighters are working with Advanced Environmental Solutions, Inc. ("AES, Inc.") of Meeker, Oklahoma.
Most recently, PCT Corp. has executed a collaborative agreement with Advanced Environmental Solutions, Inc. ("AES, Inc.") of Meeker, Oklahoma. AES, Inc. purchased two (2) high-volume units of PCT Corp.'s equipment and is building out a 2,500 s.f. production facility as it develops its oil & gas and Cannabis applications.
Re: None Post # of 102445 Only 3 trading days left before the 10-K.
PCT Ltd has...
* EPA Approved List N: Disinfectants for Use Against SARS-CoV-2 * EPA Approved List G: Antimicrobial Products Effective Against Norovirus * Green Seal Certified Equipment
May 8th, 2020 PCT LTD Continues Accelerated Expansion with NEW Hospital Installations and Fluid Distributors April 21st, 2020 PCT LTD Discusses Its Rapid Growth and Expansion Plans with The Stock Day Podcast April 16th, 2020 PCT Europe Ltd. Signs Distribution Agreement with UK NHS Company, Recieves Additional NYC Hospital Order April 15th, 2020 PCT LTD Reports Q3 2019 Financials; Revenue Increases 435%, Operating Expenses Decrease April 14th, 2020 PCT LTD Announces Receipts of New Purchase Orders for ANNIHILYZER Infection Control System in NYC Hospitals April 7th, 2020 PCT LTD Increases Fluid Capacity, Hires New Design Engineer, Ramps Up Midwest Fulfillment Capabilities March 27th, 2020 PCT LTD Obtains EPA Approval for Emerging Pathogens Labeling for use Against SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus that causes the disease COVID-19 March 25th, 2020 PCT LTD Expands Production Capacity and Accelerates Hypochlorous Acid Production and Sales March 18th, 2020 PCT LTD Receives Large Purchase Order for Recurring Sales of Fluids for Non-Medical Use and Explains Current Revenue Streams March 16th, 2020 PCT LTD Discusses Their Unique Annihilyzer™ Disinfecting System and Impact of The Coronavirus with The Stock Day Podcast March 13th, 2020 PCT LTD Adds International Distributor and Sells High-Volume Equipment to Existing Customer as a Result of Heightened Demand
Paradigm Convergence Technologies Corporation... The Right Company in the Right Place at the Right Time!
Don't get caught chasing it. =========================
Re: None Post # of 102018 New video from Alex G on LinkedIn
Medama HOCL being traditionally sprayed and electrostatically sprayed(via our Medama PCTL electrostatic cart)at a major Healthcare system in Westchester NY.
As the Director said to me, "hypochlorous, the new normal".
With the SDS HMIS ratings of O,O,O,O, this should definitely be the single choice/method for all institutions that are interested in disinfecting any surfaces; while ensuring that their customers understand, that their health and safety is their number one priority.
BIGBUCKS Member Level Friday, 05/01/20 12:27:58 PM Re: None 0 Post # 98897 of 98999 PCTL. EPA List N: Products with Emerging Viral Pathogens AND Human Coronavirus claims for use against SARS-CoV-2>the novel coronavirus that causes the disease COVID-19. EPA List N was last updated Today March 26, 2020 and added PCTL 92108-1 Hypochlorous acid Excelyte Vet How does EPA know that these products work on SARS-CoV-2? While these products have not been tested against SARS-CoV-2, the cause of COVID-19, they are expected to be effective based on: Demonstrated efficacy against a harder-to-kill virus; Qualified for the emerging viral pathogens claim; or Demonstrated efficacy against another human coronavirus similar to SARS-CoV-2. SARS-CoV-2 the novel coronavirus that causes the disease COVID-19 is a new virus. Such pathogens are often unavailable commercially for laboratory testing. https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/list-n-disinfectants-use-against-sars-cov-2https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/frequently-asked-questions-about-list-n-disinfectants-use-against-sars-cov-2#Q1 on[fq2D505A0D-3F24-4D0D-B592-02E1BCE41BBB.jpeg 1,125×1,033 pixels ======================= Chapmax Re: lucky,mydog post# 98713 0 Post # 98907of 98994
ACTION NEEDED Pctl has been trying to get in contact with the government to make them aware of our machine & what it can do We can help with & in our numbers send them copies of the DD that’s been posted
This is the contact point in government that needs to know about pctl Paradigm Convergence Technology. (Read below)
Info they’ll need: PODCAST LINK click Click in search....Pctl
This is who we can contact in government to make them aware of our machine.
point of entry for the submission of market research packages and meeting requests from interested stakeholders. The U.S. government, in response to the COVID-19 outbreak, seeks information from stakeholders on available medical countermeasures in development. We are particularly interested in products and technologies that have progressed into or beyond non-clinical trials, have established large-scale cGMP manufacturing capability, or utilize an approved platform. Information regarding diagnostics, therapeutics, vaccines, and other products or technologies relevant to addressing this outbreak are sought. At this time, we ask for a brief description of your product or technology, accompanied by a slide deck, manuscript, publications, or other non-confidential information of your choosing. Please note that while we will use any information you present as market research, submission is no guarantee of a meeting or funding and your submission will be shared across U.S. Government agencies involved in COVID-19 medical countermeasure research and development. Only U.S. government officials are invited to join a CoronaWatch meeting, and are bound by law to maintain confidentiality of what is presented and discussed. Ideal technologies and products would (but are not required to) be: * - Relevant to the U.S. government COVID-19 medical countermeasure research and development efforts and/or Emerging .Infectious Disease rapid response capabilities * - Utilize an already-approved platform, have non-clinical data suggesting efficacy, and/or have significant manufacturing capability * - Fully owned or licensed by your organization (you have full IP rights and/or freedom to operate)
Would you like to meet with a federal agency regarding a product that you are developing for COVID-19? If you are interested in requesting a CoronaWatch meeting, please Register for an account and Login, or if you have an account Login to submit some basic product information.
Paradigm Convergence Technologies Corporation Summarized Due Diligence Sheet for Investing [color=red]
ACTION NEEDEDPctl has been trying to get in contact with the government to make them aware of our machine & what it can do We can help with & in our numbers send them copies of the DD that’s been
This is the contact point in government that needs to know about pctl Paradigm Convergence Technology. (Read below)
This is who we can contact in government to make them aware of our machine.
point of entry for the submission of market research packages and meeting requests from interested stakeholders. The U.S. government, in response to the COVID-19 outbreak, seeks information from stakeholders on available medical countermeasures in development. We are particularly interested in products and technologies that have progressed into or beyond non-clinical trials, have established large-scale cGMP manufacturing capability, or utilize an approved platform. Information regarding diagnostics, therapeutics, vaccines, and other products or technologies relevant to addressing this outbreak are sought. At this time, we ask for a brief description of your product or technology, accompanied by a slide deck, manuscript, publications, or other non-confidential information of your choosing. Please note that while we will use any information you present as market research, submission is no guarantee of a meeting or funding and your submission will be shared across U.S. Government agencies involved in COVID-19 medical countermeasure research and development. Only U.S. government officials are invited to join a CoronaWatch meeting, and are bound by law to maintain confidentiality of what is presented and discussed. Ideal technologies and products would (but are not required to) be: * - Relevant to the U.S. government COVID-19 medical countermeasure research and development efforts and/or Emerging .Infectious Disease rapid response capabilities * - Utilize an already-approved platform, have non-clinical data suggesting efficacy, and/or have significant manufacturing capability * - Fully owned or licensed by your organization (you have full IP rights and/or freedom to operate)
Would you like to meet with a federal agency regarding a product that you are developing for COVID-19? If you are interested in requesting a CoronaWatch meeting, please Register for an account and Login, or if you have an account Login to submit some basic product information.
Company Site: para-con.com Twitter: @PCTL2020 Investor Relations Chesapeake Group - Get on the email list for news info@chesapeakegp.com
About: a technology licensing company specializing in environmentally safe solutions for global sustainability with products for various markets they serve.
Mission: Infectious Disease and Contamination Control
About Products: Products and solutions are designed to take an environmentally conscious approach to combating the spread of infectious disease in the Healthcare and Cleaning industries, as well as contributing to the sustainability of global natural resources in the energy and agriculture markets.
The PCT Annihilyzer® Patented Monitoring, Tracking & Reporting System The Kiosk, which sits on top of the Filling Station Cabinet, houses The PCT Annihilyzer® System’s computer controls, information system, RFID tagging and reading system and an interactive touch screen display.
---FINANCIAL INFO---
Filings: LINK
Current info as of 3/9/20 Authorized- 1,000,000,000 Outstanding- 511,315,300 Restricted- 35,139,690
Standard Registrar and Transfer Company 440 East 400 South, Suite 200 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Phone: 801-571-8844 or 801-596-2150 www.standardtransferco.com Amy Merrill Email: amy@standardregistrar.com
---CURRENT CLIENT LIST---
1: Morgan Stanley Presbyterian Children’s Hospital. (3959 Broadway At, W 165 St, New York NY 10032)
2: Mount Sinai South Nassau Hospital (1 Healthy Way, Oceanside NY 11572)
3: Carson Tahoe Regional Medical Center (1600 Medical Pkwy, Carson City NV 89703)
4: SUNY Downstate Medical Center (450 Clarkson Ave, Brooklyn NY 11203)
6: Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center ??? Maybe (1275 York Avenue New York, NY 10065)
7: North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust, (UK Trial underway began Jan 15th 2020 - 60 day trial) (University Hospital of Hartlepool, Holdforth Road, Hartlepool, TS24 9AH) (University Hospital of North Tees, Hardwick, Stockton on Tees, TS19 8PE)
8: New York Presbyterian Columbia Hospital (Ranked Top 5 in the Nation) (622 W 168th St, New York NY 10032) ---VP recently endorsed in a LinkedIn post---
9: New York Hospital -- as per PR Release (labeled #1 below)
---PR & RELATED INFORMATION---
1. 03/11/20 - PCT LTD Experiencing Rapid Increase in Interest and Receives Purchase Order from Additional Hospital in New York City PR LINK
2. 03/09/20 - Interview: PCT LTD Hospital Infection Control System installed in seven hospitals and expanding INTERVIEW LINK
3. 02/14/20 - PCT LTD Schedules Investor Call (Call took place on 2/20/20) PR LINK Audio Link (Written Summation below)
4. 01/30/20 - PCT LTD Executes Term Sheet for Debt Financing PR LINK
5. 01/08/20 - PCT LTD Discusses Their International Expansion and Growth Strategy with The Stock Day Podcast PR LINK
6. 12/16/19 - PCT LTD Issues Company Update and Signs Collaborative Agreement for Oil & Gas, and Cannabis Applications PR LINK
7. 10/31/19 - PCT LTD Continues to Expand By Signing Agreement with SUNY Downstate Medical Center Worth over $500,000 PR LINK
8. 10/25/19 - 3rd Quarter 8K released (see above FILINGS link)
9. 10/22/19 - Hospital-acquired Infection Control Market Is Estimated To Expand At a Healthy CAGR in the Upcoming Forecast Period MARKET RESEARCH PR
10. 10/22/19 - PCT LTD Deploys Initial Annihilyzer(R) Infection Control System to the United Kingdom PR LINK
11. 10/4/19 - PCT LTD Announces Additional Hospital Installation of Annihilyzer(R) Infection Control System PR LINK
12. 7/26/19 - The Infection Prevention Strategy is pleased to announce our Top Innovations of the Year: 2019 (Annihilyzer) PR LINK
13. 5/6/2019 - PCT LTD Announces New Purchase Order as the Result of a Successful Trial of Annihilyzer® Infection Control Systems (A TOP 5 hospital in the U.S. AND --#1 in NY-- CONVERTED from Trial to a customer AFTER a successful trial period) - Morgan Stanley Presbyterian Children’s Hospital PR LINK
14. 2/25/19 - PCT LTD Installs a Large Volume Hydrolyte® System with Option Agreement for 4 additional LVH Systems with Oil & Gas Industry Customer PR LINK
15. 1/10/19 - PCT LTD Executes New Master Service Agreement for Installation of Annihilyzer® Hospital Infection Control System at Carson Tahoe Regional Medical Center PR LINK
16. 11/08/18 - PCT LTD Announces Completion of Major Commercialization Milestones and Promotion of Jody Read to CEO Position PR LINK
17. 5/16/18 - Newly Launched Disinfecting System Reduces Hospital Acquired Infections PR LINK
18. 5/10/18 - PCT LTD Receives Patents for RFID Tracking Technology in Cleaning System (US Patent#9679170) PR LINK
3rd Quarter 10Q In final review with auditors & SEC Attorneys Expected to be completed in up to 3 weeks (updated per IR email--- expected in the next week)
10K Expected to be filed by April 13th
Convertible Notes "very active negotiations" to come to a resolve by time of 10K filing (April 13th)
No material change is O/S in months
very actively negotiating financing with negligible, if any, dissolution No anticipation of R/S
---Growth of about 400% in 2019--- on target to grow exponentially in 2020
G&A down significantly company become more efficicent, losses narrowed significantly down around 75% from 2018
---Currently Doing---
PCT UK joint venture partner Trial ongoing: Universities as well as hospitals involved to verify U.S. results "unless bacteria and virsuses are any different, which they aren't, don't anticipate any difficulty verifying claims"
"Preliminary discussions between PCT UK and National Healthcare system of the UK"
---Markets--- Primary Focus on healthcare sector - hospitals, medical centers assisted living, rehab facilities
Secondarily - Oil & Gas, remediation of Hydrogen Sulfide (very poisonous, corrosive, and flammable)
Recently - Cannabis Industry - purveyor of service "Happy to discover our product greatly mitigates or totally eliminates the 3 major problems they are having"
---Current Placement--- (Does not include newest NY Hospital announced above in PR on 3/11/20) 8 hospitals, 11 units installed with "3 more slated in next few weeks with more behind it"
Endorsement from VP of MY Presbyterian [Suppressed Image]
Not sure how many are aware of BARDA, but I came across a post on Twitter this evening and after doing a little digging, found this:
Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, was established to aid in securing our nation from chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) threats, as well as from pandemic influenza (PI) and emerging infectious diseases (EID).
In my eyes that's most certainly an organization that should be aware of the Annihilyzer product, so I connected with their Director, Rick B and provided a post on Linkedin for more exposure to their request of building out a comprehensive portfolio of COVID-19 countermeasures. See below.
(For my privacy, I did redact my information on the image)
Post made to BARDA Director, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Preparedness & Response - U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
[Suppressed Image]
Post made to BARDA Director, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Preparedness & Response - U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
UPDATED DUE DILIGENCE 3-17 - RESEARCH NOW Below is a good portion of the DD done here, by myself and others. Do YOURS now! (Also pinned on top of board)
Paradigm Convergence Technologies Corporation Summarized Due Diligence Sheet for Investing
---GENERAL INFORMATION---
Company Site: para-con.com Twitter: @PCTL2020 - (I urge you to follow them and review their posts) Investor Relations Chesapeake Group - Get on the email list for news info@chesapeakegp.com
About: a technology licensing company specializing in environmentally safe solutions for global sustainability with products for various markets they serve.
Mission: Infectious Disease and Contamination Control
About Products: Products and solutions are designed to take an environmentally conscious approach to combating the spread of infectious disease in the Healthcare and Cleaning industries, as well as contributing to the sustainability of global natural resources in the energy and agriculture markets.
The PCT Annihilyzer® Patented Monitoring, Tracking & Reporting System The Kiosk, which sits on top of the Filling Station Cabinet, houses The PCT Annihilyzer® System’s computer controls, information system, RFID tagging and reading system and an interactive touch screen display.
---FINANCIAL INFO---
Filings: LINK
Current info as of 3/9/20 Authorized- 1,000,000,000 Outstanding- 511,315,300 Restricted- 35,139,690
Standard Registrar and Transfer Company 440 East 400 South, Suite 200 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Phone: 801-571-8844 or 801-596-2150 www.standardtransferco.com Amy Merrill Email: amy@standardregistrar.com
---CURRENT CLIENT LIST---
1: Morgan Stanley Presbyterian Children’s Hospital. (3959 Broadway At, W 165 St, New York NY 10032)
2: Mount Sinai South Nassau Hospital (1 Healthy Way, Oceanside NY 11572)
3: Carson Tahoe Regional Medical Center (1600 Medical Pkwy, Carson City NV 89703)
4: SUNY Downstate Medical Center (450 Clarkson Ave, Brooklyn NY 11203)
6: Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center ??? Maybe (1275 York Avenue New York, NY 10065)
7: North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust, (UK Trial underway began Jan 15th 2020 - 60 day trial) (University Hospital of Hartlepool, Holdforth Road, Hartlepool, TS24 9AH) (University Hospital of North Tees, Hardwick, Stockton on Tees, TS19 8PE)
8: New York Presbyterian Columbia Hospital (Ranked Top 5 in the Nation) (622 W 168th St, New York NY 10032) ---VP recently endorsed in a LinkedIn post---
9: New York Hospital -- as per PR Release (labeled #1 below)
---PR & RELATED INFORMATION---
1. 03/18/20 - PCT LTD Receives Large Purchase Order for Recurring Sales of Fluids for Non-Medical Use and Explains Current Revenue Streams PR LINK
2. 03/16/20 - PCT LTD Interview with Stock Day Podcast (MUST LISTEN) PR LINK
3. 03/13/20 - PCT LTD Adds International Distributor and Sells High-Volume Equipment to Existing Customer as a Result of Heightened Demand PR LINK
4. 03/11/20 - PCT LTD Experiencing Rapid Increase in Interest and Receives Purchase Order from Additional Hospital in New York City PR LINK
5. 03/09/20 - Interview: PCT LTD Hospital Infection Control System installed in seven hospitals and expanding INTERVIEW LINK
6. 02/14/20 - PCT LTD Schedules Investor Call (Call took place on 2/20/20) PR LINK Audio Link (Written Summation below)
7. 01/30/20 - PCT LTD Executes Term Sheet for Debt Financing PR LINK
8. 01/08/20 - PCT LTD Discusses Their International Expansion and Growth Strategy with The Stock Day Podcast PR LINK
9. 12/16/19 - PCT LTD Issues Company Update and Signs Collaborative Agreement for Oil & Gas, and Cannabis Applications PR LINK
10. 10/31/19 - PCT LTD Continues to Expand By Signing Agreement with SUNY Downstate Medical Center Worth over $500,000 PR LINK
11. 10/25/19 - 3rd Quarter 8K released (see above FILINGS link)
12. 10/22/19 - Hospital-acquired Infection Control Market Is Estimated To Expand At a Healthy CAGR in the Upcoming Forecast Period MARKET RESEARCH PR
13. 10/22/19 - PCT LTD Deploys Initial Annihilyzer(R) Infection Control System to the United Kingdom PR LINK
14. 10/4/19 - PCT LTD Announces Additional Hospital Installation of Annihilyzer(R) Infection Control System PR LINK
15. 7/26/19 - The Infection Prevention Strategy is pleased to announce our Top Innovations of the Year: 2019 (Annihilyzer) PR LINK
16. 5/6/2019 - PCT LTD Announces New Purchase Order as the Result of a Successful Trial of Annihilyzer® Infection Control Systems (A TOP 5 hospital in the U.S. AND --#1 in NY-- CONVERTED from Trial to a customer AFTER a successful trial period) - Morgan Stanley Presbyterian Children’s Hospital PR LINK
17. 2/25/19 - PCT LTD Installs a Large Volume Hydrolyte® System with Option Agreement for 4 additional LVH Systems with Oil & Gas Industry Customer PR LINK
18. 1/10/19 - PCT LTD Executes New Master Service Agreement for Installation of Annihilyzer® Hospital Infection Control System at Carson Tahoe Regional Medical Center PR LINK
19. 11/08/18 - PCT LTD Announces Completion of Major Commercialization Milestones and Promotion of Jody Read to CEO Position PR LINK
20. 5/16/18 - Newly Launched Disinfecting System Reduces Hospital Acquired Infections PR LINK
21. 5/10/18 - PCT LTD Receives Patents for RFID Tracking Technology in Cleaning System (US Patent#9679170) PR LINK
3rd Quarter 10Q In final review with auditors & SEC Attorneys Expected to be completed in up to 3 weeks (updated per IR email--- expected in the next week)
10K Expected to be filed by April 13th
Convertible Notes "very active negotiations" to come to a resolve by time of 10K filing (April 13th)
No material change is O/S in months
very actively negotiating financing with negligible, if any, dissolution No anticipation of R/S
---Growth of about 400% in 2019--- on target to grow exponentially in 2020
G&A down significantly company become more efficicent, losses narrowed significantly down around 75% from 2018
---Currently Doing---
PCT UK joint venture partner Trial ongoing: Universities as well as hospitals involved to verify U.S. results "unless bacteria and virsuses are any different, which they aren't, don't anticipate any difficulty verifying claims"
"Preliminary discussions between PCT UK and National Healthcare system of the UK"
---Markets--- Primary Focus on healthcare sector - hospitals, medical centers assisted living, rehab facilities
Secondarily - Oil & Gas, remidiation of Hydrogen Sulfide (very poisonous, corrosive, and flammable)
Recently - Cannabis Industry - purveyor of service "Happy to discover our product greatly mitigates or totally elimiants the 3 major problems they are having"
---Current Placement--- (Does not include newest NY Hospital announced above in PR on 3/11/20) 8 hospitals, 11 units installed with "3 more slated in next few weeks with more behind it"
Endorsement from VP of MY Presbyterian and other execs [Suppressed Image]
[Suppressed Image]
[Suppressed Image]
[Suppressed Image]
Not sure how many are aware of BARDA, but I came across a post on Twitter this evening and after doing a little digging, found this:
Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, was established to aid in securing our nation from chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) threats, as well as from pandemic influenza (PI) and emerging infectious diseases (EID).
In my eyes that's most certainly an organization that should be aware of the Annihilyzer product, so I connected with their Director, Rick B and provided a post on Linkedin for more exposure to their request of building out a. comprehensive portfolio of COVID-19 countermeasures. See below.
(For my privacy, I did redact my information on the image)
Post made to BARDA Director, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Preparedness & Response - U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
================= exactly what the EPA said
Quote:
List N includes products that meet EPA’s criteria for use against SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus that causes the disease COVID-19.
The key word here is against The EPA does not come out and say any products on these lists will kill CV-19. However I doubt the EPA would use a strong word as against in the above statement.
Quote:
Note: Inclusion on this list does not constitute an endorsement by EPA. There may be additional disinfectants that meet the criteria for use against SARS-CoV-2. EPA will update this list with additional products as needed.
It's pretty obvious this disclaimer is stating the EPA does not endorse as in recommend any product that's listed. They do not because it would constitute marketing for that product.... The EPA also recognizes that there are other products that meet the criteria against SARS-CV-2 AKA Coronavirus. Why do they make this statement? Because there are other products that are registered with the EPA that are not on this list that meets the criteria against CV-19
Nothing hard to understand there. Here is the a pic of it below:
[Suppressed Image]
Lets move on
List N: Disinfectants for Use Against SARS-CoV-2 | Pesticide ...www.epa.gov › pesticide-registration › list-n-disinfectants-use-against-... If a product qualified for the Emerging Viral Pathogen Claim, it demonstrated efficacy against a harder-to-kill virus than the enveloped human coronavirus
From this statement we know that EXCELYTE which meets this criteria. How do we know this? We know because they are on the N list under EPA registration 92108-1. I also believe this Reg number can be used against the harder to lill Norovirus. Coronavirus is easier to kill than Norovirus. Any amount of basic DD will show that.
Below is the reg and product number for EXCELYTE [Suppressed Image]
Finally Below is the EPA reg link for EXCELYTE showing it's registered to PCT Ltd. This link is the original registration.
Pretty basic stuff is you ask me lol ============== Pics of the product - Sorry about it being sideways
[Suppressed Image]
[Suppressed Image]
[Suppressed Image]
============ PCT LTD Obtains EPA Approval for Emerging Pathogens Labeling for Use Against SARS-CoV-2, the Novel Coronavirus That Causes the Disease COVID-19 Business WireMarch 27, 2020, 9:49 AM CST
PCT LTD (OTC Pink: PCTL) ("PCTL") is pleased to announce that it has received approval for "emerging pathogens" labeling with the US EPA.
The application was filed under the guidance document "Guidance to Registrants: Process for Making Claims Against Emerging Viral Pathogens Not on EPA-Registered Disinfectant Labels." It was approved on March 26th, 2020. The guidance document provides the following information regarding different classes of viruses and their resistance to being killed by disinfectants:
EPA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recognize that certain microorganisms can be ranked with respect to their tolerance to chemical disinfectants. The Spaulding Classification model, used by CDC, tiers microorganisms in accordance with the level of resistance to being killed (inactivation) by typical disinfectant products. With this approach viruses are divided into three viral subgroups (small non-enveloped, large non-enveloped, and enveloped) based on their relative resistance to inactivation … According to this hierarchy, if an antimicrobial product can kill a small, non-enveloped virus it should be able to kill any large, non-enveloped virus or any enveloped virus. Similarly, a product that can kill a large, non-enveloped virus should be able to kill any enveloped virus.
Small, Non-Enveloped Viruses (<50 nm): These small, non-enveloped viruses can be highly resistant to inactivation by disinfection. Despite the lack of a lipid envelope, these organisms have a very resistant protein capsid…
Large, Non-Enveloped Viruses: Compared to small, non-enveloped viruses, these viruses are less resistant to inactivation by disinfection. Although they have a resistant protein capsid, their larger size (50-100nm) makes them more vulnerable than their smaller viral counterparts…
Enveloped Viruses: Enveloped viruses are the least resistant to inactivation by disinfection. The structure of these viruses includes a lipid envelope, which is easily compromised by most disinfectants. Once the lipid envelope is damaged, the integrity of the virus is compromised, thereby neutralizing its infectivity.
In addition to being "an EPA-registered, hospital/healthcare or broad-spectrum disinfectant …", in order to meet product eligibility criteria, the product "should have disinfectant efficacy claims against at least one of the following viral pathogen groupings:
a) A product should be approved by EPA to inactivate at least one large or one small non-enveloped virus to be eligible for use against an enveloped emerging viral pathogen.
b) A product should be approved by EPA to inactivate at least one small, non-enveloped virus to be eligible for use against a large, non-enveloped emerging viral pathogen.
c) A product should be approved by EPA to inactivate at least two small, non-enveloped viruses with each from a different viral family to be eligible for use against a small, non-enveloped emerging viral pathogen.
This approach, where disinfectant products registered for use against viral pathogens in one category of the Spaulding Classification model can be presumed effective against viral pathogens in less-resistant categories, is intended to serve as a conservative approach to identifying disinfectant products likely to be effective against emerging pathogens."
As a result of meeting all of the Product Eligibility Criteria, PCT LTD can now make the following statement "only through the following communication outlets: … "1-800" consumer information services, social media sites and company websites (non-label related) … [as well as] technical literature distributed exclusively to health care facilities, physicians, nurses and public health officials":
This Product meets the criteria to make claims against certain emerging viral pathogens from the following viral category[ies]:
Enveloped Viruses
Large Non-Enveloped Viruses
Small Non-Enveloped Viruses
For an emerging viral pathogen that is a/an… …follow the directions for use for the following organisms on the label: Enveloped virus Norovirus Large, non-enveloped virus Norovirus Small, non-enveloped virus Norovirus, Rhinovirus (Type 16)
Hydrolyte® has demonstrated effectiveness against viruses similar to SARS-CoV-2 virus on hard, non-porous surfaces. Therefore, Hydrolyte® can be used against SARS-CoV-2 virus when used in accordance with the directions for use against Norovirus and Rhinovirus type 16 on hard, non-porous surfaces. Refer to the CDC website at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/home/cleaning-disinfection.html for additional information.
COVID-19 is caused by SARS-CoV-2 virus. Hydrolyte® kills similar viruses and therefore can be used against SARS-CoV-2 virus when used in accordance with the directions for use against Norovirus and Rhinovirus type 16 on hard, non-porous surfaces. Refer to the CDC website at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/home/cleaning-disinfection.html for additional information.
"We are very pleased to receive approval for an "emerging pathogens" claim on our product label," says CEO Gary Grieco. "It represents an important step for us as a business and in helping to control the spread of infectious disease as a whole. Additionally, we are now prequalified for future emerging pathogens of any virus classification."
Due to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, PCT LTD has seen an increased number of inquiries from existing clients, sub-registrants, and distributors; in addition to new and prospective customers. The company recently announced that they had temporarily shifted their focus towards producing mass quantities of disinfecting fluids to meet growing demand.
"Fluid sales have been tremendous for us," says PCT Ltd CEO Gary Grieco. "To put it simply, we are routinely shipping fluids out at rapid pace and into the hands of trained professionals where our product can be put to good use fighting the spread of infectious disease in our communities. We are limited only by our capacity to produce the fluids, but we expect to double our production capacity by April 1st."
Additional News and Corporate Updates:
PCTL would like to warn its stockholders and potential investors that material corporate information regarding sales, areas of business and other corporate updates will only be made through press releases or filings with the SEC. PCTL does not utilize social media, chatrooms or other online sources to disclose material information. The public should only rely on official press releases and corporate filings for accurate and up to date information regarding PCTL.
About PCT LTD:
PCT LTD ("PCTL") focuses its business on acquiring, developing and providing sustainable, environmentally safe disinfecting, cleaning and tracking technologies. The company acquires and holds rights to innovative products and technologies, which are commercialized through its wholly-owned operating subsidiary, Paradigm Convergence Technologies Corporation (PCT Corp). Currently trading on OTC, "PCTL" aspires to and is actively engaged in preparations for up-listing its common stock to a national securities exchange. The Company established entry into its target markets with commercially viable products in the United States and now continues to gain market share in the U.S. and U.K.
Forward-Looking Statements:
This press release contains "forward-looking statements" as defined in Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21B of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Any statements that express or involve discussions with respect to predictions, expectations, beliefs, plans, projections, objectives, goals, assumptions or future events or performance are not statements of historical fact and may be "forward-looking statements."
Such statements are based on expectations, estimates and projections at the time the statements are made that involve a number of risks and uncertainties, which could cause actual results or events to differ materially from those presently anticipated. Such statements involve risks and uncertainties, including but not limited to: the impact of having met the EPA Criteria for use Against SARS-CoV-2, actual sales derived by the Company; the transition to producing large quantities of fluids; PCTL's and its subsidiary's business prospects; PCTL's ability to raise sufficient funds to satisfy its working capital requirements; the ability of PCTL to execute its business plan; any other effects resulting from the information disclosed above; risks and effects of legal and administrative proceedings and government regulation; future financial and operational results; competition; general economic conditions; and the ability to manage and continue growth. Should one or more of these risks or uncertainties materialize, or should underlying assumptions prove incorrect, actual outcomes may vary materially from those indicated. Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking statements PCTL makes in this press release include market conditions and those set forth in reports or documents it files from time to time with the SEC. PCTL undertakes no obligation to revise or update such statements to reflect current events or circumstances after the date hereof or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.
Gary Grieco, CEO and Chairman, PCT LTD (843) 390-7900 Office (843) 390-2347 Fax www.para-con.com www.pctcorphealth.com www.survivalyte.com
Brokers and Analysts: Chesapeake Group +1-410-825-3930 info@chesapeakegp.com ==================================================================================================================. CANADA INFO & LINKS BokehRebl Tuesday, 03/31/20 10:29:25 PM Re: Long term post# 78282 ? 0 Post # 78283 of 78339
Here’s THE list I put together of all relevant contact in the US and Canadien Government, Feel free to add more!
Louisiana Alexander Billioux, MD, DPhil [Bio] Assistant Secretary of Health Alexander.Billioux@LA.GOV
Maine Nirav Shah, MD, JD* Director, Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention Nirav.Shah@Maine.Gov
Maryland Robert Neall Secretary of Health Frances B. Phillips, RN, MHA [Bio] Deputy Secretary for Public Health Services S/THO Designee robert.neall@maryland.gov
Michigan Joneigh Khaldun, MD, MPH, FACEP [Bio] Chief Deputy Director for Health and CME khaldunj@michigan.gov
Minnesota Jan Malcolm [Bio] Health Commissioner jan.malcolm@state.mn.us
Mississippi Thomas Dobbs, MD, MPH* State Health Officer thomas.dobbs@msdh.ms.gov
Missouri Randall W. Williams, MD, FACOG [Bio] Director randall.williams@health.mo.gov
Montana Sheila Hogan Director Gregory Holzman, MD [Bio] Chief Medical Officer S/THO Designee gHolzman@mt.gov
Nebraska Dannette Smith, MSW * Chief Executive Officer, Nebraska Department of Health & Human Services Gary Anthone, MD Chief Medical Officer and Director, Division of Public Health S/THO Designee Dannette.Smith@nebraska.gov
Nevada Lisa Sherych, MBA* Administrator lsherych@adsd.nv.gov
New Hampshire Lisa Morris, MSSW [Bio] Director, Division of Public Health Service lisa.morris@dhhs.nh.gov
New Jersey Judith Persichilli RN, BSN, MA* Commissioner of Health Judith.Pershichilli@doh.nj.gov
New York Howard Zucker, MD, JD [Bio] Commissioner of Health howard.zucker@health.ny.gov
North Carolina Mark Benton [Bio] Assistant Secretary for Public Health mark.benton@dhhs.nc.gov
North Dakota Mylynn K. Tufte, MBA, MSIM, RN [Bio] State Health Officer mylynntufte@nd.gov
Ohio Amy Acton, MD, MPH [Bio] Director of Health DirectorAmyActon@odh.ohio.gov
Oklahoma Gary Cox, JD* Commissioner of Health GaryC@health.ok.gov
Oregon Lillian M. Shirley, BSN, MPH, MPA [Bio] Public Health Director lillian.shirley@state.or.us
Pennsylvania Rachel Levine, MD [Bio] Secretary of Health ralevine@pa.gov
Puerto Rico Rafael Rodriguez Mercado, MD, FACS, FAANS Secretary of Health Catherine De La Cruz-Duran* S/THO Designee drrafael.rodriguez@salud.pr.gov
Rhode Island Nicole Alexander-Scott, MD, MPH [Bio] Director nicole.alexanderscott@health.ri.gov
South Carolina Richard Toomey, MHA, DHA [Bio] Director, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control Rick.Toomey@dhec.sc.gov
South Dakota Kim Malsam-Rysdon [Bio] Secretary kim.malsam-rysdon@state.sd.us
Tennessee Lisa Piercey MD, MBA, FAAP [Bio] Commissioner tn.health@tn.gov
Texas John Hellerstedt, MD [Bio] Commissioner john.hellerstedt@dshs.texas.gov
Utah Joseph Miner, MD [Bio] Executive Director joeminer@utah.gov
Vermont Mark Levine, MD [Bio] Commissioner of Health mark.levine@vermont.gov
Virginia M. Norman Oliver, MD, MA [Bio] State Health Commissioner norm.oliver@vdh.virginia.gov
Washington John M. Wiesman, DrPH, MPH [Bio] Secretary of Health secretary@doh.wa.gov
West Virginia Cathy Slemp, MD, MPH [Bio] Commissioner and State Health Officer catherine.slemp@wv.gov
Wisconsin Jeanne Ayers, RN, MPH [Bio] Administrator, Division of Public Health Jeanne.Ayers@dhs.wisconsin.gov
Wyoming Alexia Harrist, MD, PhD [Bio] State Health Officer alexia.harrist1@wyo.gov —————————————
davidsan Wednesday, April 1, 2020 4:57:18 PM Re: None Post # 78774 of 78834 Can PCTL's fluid turn sour crude oil into sweet?
I vaguely remember this was something said in discussing why that large unnamed oil&gas company was so interested in setting up the customized trial they are doing. I remember clearly that it helped make the liquid involved in fracking much more environmentally friendly, much more green, with a more pure and less costly product, something to that effect. There was some big reason why that oil&gas company was so excited about it. If the oil&gas industry incorporates this into their standard processes, with the sheer volume of this fluid they will need every day, that will be HUGE, just that one piece of all this alone. Somewhere in there I thought I remembered that in the process it helped turn sour crude into sweet, just don't recall how specific that point was.
Anyone here remember?
This is so much more than just hospitals and spraying to kill the coronavirus. The agricultural/cannabis industry and oil&gas industry customized trials are going on as well.
And, of course, the UK trials are about to hit (The UK hospital trial already completed, and the 2 university studies are supposed to complete the end of March to first week of April, meaning anytime now). Just waiting on results and orders, both expected to be very favorable.
Hypochlorous Acid Market Demand Would Increase Rapidly Hypochlorous Acid Market: Excellent Microbial and Oxidizing Properties Hypochlorous acid is a weak acid formed by dissolving chlorine in water. It possesses excellent microbial and oxidizing properties. It is used as a disinfectant agent in medical, water treatment, and food additives in food & beverages industry. Sodium hypochlorite and calcium hypochlorite are the two types of hypochlorous acid. Sodium hypochlorite is a widely consumed hypochlorous acid. Sodium hypochlorite can be easily stored and transported. It is more effective than chlorine gas in various applications. Read report Overview@ https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/hypochlorous-acid-market.html Hypochlorous acid is employed in various end-user industries such as water treatment, wound management, food & beverages, oil & gas, and personal care. Demand for hypochlorous acid in the wound management segment is projected to rise significantly in the near future. Hypochlorous acid acts as an excellent disinfectant in wound healing applications. It accelerates the healing process of any wound and other infections such as eye infection, ear infection, etc. Hypochlorous acid has excellent disinfectant properties, which help destroy pathogens, bacteria, and fungi. Request PDF Brochure@ https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/sample/sample.php?flag=B&rep_id=68783 Key drivers of Hypochlorous Acid market Rise in demand for oxidizing and disinfecting agents in order to provide quality water is driving the global hypochlorous acid market. Hypochlorous acid is highly cost effective. It is non-toxic to humans and animals. Therefore, it is highly preferred in the water treatment industry. Rise in usage of hypochlorous acid in sterilizing bacterial infection by drying out blood cells is boosting its demand in the medical industry. Hypochlorous acid is also used as an active sanitizing agent in swimming pools and skin cleansing agent in cosmetic applications. It is used in the manufacture of calcium hypochlorite (Ca(OCl)2) and sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), which are further used in the manufacture of disinfectants, bleaches, and deodorants. Food & Beverage Industry and Wound Management to offer attractive opportunities Increase in usage of hypochlorous acid in the food & beverages industry is estimated to provide lucrative opportunities to manufacturers of hypochlorous acid in the near future. Hypochlorous acid is used for cleaning food processing equipment and dish washers. It is also employed as food additive in processing poultry products and seafood products. Hypochlorous acid is gaining momentum as a potential wound care agent in the pharmaceutical industry. It is a highly effective wound irrigation solution, which is entirely safe for human tissues. It aids in elimination of unpleasant wound odor and removes bacteria from wound surface. Hypochlorous Acid may form Explosive Gas in Concentrated Form likely to Restrain Market Hypochlorous acid is highly dangerous and can form explosive gas if used in concentrated form. This is anticipated to restrain the market during the forecast period. When exposed to air, it disintegrates and causes nausea, abdomen pain, etc. If released in water bodies, hypochlorous acid may harm aquatic animals, thereby adversely affecting biodiversity. These factors are estimated to restrain the demand for hypochlorous acid during the forecast period. Stuck in a neck-to-neck competition with other brands? Request a custom report on competition on Hypochlorous Acid Market here Asia Pacific Expected to Hold Leading Share in the Global Hypochlorous Acid Market In terms of region, the demand for hypochlorous acid can be split across five regions: North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, Latin America, and Middle East & Africa. In terms of consumption, Asia Pacific dominated the global hypochlorous acid market in 2018. Developing economies such as China, India, Vietnam, and Indonesia are the leading consumers of hypochlorous acid in Asia Pacific. Rapid industrialization and increase in demand for sodium hypochlorite in chemical, agriculture, and pharmaceutical industries are anticipated to fuel the hypochlorous acid market during the forecast period. Demand for hypochlorous acid in countries in Europe such as Germany, France, and the U.K. is projected to increase during the forecast period primarily due to the rise in demand for sodium and calcium hypochlorite in the food & beverages industry in the region. The U.S. is the leading consumer of hypochlorous acid in North America. Increase in demand for hypochlorous acid in industrial applications such as cooling water treatment is propelling the market in the U.S. Latin America and Middle East & Africa are highly dependent on hypochlorous acid import. This is likely to hamper the sales of hypochlorous acid in these regions. However, production capacity expansion by various manufacturers in Brazil, Mexico, and GCC is expected to augment the demand for hypochlorous acid in Latin America and Middle East & Africa during the forecast period. Key Players in Hypochlorous Acid Market: New product launches and mergers & acquisitions are the key strategies adopted by top players operating in the market. For instance, in 2018, URGO Medical, a leading player in wound care products, entered into an asset purchasing agreement with REALM Therapeutics, a biopharmaceutical company based in the U.S. REALM Therapeutics engages in research activities to discover new hypochlorous acid based treatments for atopic dermatitis and allergic conjunctivitis. This acquisition is expected to help URGO Medical become the leading player in advanced wound care business across the globe. Key players operating in the global hypochlorous acid market include Lenntech B.V. BASF SE Arkema S.A. Lonza. Inovyn Chlorvinyls Limited Olin Corporation Nouryon (Previously under Akzo Nobel N.V.'s coating division) Occidental Petroleum Corporation Kuehne Company AGC Chemicals Surpass Chemical Company, Inc. Westlake Chemical Corporation Clorox Company Tianjin Ruifuxin Chemical Tosoh Corporation Aditya Birla Chemicals Aqualution Systems Ltd Ultrapure HOCL (Pty) Ltd Others
=================== Friday, April 3, 2020 10:10:28 AM Cherry Re: None Post # 80097 of 80187 WHY YOU WANT TO BUY ALL THE PCTL YOU CAN
Right now, IMO, before PCT LTD (ticker PCTL) announces the UK hospital results which might potentially lead to 600+ hospital installations in the UK, before the March 2020 revenues from increased fluid sales are known, before the scientific data on treating disease/mold/fungi in the citrus & cannabis industries is announced, before results from the oil & gas industry testing, and before the delayed 2019 Q3 of which will contain outdated information from over 6 months ago-
People reading here may have read and seen, in bits and pieces, all these things below.
How anyone interprets & verifies anything, and researches further, is up to them. Nothing here is advice.
Since late 2019: More hospitals, More distribution, More geographic regions, More production capacity, More sales of the fluid itself & increasing dramatically, EPA approved on List N to disinfect surfaces for NCOV-19-SARS-2, Existing clients are buying more systems or extending their contracts,
=============== Tuesday, 04/07/20 11:13:24 AM Re: Patience 1 post# 81708 0.005 Post # 81730 of 82300
Quote:
NEWS OUT!! 4/7/20, 9:55 AM LITTLE RIVER, S.C.--(BUSINESS WIRE)
PCT LTD (OTC Pink: PCTL) ("PCTL") is excited to announce they have increased production capacity at their Little River, South Carolina facility.
Updating an earlier release (March 25th), the South Carolina facility is now capable of producing up to 10,000 gallons of fluids per day. A marked increase over earlier capabilities. The company is now better positioned to meet the growing demand for its Hypochlorous Acid-based disinfecting fluids.
“Our team has been working around the clock over the last several weeks to make this happen,” says Stuart Emmons, PCTL Executive VP of Engineering and R & D. “The South Carolina facility is now better positioned to fulfill the daily orders we have been receiving.”
Due in part to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, the company has seen an exponential increase in sales and inquiries from current and prospective customers. Late last month the company shifted its short-term focus towards fluid production and sales to meet increasing demand.
“It’s supply and demand,” according to PCTL CEO Gary Grieco. “The demand is there and now so is the supply. We needed to shift our focus towards where we can have the most impact and do the most good for our customers and the communities they serve. At the same time, this presents an opportunity for us to elevate our profile, grow our business, and showcase how effective our products can be in the ongoing fight against the spread of infectious disease.”
The company has also been hiring additional support staff to support growing business operations. Most recently, the company engaged Joseph Tippmann, graduate of The University of Michigan’s Industrial Design and Architecture program, as a new design engineer. Tippmann joined the company on a contract basis initially and has spent the past two weeks performing design updates on Annihilyzer and Hydrolyte Rack systems in addition to helping design a more modular system for easier assembly.
Tippmann is also a co-owner of Werks Manufacturing, a Fort Wayne, Indiana based manufacturing company which PCTL engages for the purpose of manufacturing and assembling parts for use in the company’s Annihilyzer® Infection Control System and other systems.
Werks Manufacturing is expanding their operation and will increase parts and assembly production to meet PCTL’s growing demand. In addition, Werks will also serve as a fluid depot for PCTL’s clients in the northern Midwest part of the United States. Werks will initially be capable of producing up to 4,000 gallons per day of disinfecting fluids, including Hydrolyte®, for sale and use by PCTL to clients in Detroit, Chicago, and throughout the region. This fluid production capacity can be increased as needed to serve growing demand.
“We are continuing our rapid growth plans,” says Grieco. “Through strategic partnerships, distribution agreements, and more, we are gaining market share, increasing revenue at a rapid pace, and growing our business both quickly and efficiently.”
Additional News and Corporate Updates:
PCTL would like to warn its stockholders and potential investors that material corporate information regarding sales, areas of business and other corporate updates will only be made through press releases or filings with the SEC. PCTL does not utilize social media, chatrooms or other online sources to disclose material information. The public should only rely on official press releases and corporate filings for accurate and up to date information regarding PCTL. ====================
Wednesday, April 8, 2020 1:22:30 PM Beer money Re: None Post # 82319 of 82350 Yes Gary Grieco, PCTL CEO, stated, "As a result of the capabilities and benefits of our products, many companies and municipalities across a variety of industries and geographic locations are engaging in intense discussions with PCT LTD."
PCTL "The 800 pound gorilla, Corona-virus, that has opened up a huge opportunity for us and I can not say any more than that we have been contacted by, and are actively negotiating to address the problem with both companies and government officials and I can not say more than that."
In addition, Grieco further commented, "All of our hospital customers using our infection control system and disinfectant are utilizing the systems as a front-line defense throughout their facilities, including in all public area such as restrooms, lobbies, waiting rooms, elevators, corridors, cafeterias, etc. all throughout the day and night and in the presence of patients, staff and visitors."
============ Thursday, April 9, 2020 10:01:52 AM Re: None Post # 82599 of 82789 Hypochlorous Acid Okay For Easter Eggs Hypochlorous acid is cleared by the FDA for use on meat, poultry, fish & seafood, fruits & vegetables and shell eggs as a no-rinse sanitizer. FCN 1811 is a Food Contact Notification (FCN) from the FDA for using electrolytically generated hypochlorous acid as an antimicrobial agent in an aqueous solution in the production and preparation of whole or cut meat and poultry; processed and preformed meat and poultry; fish and seafood; fruits and vegetables; and shell eggs. To read more about food contact notification 1811, visit the FDA website in the link below. https://www.hypochlorousacid.com/regulation [Suppressed Image]
================== Thursday, April 9, 2020 10:35:37 AM Re: None Post # 82670 of 82807 Why the NHS and Private Clinics Should Look Further than Alcohol-Based Sanitisers The CoViD-19 pandemic has brought alcohol to the fore; whether it is the amount the British public is consuming to get through self-isolation or the level required in hand sanitiser to make it effective, the news stories are everywhere. Many of these revolving around the shortage of traditional alcohol-based hand sanitisers and how prices are soaring. With this being the case, why then don’t the NHS and other health care facilities look elsewhere? Is there no other option? In fact, there is another option which is rapidly emerging as the new go-to sanitiser during the CoViD-19 pandemic; Hypochlorous Acid (HOCl). What is Hypochlorous Acid? HOCI is generated when white blood cells attack harmful bacteria and is harmless to the human body. In December 2019 Optometry Times published an article on HOCl and they explain it much better than I can… “HOCl is a weak acid that occurs naturally in our body. Neutrophils are white blood cells that are the first to arrive on site when an invading pathogen is detected. Neutrophils will chase down and engulf the pathogen through phagocytosis. Upon contact, neutrophils release a burst of bactericidal chemicals including its most powerful oxidizing agent, HOCl. This kills the pathogen by tearing down the cell membranes and proteins”. Optometry Times called HOCl “the perfect weapon to fight germs. It hits hard against pathogens like Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) and Pseudomonas Aeroginosa. Yet this powerful weapon is 100 percent safe for humans, chemical free, non-toxic and all-natural”. Due to these attributes HOCl is being widely used in South Korea in their battle against CoViD-19, disinfecting everything from food to people to hospital wards and their mass transit systems. Looking at the way in which they have taken control of the spread of the virus it is clear to see that HOCl can also help the United Kingdom to gain the upper hand in this struggle. https://www.belle.org.uk/news-1/2020/4/2/why-the-nhs-and-private-clinics-should-look-to-hypochlorous-acid-rather-than-alcohol-based-sanitisers
=============
beer$$money ?
Sunday, April 12, 2020 8:04:27 PM Re: BIGBUCKS post# 83703
Post # 83709 of 83745 Alex Guttman Author> Huge interest being developed on LinkedIN VP marketing and Research at Ace Janitorial, Sales Mgr Escalator Cleaning company, Senior VP HAI Consultants
Randy Stiles can't mention names without permission but I can say that most of the major healthcare systems in NYC are now using our system
Randy Stiles +Executive Account Manager at Paylidify
Jon Pickett, MBA is this being used at all Memorial Healthcare Locations? The feedback on the system has been great.
Jody Read CEO at PCT Health, PCT LTD
Glad to see that the efforts of the entire team at ACE and PCT to bring this system to market has been a success and we are looking forward to placing these systems into every hospital, surgical center, nursing homes, and long-term care facilities!
Good am Mr Jody.could I represent your company in Dubai.? Tnx
Fritz Oehler Executive Director at Sprenger Health Care Systems Looks like this product could be an answer to many infection control issues in our industry.
Sunday, April 12, 2020 8:53:14 PM Re: BIGBUCKS post# 83629
Post # 83715 of 83745 Some additional DD. The full section in that recent PCTL release includes: Quote:
The company has also been hiring additional support staff to support growing business operations. Most recently, the company engaged Joseph Tippmann, graduate of The University of Michigan’s Industrial Design and Architecture program, as a new design engineer. Tippmann joined the company on a contract basis initially and has spent the past two weeks performing design updates on Annihilyzer and Hydrolyte Rack systems in addition to helping design a more modular system for easier assembly. Tippmann is also a co-owner of Werks Manufacturing, a Fort Wayne, Indiana based manufacturing company which PCTL engages for the purpose of manufacturing and assembling parts for use in the company’s Annihilyzer® Infection Control System and other systems. Werks Manufacturing is expanding their operation and will increase parts and assembly production to meet PCTL’s growing demand. In addition, Werks will also serve as a fluid depot for PCTL’s clients in the northern Midwest part of the United States. Werks will initially be capable of producing up to 4,000 gallons per day of disinfecting fluids, including Hydrolyte®, for sale and use by PCTL to clients in Detroit, Chicago, and throughout the region. This fluid production capacity can be increased as needed to serve growing demand.
I could not find much on google in regards to Joseph Tippmann. I did find Werks Manufacturing Inc. = http://werksmfg.com ;... but ... website is “under construction”. It appears to be located at 2300 Meyer Road Fort Wayne, IN 46803. It appears the phone number might be (260) 428-2698. Also at this address appears to be: Advanced Media Integration LLC = Video production service = Vincent P Tippmann. same phone number?
I did also find Vincent P. Tippmann at this website: https://vptag.com/ Tippmann Affiliated Group is a family owned organization with a diversified group of business segments throughout North America and around the world. Approaching a half-century in business, Tippmann Affiliated Group businesses hold 17 patents and numerous product and service awards in various industries, including Automotive, Food Service, Refrigeration, Medical Device and Transportation. As it stands today, Tippmann Affiliated Group remains a family owned organization with a diversified group of business segments throughout North America and around the world. Headquartered in Fort Wayne, IN, Tippmann Affiliated Group operates its main campus on 75 acres and 810,000 sq/ft. of manufacturing and office space. 4410 New Haven Ave Fort Wayne, IN 46803. Phone:(260) 428-2500. It appears that 2300 Meyer Road Fort Wayne, IN 46803 is immediately adjacent to 4410 New Haven Ave Fort Wayne, IN 46803. Father & son? Could Vincent Tippman be the co-owner of Werks Manufacturing (together with Joseph Tippmann?
=====================
Ronin Wednesday, 04/15/20 10:42:51 AM Re: TKane post# 86153 Post # 86171 of 86190
News hit DOW JONES and BUSINESS wire! Lots of eyes on this now!
Evaluate Wednesday, April 15, 2020 3:12:04 PM Re: Evaluate post# 86473 Post # 86479 of 86491 https://pureandclean.us/disinfectant-sanitizer-gallon/ It appears that Pure & Clean is a distributor for PCT's HOCl, at 460 PPM, since their web page shows it is a distributor of EPA Reg. No. 92108-1. Only available in the following states: Florida, Kansas Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, Oklahoma and Texas. For all other states, please order the Surface Cleaner Pro products: https://pureandclean.us/surface-cleanser-pro/ Pure&Clean Disinfectant/Sanitizer? 460 ppm HOCl. This is a New Generation Disinfectant formulated using Hypochlorous Acid (HOCl) that cleans, deodorizes, and disinfects. As a distributor of EPA Reg. No. 92108-1, the product pure&clean™ (EPA Reg. No. 92108-1-88098) is included on the list of products approved by the US
=====================
BIGBUCKS Wednesday, April 15, 2020 3:09:42 PM Re: None Post # 86478 of 86491 PCT LTD Reports Q3 2019 Financials; Revenue Increases 435%, Operating Expenses Decrease
At 0’37: it shows that the “Annihilyzer is “Presented By: Annihilare and Paradigm Convergence Technology Corp” I was surprised to see this. Question: Does Annihilare also share in the revenues/profits of selling/leasing Annihilyzers?
=========== BRITT2575 ? Friday, 04/17/20 12:41:50 AM Re: None ? 0 Post # 88648 of 88658
PCT EUROPE LTD SIGNS DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT WITH UK NHS COMPANY, RECEIVES ADDITIONAL NYC HOSPITAL ORDER April 17 2020 - 12:08AM InvestorsHub NewsWire Print PCT EUROPE LTD SIGNS DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT WITH UK NHS COMPANY, RECEIVES ADDITIONAL NYC HOSPITAL ORDER
Little River, SC -- April 17, 2020 -- InvestorsHub NewsWire -- PCT LTD (OTC Pink: PCTL) is pleased to announce new growth and expansion activities in the UK and NYC. PCT Europe Ltd, the UK-based partner of PCTL is pleased to announce they have signed an exclusive trading partnership/distributor agreement with an NHS (U.K. National Health Service) company.
In tandem with PCT Europe Ltd, the UK NHS company will introduce PCT technology to each NHS Hospital Trust with the intention of them rolling out PCT's unique technology and system throughout the health services 233 Trusts comprising over 600 hospitals. In addition, approximately 14,000 Care Homes in the U.K. will also be introduced to PCT's technology. A steady flow of orders is expected to commence throughout the remainder of 2020 and into 2021.
The first PCT system has now been installed in a large NHS hospital in the north of England. This system is expected to enter clinical service early in May once the final series of biological tests of the PCT hospital disinfectant solution have been completed. Results of these tests have so far demonstrated that the PCT disinfectant has met or exceeded its ability to kill the range of pathogens previously achieved during EPA tests in the United States.
"We couldn't be happier with the results thus far in our UK trials and are delighted with the progress our UK partner is making. This arrangement will introduce our system to thousands of hospitals and healthcare facilities," says PCTL CEO Gary Grieco. "At the same time, the reality of the current healthcare crisis both domestically and abroad is sobering. We're thrilled to be able to grow our business but nevertheless remain focused on our core mission which from day one has always been helping people."
The company continues to expand domestically as well. Following an earlier release dated April 14th, the company is also announcing an additional purchase order for PCT Corp.'s Annihilyzer® Infection Control Systems in New York City.
The order comes from a large NYC hospital with a current bed count in excess of 2,500. Installation will be made in coordination with PCT Corp's primary healthcare distributor, ACE Janitorial Services.
"With three PO's for our infection control system this week and more on the way, we continue to make strides both in growing our business as well as our goal of helping our clients fight the spread of infectious diseases," says Grieco. "We are on pace for unprecedented and record growth in all areas of our business."
Additional News and Corporate Updates:
PCTL would like to warn its stockholders and potential investors that material corporate information regarding sales, areas of business and other corporate updates will only be made through press releases or filings with the SEC. PCTL does not utilize social media, chatrooms or other online sources to disclose material information. The public should only rely on official press releases and corporate filings for accurate and up to date information regarding PCTL.
Post # 92362 of 92385 PCTL> UK NHS is the largest single healthcare delivery organisation in the world.
SELLING TO THE NHS
SUMMARY This guide outlines the structures that exist to help companies contact and sell existing and innovative products into the NHS, a huge organisation which can appear very complex.
IN BRIEF NHS Supply Chain Procurement routes – national, regional and local contracts
Products for GP prescription
Estates – capital equipment
Innovation – new products
The NHS is the largest single healthcare delivery organisation in the world. It constitutes a major opportunity for UK medical device companies. NHS trusts can purchase products through one of five main routes:
Directly from suppliers using National Framework Contracts
From the NHS Supply Chain which provides end-to-end supply chain services incorporating procurement, logistics, e-commerce and customer and supplier support
The NHS Supply Chain is a single organisation created for the benefit of NHS trusts, hospitals and other healthcare organisations. The organisation combines the former NHS Logistics Authority, significant parts of the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency, expertise in healthcare logistics from DHL and procurement experience from Novation.
PROCUREMENT ROUTES National contracts Tenders: Contracts for products and services valued at over £90,319 (01 Jan 2008) must be advertised in the Supplement to the daily Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU). Procurement levels change, but you can confirm the current level by visiting: http://www.ojec.com.
NHS-sid: This is the official NHS supplier information database on which companies can enter their information for free:
http://www.sid4health.nhs.uk. It rationalises the management of pre-qualification data during the procurement process and can only be fully accessed by authorised NHS personnel. Suppliers looking to compete for advertised NHS contracts must still submit applications in the required format. Any supplier is free to register its services on NHS-sid. The information published is made freely available to NHS users. Registering on this system does not imply that a supplier has any special or ‘approved’ status. Regional contracts Collaborative organisations: Most NHS trusts are now partners in ‘collaborative procurement organisations’ where, normally on a regional basis, they can share information and resources to achieve economies of scale.
Local contracts Individual trust contracts: Local contracts are often managed by a trust’s supplies department. Its approach to suppliers will vary according to the value, size and complexity of its requirements. DH has set down procurement guidelines indicating that for contracts valued below £3,000 a trust should ask for telephone quotes; for contracts valued between £3,000 and £10,000, it should request a minimum of three written quotes; for contracts valued above £10,000, a minimum of three formal written tenders should be sought. Actual interpretations of these guidelines vary from trust to trust.
PRODUCTS FOR GP PRESCRIPTION
Suppliers wishing to list their products under the Drug Tariff for prescription by GPs or nurses must seek approval from the NHS Business Service Authority (NHSBSA). These will usually be products for self-administration, possibly with a carer’s help, and will normally fall into the following categories: dressings, bandage and associated appliances, incontinence appliances, stoma appliances, and chemical reagents. If the NHSBSA grant approval, the cost, either comparatively with other similar products, or, if it is a new treatment regime, by comparison with alternatives, will be reimbursed. You can access the application form at: www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk.
ESTATES – CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
DH uses two major Public and Private Partnerships (PPPs) to deliver its NHS Plan: the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) and NHS Local Improvement Finance Trust (LIFT). The NHS ProCure 21 Framework brings the NHS and the construction industry together for new-build projects. You can find information on PPPs and associated procurement policies at: www.dh.gov.uk.
INNOVATION – NEW PRODUCTS
The procurement routes above apply to established products. If you are a supplier of innovative products, you should be aware of the organisations involved in product approval:
The UK Medicines and Healthcare product Regulatory Agency (MHRA) This is the government agency responsible for ensuring that medicines and medical devices work and are safe.
Regulatory affairs: Medical devices can only be placed on the market in the UK/EU if they are certified safe, are of the required quality to fulfill the manufacturer’s ‘intended purpose’ and comply with the appropriate Medical Device Directive (CE marking). The MHRA audits the performance of manufacturers and notifies bodies responsible for granting CE marks. You can find more details at: www.mhra.gov.uk.
Clinical trials: The MHRA approves clinical trials/investigations and provides guidance for manufacturers. To obtain a CE mark, a manufacturer must show that the device complies with the relevant ‘Essential Requirements’ of the appropriate Medical Device Directive. In some instances, a clinical investigation will be required. The MHRA website (listed above) provides guidance on this issue.
Small Business Research Initiative (SBRI): The new SBRI is a cross-government programme for the procurement of technology development projects, including the demonstration and evaluation of new technologies. DH has run a pilot SBRI competition in Healthcare Associated Infections in conjunction with the Technology Strategy Board. The benefit to the Department and the NHS is to make new developments available faster and more effectively. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) NICE (www.nice.org.uk) is responsible for providing national guidance on the promotion of good health and the prevention and treatment of ill health. Its activities include:
Technology appraisals – Recommendations on the use of new and existing medicines and treatments within the NHS, based upon a review of clinical and economic evidence Interventional procedure guidance – Many of the procedures that NICE investigates are new, but it also looks at more established procedures if there is uncertainty about their safety or how well they work
NHS National Innovation Centre (NIC): NIC determines the need for innovative products, particularly in the development stage, and speeds up the development and adoption of those that deliver the best results for patients. It provides a point of entry to innovators of healthcare technology via its website and through a web-based assessment process. By considering ideas and products at every stage, it can direct them to the most.
ACTION NEEDED Pctl has been trying to get in contact with the government to make them aware of our machine & what it can do We can help with & in our numbers send them copies of the DD that’s been posted
This is the contact point in government that needs to know about pctl Paradigm Convergence Technology. (Read below)
Info they’ll need: PODCAST LINK click Click in search....Pctl
This is who we can contact in government to make them aware of our machine.
point of entry for the submission of market research packages and meeting requests from interested stakeholders. The U.S. government, in response to the COVID-19 outbreak, seeks information from stakeholders on available medical countermeasures in development. We are particularly interested in products and technologies that have progressed into or beyond non-clinical trials, have established large-scale cGMP manufacturing capability, or utilize an approved platform. Information regarding diagnostics, therapeutics, vaccines, and other products or technologies relevant to addressing this outbreak are sought. At this time, we ask for a brief description of your product or technology, accompanied by a slide deck, manuscript, publications, or other non-confidential information of your choosing. Please note that while we will use any information you present as market research, submission is no guarantee of a meeting or funding and your submission will be shared across U.S. Government agencies involved in COVID-19 medical countermeasure research and development. Only U.S. government officials are invited to join a CoronaWatch meeting, and are bound by law to maintain confidentiality of what is presented and discussed. Ideal technologies and products would (but are not required to) be: * - Relevant to the U.S. government COVID-19 medical countermeasure research and development efforts and/or Emerging .Infectious Disease rapid response capabilities * - Utilize an already-approved platform, have non-clinical data suggesting efficacy, and/or have significant manufacturing capability * - Fully owned or licensed by your organization (you have full IP rights and/or freedom to operate)
Would you like to meet with a federal agency regarding a product that you are developing for COVID-19? If you are interested in requesting a CoronaWatch meeting, please Register for an account and Login, or if you have an account Login to submit some basic product information.
Paradigm Convergence Technologies Corporation Summarized Due Diligence Sheet for Investing [color=red]
ACTION NEEDEDPctl has been trying to get in contact with the government to make them aware of our machine & what it can do We can help with & in our numbers send them copies of the DD that’s been
This is the contact point in government that needs to know about pctl Paradigm Convergence Technology. (Read below)
This is who we can contact in government to make them aware of our machine.
point of entry for the submission of market research packages and meeting requests from interested stakeholders. The U.S. government, in response to the COVID-19 outbreak, seeks information from stakeholders on available medical countermeasures in development. We are particularly interested in products and technologies that have progressed into or beyond non-clinical trials, have established large-scale cGMP manufacturing capability, or utilize an approved platform. Information regarding diagnostics, therapeutics, vaccines, and other products or technologies relevant to addressing this outbreak are sought. At this time, we ask for a brief description of your product or technology, accompanied by a slide deck, manuscript, publications, or other non-confidential information of your choosing. Please note that while we will use any information you present as market research, submission is no guarantee of a meeting or funding and your submission will be shared across U.S. Government agencies involved in COVID-19 medical countermeasure research and development. Only U.S. government officials are invited to join a CoronaWatch meeting, and are bound by law to maintain confidentiality of what is presented and discussed. Ideal technologies and products would (but are not required to) be: * - Relevant to the U.S. government COVID-19 medical countermeasure research and development efforts and/or Emerging .Infectious Disease rapid response capabilities * - Utilize an already-approved platform, have non-clinical data suggesting efficacy, and/or have significant manufacturing capability * - Fully owned or licensed by your organization (you have full IP rights and/or freedom to operate)
Would you like to meet with a federal agency regarding a product that you are developing for COVID-19? If you are interested in requesting a CoronaWatch meeting, please Register for an account and Login, or if you have an account Login to submit some basic product information.
Company Site: para-con.com Twitter: @PCTL2020 Investor Relations Chesapeake Group - Get on the email list for news info@chesapeakegp.com
About: a technology licensing company specializing in environmentally safe solutions for global sustainability with products for various markets they serve.
Mission: Infectious Disease and Contamination Control
About Products: Products and solutions are designed to take an environmentally conscious approach to combating the spread of infectious disease in the Healthcare and Cleaning industries, as well as contributing to the sustainability of global natural resources in the energy and agriculture markets.
The PCT Annihilyzer® Patented Monitoring, Tracking & Reporting System The Kiosk, which sits on top of the Filling Station Cabinet, houses The PCT Annihilyzer® System’s computer controls, information system, RFID tagging and reading system and an interactive touch screen display.
---FINANCIAL INFO---
Filings: LINK
Current info as of 3/9/20 Authorized- 1,000,000,000 Outstanding- 511,315,300 Restricted- 35,139,690
Standard Registrar and Transfer Company 440 East 400 South, Suite 200 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Phone: 801-571-8844 or 801-596-2150 www.standardtransferco.com Amy Merrill Email: amy@standardregistrar.com
---CURRENT CLIENT LIST---
1: Morgan Stanley Presbyterian Children’s Hospital. (3959 Broadway At, W 165 St, New York NY 10032)
2: Mount Sinai South Nassau Hospital (1 Healthy Way, Oceanside NY 11572)
3: Carson Tahoe Regional Medical Center (1600 Medical Pkwy, Carson City NV 89703)
4: SUNY Downstate Medical Center (450 Clarkson Ave, Brooklyn NY 11203)
6: Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center ??? Maybe (1275 York Avenue New York, NY 10065)
7: North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust, (UK Trial underway began Jan 15th 2020 - 60 day trial) (University Hospital of Hartlepool, Holdforth Road, Hartlepool, TS24 9AH) (University Hospital of North Tees, Hardwick, Stockton on Tees, TS19 8PE)
8: New York Presbyterian Columbia Hospital (Ranked Top 5 in the Nation) (622 W 168th St, New York NY 10032) ---VP recently endorsed in a LinkedIn post---
9: New York Hospital -- as per PR Release (labeled #1 below)
---PR & RELATED INFORMATION---
1. 03/11/20 - PCT LTD Experiencing Rapid Increase in Interest and Receives Purchase Order from Additional Hospital in New York City PR LINK
2. 03/09/20 - Interview: PCT LTD Hospital Infection Control System installed in seven hospitals and expanding INTERVIEW LINK
3. 02/14/20 - PCT LTD Schedules Investor Call (Call took place on 2/20/20) PR LINK Audio Link (Written Summation below)
4. 01/30/20 - PCT LTD Executes Term Sheet for Debt Financing PR LINK
5. 01/08/20 - PCT LTD Discusses Their International Expansion and Growth Strategy with The Stock Day Podcast PR LINK
6. 12/16/19 - PCT LTD Issues Company Update and Signs Collaborative Agreement for Oil & Gas, and Cannabis Applications PR LINK
7. 10/31/19 - PCT LTD Continues to Expand By Signing Agreement with SUNY Downstate Medical Center Worth over $500,000 PR LINK
8. 10/25/19 - 3rd Quarter 8K released (see above FILINGS link)
9. 10/22/19 - Hospital-acquired Infection Control Market Is Estimated To Expand At a Healthy CAGR in the Upcoming Forecast Period MARKET RESEARCH PR
10. 10/22/19 - PCT LTD Deploys Initial Annihilyzer(R) Infection Control System to the United Kingdom PR LINK
11. 10/4/19 - PCT LTD Announces Additional Hospital Installation of Annihilyzer(R) Infection Control System PR LINK
12. 7/26/19 - The Infection Prevention Strategy is pleased to announce our Top Innovations of the Year: 2019 (Annihilyzer) PR LINK
13. 5/6/2019 - PCT LTD Announces New Purchase Order as the Result of a Successful Trial of Annihilyzer® Infection Control Systems (A TOP 5 hospital in the U.S. AND --#1 in NY-- CONVERTED from Trial to a customer AFTER a successful trial period) - Morgan Stanley Presbyterian Children’s Hospital PR LINK
14. 2/25/19 - PCT LTD Installs a Large Volume Hydrolyte® System with Option Agreement for 4 additional LVH Systems with Oil & Gas Industry Customer PR LINK
15. 1/10/19 - PCT LTD Executes New Master Service Agreement for Installation of Annihilyzer® Hospital Infection Control System at Carson Tahoe Regional Medical Center PR LINK
16. 11/08/18 - PCT LTD Announces Completion of Major Commercialization Milestones and Promotion of Jody Read to CEO Position PR LINK
17. 5/16/18 - Newly Launched Disinfecting System Reduces Hospital Acquired Infections PR LINK
18. 5/10/18 - PCT LTD Receives Patents for RFID Tracking Technology in Cleaning System (US Patent#9679170) PR LINK
3rd Quarter 10Q In final review with auditors & SEC Attorneys Expected to be completed in up to 3 weeks (updated per IR email--- expected in the next week)
10K Expected to be filed by April 13th
Convertible Notes "very active negotiations" to come to a resolve by time of 10K filing (April 13th)
No material change is O/S in months
very actively negotiating financing with negligible, if any, dissolution No anticipation of R/S
---Growth of about 400% in 2019--- on target to grow exponentially in 2020
G&A down significantly company become more efficicent, losses narrowed significantly down around 75% from 2018
---Currently Doing---
PCT UK joint venture partner Trial ongoing: Universities as well as hospitals involved to verify U.S. results "unless bacteria and virsuses are any different, which they aren't, don't anticipate any difficulty verifying claims"
"Preliminary discussions between PCT UK and National Healthcare system of the UK"
---Markets--- Primary Focus on healthcare sector - hospitals, medical centers assisted living, rehab facilities
Secondarily - Oil & Gas, remediation of Hydrogen Sulfide (very poisonous, corrosive, and flammable)
Recently - Cannabis Industry - purveyor of service "Happy to discover our product greatly mitigates or totally eliminates the 3 major problems they are having"
---Current Placement--- (Does not include newest NY Hospital announced above in PR on 3/11/20) 8 hospitals, 11 units installed with "3 more slated in next few weeks with more behind it"
Endorsement from VP of MY Presbyterian [Suppressed Image]
Not sure how many are aware of BARDA, but I came across a post on Twitter this evening and after doing a little digging, found this:
Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, was established to aid in securing our nation from chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) threats, as well as from pandemic influenza (PI) and emerging infectious diseases (EID).
In my eyes that's most certainly an organization that should be aware of the Annihilyzer product, so I connected with their Director, Rick B and provided a post on Linkedin for more exposure to their request of building out a comprehensive portfolio of COVID-19 countermeasures. See below.
(For my privacy, I did redact my information on the image)
Post made to BARDA Director, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Preparedness & Response - U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
[Suppressed Image]
Post made to BARDA Director, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Preparedness & Response - U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
UPDATED DUE DILIGENCE 3-17 - RESEARCH NOW Below is a good portion of the DD done here, by myself and others. Do YOURS now! (Also pinned on top of board)
Paradigm Convergence Technologies Corporation Summarized Due Diligence Sheet for Investing
---GENERAL INFORMATION---
Company Site: para-con.com Twitter: @PCTL2020 - (I urge you to follow them and review their posts) Investor Relations Chesapeake Group - Get on the email list for news info@chesapeakegp.com
About: a technology licensing company specializing in environmentally safe solutions for global sustainability with products for various markets they serve.
Mission: Infectious Disease and Contamination Control
About Products: Products and solutions are designed to take an environmentally conscious approach to combating the spread of infectious disease in the Healthcare and Cleaning industries, as well as contributing to the sustainability of global natural resources in the energy and agriculture markets.
The PCT Annihilyzer® Patented Monitoring, Tracking & Reporting System The Kiosk, which sits on top of the Filling Station Cabinet, houses The PCT Annihilyzer® System’s computer controls, information system, RFID tagging and reading system and an interactive touch screen display.
---FINANCIAL INFO---
Filings: LINK
Current info as of 3/9/20 Authorized- 1,000,000,000 Outstanding- 511,315,300 Restricted- 35,139,690
Standard Registrar and Transfer Company 440 East 400 South, Suite 200 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Phone: 801-571-8844 or 801-596-2150 www.standardtransferco.com Amy Merrill Email: amy@standardregistrar.com
---CURRENT CLIENT LIST---
1: Morgan Stanley Presbyterian Children’s Hospital. (3959 Broadway At, W 165 St, New York NY 10032)
2: Mount Sinai South Nassau Hospital (1 Healthy Way, Oceanside NY 11572)
3: Carson Tahoe Regional Medical Center (1600 Medical Pkwy, Carson City NV 89703)
4: SUNY Downstate Medical Center (450 Clarkson Ave, Brooklyn NY 11203)
6: Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center ??? Maybe (1275 York Avenue New York, NY 10065)
7: North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust, (UK Trial underway began Jan 15th 2020 - 60 day trial) (University Hospital of Hartlepool, Holdforth Road, Hartlepool, TS24 9AH) (University Hospital of North Tees, Hardwick, Stockton on Tees, TS19 8PE)
8: New York Presbyterian Columbia Hospital (Ranked Top 5 in the Nation) (622 W 168th St, New York NY 10032) ---VP recently endorsed in a LinkedIn post---
9: New York Hospital -- as per PR Release (labeled #1 below)
---PR & RELATED INFORMATION---
1. 03/18/20 - PCT LTD Receives Large Purchase Order for Recurring Sales of Fluids for Non-Medical Use and Explains Current Revenue Streams PR LINK
2. 03/16/20 - PCT LTD Interview with Stock Day Podcast (MUST LISTEN) PR LINK
3. 03/13/20 - PCT LTD Adds International Distributor and Sells High-Volume Equipment to Existing Customer as a Result of Heightened Demand PR LINK
4. 03/11/20 - PCT LTD Experiencing Rapid Increase in Interest and Receives Purchase Order from Additional Hospital in New York City PR LINK
5. 03/09/20 - Interview: PCT LTD Hospital Infection Control System installed in seven hospitals and expanding INTERVIEW LINK
6. 02/14/20 - PCT LTD Schedules Investor Call (Call took place on 2/20/20) PR LINK Audio Link (Written Summation below)
7. 01/30/20 - PCT LTD Executes Term Sheet for Debt Financing PR LINK
8. 01/08/20 - PCT LTD Discusses Their International Expansion and Growth Strategy with The Stock Day Podcast PR LINK
9. 12/16/19 - PCT LTD Issues Company Update and Signs Collaborative Agreement for Oil & Gas, and Cannabis Applications PR LINK
10. 10/31/19 - PCT LTD Continues to Expand By Signing Agreement with SUNY Downstate Medical Center Worth over $500,000 PR LINK
11. 10/25/19 - 3rd Quarter 8K released (see above FILINGS link)
12. 10/22/19 - Hospital-acquired Infection Control Market Is Estimated To Expand At a Healthy CAGR in the Upcoming Forecast Period MARKET RESEARCH PR
13. 10/22/19 - PCT LTD Deploys Initial Annihilyzer(R) Infection Control System to the United Kingdom PR LINK
14. 10/4/19 - PCT LTD Announces Additional Hospital Installation of Annihilyzer(R) Infection Control System PR LINK
15. 7/26/19 - The Infection Prevention Strategy is pleased to announce our Top Innovations of the Year: 2019 (Annihilyzer) PR LINK
16. 5/6/2019 - PCT LTD Announces New Purchase Order as the Result of a Successful Trial of Annihilyzer® Infection Control Systems (A TOP 5 hospital in the U.S. AND --#1 in NY-- CONVERTED from Trial to a customer AFTER a successful trial period) - Morgan Stanley Presbyterian Children’s Hospital PR LINK
17. 2/25/19 - PCT LTD Installs a Large Volume Hydrolyte® System with Option Agreement for 4 additional LVH Systems with Oil & Gas Industry Customer PR LINK
18. 1/10/19 - PCT LTD Executes New Master Service Agreement for Installation of Annihilyzer® Hospital Infection Control System at Carson Tahoe Regional Medical Center PR LINK
19. 11/08/18 - PCT LTD Announces Completion of Major Commercialization Milestones and Promotion of Jody Read to CEO Position PR LINK
20. 5/16/18 - Newly Launched Disinfecting System Reduces Hospital Acquired Infections PR LINK
21. 5/10/18 - PCT LTD Receives Patents for RFID Tracking Technology in Cleaning System (US Patent#9679170) PR LINK
3rd Quarter 10Q In final review with auditors & SEC Attorneys Expected to be completed in up to 3 weeks (updated per IR email--- expected in the next week)
10K Expected to be filed by April 13th
Convertible Notes "very active negotiations" to come to a resolve by time of 10K filing (April 13th)
No material change is O/S in months
very actively negotiating financing with negligible, if any, dissolution No anticipation of R/S
---Growth of about 400% in 2019--- on target to grow exponentially in 2020
G&A down significantly company become more efficicent, losses narrowed significantly down around 75% from 2018
---Currently Doing---
PCT UK joint venture partner Trial ongoing: Universities as well as hospitals involved to verify U.S. results "unless bacteria and virsuses are any different, which they aren't, don't anticipate any difficulty verifying claims"
"Preliminary discussions between PCT UK and National Healthcare system of the UK"
---Markets--- Primary Focus on healthcare sector - hospitals, medical centers assisted living, rehab facilities
Secondarily - Oil & Gas, remidiation of Hydrogen Sulfide (very poisonous, corrosive, and flammable)
Recently - Cannabis Industry - purveyor of service "Happy to discover our product greatly mitigates or totally elimiants the 3 major problems they are having"
---Current Placement--- (Does not include newest NY Hospital announced above in PR on 3/11/20) 8 hospitals, 11 units installed with "3 more slated in next few weeks with more behind it"
Endorsement from VP of MY Presbyterian and other execs [Suppressed Image]
[Suppressed Image]
[Suppressed Image]
[Suppressed Image]
Not sure how many are aware of BARDA, but I came across a post on Twitter this evening and after doing a little digging, found this:
Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, was established to aid in securing our nation from chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) threats, as well as from pandemic influenza (PI) and emerging infectious diseases (EID).
In my eyes that's most certainly an organization that should be aware of the Annihilyzer product, so I connected with their Director, Rick B and provided a post on Linkedin for more exposure to their request of building out a. comprehensive portfolio of COVID-19 countermeasures. See below.
(For my privacy, I did redact my information on the image)
Post made to BARDA Director, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Preparedness & Response - U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
================= exactly what the EPA said
Quote:
List N includes products that meet EPA’s criteria for use against SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus that causes the disease COVID-19.
The key word here is against The EPA does not come out and say any products on these lists will kill CV-19. However I doubt the EPA would use a strong word as against in the above statement.
Quote:
Note: Inclusion on this list does not constitute an endorsement by EPA. There may be additional disinfectants that meet the criteria for use against SARS-CoV-2. EPA will update this list with additional products as needed.
It's pretty obvious this disclaimer is stating the EPA does not endorse as in recommend any product that's listed. They do not because it would constitute marketing for that product.... The EPA also recognizes that there are other products that meet the criteria against SARS-CV-2 AKA Coronavirus. Why do they make this statement? Because there are other products that are registered with the EPA that are not on this list that meets the criteria against CV-19
Nothing hard to understand there. Here is the a pic of it below:
[Suppressed Image]
Lets move on
List N: Disinfectants for Use Against SARS-CoV-2 | Pesticide ...www.epa.gov › pesticide-registration › list-n-disinfectants-use-against-... If a product qualified for the Emerging Viral Pathogen Claim, it demonstrated efficacy against a harder-to-kill virus than the enveloped human coronavirus
From this statement we know that EXCELYTE which meets this criteria. How do we know this? We know because they are on the N list under EPA registration 92108-1. I also believe this Reg number can be used against the harder to lill Norovirus. Coronavirus is easier to kill than Norovirus. Any amount of basic DD will show that.
Below is the reg and product number for EXCELYTE [Suppressed Image]
Finally Below is the EPA reg link for EXCELYTE showing it's registered to PCT Ltd. This link is the original registration.
Pretty basic stuff is you ask me lol ============== Pics of the product - Sorry about it being sideways
[Suppressed Image]
[Suppressed Image]
[Suppressed Image]
============ PCT LTD Obtains EPA Approval for Emerging Pathogens Labeling for Use Against SARS-CoV-2, the Novel Coronavirus That Causes the Disease COVID-19 Business WireMarch 27, 2020, 9:49 AM CST
PCT LTD (OTC Pink: PCTL) ("PCTL") is pleased to announce that it has received approval for "emerging pathogens" labeling with the US EPA.
The application was filed under the guidance document "Guidance to Registrants: Process for Making Claims Against Emerging Viral Pathogens Not on EPA-Registered Disinfectant Labels." It was approved on March 26th, 2020. The guidance document provides the following information regarding different classes of viruses and their resistance to being killed by disinfectants:
EPA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recognize that certain microorganisms can be ranked with respect to their tolerance to chemical disinfectants. The Spaulding Classification model, used by CDC, tiers microorganisms in accordance with the level of resistance to being killed (inactivation) by typical disinfectant products. With this approach viruses are divided into three viral subgroups (small non-enveloped, large non-enveloped, and enveloped) based on their relative resistance to inactivation … According to this hierarchy, if an antimicrobial product can kill a small, non-enveloped virus it should be able to kill any large, non-enveloped virus or any enveloped virus. Similarly, a product that can kill a large, non-enveloped virus should be able to kill any enveloped virus.
Small, Non-Enveloped Viruses (<50 nm): These small, non-enveloped viruses can be highly resistant to inactivation by disinfection. Despite the lack of a lipid envelope, these organisms have a very resistant protein capsid…
Large, Non-Enveloped Viruses: Compared to small, non-enveloped viruses, these viruses are less resistant to inactivation by disinfection. Although they have a resistant protein capsid, their larger size (50-100nm) makes them more vulnerable than their smaller viral counterparts…
Enveloped Viruses: Enveloped viruses are the least resistant to inactivation by disinfection. The structure of these viruses includes a lipid envelope, which is easily compromised by most disinfectants. Once the lipid envelope is damaged, the integrity of the virus is compromised, thereby neutralizing its infectivity.
In addition to being "an EPA-registered, hospital/healthcare or broad-spectrum disinfectant …", in order to meet product eligibility criteria, the product "should have disinfectant efficacy claims against at least one of the following viral pathogen groupings:
a) A product should be approved by EPA to inactivate at least one large or one small non-enveloped virus to be eligible for use against an enveloped emerging viral pathogen.
b) A product should be approved by EPA to inactivate at least one small, non-enveloped virus to be eligible for use against a large, non-enveloped emerging viral pathogen.
c) A product should be approved by EPA to inactivate at least two small, non-enveloped viruses with each from a different viral family to be eligible for use against a small, non-enveloped emerging viral pathogen.
This approach, where disinfectant products registered for use against viral pathogens in one category of the Spaulding Classification model can be presumed effective against viral pathogens in less-resistant categories, is intended to serve as a conservative approach to identifying disinfectant products likely to be effective against emerging pathogens."
As a result of meeting all of the Product Eligibility Criteria, PCT LTD can now make the following statement "only through the following communication outlets: … "1-800" consumer information services, social media sites and company websites (non-label related) … [as well as] technical literature distributed exclusively to health care facilities, physicians, nurses and public health officials":
This Product meets the criteria to make claims against certain emerging viral pathogens from the following viral category[ies]:
Enveloped Viruses
Large Non-Enveloped Viruses
Small Non-Enveloped Viruses
For an emerging viral pathogen that is a/an… …follow the directions for use for the following organisms on the label: Enveloped virus Norovirus Large, non-enveloped virus Norovirus Small, non-enveloped virus Norovirus, Rhinovirus (Type 16)
Hydrolyte® has demonstrated effectiveness against viruses similar to SARS-CoV-2 virus on hard, non-porous surfaces. Therefore, Hydrolyte® can be used against SARS-CoV-2 virus when used in accordance with the directions for use against Norovirus and Rhinovirus type 16 on hard, non-porous surfaces. Refer to the CDC website at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/home/cleaning-disinfection.html for additional information.
COVID-19 is caused by SARS-CoV-2 virus. Hydrolyte® kills similar viruses and therefore can be used against SARS-CoV-2 virus when used in accordance with the directions for use against Norovirus and Rhinovirus type 16 on hard, non-porous surfaces. Refer to the CDC website at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/home/cleaning-disinfection.html for additional information.
"We are very pleased to receive approval for an "emerging pathogens" claim on our product label," says CEO Gary Grieco. "It represents an important step for us as a business and in helping to control the spread of infectious disease as a whole. Additionally, we are now prequalified for future emerging pathogens of any virus classification."
Due to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, PCT LTD has seen an increased number of inquiries from existing clients, sub-registrants, and distributors; in addition to new and prospective customers. The company recently announced that they had temporarily shifted their focus towards producing mass quantities of disinfecting fluids to meet growing demand.
"Fluid sales have been tremendous for us," says PCT Ltd CEO Gary Grieco. "To put it simply, we are routinely shipping fluids out at rapid pace and into the hands of trained professionals where our product can be put to good use fighting the spread of infectious disease in our communities. We are limited only by our capacity to produce the fluids, but we expect to double our production capacity by April 1st."
Additional News and Corporate Updates:
PCTL would like to warn its stockholders and potential investors that material corporate information regarding sales, areas of business and other corporate updates will only be made through press releases or filings with the SEC. PCTL does not utilize social media, chatrooms or other online sources to disclose material information. The public should only rely on official press releases and corporate filings for accurate and up to date information regarding PCTL.
About PCT LTD:
PCT LTD ("PCTL") focuses its business on acquiring, developing and providing sustainable, environmentally safe disinfecting, cleaning and tracking technologies. The company acquires and holds rights to innovative products and technologies, which are commercialized through its wholly-owned operating subsidiary, Paradigm Convergence Technologies Corporation (PCT Corp). Currently trading on OTC, "PCTL" aspires to and is actively engaged in preparations for up-listing its common stock to a national securities exchange. The Company established entry into its target markets with commercially viable products in the United States and now continues to gain market share in the U.S. and U.K.
Forward-Looking Statements:
This press release contains "forward-looking statements" as defined in Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21B of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Any statements that express or involve discussions with respect to predictions, expectations, beliefs, plans, projections, objectives, goals, assumptions or future events or performance are not statements of historical fact and may be "forward-looking statements."
Such statements are based on expectations, estimates and projections at the time the statements are made that involve a number of risks and uncertainties, which could cause actual results or events to differ materially from those presently anticipated. Such statements involve risks and uncertainties, including but not limited to: the impact of having met the EPA Criteria for use Against SARS-CoV-2, actual sales derived by the Company; the transition to producing large quantities of fluids; PCTL's and its subsidiary's business prospects; PCTL's ability to raise sufficient funds to satisfy its working capital requirements; the ability of PCTL to execute its business plan; any other effects resulting from the information disclosed above; risks and effects of legal and administrative proceedings and government regulation; future financial and operational results; competition; general economic conditions; and the ability to manage and continue growth. Should one or more of these risks or uncertainties materialize, or should underlying assumptions prove incorrect, actual outcomes may vary materially from those indicated. Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking statements PCTL makes in this press release include market conditions and those set forth in reports or documents it files from time to time with the SEC. PCTL undertakes no obligation to revise or update such statements to reflect current events or circumstances after the date hereof or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.
Gary Grieco, CEO and Chairman, PCT LTD (843) 390-7900 Office (843) 390-2347 Fax www.para-con.com www.pctcorphealth.com www.survivalyte.com
Brokers and Analysts: Chesapeake Group +1-410-825-3930 info@chesapeakegp.com ==================================================================================================================. CANADA INFO & LINKS BokehRebl Tuesday, 03/31/20 10:29:25 PM Re: Long term post# 78282 ? 0 Post # 78283 of 78339
Here’s THE list I put together of all relevant contact in the US and Canadien Government, Feel free to add more!
Louisiana Alexander Billioux, MD, DPhil [Bio] Assistant Secretary of Health Alexander.Billioux@LA.GOV
Maine Nirav Shah, MD, JD* Director, Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention Nirav.Shah@Maine.Gov
Maryland Robert Neall Secretary of Health Frances B. Phillips, RN, MHA [Bio] Deputy Secretary for Public Health Services S/THO Designee robert.neall@maryland.gov
Michigan Joneigh Khaldun, MD, MPH, FACEP [Bio] Chief Deputy Director for Health and CME khaldunj@michigan.gov
Minnesota Jan Malcolm [Bio] Health Commissioner jan.malcolm@state.mn.us
Mississippi Thomas Dobbs, MD, MPH* State Health Officer thomas.dobbs@msdh.ms.gov
Missouri Randall W. Williams, MD, FACOG [Bio] Director randall.williams@health.mo.gov
Montana Sheila Hogan Director Gregory Holzman, MD [Bio] Chief Medical Officer S/THO Designee gHolzman@mt.gov
Nebraska Dannette Smith, MSW * Chief Executive Officer, Nebraska Department of Health & Human Services Gary Anthone, MD Chief Medical Officer and Director, Division of Public Health S/THO Designee Dannette.Smith@nebraska.gov
Nevada Lisa Sherych, MBA* Administrator lsherych@adsd.nv.gov
New Hampshire Lisa Morris, MSSW [Bio] Director, Division of Public Health Service lisa.morris@dhhs.nh.gov
New Jersey Judith Persichilli RN, BSN, MA* Commissioner of Health Judith.Pershichilli@doh.nj.gov
New York Howard Zucker, MD, JD [Bio] Commissioner of Health howard.zucker@health.ny.gov
North Carolina Mark Benton [Bio] Assistant Secretary for Public Health mark.benton@dhhs.nc.gov
North Dakota Mylynn K. Tufte, MBA, MSIM, RN [Bio] State Health Officer mylynntufte@nd.gov
Ohio Amy Acton, MD, MPH [Bio] Director of Health DirectorAmyActon@odh.ohio.gov
Oklahoma Gary Cox, JD* Commissioner of Health GaryC@health.ok.gov
Oregon Lillian M. Shirley, BSN, MPH, MPA [Bio] Public Health Director lillian.shirley@state.or.us
Pennsylvania Rachel Levine, MD [Bio] Secretary of Health ralevine@pa.gov
Puerto Rico Rafael Rodriguez Mercado, MD, FACS, FAANS Secretary of Health Catherine De La Cruz-Duran* S/THO Designee drrafael.rodriguez@salud.pr.gov
Rhode Island Nicole Alexander-Scott, MD, MPH [Bio] Director nicole.alexanderscott@health.ri.gov
South Carolina Richard Toomey, MHA, DHA [Bio] Director, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control Rick.Toomey@dhec.sc.gov
South Dakota Kim Malsam-Rysdon [Bio] Secretary kim.malsam-rysdon@state.sd.us
Tennessee Lisa Piercey MD, MBA, FAAP [Bio] Commissioner tn.health@tn.gov
Texas John Hellerstedt, MD [Bio] Commissioner john.hellerstedt@dshs.texas.gov
Utah Joseph Miner, MD [Bio] Executive Director joeminer@utah.gov
Vermont Mark Levine, MD [Bio] Commissioner of Health mark.levine@vermont.gov
Virginia M. Norman Oliver, MD, MA [Bio] State Health Commissioner norm.oliver@vdh.virginia.gov
Washington John M. Wiesman, DrPH, MPH [Bio] Secretary of Health secretary@doh.wa.gov
West Virginia Cathy Slemp, MD, MPH [Bio] Commissioner and State Health Officer catherine.slemp@wv.gov
Wisconsin Jeanne Ayers, RN, MPH [Bio] Administrator, Division of Public Health Jeanne.Ayers@dhs.wisconsin.gov
Wyoming Alexia Harrist, MD, PhD [Bio] State Health Officer alexia.harrist1@wyo.gov —————————————
davidsan Wednesday, April 1, 2020 4:57:18 PM Re: None Post # 78774 of 78834 Can PCTL's fluid turn sour crude oil into sweet?
I vaguely remember this was something said in discussing why that large unnamed oil&gas company was so interested in setting up the customized trial they are doing. I remember clearly that it helped make the liquid involved in fracking much more environmentally friendly, much more green, with a more pure and less costly product, something to that effect. There was some big reason why that oil&gas company was so excited about it. If the oil&gas industry incorporates this into their standard processes, with the sheer volume of this fluid they will need every day, that will be HUGE, just that one piece of all this alone. Somewhere in there I thought I remembered that in the process it helped turn sour crude into sweet, just don't recall how specific that point was.
Anyone here remember?
This is so much more than just hospitals and spraying to kill the coronavirus. The agricultural/cannabis industry and oil&gas industry customized trials are going on as well.
And, of course, the UK trials are about to hit (The UK hospital trial already completed, and the 2 university studies are supposed to complete the end of March to first week of April, meaning anytime now). Just waiting on results and orders, both expected to be very favorable.
Hypochlorous Acid Market Demand Would Increase Rapidly Hypochlorous Acid Market: Excellent Microbial and Oxidizing Properties Hypochlorous acid is a weak acid formed by dissolving chlorine in water. It possesses excellent microbial and oxidizing properties. It is used as a disinfectant agent in medical, water treatment, and food additives in food & beverages industry. Sodium hypochlorite and calcium hypochlorite are the two types of hypochlorous acid. Sodium hypochlorite is a widely consumed hypochlorous acid. Sodium hypochlorite can be easily stored and transported. It is more effective than chlorine gas in various applications. Read report Overview@ https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/hypochlorous-acid-market.html Hypochlorous acid is employed in various end-user industries such as water treatment, wound management, food & beverages, oil & gas, and personal care. Demand for hypochlorous acid in the wound management segment is projected to rise significantly in the near future. Hypochlorous acid acts as an excellent disinfectant in wound healing applications. It accelerates the healing process of any wound and other infections such as eye infection, ear infection, etc. Hypochlorous acid has excellent disinfectant properties, which help destroy pathogens, bacteria, and fungi. Request PDF Brochure@ https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/sample/sample.php?flag=B&rep_id=68783 Key drivers of Hypochlorous Acid market Rise in demand for oxidizing and disinfecting agents in order to provide quality water is driving the global hypochlorous acid market. Hypochlorous acid is highly cost effective. It is non-toxic to humans and animals. Therefore, it is highly preferred in the water treatment industry. Rise in usage of hypochlorous acid in sterilizing bacterial infection by drying out blood cells is boosting its demand in the medical industry. Hypochlorous acid is also used as an active sanitizing agent in swimming pools and skin cleansing agent in cosmetic applications. It is used in the manufacture of calcium hypochlorite (Ca(OCl)2) and sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), which are further used in the manufacture of disinfectants, bleaches, and deodorants. Food & Beverage Industry and Wound Management to offer attractive opportunities Increase in usage of hypochlorous acid in the food & beverages industry is estimated to provide lucrative opportunities to manufacturers of hypochlorous acid in the near future. Hypochlorous acid is used for cleaning food processing equipment and dish washers. It is also employed as food additive in processing poultry products and seafood products. Hypochlorous acid is gaining momentum as a potential wound care agent in the pharmaceutical industry. It is a highly effective wound irrigation solution, which is entirely safe for human tissues. It aids in elimination of unpleasant wound odor and removes bacteria from wound surface. Hypochlorous Acid may form Explosive Gas in Concentrated Form likely to Restrain Market Hypochlorous acid is highly dangerous and can form explosive gas if used in concentrated form. This is anticipated to restrain the market during the forecast period. When exposed to air, it disintegrates and causes nausea, abdomen pain, etc. If released in water bodies, hypochlorous acid may harm aquatic animals, thereby adversely affecting biodiversity. These factors are estimated to restrain the demand for hypochlorous acid during the forecast period. Stuck in a neck-to-neck competition with other brands? Request a custom report on competition on Hypochlorous Acid Market here Asia Pacific Expected to Hold Leading Share in the Global Hypochlorous Acid Market In terms of region, the demand for hypochlorous acid can be split across five regions: North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, Latin America, and Middle East & Africa. In terms of consumption, Asia Pacific dominated the global hypochlorous acid market in 2018. Developing economies such as China, India, Vietnam, and Indonesia are the leading consumers of hypochlorous acid in Asia Pacific. Rapid industrialization and increase in demand for sodium hypochlorite in chemical, agriculture, and pharmaceutical industries are anticipated to fuel the hypochlorous acid market during the forecast period. Demand for hypochlorous acid in countries in Europe such as Germany, France, and the U.K. is projected to increase during the forecast period primarily due to the rise in demand for sodium and calcium hypochlorite in the food & beverages industry in the region. The U.S. is the leading consumer of hypochlorous acid in North America. Increase in demand for hypochlorous acid in industrial applications such as cooling water treatment is propelling the market in the U.S. Latin America and Middle East & Africa are highly dependent on hypochlorous acid import. This is likely to hamper the sales of hypochlorous acid in these regions. However, production capacity expansion by various manufacturers in Brazil, Mexico, and GCC is expected to augment the demand for hypochlorous acid in Latin America and Middle East & Africa during the forecast period. Key Players in Hypochlorous Acid Market: New product launches and mergers & acquisitions are the key strategies adopted by top players operating in the market. For instance, in 2018, URGO Medical, a leading player in wound care products, entered into an asset purchasing agreement with REALM Therapeutics, a biopharmaceutical company based in the U.S. REALM Therapeutics engages in research activities to discover new hypochlorous acid based treatments for atopic dermatitis and allergic conjunctivitis. This acquisition is expected to help URGO Medical become the leading player in advanced wound care business across the globe. Key players operating in the global hypochlorous acid market include Lenntech B.V. BASF SE Arkema S.A. Lonza. Inovyn Chlorvinyls Limited Olin Corporation Nouryon (Previously under Akzo Nobel N.V.'s coating division) Occidental Petroleum Corporation Kuehne Company AGC Chemicals Surpass Chemical Company, Inc. Westlake Chemical Corporation Clorox Company Tianjin Ruifuxin Chemical Tosoh Corporation Aditya Birla Chemicals Aqualution Systems Ltd Ultrapure HOCL (Pty) Ltd Others
=================== Friday, April 3, 2020 10:10:28 AM Cherry Re: None Post # 80097 of 80187 WHY YOU WANT TO BUY ALL THE PCTL YOU CAN
Right now, IMO, before PCT LTD (ticker PCTL) announces the UK hospital results which might potentially lead to 600+ hospital installations in the UK, before the March 2020 revenues from increased fluid sales are known, before the scientific data on treating disease/mold/fungi in the citrus & cannabis industries is announced, before results from the oil & gas industry testing, and before the delayed 2019 Q3 of which will contain outdated information from over 6 months ago-
People reading here may have read and seen, in bits and pieces, all these things below.
How anyone interprets & verifies anything, and researches further, is up to them. Nothing here is advice.
Since late 2019: More hospitals, More distribution, More geographic regions, More production capacity, More sales of the fluid itself & increasing dramatically, EPA approved on List N to disinfect surfaces for NCOV-19-SARS-2, Existing clients are buying more systems or extending their contracts,
=============== Tuesday, 04/07/20 11:13:24 AM Re: Patience 1 post# 81708 0.005 Post # 81730 of 82300
Quote:
NEWS OUT!! 4/7/20, 9:55 AM LITTLE RIVER, S.C.--(BUSINESS WIRE)
PCT LTD (OTC Pink: PCTL) ("PCTL") is excited to announce they have increased production capacity at their Little River, South Carolina facility.
Updating an earlier release (March 25th), the South Carolina facility is now capable of producing up to 10,000 gallons of fluids per day. A marked increase over earlier capabilities. The company is now better positioned to meet the growing demand for its Hypochlorous Acid-based disinfecting fluids.
“Our team has been working around the clock over the last several weeks to make this happen,” says Stuart Emmons, PCTL Executive VP of Engineering and R & D. “The South Carolina facility is now better positioned to fulfill the daily orders we have been receiving.”
Due in part to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, the company has seen an exponential increase in sales and inquiries from current and prospective customers. Late last month the company shifted its short-term focus towards fluid production and sales to meet increasing demand.
“It’s supply and demand,” according to PCTL CEO Gary Grieco. “The demand is there and now so is the supply. We needed to shift our focus towards where we can have the most impact and do the most good for our customers and the communities they serve. At the same time, this presents an opportunity for us to elevate our profile, grow our business, and showcase how effective our products can be in the ongoing fight against the spread of infectious disease.”
The company has also been hiring additional support staff to support growing business operations. Most recently, the company engaged Joseph Tippmann, graduate of The University of Michigan’s Industrial Design and Architecture program, as a new design engineer. Tippmann joined the company on a contract basis initially and has spent the past two weeks performing design updates on Annihilyzer and Hydrolyte Rack systems in addition to helping design a more modular system for easier assembly.
Tippmann is also a co-owner of Werks Manufacturing, a Fort Wayne, Indiana based manufacturing company which PCTL engages for the purpose of manufacturing and assembling parts for use in the company’s Annihilyzer® Infection Control System and other systems.
Werks Manufacturing is expanding their operation and will increase parts and assembly production to meet PCTL’s growing demand. In addition, Werks will also serve as a fluid depot for PCTL’s clients in the northern Midwest part of the United States. Werks will initially be capable of producing up to 4,000 gallons per day of disinfecting fluids, including Hydrolyte®, for sale and use by PCTL to clients in Detroit, Chicago, and throughout the region. This fluid production capacity can be increased as needed to serve growing demand.
“We are continuing our rapid growth plans,” says Grieco. “Through strategic partnerships, distribution agreements, and more, we are gaining market share, increasing revenue at a rapid pace, and growing our business both quickly and efficiently.”
Additional News and Corporate Updates:
PCTL would like to warn its stockholders and potential investors that material corporate information regarding sales, areas of business and other corporate updates will only be made through press releases or filings with the SEC. PCTL does not utilize social media, chatrooms or other online sources to disclose material information. The public should only rely on official press releases and corporate filings for accurate and up to date information regarding PCTL. ====================
Wednesday, April 8, 2020 1:22:30 PM Beer money Re: None Post # 82319 of 82350 Yes Gary Grieco, PCTL CEO, stated, "As a result of the capabilities and benefits of our products, many companies and municipalities across a variety of industries and geographic locations are engaging in intense discussions with PCT LTD."
PCTL "The 800 pound gorilla, Corona-virus, that has opened up a huge opportunity for us and I can not say any more than that we have been contacted by, and are actively negotiating to address the problem with both companies and government officials and I can not say more than that."
In addition, Grieco further commented, "All of our hospital customers using our infection control system and disinfectant are utilizing the systems as a front-line defense throughout their facilities, including in all public area such as restrooms, lobbies, waiting rooms, elevators, corridors, cafeterias, etc. all throughout the day and night and in the presence of patients, staff and visitors."
============ Thursday, April 9, 2020 10:01:52 AM Re: None Post # 82599 of 82789 Hypochlorous Acid Okay For Easter Eggs Hypochlorous acid is cleared by the FDA for use on meat, poultry, fish & seafood, fruits & vegetables and shell eggs as a no-rinse sanitizer. FCN 1811 is a Food Contact Notification (FCN) from the FDA for using electrolytically generated hypochlorous acid as an antimicrobial agent in an aqueous solution in the production and preparation of whole or cut meat and poultry; processed and preformed meat and poultry; fish and seafood; fruits and vegetables; and shell eggs. To read more about food contact notification 1811, visit the FDA website in the link below. https://www.hypochlorousacid.com/regulation [Suppressed Image]
================== Thursday, April 9, 2020 10:35:37 AM Re: None Post # 82670 of 82807 Why the NHS and Private Clinics Should Look Further than Alcohol-Based Sanitisers The CoViD-19 pandemic has brought alcohol to the fore; whether it is the amount the British public is consuming to get through self-isolation or the level required in hand sanitiser to make it effective, the news stories are everywhere. Many of these revolving around the shortage of traditional alcohol-based hand sanitisers and how prices are soaring. With this being the case, why then don’t the NHS and other health care facilities look elsewhere? Is there no other option? In fact, there is another option which is rapidly emerging as the new go-to sanitiser during the CoViD-19 pandemic; Hypochlorous Acid (HOCl). What is Hypochlorous Acid? HOCI is generated when white blood cells attack harmful bacteria and is harmless to the human body. In December 2019 Optometry Times published an article on HOCl and they explain it much better than I can… “HOCl is a weak acid that occurs naturally in our body. Neutrophils are white blood cells that are the first to arrive on site when an invading pathogen is detected. Neutrophils will chase down and engulf the pathogen through phagocytosis. Upon contact, neutrophils release a burst of bactericidal chemicals including its most powerful oxidizing agent, HOCl. This kills the pathogen by tearing down the cell membranes and proteins”. Optometry Times called HOCl “the perfect weapon to fight germs. It hits hard against pathogens like Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) and Pseudomonas Aeroginosa. Yet this powerful weapon is 100 percent safe for humans, chemical free, non-toxic and all-natural”. Due to these attributes HOCl is being widely used in South Korea in their battle against CoViD-19, disinfecting everything from food to people to hospital wards and their mass transit systems. Looking at the way in which they have taken control of the spread of the virus it is clear to see that HOCl can also help the United Kingdom to gain the upper hand in this struggle. https://www.belle.org.uk/news-1/2020/4/2/why-the-nhs-and-private-clinics-should-look-to-hypochlorous-acid-rather-than-alcohol-based-sanitisers
=============
beer$$money ?
Sunday, April 12, 2020 8:04:27 PM Re: BIGBUCKS post# 83703
Post # 83709 of 83745 Alex Guttman Author> Huge interest being developed on LinkedIN VP marketing and Research at Ace Janitorial, Sales Mgr Escalator Cleaning company, Senior VP HAI Consultants
Randy Stiles can't mention names without permission but I can say that most of the major healthcare systems in NYC are now using our system
Randy Stiles +Executive Account Manager at Paylidify
Jon Pickett, MBA is this being used at all Memorial Healthcare Locations? The feedback on the system has been great.
Jody Read CEO at PCT Health, PCT LTD
Glad to see that the efforts of the entire team at ACE and PCT to bring this system to market has been a success and we are looking forward to placing these systems into every hospital, surgical center, nursing homes, and long-term care facilities!
Good am Mr Jody.could I represent your company in Dubai.? Tnx
Fritz Oehler Executive Director at Sprenger Health Care Systems Looks like this product could be an answer to many infection control issues in our industry.
Sunday, April 12, 2020 8:53:14 PM Re: BIGBUCKS post# 83629
Post # 83715 of 83745 Some additional DD. The full section in that recent PCTL release includes: Quote:
The company has also been hiring additional support staff to support growing business operations. Most recently, the company engaged Joseph Tippmann, graduate of The University of Michigan’s Industrial Design and Architecture program, as a new design engineer. Tippmann joined the company on a contract basis initially and has spent the past two weeks performing design updates on Annihilyzer and Hydrolyte Rack systems in addition to helping design a more modular system for easier assembly. Tippmann is also a co-owner of Werks Manufacturing, a Fort Wayne, Indiana based manufacturing company which PCTL engages for the purpose of manufacturing and assembling parts for use in the company’s Annihilyzer® Infection Control System and other systems. Werks Manufacturing is expanding their operation and will increase parts and assembly production to meet PCTL’s growing demand. In addition, Werks will also serve as a fluid depot for PCTL’s clients in the northern Midwest part of the United States. Werks will initially be capable of producing up to 4,000 gallons per day of disinfecting fluids, including Hydrolyte®, for sale and use by PCTL to clients in Detroit, Chicago, and throughout the region. This fluid production capacity can be increased as needed to serve growing demand.
I could not find much on google in regards to Joseph Tippmann. I did find Werks Manufacturing Inc. = http://werksmfg.com ;;... but ... website is “under construction”. It appears to be located at 2300 Meyer Road Fort Wayne, IN 46803. It appears the phone number might be (260) 428-2698. Also at this address appears to be: Advanced Media Integration LLC = Video production service = Vincent P Tippmann. same phone number?
I did also find Vincent P. Tippmann at this website: https://vptag.com/ Tippmann Affiliated Group is a family owned organization with a diversified group of business segments throughout North America and around the world. Approaching a half-century in business, Tippmann Affiliated Group businesses hold 17 patents and numerous product and service awards in various industries, including Automotive, Food Service, Refrigeration, Medical Device and Transportation. As it stands today, Tippmann Affiliated Group remains a family owned organization with a diversified group of business segments throughout North America and around the world. Headquartered in Fort Wayne, IN, Tippmann Affiliated Group operates its main campus on 75 acres and 810,000 sq/ft. of manufacturing and office space. 4410 New Haven Ave Fort Wayne, IN 46803. Phone:(260) 428-2500. It appears that 2300 Meyer Road Fort Wayne, IN 46803 is immediately adjacent to 4410 New Haven Ave Fort Wayne, IN 46803. Father & son? Could Vincent Tippman be the co-owner of Werks Manufacturing (together with Joseph Tippmann?
=====================
Ronin Wednesday, 04/15/20 10:42:51 AM Re: TKane post# 86153 Post # 86171 of 86190
News hit DOW JONES and BUSINESS wire! Lots of eyes on this now!
Evaluate Wednesday, April 15, 2020 3:12:04 PM Re: Evaluate post# 86473 Post # 86479 of 86491 https://pureandclean.us/disinfectant-sanitizer-gallon/ It appears that Pure & Clean is a distributor for PCT's HOCl, at 460 PPM, since their web page shows it is a distributor of EPA Reg. No. 92108-1. Only available in the following states: Florida, Kansas Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, Oklahoma and Texas. For all other states, please order the Surface Cleaner Pro products: https://pureandclean.us/surface-cleanser-pro/ Pure&Clean Disinfectant/Sanitizer? 460 ppm HOCl. This is a New Generation Disinfectant formulated using Hypochlorous Acid (HOCl) that cleans, deodorizes, and disinfects. As a distributor of EPA Reg. No. 92108-1, the product pure&clean™ (EPA Reg. No. 92108-1-88098) is included on the list of products approved by the US
=====================
BIGBUCKS Wednesday, April 15, 2020 3:09:42 PM Re: None Post # 86478 of 86491 PCT LTD Reports Q3 2019 Financials; Revenue Increases 435%, Operating Expenses Decrease
At 0’37: it shows that the “Annihilyzer is “Presented By: Annihilare and Paradigm Convergence Technology Corp” I was surprised to see this. Question: Does Annihilare also share in the revenues/profits of selling/leasing Annihilyzers?
=========== BRITT2575 ? Friday, 04/17/20 12:41:50 AM Re: None ? 0 Post # 88648 of 88658
PCT EUROPE LTD SIGNS DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT WITH UK NHS COMPANY, RECEIVES ADDITIONAL NYC HOSPITAL ORDER April 17 2020 - 12:08AM InvestorsHub NewsWire Print PCT EUROPE LTD SIGNS DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT WITH UK NHS COMPANY, RECEIVES ADDITIONAL NYC HOSPITAL ORDER
Little River, SC -- April 17, 2020 -- InvestorsHub NewsWire -- PCT LTD (OTC Pink: PCTL) is pleased to announce new growth and expansion activities in the UK and NYC. PCT Europe Ltd, the UK-based partner of PCTL is pleased to announce they have signed an exclusive trading partnership/distributor agreement with an NHS (U.K. National Health Service) company.
In tandem with PCT Europe Ltd, the UK NHS company will introduce PCT technology to each NHS Hospital Trust with the intention of them rolling out PCT's unique technology and system throughout the health services 233 Trusts comprising over 600 hospitals. In addition, approximately 14,000 Care Homes in the U.K. will also be introduced to PCT's technology. A steady flow of orders is expected to commence throughout the remainder of 2020 and into 2021.
The first PCT system has now been installed in a large NHS hospital in the north of England. This system is expected to enter clinical service early in May once the final series of biological tests of the PCT hospital disinfectant solution have been completed. Results of these tests have so far demonstrated that the PCT disinfectant has met or exceeded its ability to kill the range of pathogens previously achieved during EPA tests in the United States.
"We couldn't be happier with the results thus far in our UK trials and are delighted with the progress our UK partner is making. This arrangement will introduce our system to thousands of hospitals and healthcare facilities," says PCTL CEO Gary Grieco. "At the same time, the reality of the current healthcare crisis both domestically and abroad is sobering. We're thrilled to be able to grow our business but nevertheless remain focused on our core mission which from day one has always been helping people."
The company continues to expand domestically as well. Following an earlier release dated April 14th, the company is also announcing an additional purchase order for PCT Corp.'s Annihilyzer® Infection Control Systems in New York City.
The order comes from a large NYC hospital with a current bed count in excess of 2,500. Installation will be made in coordination with PCT Corp's primary healthcare distributor, ACE Janitorial Services.
"With three PO's for our infection control system this week and more on the way, we continue to make strides both in growing our business as well as our goal of helping our clients fight the spread of infectious diseases," says Grieco. "We are on pace for unprecedented and record growth in all areas of our business."
Additional News and Corporate Updates:
PCTL would like to warn its stockholders and potential investors that material corporate information regarding sales, areas of business and other corporate updates will only be made through press releases or filings with the SEC. PCTL does not utilize social media, chatrooms or other online sources to disclose material information. The public should only rely on official press releases and corporate filings for accurate and up to date information regarding PCTL.
========================
Details for EXCELYTE VET * EPA Contract Info EPA Contact Information
PM Re: None Post # 92362 of 92385 PCTL> UK NHS is the largest single healthcare delivery organisation in the world.
SELLING TO THE NHS
SUMMARY This guide outlines the structures that exist to help companies contact and sell existing and innovative products into the NHS, a huge organisation which can appear very complex.
IN BRIEF NHS Supply Chain Procurement routes – national, regional and local contracts
Products for GP prescription
Estates – capital equipment
Innovation – new products
The NHS is the largest single healthcare delivery organisation in the world. It constitutes a major opportunity for UK medical device companies. NHS trusts can purchase products through one of five main routes:
Directly from suppliers using National Framework Contracts
From the NHS Supply Chain which provides end-to-end supply chain services incorporating procurement, logistics, e-commerce and customer and supplier support
The NHS Supply Chain is a single organisation created for the benefit of NHS trusts, hospitals and other healthcare organisations. The organisation combines the former NHS Logistics Authority, significant parts of the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency, expertise in healthcare logistics from DHL and procurement experience from Novation.
PROCUREMENT ROUTES National contracts Tenders: Contracts for products and services valued at over £90,319 (01 Jan 2008) must be advertised in the Supplement to the daily Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU). Procurement levels change, but you can confirm the current level by visiting: http://www.ojec.com.
NHS-sid: This is the official NHS supplier information database on which companies can enter their information for free:
http://www.sid4health.nhs.uk. It rationalises the management of pre-qualification data during the procurement process and can only be fully accessed by authorised NHS personnel. Suppliers looking to compete for advertised NHS contracts must still submit applications in the required format. Any supplier is free to register its services on NHS-sid. The information published is made freely available to NHS users. Registering on this system does not imply that a supplier has any special or ‘approved’ status. Regional contracts Collaborative organisations: Most NHS trusts are now partners in ‘collaborative procurement organisations’ where, normally on a regional basis, they can share information and resources to achieve economies of scale.
Local contracts Individual trust contracts: Local contracts are often managed by a trust’s supplies department. Its approach to suppliers will vary according to the value, size and complexity of its requirements. DH has set down procurement guidelines indicating that for contracts valued below £3,000 a trust should ask for telephone quotes; for contracts valued between £3,000 and £10,000, it should request a minimum of three written quotes; for contracts valued above £10,000, a minimum of three formal written tenders should be sought. Actual interpretations of these guidelines vary from trust to trust.
PRODUCTS FOR GP PRESCRIPTION
Suppliers wishing to list their products under the Drug Tariff for prescription by GPs or nurses must seek approval from the NHS Business Service Authority (NHSBSA). These will usually be products for self-administration, possibly with a carer’s help, and will normally fall into the following categories: dressings, bandage and associated appliances, incontinence appliances, stoma appliances, and chemical reagents. If the NHSBSA grant approval, the cost, either comparatively with other similar products, or, if it is a new treatment regime, by comparison with alternatives, will be reimbursed. You can access the application form at: www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk.
ESTATES – CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
DH uses two major Public and Private Partnerships (PPPs) to deliver its NHS Plan: the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) and NHS Local Improvement Finance Trust (LIFT). The NHS ProCure 21 Framework brings the NHS and the construction industry together for new-build projects. You can find information on PPPs and associated procurement policies at: www.dh.gov.uk.
INNOVATION – NEW PRODUCTS
The procurement routes above apply to established products. If you are a supplier of innovative products, you should be aware of the organisations involved in product approval:
The UK Medicines and Healthcare product Regulatory Agency (MHRA) This is the government agency responsible for ensuring that medicines and medical devices work and are safe.
Regulatory affairs: Medical devices can only be placed on the market in the UK/EU if they are certified safe, are of the required quality to fulfill the manufacturer’s ‘intended purpose’ and comply with the appropriate Medical Device Directive (CE marking). The MHRA audits the performance of manufacturers and notifies bodies responsible for granting CE marks. You can find more details at: www.mhra.gov.uk.
Clinical trials: The MHRA approves clinical trials/investigations and provides guidance for manufacturers. To obtain a CE mark, a manufacturer must show that the device complies with the relevant ‘Essential Requirements’ of the appropriate Medical Device Directive. In some instances, a clinical investigation will be required. The MHRA website (listed above) provides guidance on this issue.
Small Business Research Initiative (SBRI): The new SBRI is a cross-government programme for the procurement of technology development projects, including the demonstration and evaluation of new technologies. DH has run a pilot SBRI competition in Healthcare Associated Infections in conjunction with the Technology Strategy Board. The benefit to the Department and the NHS is to make new developments available faster and more effectively. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) NICE (www.nice.org.uk) is responsible for providing national guidance on the promotion of good health and the prevention and treatment of ill health. Its activities include:
Technology appraisals – Recommendations on the use of new and existing medicines and treatments within the NHS, based upon a review of clinical and economic evidence Interventional procedure guidance – Many of the procedures that NICE investigates are new, but it also looks at more established procedures if there is uncertainty about their safety or how well they work
NHS National Innovation Centre (NIC): NIC determines the need for innovative products, particularly in the development stage, and speeds up the development and adoption of those that deliver the best results for patients. It provides a point of entry to innovators of healthcare technology via its website and through a web-based assessment process. By considering ideas and products at every stage, it can direct them to the most.
P&C is a preferred vendor for vision source Vision Source has over 3,300 locally owned optometry practices. Each one could carry Pure and Clean's products. https://visionsource.com/vendors/
========================== DesertEagle Saturday, 08/15/20 01:06:56 AM Re: None 0
Post # of 125226
It doesn't take a rocket scientist...
to figure out where PCT Ltd is heading and why the Q1 was average and each subsequent Q will be much better. As the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words...
1. PCT LTD Increases Fluid Capacity, Hires New Design Engineer, Ramps Up Midwest Fulfillment Capabilities. 2. PCT LTD Announces Receipts of New Purchase Orders for Annihilyzer Infection Control Systems in NYC Hospitals. 3. PCT LTD Reports Q3 2019 Financials; Revenue Increases 435%, Operating Expenses Decrease 4. PCT EUROPE LTD Signs Distribution Agreement with UK NHS Company, Receives Additional NYC Hospital Orders. 5. PCT LTD Discusses Its Rapid Growth and Expansion Plans. 6. PCT LTD Continues Accelerated Expansion with New Hospital Installations and Fluids Distributors. 7. PCT LTD Formalizes Agreement with PCT EUROPE and Provides Update on Current Business Operations. 8. PCT LTD Adds Additional Distributors, Announces New Hospital Installations and Provides Shareholder Update. 9. PCT LTD Discusses the Increasing Demand for Disinfecting Solutions. 10. PCT LTD Provides Update to Public, Distributors and Sub-Registrants Regarding Use of Products. 11. PCT LTD Provides Update on 2019 10-K Filing, Highlights Revenue Growth, Expense Decrease. 12. PCT LTD Provides Update on US Healthcare Related Activities. 13. PCT LTD Provides Update of Authorized Distributors and Supplemental Registrants.
When the "STOP" comes off and the Q2 comes out we go from Dip to Rip... that is my projection.
DesertEagle Saturday, 08/01/20 10:58:19 AM Re: beer$$money post# 122827 100.000
Post # of 122846
Yes sir, will be big business for PCTL...
Currently there are 225 NHS Trusts in the United Kingdom and anyone who knows how the social healthcare systems work knows that once one trust comes on board, the rest will normally follow suit.
One or two trusts doesn't sound like much to someone that doesn't understand how the system works, but each one of those is responsible for the approval and purchasing of equipment for multiple hospitals, clinics and long term care facilities.
As an example, Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust manages 14 Hospitals and Clinics and North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust manages 17 Hospitals and Clinics. And those 31 Hospitals and Clinics do not represent the Long Term Care facilities under their control as well.
As many people like "Facts not Fiction" and "Proof", the below list represents the current Trusts operating in the United Kingdom...
Airedale NHS Foundation Trust Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust Ashford and St Peter's Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health NHS Trust Barnsley Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Barts Health NHS Trust Bedford Hospital NHS Trust Berkshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust Birmingham Community Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust Birmingham Women's and Children's NHS Foundation Trust Black Country Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust Blackpool Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Bolton NHS Foundation Trust Bradford District NHS Foundation Trust Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Bridgewater Community Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust Burton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust Cambridgeshire Community Services NHS Trust Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust Central London Community Healthcare NHS Trust Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Foundation Trust Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust Cornwall Partnership NHS Foundation Trust Countess Of Chester Hospital NHS Foundation Trust County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust Coventry and Warwickshire Partnership NHS Trust Croydon Health Services NHS Trust Cumbria Northumberland Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust Derbyshire Community Health Services NHS Foundation Trust Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust Devon Partnership NHS Trust Doncaster and Bassetlaw Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Dorset County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust Dudley and Walsall Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust East Cheshire NHS Trust East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust East London NHS Foundation Trust East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust East Of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust East Suffolk and North Essex NHS Foundation Trust East Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust Gateshead Health NHS Foundation Trust George Eliot Hospital NHS Trust Gloucestershire Care Services NHS Trust Gloucestershire Health and Care NHS Foundation Trust Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust Great Western Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Harrogate and District NHS Foundation Trust Hertfordshire Community NHS Trust Hertfordshire Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust Homerton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Hounslow and Richmond Community Healthcare NHS Trust Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust Humber Teaching NHS Foundation Trust Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust Isle Of Wight NHS Trust James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Kent and Medway NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust Kent Community Health NHS Foundation Trust Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation Trust King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Kingston Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Lancashire & South Cumbria NHS Foundation Trust Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Leeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust Leeds Community Healthcare NHS Trust Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust Lincolnshire Community Health Services NHS Trust Lincolnshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust Liverpool Heart and Chest NHS Foundation Trust Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Liverpool Women's NHS Foundation Trust London Ambulance Service NHS Trust London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust Luton and Dunstable University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust Medway NHS Foundation Trust Mersey Care NHS Foundation Trust Mid and south Essex Foundation Trust Mid Cheshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust Midlands Partnership NHS Foundation Trust Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust Norfolk Community Health and Care NHS Trust North Bristol NHS Trust North Cumbria Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust North Cumbria University Hospitals NHS Trust North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust North East London NHS Foundation Trust North Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust North Staffordshire Combined Healthcare NHS Trust North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust North West Ambulance Service NHS Trust North West Anglia NHS Foundation Trust North West Boroughs Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust Northern Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Foundation Trust Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust Poole Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust Project Nightingale NHS Trust Queen Victoria Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic and District Hospital NHS Trust Rotherham Doncaster and South Humber NHS Foundation Trust Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust Royal Papworth Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust Sheffield Children's NHS Foundation Trust Sheffield Health and Social Care NHS Foundation Trust Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust Shropshire Community Health NHS Trust Solent NHS Trust Somerset Partnership NHS Foundation Trust South Central Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust South East Coast Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust South Tyneside And Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust South Tyneside NHS Foundation Trust South Warwickshire NHS Foundation Trust South West London and St George's Mental Health NHS Trust South West Yorkshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust South Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust Southport and Ormskirk Hospital NHS Trust St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust St Helens and Knowsley Hospitals NHS Trust Stockport NHS Foundation Trust Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust Sussex Community NHS Foundation Trust Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust Tameside Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Taunton and Somerset NHS Foundation Trust Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust The Christie NHS Foundation Trust The Clatterbridge Cancer Centre NHS Foundation Trust The Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust The Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust The Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust The Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn. NHS Foundation Trust The Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust The Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust The Royal Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Foundation Trust The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust The Walton Centre NHS Foundation Trust Torbay and South Devon NHS Foundation Trust United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust University Hospital of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust University Hospitals Of Leicester NHS Trust University Hospitals Of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust University Hospitals of North Midlands University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust Warrington and Halton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust West London NHS Trust West Midlands Ambulance Service University NHS Foundation Trust West Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Whittington Health NHS Trust Wirral Community NHS Foundation Trust Wirral University Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust Worcestershire Health and Care NHS Trust Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust Wye Valley NHS Trust Yeovil District Hospital NHS Foundation Trust York Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust
Now when people tell you that PCTL getting their foot into the door of the NHS system isn't a big deal, you can tell them you know better.
DE
aandt Saturday, August 1, 2020 9:32:43 AM Re: None Post # of 122844 Repur/Collaborative Technologies
Looks like they will be in the food industry, they were just approved by the USDA and added to the NSF (National Sanitation Foundation) list. https://info.nsf.org/USDA/Listings.asp (search for RePur).
Lots of interesting info. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7315945/ J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020 Jun 25 doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2020.06.029 [Epub ahead of print] PMCID: PMC7315945 PMID: 32653307 Hypochlorous Acid: A Review Michael S. Block, DMD** and Brian G. Rowan, DMD, MD† includes, for example: Quote:
Abstract The surgeon needs to have an inexpensive, available, nontoxic, and practical disinfectant that is effective in sanitizing against the COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease 2019) virus. The purpose of this article was to review the evidence for using hypochlorous acid in the office setting on a daily basis. The method used to assemble recommendations was a review of the literature including evidence for this solution when used in different locations and industries other than the oral-maxillofacial clinic facility. The results indicate that this material can be used with a high predictability for disinfecting against the COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease 2019) virus.
Quote:
Stability of Solution Rossi-Fedele et al35 investigated the shelf life of HOCl by being either exposed to or protected from sunlight. When the HOCl solution was exposed to sunlight, the chlorine reduction started on day 4. When it was sheltered from sunlight, the chlorine reduction started after day 14. The half-life increases with decreasing pH owing to the decreasing ratio of OCl–to HOCl.36 The parts per million (ppm) is the concentration of the –OCl, which is the active ingredient and is known as the available free chlorine (AFC) in the solution. HOCl solutions are less stable when exposed to UV radiation, sunlight, or contact with air or when the temperature of the solution is elevated greater than 25°C. HOCl solutions should be stored in cool, dark places, and contact with air should be minimized. The water for fabrication should be water that contains organic and inorganic ion concentrations that are as small as possible.37, 38, 39, 40
Concentration Related to Time Needed for Virucidal Action HOCl has been shown to inactivate a variety of viruses including coronaviruses in less than 1 minute.39 At a concentration of 200 ppm, HOCl is effective in decontaminating inert surfaces carrying noroviruses and other enteric viruses in a 1-minute contact time. When diluted 10-fold, HOCl solutions at 20 ppm were still effective in decontaminating environmental surfaces carrying viruses in a 10-minute contact time.
Quote:
Discussion The coronavirus pandemic has caused both a massive health care and economic disruption across the world. The current unavailability of an effective antiviral drug or approved vaccine means that the implementation of effective preventive measures is necessary to counteract COVID-19. Oral-maxillofacial surgeons are high-risk providers providing needed care to patients. As more OMS and surgical offices open during reopening in the United States and elsewhere in the world, the need to reduce the risk of transmission of COVID-19 between patients and providers is necessary. It is widely believed that with proper screening and discretion, along with adequate personal protective equipment, there is a low probability of becoming infected. The goal of this article is to provide information regarding disinfection in the clinical office setting using HOCl, a relatively inexpensive, nontoxic, noncorrosive, and well-studied compound.
HOCl has uses in many industries from farming and restaurants, regarding food, to health care applications, including chronic wound care and disinfection.34 , 36 , 43 , 45 , 46 , 63 In addition to the use of HOCl as a liquid-based disinfectant, fogging with hypochlorous vapor has shown virucidal activity against numerous types of viruses and bacteria.40 , 56 , 57 This is of potential benefit to disinfect large spaces such as medical and dental offices where aerosols can be airborne for extended periods.42 , 44 , 64 In terms of particle size, oral-maxillofacial surgeons may be at a slightly lower risk than their dental counterparts because ultrasonic scaling and high-speed handpieces create smaller particles that remain airborne longer.42 However, aerosols are still created with surgical handpieces. Additionally, the COVID-19 virus can be present on some surfaces for days, and the disinfection of all surfaces of an operatory is important to reduce transmission.9 , 10
Many properties of HOCl contribute to why it may be the disinfectant of choice in the OMS setting. Although the shelf life of HOCl is relatively short, it is effective for up to 2 weeks under ideal conditions.35 It can be made on-site inexpensively. A gallon of HOCl can be purchased from manufacturers but it is far more economical for an oral-maxillofacial surgeon to produce the solution on-site in the office.65 A variety of HOCl systems costing less than $275 are available on the market.66 By combining non-iodinated salt, water, and electricity,33 1 L of HOCl can be made in 8 minutes and the process can be repeated many times throughout the day. By comparison, a pack of common disinfecting wipes containing quaternary ammonium compounds costs between $4 and $15 for a pack containing 80 sheets. These wipes may only last a day or two depending the size of the office and area to clean. Shortages of these products can occur, making sourcing them difficult as well.67
In addition to using HOCl in the form of wipes for disinfecting, using HOCl vapors through a fogging machine is an economical way to disinfect a large operating room or suite in which aerosols were produced during surgery. Foggers or misting machines are handheld machines and can be purchased for a reasonable cost.68 The aerosol mist ideally should be less than 20 µm in size to maximally disinfect an area. It is important to note that the fogging process can alter the physical and chemical properties of the disinfectant, making it more dilute and basic. As mentioned before, the AFC concentration can be reduced by approximately 70% and the pH can increase by about 1.3.40 To make a vapor as effective as a solution containing 100 ppm of HOCl, the solution would need to be concentrated. The fine mist can be left in the empty surgical room without thought regarding harmful chemical effects; the surfaces are then wiped clean and dry after a few minutes and, for a more dilute solution, after 10 minutes.
HOCl is one disinfectant that, when combined with adequate personal protective equipment, screening and social-distancing techniques, hand washing, and high-volume evacuation suction, may help reduce the transmission of COVID-19 in the outpatient OMS setting. It comprises many of the desired effects of the ideal disinfectant: It is easy to use, is inexpensive, has a good safety profile, and can be used to disinfect large areas quickly and with a broad range of bactericidal and virucidal effects.
March 23, 2020 Hypochlorous acid (HClO) is recommended for hand washing and disinfecting the environment Oliver Ho, Ph.D. Candidate | Institute of Health and Welfare Policy, School of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan A study published by Allison E. Aiello in 2012 (1) suggested that in the early stages of an influenza outbreak, the government should promote anti-epidemic measures to wear masks and maintain hand hygiene. The community infection caused by the COVID-19 virus caused panic among the population, which caused insufficient resources for masks and disinfectant supplies.
In Japan, research on the use of hypochlorous acid was carried out 20 years ago (2). Hypochlorous acid has a good effect in disinfection. It is not as toxic as bleach and it is not as prone to fire as alcohol. In Japan it is also used for medical, food, and workplace disinfection, including hand washing or surgery, and even as a mouthwash (2, 3). However, too high a concentration may cause damage to the skin, and too low a concentration may lack bactericidal power. If hypochlorous acid water is used on the skin, like alcohol, excessive use may cause skin allergies. The use of hypochlorous acid in environmental disinfection should be avoided on iron and rust. Hypochlorous water for environmental disinfection is 100 ppm, If sprayed directly on the hands, 30-50 ppm is recommended to avoid excessive damage to the skin. To avoid skin irritation, rinse with water after use.
References: 1. Aiello, AE, Perez, V., Coulborn, RM, Davis, BM, Uddin, M., & Monto, AS (2012). Facemasks, hand hygiene, and influenza among young adults: a randomized intervention trial. PloS one, 7 (1).
2. OKUBO, K., URAKAMI, H., & TAMURA, A. (1999). Cytotoxicity and microbicidal activity of electrolyzed strong acid water and acidic hypochlorite solution under isotonic conditions. Journal of Infectious Diseases, 73 (10).
3. Ono Tomoko. (2012). Examples of application of various germ bactericidal effects of weakly acidic hypoglycinic acid aqueous solution. Journal of the Japan Society of Pharmaceutical Industry = Journal of the Brewing Society of Japan, 107 (2), 100-109.
========================= fourfive6 Wednesday, July 22, 2020 10:15:17 AM Re: None Post # of 121147 I’m hearing some chatter re: this G2/Blackstone mashup — Y2X Life Sciences — anyone hearing anything?
This all ties back to NY Presbyterian and allegedly, a handful of their board members making introductions — I’m wondering if the PR last Friday is related?
If nothing else, nice to see the sector continue its take off — this rising tide will continue to elevate PCTL and the IP.
I am a former dairy farmer and have family members still running farms, so I also have been curious about this. Here is some research I have found. Not specific to PCTL but general to HOCL applications
After 10K 0.048-0.066 After 1st 10Q 0.065-0.127 with certain news it could go much higher to the dollar range After 2nd 10Q 0.18-0.776 with certain news it could go well over a dollar on a run
From Me: Reasons for PCTL to run...
1) The patented Annihilyzer® Infection Control System, Annihilyzer® On Site Generator and Large Volume production unit sales and leases continue to grow in 2020. PCTL is expanding to meet the increase in demand with new facilities in Fort Wayne, Indiana.
2) PCT Ltd recently announced they had reached a final agreement with Paradigm Convergence Technologies (Europe) Ltd. The agreement was enacted on May 25th, 2020 and will secure a mutually beneficial business relationship between the two entities, in which PCTL will hold a beneficial stake. This agreement opens up the United Kingdom and 5 European countries to the PCT Ltd systems. The equipment will be manufactured in the United Sates and shipped to the United Kingdom and Europe.
3) PCT Ltd continues to increase hospital installations. In a recent interview, Mr. Grieco (CEO) indicated that 3 additional installations have been completed since May 18th 2020 and he sees PCT Ltd performing an additional 2 to 3 installations per month through the rest of the year. Each one of these systems represent recurring revenue to the company.
4) PCT Ltd is adding additional distributors to continue its expansion. BOX Bioscience (www.boxbioscience.com) of Mount Pleasant, SC with operations in North Carolina was recently approved as a Level 3 distributor. Ryan Cowell, CEO of BOX Bioscience stated “We were very excited to learn of this distributorship opportunity because our business was seeking this type of high-quality source for HOCL”.
5) Although PCT Ltd is primarily focused on the development and deployment of their patented Annihilyzer® Infection Control System and Annihilyzer® On Site Generator to address the 36 Billion Dollar per year Hospital Acquired Infections market, they have quickly adapted their business model to also supply their Hydrolyte® disinfecting fluids to all parts of the country due to the surge in demand caused by the current Covid-19 pandemic.
6) PCT Ltd’s Hydrolyte® is currently listed on 6 EPA lists of registered products. List B: Products Effective Against Mycobacterium tuberculosis List C: Products Effective Against Human HIV-1 Virus List F: Products Effective Against Hepatitis C List G: Products Effective Against Norovirus List H: Products Effective Against MRSA and/or VRE List N: Products for use against SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19
7) PCT Ltd’s revenue continue to increase year over year. 2015: $141 2016: $113,387 2017: $123,105 2018: $266,122 2019: $534,852 (9 months ending September 30, 2019) 2020: Record Breaking
8) Due to the current Covid-19 Pandemic, the Full Year 2019 10-K has been delayed. It is expected that the Full Year 2019 10-K will be released quickly followed by the 1st Quarter 10-Q and then the 2nd Quarter 10-Q soon after that.
Because we believe these releases will happen in quick succession and show that the company is increasing revenue while decreasing debt and at the same time expanding hospital installations and distributors to meet current and future demand, we feel that a substantial run up in share price is inevitable when the company becomes current.
9) As PCT Ltd expands their footprint in the United States, United Kingdom and Europe, we expect the company to move up to the OTCQB later in 2020 and move off the OTC and on to a major exchange early in 2021.
And the above is missing these 5 distributors: Advanced Environmental Solutions, Inc Collaborative Technologies Llc Danolyte Global, Inc. Earth Safe Solutions, Llc Net Zero Tools Inc
I am not trying to be controversial. It seems like you appreciate that proper DD is done. I am just adding to the DD for this stock, so that the correct info is posted. If you believe there are 77 sites instead of the above 47 sites, then what are your additional 30 sites?
======================================================= falon Wednesday, July 15, 2020 9:24:50 AM Re: None Post # of 119913 The evolution of Paradigm Convergence Technologies Corporation
PCTL's successful launch of the Annihilyzer System 18 months ago leads to a system in 20% of hospitals in New York City. PCTL’s flagship product Annihililyzer was, is and will be the foundation of the company’s success moving forward.
The company was on the brink of faltering due to its growing debt and had to execute toxic financing for its survival.
Then PCTL received an unexpected gift due to unprecedented demand for HOCI because of the Covid-19 pandemic.
What the CEO did by shifting the focus to supplying HOCI due to the high demand and need, enabled PCTL to establish a more stable financial condition that it has ever seen.
There are many companies selling HOCI so to increase PCTL’s footprint the CEO increased production and brought on more distributors. The high demand for HOCI will continue in the foreseeable future however it isn’t going to last forever and competition will increase moving forward.
What has given PCTL an edge is that we were already established providing HOCI, they have a supply chain already in place and have equipment to produce large quantities of product.
ALL the other areas PCTL has business interests including oil and gas, food safety, agriculture, and cannabis to name a few should be adding to the bottom line moving forward.
There are many types of whole room disinfection systems but none like the Annihilyzer.
It is my belief that the Annihilyzer is really going to be the ultimate game changer. It is just too versatile, cost effective and provides hospitals not only with a whole room disinfection system but a second product for the price of one.
FACTS about the Annihilyzer:
The best solution to a multi-billion dollar problem.
The Most Technologically Advanced Disinfection System Ever Created to Eliminate Hospital Associated Infections (HAIs) using Patented RFID Technology for Tracking and Disinfecting Protocols.
Why is the Annihilyzer Infection Control System one of the best and most versatile in the world ?
The Annihilyzer System is truly a cost-effective Green Seal Certified end-to-end total facility disinfection and cleaning system. This system generates both a hospital grade disinfectant and a very effective cleaning solution to cover virtually all of your cleaning and disinfection needs. These on-site generators produce stable electrochemically activated solutions, OSG 460D - Hospital Grade Disinfectant that is effective against C. diff, MRSA, and VRE, and an OSG 11-12 All Purpose Cleaner, and downtime for the process is only 15 - 20 minutes with no special preparation or precautions necessary.
The Annihilyzer System doesn't stop there, though. The icing on the cake is our state-of-the-art whole-room and handheld electrostatic sprayers that make quick work of completely disinfecting a room. Our 460D disinfectant can even be used to disinfect floors without leaving a haze or residue. We use a powerful non-synthetic disinfectant along with an automated electrostatic spray cart and/or electrostatic sprayers and patented RFID tracking technology that together are unmatched the industry to ensure proper and complete application.
What can the Annihilyzer do?
Save time and money by generating disinfectant and all-purpose cleaner on-site, on-demand
Eliminate the toughest bacteria, viruses, and fungi, including C. diff, C. auris, MRSA, VRE, blood-borne pathogens, and more.
Create 'industry best' protocols and 'push' them out to your cleaning staff in real-time with the Annihilist dashboard and mobile app
Generate reports that show when the areas were cleaned, who cleaned them, and what was done
Increase staff efficiency and effectiveness with process tracking, training, and accountability
How does the Annihilyzer save companies money?
Costs associated with purchasing and managing chemicals – eliminated
Freight charges for chemical deliveries – eliminated
Chemical container disposal or recycling costs – eliminated
Personal protection gear for cleaning – eliminated
Wastewater disposal costs and related fines for non-compliance – eliminated
Workers comp claims due to chemical burns and fume inhalation – eliminated
Happier, healthier and more productive workers
Same or better cleaning power than traditional hazardous chemicals for less
Eliminates costs associated with ordering, inventorying and disposing of chemicals and containers
How many hospitals are in NYC?
There are 62 acute care hospitals in New York City.
How many hospitals in NYC have at least one Annihilyzer System?
PCTL has installed at least 14 systems and gained 22.5% market share in NYC hospitals in less than 18 months.
Most Technologically Advanced Disinfection System Ever Created Annihilyzer the future for Healthcare and other Industries
During the Coronavirus Pandemic a Hospital with the Annihilyzer in place was in a better position than a hospital without it. Many hospitals will be asking themselves what could we have done differently? If they know about the Annihilyzer, having one will certainly be one of their answers. This is not the last so they have to put themselves in the best position for future events.
What is a better investment for a whole room Infection Control System:
Annihilyzer versus an UV system?
They both disinfect effectively however the Annihilyzer provides an additional products, an all purpose cleaner and handheld electrostatic sprayers that can be used in other parts of the hospital in the presence of people because it is “Green Certified”. Also the Annihilyzer cost less than half that of one of the best UV system on the market, the Xenex “LightStrike” cost about $125,000,
Annihilyzer versus a Chemical (Hydrogen Peroxide) based system?
They both disinfect effectively however the Annihilyzer provides an additional products, an all purpose cleaner and handheld electrostatic sprayers that can be used in other parts of the hospital in the presence of people because it is “Green Certified”. Chemical based solutions require protective equipment, are more expensive and are harsh on furniture and one company called Hanosil sells their machine for under $10,000 however it costs $20 in product to clean each room.
It cost $1 in HOCI to clean a room.
================================================
DesertEagle tv debut ( this will not be active till probably end of August) will post when an interview/ or when DE’s add’s begin appearing.
Anybody worried about PCTL ability to deliver their flagship product, "the Annihilyzer" just needs to look at the Family Corporate facilities of the Tippmann Group that will be producing them for PCTL! Check out the warehouse locations here:
Tippmann Affiliated Group is a family owned organization with a diversified group of business segments throughout North America and around the world. Current business segments include:
Manufacturing Sales and Marketing Warehousing Logistics Digital Media E-Commerce Approaching a half-century in business, Tippmann Affiliated Group businesses hold 17 patents and numerous product and service awards in various industries, including Automotive, Food Service, Refrigeration, Medical Device and Transportation.
More Cannabis DD.. PCTL distributors are killing it
The other day was posted a Cannabis connection to Growash. Continuing PCT Ltd. Research using the PCTL’s sub registrant number 92108-1-88098 Clean Republic there is another Cannabis connection. Clean Republic, Plantaid and Cause + Medic are associated with each other.
PlantAid has 2 products one designed to clean plants. (Due to EPA regulations they can’t say it does anything else in accordance with PCTL’s EPA reg number). The other product is used for equipment, tools and irrigation systems. Irrigation systems would be associated with hydroponic cultivation which is used in Cannabis growing besides fruits and veggies. You’ll also notice under “shop” they produce Hemp seeds. Again under “shop” you’ll see the connection back to Clean Republic.
============================================= beer$$money Sunday, May 10, 2020 5:16:39 PM Re: beer$$money post# 100472 Post # of 102445 Easy to make a sprayer! Tulsa Firefighters Use Hypochlorous Acid to clean their trucks.
My understanding these Firefighters are working with Advanced Environmental Solutions, Inc. ("AES, Inc.") of Meeker, Oklahoma.
Most recently, PCT Corp. has executed a collaborative agreement with Advanced Environmental Solutions, Inc. ("AES, Inc.") of Meeker, Oklahoma. AES, Inc. purchased two (2) high-volume units of PCT Corp.'s equipment and is building out a 2,500 s.f. production facility as it develops its oil & gas and Cannabis applications.
Re: None Post # of 102445 Only 3 trading days left before the 10-K.
PCT Ltd has...
* EPA Approved List N: Disinfectants for Use Against SARS-CoV-2 * EPA Approved List G: Antimicrobial Products Effective Against Norovirus * Green Seal Certified Equipment
May 8th, 2020 PCT LTD Continues Accelerated Expansion with NEW Hospital Installations and Fluid Distributors April 21st, 2020 PCT LTD Discusses Its Rapid Growth and Expansion Plans with The Stock Day Podcast April 16th, 2020 PCT Europe Ltd. Signs Distribution Agreement with UK NHS Company, Recieves Additional NYC Hospital Order April 15th, 2020 PCT LTD Reports Q3 2019 Financials; Revenue Increases 435%, Operating Expenses Decrease April 14th, 2020 PCT LTD Announces Receipts of New Purchase Orders for ANNIHILYZER Infection Control System in NYC Hospitals April 7th, 2020 PCT LTD Increases Fluid Capacity, Hires New Design Engineer, Ramps Up Midwest Fulfillment Capabilities March 27th, 2020 PCT LTD Obtains EPA Approval for Emerging Pathogens Labeling for use Against SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus that causes the disease COVID-19 March 25th, 2020 PCT LTD Expands Production Capacity and Accelerates Hypochlorous Acid Production and Sales March 18th, 2020 PCT LTD Receives Large Purchase Order for Recurring Sales of Fluids for Non-Medical Use and Explains Current Revenue Streams March 16th, 2020 PCT LTD Discusses Their Unique Annihilyzer™ Disinfecting System and Impact of The Coronavirus with The Stock Day Podcast March 13th, 2020 PCT LTD Adds International Distributor and Sells High-Volume Equipment to Existing Customer as a Result of Heightened Demand
Paradigm Convergence Technologies Corporation... The Right Company in the Right Place at the Right Time!
Don't get caught chasing it. =========================
Re: None Post # of 102018 New video from Alex G on LinkedIn
Medama HOCL being traditionally sprayed and electrostatically sprayed(via our Medama PCTL electrostatic cart)at a major Healthcare system in Westchester NY.
As the Director said to me, "hypochlorous, the new normal".
With the SDS HMIS ratings of O,O,O,O, this should definitely be the single choice/method for all institutions that are interested in disinfecting any surfaces; while ensuring that their customers understand, that their health and safety is their number one priority.
BIGBUCKS Member Level Friday, 05/01/20 12:27:58 PM Re: None 0 Post # 98897 of 98999 PCTL. EPA List N: Products with Emerging Viral Pathogens AND Human Coronavirus claims for use against SARS-CoV-2>the novel coronavirus that causes the disease COVID-19. EPA List N was last updated Today March 26, 2020 and added PCTL 92108-1 Hypochlorous acid Excelyte Vet How does EPA know that these products work on SARS-CoV-2? While these products have not been tested against SARS-CoV-2, the cause of COVID-19, they are expected to be effective based on: Demonstrated efficacy against a harder-to-kill virus; Qualified for the emerging viral pathogens claim; or Demonstrated efficacy against another human coronavirus similar to SARS-CoV-2. SARS-CoV-2 the novel coronavirus that causes the disease COVID-19 is a new virus. Such pathogens are often unavailable commercially for laboratory testing. https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/list-n-disinfectants-use-against-sars-cov-2https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/frequently-asked-questions-about-list-n-disinfectants-use-against-sars-cov-2#Q1 on[fq2D505A0D-3F24-4D0D-B592-02E1BCE41BBB.jpeg 1,125×1,033 pixels ======================= Chapmax Re: lucky,mydog post# 98713 0 Post # 98907of 98994
ACTION NEEDED Pctl has been trying to get in contact with the government to make them aware of our machine & what it can do We can help with & in our numbers send them copies of the DD that’s been posted
This is the contact point in government that needs to know about pctl Paradigm Convergence Technology. (Read below)
Info they’ll need: PODCAST LINK click Click in search....Pctl
This is who we can contact in government to make them aware of our machine.
point of entry for the submission of market research packages and meeting requests from interested stakeholders. The U.S. government, in response to the COVID-19 outbreak, seeks information from stakeholders on available medical countermeasures in development. We are particularly interested in products and technologies that have progressed into or beyond non-clinical trials, have established large-scale cGMP manufacturing capability, or utilize an approved platform. Information regarding diagnostics, therapeutics, vaccines, and other products or technologies relevant to addressing this outbreak are sought. At this time, we ask for a brief description of your product or technology, accompanied by a slide deck, manuscript, publications, or other non-confidential information of your choosing. Please note that while we will use any information you present as market research, submission is no guarantee of a meeting or funding and your submission will be shared across U.S. Government agencies involved in COVID-19 medical countermeasure research and development. Only U.S. government officials are invited to join a CoronaWatch meeting, and are bound by law to maintain confidentiality of what is presented and discussed. Ideal technologies and products would (but are not required to) be: * - Relevant to the U.S. government COVID-19 medical countermeasure research and development efforts and/or Emerging .Infectious Disease rapid response capabilities * - Utilize an already-approved platform, have non-clinical data suggesting efficacy, and/or have significant manufacturing capability * - Fully owned or licensed by your organization (you have full IP rights and/or freedom to operate)
Would you like to meet with a federal agency regarding a product that you are developing for COVID-19? If you are interested in requesting a CoronaWatch meeting, please Register for an account and Login, or if you have an account Login to submit some basic product information.
Paradigm Convergence Technologies Corporation Summarized Due Diligence Sheet for Investing [color=red]
ACTION NEEDEDPctl has been trying to get in contact with the government to make them aware of our machine & what it can do We can help with & in our numbers send them copies of the DD that’s been
This is the contact point in government that needs to know about pctl Paradigm Convergence Technology. (Read below)
This is who we can contact in government to make them aware of our machine.
point of entry for the submission of market research packages and meeting requests from interested stakeholders. The U.S. government, in response to the COVID-19 outbreak, seeks information from stakeholders on available medical countermeasures in development. We are particularly interested in products and technologies that have progressed into or beyond non-clinical trials, have established large-scale cGMP manufacturing capability, or utilize an approved platform. Information regarding diagnostics, therapeutics, vaccines, and other products or technologies relevant to addressing this outbreak are sought. At this time, we ask for a brief description of your product or technology, accompanied by a slide deck, manuscript, publications, or other non-confidential information of your choosing. Please note that while we will use any information you present as market research, submission is no guarantee of a meeting or funding and your submission will be shared across U.S. Government agencies involved in COVID-19 medical countermeasure research and development. Only U.S. government officials are invited to join a CoronaWatch meeting, and are bound by law to maintain confidentiality of what is presented and discussed. Ideal technologies and products would (but are not required to) be: * - Relevant to the U.S. government COVID-19 medical countermeasure research and development efforts and/or Emerging .Infectious Disease rapid response capabilities * - Utilize an already-approved platform, have non-clinical data suggesting efficacy, and/or have significant manufacturing capability * - Fully owned or licensed by your organization (you have full IP rights and/or freedom to operate)
Would you like to meet with a federal agency regarding a product that you are developing for COVID-19? If you are interested in requesting a CoronaWatch meeting, please Register for an account and Login, or if you have an account Login to submit some basic product information.
Company Site: para-con.com Twitter: @PCTL2020 Investor Relations Chesapeake Group - Get on the email list for news info@chesapeakegp.com
About: a technology licensing company specializing in environmentally safe solutions for global sustainability with products for various markets they serve.
Mission: Infectious Disease and Contamination Control
About Products: Products and solutions are designed to take an environmentally conscious approach to combating the spread of infectious disease in the Healthcare and Cleaning industries, as well as contributing to the sustainability of global natural resources in the energy and agriculture markets.
The PCT Annihilyzer® Patented Monitoring, Tracking & Reporting System The Kiosk, which sits on top of the Filling Station Cabinet, houses The PCT Annihilyzer® System’s computer controls, information system, RFID tagging and reading system and an interactive touch screen display.
---FINANCIAL INFO---
Filings: LINK
Current info as of 3/9/20 Authorized- 1,000,000,000 Outstanding- 511,315,300 Restricted- 35,139,690
Standard Registrar and Transfer Company 440 East 400 South, Suite 200 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Phone: 801-571-8844 or 801-596-2150 www.standardtransferco.com Amy Merrill Email: amy@standardregistrar.com
---CURRENT CLIENT LIST---
1: Morgan Stanley Presbyterian Children’s Hospital. (3959 Broadway At, W 165 St, New York NY 10032)
2: Mount Sinai South Nassau Hospital (1 Healthy Way, Oceanside NY 11572)
3: Carson Tahoe Regional Medical Center (1600 Medical Pkwy, Carson City NV 89703)
4: SUNY Downstate Medical Center (450 Clarkson Ave, Brooklyn NY 11203)
6: Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center ??? Maybe (1275 York Avenue New York, NY 10065)
7: North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust, (UK Trial underway began Jan 15th 2020 - 60 day trial) (University Hospital of Hartlepool, Holdforth Road, Hartlepool, TS24 9AH) (University Hospital of North Tees, Hardwick, Stockton on Tees, TS19 8PE)
8: New York Presbyterian Columbia Hospital (Ranked Top 5 in the Nation) (622 W 168th St, New York NY 10032) ---VP recently endorsed in a LinkedIn post---
9: New York Hospital -- as per PR Release (labeled #1 below)
---PR & RELATED INFORMATION---
1. 03/11/20 - PCT LTD Experiencing Rapid Increase in Interest and Receives Purchase Order from Additional Hospital in New York City PR LINK
2. 03/09/20 - Interview: PCT LTD Hospital Infection Control System installed in seven hospitals and expanding INTERVIEW LINK
3. 02/14/20 - PCT LTD Schedules Investor Call (Call took place on 2/20/20) PR LINK Audio Link (Written Summation below)
4. 01/30/20 - PCT LTD Executes Term Sheet for Debt Financing PR LINK
5. 01/08/20 - PCT LTD Discusses Their International Expansion and Growth Strategy with The Stock Day Podcast PR LINK
6. 12/16/19 - PCT LTD Issues Company Update and Signs Collaborative Agreement for Oil & Gas, and Cannabis Applications PR LINK
7. 10/31/19 - PCT LTD Continues to Expand By Signing Agreement with SUNY Downstate Medical Center Worth over $500,000 PR LINK
8. 10/25/19 - 3rd Quarter 8K released (see above FILINGS link)
9. 10/22/19 - Hospital-acquired Infection Control Market Is Estimated To Expand At a Healthy CAGR in the Upcoming Forecast Period MARKET RESEARCH PR
10. 10/22/19 - PCT LTD Deploys Initial Annihilyzer(R) Infection Control System to the United Kingdom PR LINK
11. 10/4/19 - PCT LTD Announces Additional Hospital Installation of Annihilyzer(R) Infection Control System PR LINK
12. 7/26/19 - The Infection Prevention Strategy is pleased to announce our Top Innovations of the Year: 2019 (Annihilyzer) PR LINK
13. 5/6/2019 - PCT LTD Announces New Purchase Order as the Result of a Successful Trial of Annihilyzer® Infection Control Systems (A TOP 5 hospital in the U.S. AND --#1 in NY-- CONVERTED from Trial to a customer AFTER a successful trial period) - Morgan Stanley Presbyterian Children’s Hospital PR LINK
14. 2/25/19 - PCT LTD Installs a Large Volume Hydrolyte® System with Option Agreement for 4 additional LVH Systems with Oil & Gas Industry Customer PR LINK
15. 1/10/19 - PCT LTD Executes New Master Service Agreement for Installation of Annihilyzer® Hospital Infection Control System at Carson Tahoe Regional Medical Center PR LINK
16. 11/08/18 - PCT LTD Announces Completion of Major Commercialization Milestones and Promotion of Jody Read to CEO Position PR LINK
17. 5/16/18 - Newly Launched Disinfecting System Reduces Hospital Acquired Infections PR LINK
18. 5/10/18 - PCT LTD Receives Patents for RFID Tracking Technology in Cleaning System (US Patent#9679170) PR LINK
3rd Quarter 10Q In final review with auditors & SEC Attorneys Expected to be completed in up to 3 weeks (updated per IR email--- expected in the next week)
10K Expected to be filed by April 13th
Convertible Notes "very active negotiations" to come to a resolve by time of 10K filing (April 13th)
No material change is O/S in months
very actively negotiating financing with negligible, if any, dissolution No anticipation of R/S
---Growth of about 400% in 2019--- on target to grow exponentially in 2020
G&A down significantly company become more efficicent, losses narrowed significantly down around 75% from 2018
---Currently Doing---
PCT UK joint venture partner Trial ongoing: Universities as well as hospitals involved to verify U.S. results "unless bacteria and virsuses are any different, which they aren't, don't anticipate any difficulty verifying claims"
"Preliminary discussions between PCT UK and National Healthcare system of the UK"
---Markets--- Primary Focus on healthcare sector - hospitals, medical centers assisted living, rehab facilities
Secondarily - Oil & Gas, remediation of Hydrogen Sulfide (very poisonous, corrosive, and flammable)
Recently - Cannabis Industry - purveyor of service "Happy to discover our product greatly mitigates or totally eliminates the 3 major problems they are having"
---Current Placement--- (Does not include newest NY Hospital announced above in PR on 3/11/20) 8 hospitals, 11 units installed with "3 more slated in next few weeks with more behind it"
Endorsement from VP of MY Presbyterian [Suppressed Image]
Not sure how many are aware of BARDA, but I came across a post on Twitter this evening and after doing a little digging, found this:
Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, was established to aid in securing our nation from chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) threats, as well as from pandemic influenza (PI) and emerging infectious diseases (EID).
In my eyes that's most certainly an organization that should be aware of the Annihilyzer product, so I connected with their Director, Rick B and provided a post on Linkedin for more exposure to their request of building out a comprehensive portfolio of COVID-19 countermeasures. See below.
(For my privacy, I did redact my information on the image)
Post made to BARDA Director, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Preparedness & Response - U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
[Suppressed Image]
Post made to BARDA Director, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Preparedness & Response - U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
UPDATED DUE DILIGENCE 3-17 - RESEARCH NOW Below is a good portion of the DD done here, by myself and others. Do YOURS now! (Also pinned on top of board)
Paradigm Convergence Technologies Corporation Summarized Due Diligence Sheet for Investing
---GENERAL INFORMATION---
Company Site: para-con.com Twitter: @PCTL2020 - (I urge you to follow them and review their posts) Investor Relations Chesapeake Group - Get on the email list for news info@chesapeakegp.com
About: a technology licensing company specializing in environmentally safe solutions for global sustainability with products for various markets they serve.
Mission: Infectious Disease and Contamination Control
About Products: Products and solutions are designed to take an environmentally conscious approach to combating the spread of infectious disease in the Healthcare and Cleaning industries, as well as contributing to the sustainability of global natural resources in the energy and agriculture markets.
The PCT Annihilyzer® Patented Monitoring, Tracking & Reporting System The Kiosk, which sits on top of the Filling Station Cabinet, houses The PCT Annihilyzer® System’s computer controls, information system, RFID tagging and reading system and an interactive touch screen display.
---FINANCIAL INFO---
Filings: LINK
Current info as of 3/9/20 Authorized- 1,000,000,000 Outstanding- 511,315,300 Restricted- 35,139,690
Standard Registrar and Transfer Company 440 East 400 South, Suite 200 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Phone: 801-571-8844 or 801-596-2150 www.standardtransferco.com Amy Merrill Email: amy@standardregistrar.com
---CURRENT CLIENT LIST---
1: Morgan Stanley Presbyterian Children’s Hospital. (3959 Broadway At, W 165 St, New York NY 10032)
2: Mount Sinai South Nassau Hospital (1 Healthy Way, Oceanside NY 11572)
3: Carson Tahoe Regional Medical Center (1600 Medical Pkwy, Carson City NV 89703)
4: SUNY Downstate Medical Center (450 Clarkson Ave, Brooklyn NY 11203)
6: Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center ??? Maybe (1275 York Avenue New York, NY 10065)
7: North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust, (UK Trial underway began Jan 15th 2020 - 60 day trial) (University Hospital of Hartlepool, Holdforth Road, Hartlepool, TS24 9AH) (University Hospital of North Tees, Hardwick, Stockton on Tees, TS19 8PE)
8: New York Presbyterian Columbia Hospital (Ranked Top 5 in the Nation) (622 W 168th St, New York NY 10032) ---VP recently endorsed in a LinkedIn post---
9: New York Hospital -- as per PR Release (labeled #1 below)
---PR & RELATED INFORMATION---
1. 03/18/20 - PCT LTD Receives Large Purchase Order for Recurring Sales of Fluids for Non-Medical Use and Explains Current Revenue Streams PR LINK
2. 03/16/20 - PCT LTD Interview with Stock Day Podcast (MUST LISTEN) PR LINK
3. 03/13/20 - PCT LTD Adds International Distributor and Sells High-Volume Equipment to Existing Customer as a Result of Heightened Demand PR LINK
4. 03/11/20 - PCT LTD Experiencing Rapid Increase in Interest and Receives Purchase Order from Additional Hospital in New York City PR LINK
5. 03/09/20 - Interview: PCT LTD Hospital Infection Control System installed in seven hospitals and expanding INTERVIEW LINK
6. 02/14/20 - PCT LTD Schedules Investor Call (Call took place on 2/20/20) PR LINK Audio Link (Written Summation below)
7. 01/30/20 - PCT LTD Executes Term Sheet for Debt Financing PR LINK
8. 01/08/20 - PCT LTD Discusses Their International Expansion and Growth Strategy with The Stock Day Podcast PR LINK
9. 12/16/19 - PCT LTD Issues Company Update and Signs Collaborative Agreement for Oil & Gas, and Cannabis Applications PR LINK
10. 10/31/19 - PCT LTD Continues to Expand By Signing Agreement with SUNY Downstate Medical Center Worth over $500,000 PR LINK
11. 10/25/19 - 3rd Quarter 8K released (see above FILINGS link)
12. 10/22/19 - Hospital-acquired Infection Control Market Is Estimated To Expand At a Healthy CAGR in the Upcoming Forecast Period MARKET RESEARCH PR
13. 10/22/19 - PCT LTD Deploys Initial Annihilyzer(R) Infection Control System to the United Kingdom PR LINK
14. 10/4/19 - PCT LTD Announces Additional Hospital Installation of Annihilyzer(R) Infection Control System PR LINK
15. 7/26/19 - The Infection Prevention Strategy is pleased to announce our Top Innovations of the Year: 2019 (Annihilyzer) PR LINK
16. 5/6/2019 - PCT LTD Announces New Purchase Order as the Result of a Successful Trial of Annihilyzer® Infection Control Systems (A TOP 5 hospital in the U.S. AND --#1 in NY-- CONVERTED from Trial to a customer AFTER a successful trial period) - Morgan Stanley Presbyterian Children’s Hospital PR LINK
17. 2/25/19 - PCT LTD Installs a Large Volume Hydrolyte® System with Option Agreement for 4 additional LVH Systems with Oil & Gas Industry Customer PR LINK
18. 1/10/19 - PCT LTD Executes New Master Service Agreement for Installation of Annihilyzer® Hospital Infection Control System at Carson Tahoe Regional Medical Center PR LINK
19. 11/08/18 - PCT LTD Announces Completion of Major Commercialization Milestones and Promotion of Jody Read to CEO Position PR LINK
20. 5/16/18 - Newly Launched Disinfecting System Reduces Hospital Acquired Infections PR LINK
21. 5/10/18 - PCT LTD Receives Patents for RFID Tracking Technology in Cleaning System (US Patent#9679170) PR LINK
3rd Quarter 10Q In final review with auditors & SEC Attorneys Expected to be completed in up to 3 weeks (updated per IR email--- expected in the next week)
10K Expected to be filed by April 13th
Convertible Notes "very active negotiations" to come to a resolve by time of 10K filing (April 13th)
No material change is O/S in months
very actively negotiating financing with negligible, if any, dissolution No anticipation of R/S
---Growth of about 400% in 2019--- on target to grow exponentially in 2020
G&A down significantly company become more efficicent, losses narrowed significantly down around 75% from 2018
---Currently Doing---
PCT UK joint venture partner Trial ongoing: Universities as well as hospitals involved to verify U.S. results "unless bacteria and virsuses are any different, which they aren't, don't anticipate any difficulty verifying claims"
"Preliminary discussions between PCT UK and National Healthcare system of the UK"
---Markets--- Primary Focus on healthcare sector - hospitals, medical centers assisted living, rehab facilities
Secondarily - Oil & Gas, remidiation of Hydrogen Sulfide (very poisonous, corrosive, and flammable)
Recently - Cannabis Industry - purveyor of service "Happy to discover our product greatly mitigates or totally elimiants the 3 major problems they are having"
---Current Placement--- (Does not include newest NY Hospital announced above in PR on 3/11/20) 8 hospitals, 11 units installed with "3 more slated in next few weeks with more behind it"
Endorsement from VP of MY Presbyterian and other execs [Suppressed Image]
[Suppressed Image]
[Suppressed Image]
[Suppressed Image]
Not sure how many are aware of BARDA, but I came across a post on Twitter this evening and after doing a little digging, found this:
Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, was established to aid in securing our nation from chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) threats, as well as from pandemic influenza (PI) and emerging infectious diseases (EID).
In my eyes that's most certainly an organization that should be aware of the Annihilyzer product, so I connected with their Director, Rick B and provided a post on Linkedin for more exposure to their request of building out a. comprehensive portfolio of COVID-19 countermeasures. See below.
(For my privacy, I did redact my information on the image)
Post made to BARDA Director, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Preparedness & Response - U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
================= exactly what the EPA said
Quote:
List N includes products that meet EPA’s criteria for use against SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus that causes the disease COVID-19.
The key word here is against The EPA does not come out and say any products on these lists will kill CV-19. However I doubt the EPA would use a strong word as against in the above statement.
Quote:
Note: Inclusion on this list does not constitute an endorsement by EPA. There may be additional disinfectants that meet the criteria for use against SARS-CoV-2. EPA will update this list with additional products as needed.
It's pretty obvious this disclaimer is stating the EPA does not endorse as in recommend any product that's listed. They do not because it would constitute marketing for that product.... The EPA also recognizes that there are other products that meet the criteria against SARS-CV-2 AKA Coronavirus. Why do they make this statement? Because there are other products that are registered with the EPA that are not on this list that meets the criteria against CV-19
Nothing hard to understand there. Here is the a pic of it below:
[Suppressed Image]
Lets move on
List N: Disinfectants for Use Against SARS-CoV-2 | Pesticide ...www.epa.gov › pesticide-registration › list-n-disinfectants-use-against-... If a product qualified for the Emerging Viral Pathogen Claim, it demonstrated efficacy against a harder-to-kill virus than the enveloped human coronavirus
From this statement we know that EXCELYTE which meets this criteria. How do we know this? We know because they are on the N list under EPA registration 92108-1. I also believe this Reg number can be used against the harder to lill Norovirus. Coronavirus is easier to kill than Norovirus. Any amount of basic DD will show that.
Below is the reg and product number for EXCELYTE [Suppressed Image]
Finally Below is the EPA reg link for EXCELYTE showing it's registered to PCT Ltd. This link is the original registration.
Pretty basic stuff is you ask me lol ============== Pics of the product - Sorry about it being sideways
[Suppressed Image]
[Suppressed Image]
[Suppressed Image]
============ PCT LTD Obtains EPA Approval for Emerging Pathogens Labeling for Use Against SARS-CoV-2, the Novel Coronavirus That Causes the Disease COVID-19 Business WireMarch 27, 2020, 9:49 AM CST
PCT LTD (OTC Pink: PCTL) ("PCTL") is pleased to announce that it has received approval for "emerging pathogens" labeling with the US EPA.
The application was filed under the guidance document "Guidance to Registrants: Process for Making Claims Against Emerging Viral Pathogens Not on EPA-Registered Disinfectant Labels." It was approved on March 26th, 2020. The guidance document provides the following information regarding different classes of viruses and their resistance to being killed by disinfectants:
EPA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recognize that certain microorganisms can be ranked with respect to their tolerance to chemical disinfectants. The Spaulding Classification model, used by CDC, tiers microorganisms in accordance with the level of resistance to being killed (inactivation) by typical disinfectant products. With this approach viruses are divided into three viral subgroups (small non-enveloped, large non-enveloped, and enveloped) based on their relative resistance to inactivation … According to this hierarchy, if an antimicrobial product can kill a small, non-enveloped virus it should be able to kill any large, non-enveloped virus or any enveloped virus. Similarly, a product that can kill a large, non-enveloped virus should be able to kill any enveloped virus.
Small, Non-Enveloped Viruses (<50 nm): These small, non-enveloped viruses can be highly resistant to inactivation by disinfection. Despite the lack of a lipid envelope, these organisms have a very resistant protein capsid…
Large, Non-Enveloped Viruses: Compared to small, non-enveloped viruses, these viruses are less resistant to inactivation by disinfection. Although they have a resistant protein capsid, their larger size (50-100nm) makes them more vulnerable than their smaller viral counterparts…
Enveloped Viruses: Enveloped viruses are the least resistant to inactivation by disinfection. The structure of these viruses includes a lipid envelope, which is easily compromised by most disinfectants. Once the lipid envelope is damaged, the integrity of the virus is compromised, thereby neutralizing its infectivity.
In addition to being "an EPA-registered, hospital/healthcare or broad-spectrum disinfectant …", in order to meet product eligibility criteria, the product "should have disinfectant efficacy claims against at least one of the following viral pathogen groupings:
a) A product should be approved by EPA to inactivate at least one large or one small non-enveloped virus to be eligible for use against an enveloped emerging viral pathogen.
b) A product should be approved by EPA to inactivate at least one small, non-enveloped virus to be eligible for use against a large, non-enveloped emerging viral pathogen.
c) A product should be approved by EPA to inactivate at least two small, non-enveloped viruses with each from a different viral family to be eligible for use against a small, non-enveloped emerging viral pathogen.
This approach, where disinfectant products registered for use against viral pathogens in one category of the Spaulding Classification model can be presumed effective against viral pathogens in less-resistant categories, is intended to serve as a conservative approach to identifying disinfectant products likely to be effective against emerging pathogens."
As a result of meeting all of the Product Eligibility Criteria, PCT LTD can now make the following statement "only through the following communication outlets: … "1-800" consumer information services, social media sites and company websites (non-label related) … [as well as] technical literature distributed exclusively to health care facilities, physicians, nurses and public health officials":
This Product meets the criteria to make claims against certain emerging viral pathogens from the following viral category[ies]:
Enveloped Viruses
Large Non-Enveloped Viruses
Small Non-Enveloped Viruses
For an emerging viral pathogen that is a/an… …follow the directions for use for the following organisms on the label: Enveloped virus Norovirus Large, non-enveloped virus Norovirus Small, non-enveloped virus Norovirus, Rhinovirus (Type 16)
Hydrolyte® has demonstrated effectiveness against viruses similar to SARS-CoV-2 virus on hard, non-porous surfaces. Therefore, Hydrolyte® can be used against SARS-CoV-2 virus when used in accordance with the directions for use against Norovirus and Rhinovirus type 16 on hard, non-porous surfaces. Refer to the CDC website at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/home/cleaning-disinfection.html for additional information.
COVID-19 is caused by SARS-CoV-2 virus. Hydrolyte® kills similar viruses and therefore can be used against SARS-CoV-2 virus when used in accordance with the directions for use against Norovirus and Rhinovirus type 16 on hard, non-porous surfaces. Refer to the CDC website at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/home/cleaning-disinfection.html for additional information.
"We are very pleased to receive approval for an "emerging pathogens" claim on our product label," says CEO Gary Grieco. "It represents an important step for us as a business and in helping to control the spread of infectious disease as a whole. Additionally, we are now prequalified for future emerging pathogens of any virus classification."
Due to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, PCT LTD has seen an increased number of inquiries from existing clients, sub-registrants, and distributors; in addition to new and prospective customers. The company recently announced that they had temporarily shifted their focus towards producing mass quantities of disinfecting fluids to meet growing demand.
"Fluid sales have been tremendous for us," says PCT Ltd CEO Gary Grieco. "To put it simply, we are routinely shipping fluids out at rapid pace and into the hands of trained professionals where our product can be put to good use fighting the spread of infectious disease in our communities. We are limited only by our capacity to produce the fluids, but we expect to double our production capacity by April 1st."
Additional News and Corporate Updates:
PCTL would like to warn its stockholders and potential investors that material corporate information regarding sales, areas of business and other corporate updates will only be made through press releases or filings with the SEC. PCTL does not utilize social media, chatrooms or other online sources to disclose material information. The public should only rely on official press releases and corporate filings for accurate and up to date information regarding PCTL.
About PCT LTD:
PCT LTD ("PCTL") focuses its business on acquiring, developing and providing sustainable, environmentally safe disinfecting, cleaning and tracking technologies. The company acquires and holds rights to innovative products and technologies, which are commercialized through its wholly-owned operating subsidiary, Paradigm Convergence Technologies Corporation (PCT Corp). Currently trading on OTC, "PCTL" aspires to and is actively engaged in preparations for up-listing its common stock to a national securities exchange. The Company established entry into its target markets with commercially viable products in the United States and now continues to gain market share in the U.S. and U.K.
Forward-Looking Statements:
This press release contains "forward-looking statements" as defined in Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21B of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Any statements that express or involve discussions with respect to predictions, expectations, beliefs, plans, projections, objectives, goals, assumptions or future events or performance are not statements of historical fact and may be "forward-looking statements."
Such statements are based on expectations, estimates and projections at the time the statements are made that involve a number of risks and uncertainties, which could cause actual results or events to differ materially from those presently anticipated. Such statements involve risks and uncertainties, including but not limited to: the impact of having met the EPA Criteria for use Against SARS-CoV-2, actual sales derived by the Company; the transition to producing large quantities of fluids; PCTL's and its subsidiary's business prospects; PCTL's ability to raise sufficient funds to satisfy its working capital requirements; the ability of PCTL to execute its business plan; any other effects resulting from the information disclosed above; risks and effects of legal and administrative proceedings and government regulation; future financial and operational results; competition; general economic conditions; and the ability to manage and continue growth. Should one or more of these risks or uncertainties materialize, or should underlying assumptions prove incorrect, actual outcomes may vary materially from those indicated. Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking statements PCTL makes in this press release include market conditions and those set forth in reports or documents it files from time to time with the SEC. PCTL undertakes no obligation to revise or update such statements to reflect current events or circumstances after the date hereof or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.
Gary Grieco, CEO and Chairman, PCT LTD (843) 390-7900 Office (843) 390-2347 Fax www.para-con.com www.pctcorphealth.com www.survivalyte.com
Brokers and Analysts: Chesapeake Group +1-410-825-3930 info@chesapeakegp.com ==================================================================================================================. CANADA INFO & LINKS BokehRebl Tuesday, 03/31/20 10:29:25 PM Re: Long term post# 78282 ? 0 Post # 78283 of 78339
Here’s THE list I put together of all relevant contact in the US and Canadien Government, Feel free to add more!
Louisiana Alexander Billioux, MD, DPhil [Bio] Assistant Secretary of Health Alexander.Billioux@LA.GOV
Maine Nirav Shah, MD, JD* Director, Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention Nirav.Shah@Maine.Gov
Maryland Robert Neall Secretary of Health Frances B. Phillips, RN, MHA [Bio] Deputy Secretary for Public Health Services S/THO Designee robert.neall@maryland.gov
Michigan Joneigh Khaldun, MD, MPH, FACEP [Bio] Chief Deputy Director for Health and CME khaldunj@michigan.gov
Minnesota Jan Malcolm [Bio] Health Commissioner jan.malcolm@state.mn.us
Mississippi Thomas Dobbs, MD, MPH* State Health Officer thomas.dobbs@msdh.ms.gov
Missouri Randall W. Williams, MD, FACOG [Bio] Director randall.williams@health.mo.gov
Montana Sheila Hogan Director Gregory Holzman, MD [Bio] Chief Medical Officer S/THO Designee gHolzman@mt.gov
Nebraska Dannette Smith, MSW * Chief Executive Officer, Nebraska Department of Health & Human Services Gary Anthone, MD Chief Medical Officer and Director, Division of Public Health S/THO Designee Dannette.Smith@nebraska.gov
Nevada Lisa Sherych, MBA* Administrator lsherych@adsd.nv.gov
New Hampshire Lisa Morris, MSSW [Bio] Director, Division of Public Health Service lisa.morris@dhhs.nh.gov
New Jersey Judith Persichilli RN, BSN, MA* Commissioner of Health Judith.Pershichilli@doh.nj.gov
New York Howard Zucker, MD, JD [Bio] Commissioner of Health howard.zucker@health.ny.gov
North Carolina Mark Benton [Bio] Assistant Secretary for Public Health mark.benton@dhhs.nc.gov
North Dakota Mylynn K. Tufte, MBA, MSIM, RN [Bio] State Health Officer mylynntufte@nd.gov
Ohio Amy Acton, MD, MPH [Bio] Director of Health DirectorAmyActon@odh.ohio.gov
Oklahoma Gary Cox, JD* Commissioner of Health GaryC@health.ok.gov
Oregon Lillian M. Shirley, BSN, MPH, MPA [Bio] Public Health Director lillian.shirley@state.or.us
Pennsylvania Rachel Levine, MD [Bio] Secretary of Health ralevine@pa.gov
Puerto Rico Rafael Rodriguez Mercado, MD, FACS, FAANS Secretary of Health Catherine De La Cruz-Duran* S/THO Designee drrafael.rodriguez@salud.pr.gov
Rhode Island Nicole Alexander-Scott, MD, MPH [Bio] Director nicole.alexanderscott@health.ri.gov
South Carolina Richard Toomey, MHA, DHA [Bio] Director, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control Rick.Toomey@dhec.sc.gov
South Dakota Kim Malsam-Rysdon [Bio] Secretary kim.malsam-rysdon@state.sd.us
Tennessee Lisa Piercey MD, MBA, FAAP [Bio] Commissioner tn.health@tn.gov
Texas John Hellerstedt, MD [Bio] Commissioner john.hellerstedt@dshs.texas.gov
Utah Joseph Miner, MD [Bio] Executive Director joeminer@utah.gov
Vermont Mark Levine, MD [Bio] Commissioner of Health mark.levine@vermont.gov
Virginia M. Norman Oliver, MD, MA [Bio] State Health Commissioner norm.oliver@vdh.virginia.gov
Washington John M. Wiesman, DrPH, MPH [Bio] Secretary of Health secretary@doh.wa.gov
West Virginia Cathy Slemp, MD, MPH [Bio] Commissioner and State Health Officer catherine.slemp@wv.gov
Wisconsin Jeanne Ayers, RN, MPH [Bio] Administrator, Division of Public Health Jeanne.Ayers@dhs.wisconsin.gov
Wyoming Alexia Harrist, MD, PhD [Bio] State Health Officer alexia.harrist1@wyo.gov —————————————
davidsan Wednesday, April 1, 2020 4:57:18 PM Re: None Post # 78774 of 78834 Can PCTL's fluid turn sour crude oil into sweet?
I vaguely remember this was something said in discussing why that large unnamed oil&gas company was so interested in setting up the customized trial they are doing. I remember clearly that it helped make the liquid involved in fracking much more environmentally friendly, much more green, with a more pure and less costly product, something to that effect. There was some big reason why that oil&gas company was so excited about it. If the oil&gas industry incorporates this into their standard processes, with the sheer volume of this fluid they will need every day, that will be HUGE, just that one piece of all this alone. Somewhere in there I thought I remembered that in the process it helped turn sour crude into sweet, just don't recall how specific that point was.
Anyone here remember?
This is so much more than just hospitals and spraying to kill the coronavirus. The agricultural/cannabis industry and oil&gas industry customized trials are going on as well.
And, of course, the UK trials are about to hit (The UK hospital trial already completed, and the 2 university studies are supposed to complete the end of March to first week of April, meaning anytime now). Just waiting on results and orders, both expected to be very favorable.
Hypochlorous Acid Market Demand Would Increase Rapidly Hypochlorous Acid Market: Excellent Microbial and Oxidizing Properties Hypochlorous acid is a weak acid formed by dissolving chlorine in water. It possesses excellent microbial and oxidizing properties. It is used as a disinfectant agent in medical, water treatment, and food additives in food & beverages industry. Sodium hypochlorite and calcium hypochlorite are the two types of hypochlorous acid. Sodium hypochlorite is a widely consumed hypochlorous acid. Sodium hypochlorite can be easily stored and transported. It is more effective than chlorine gas in various applications. Read report Overview@ https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/hypochlorous-acid-market.html Hypochlorous acid is employed in various end-user industries such as water treatment, wound management, food & beverages, oil & gas, and personal care. Demand for hypochlorous acid in the wound management segment is projected to rise significantly in the near future. Hypochlorous acid acts as an excellent disinfectant in wound healing applications. It accelerates the healing process of any wound and other infections such as eye infection, ear infection, etc. Hypochlorous acid has excellent disinfectant properties, which help destroy pathogens, bacteria, and fungi. Request PDF Brochure@ https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/sample/sample.php?flag=B&rep_id=68783 Key drivers of Hypochlorous Acid market Rise in demand for oxidizing and disinfecting agents in order to provide quality water is driving the global hypochlorous acid market. Hypochlorous acid is highly cost effective. It is non-toxic to humans and animals. Therefore, it is highly preferred in the water treatment industry. Rise in usage of hypochlorous acid in sterilizing bacterial infection by drying out blood cells is boosting its demand in the medical industry. Hypochlorous acid is also used as an active sanitizing agent in swimming pools and skin cleansing agent in cosmetic applications. It is used in the manufacture of calcium hypochlorite (Ca(OCl)2) and sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), which are further used in the manufacture of disinfectants, bleaches, and deodorants. Food & Beverage Industry and Wound Management to offer attractive opportunities Increase in usage of hypochlorous acid in the food & beverages industry is estimated to provide lucrative opportunities to manufacturers of hypochlorous acid in the near future. Hypochlorous acid is used for cleaning food processing equipment and dish washers. It is also employed as food additive in processing poultry products and seafood products. Hypochlorous acid is gaining momentum as a potential wound care agent in the pharmaceutical industry. It is a highly effective wound irrigation solution, which is entirely safe for human tissues. It aids in elimination of unpleasant wound odor and removes bacteria from wound surface. Hypochlorous Acid may form Explosive Gas in Concentrated Form likely to Restrain Market Hypochlorous acid is highly dangerous and can form explosive gas if used in concentrated form. This is anticipated to restrain the market during the forecast period. When exposed to air, it disintegrates and causes nausea, abdomen pain, etc. If released in water bodies, hypochlorous acid may harm aquatic animals, thereby adversely affecting biodiversity. These factors are estimated to restrain the demand for hypochlorous acid during the forecast period. Stuck in a neck-to-neck competition with other brands? Request a custom report on competition on Hypochlorous Acid Market here Asia Pacific Expected to Hold Leading Share in the Global Hypochlorous Acid Market In terms of region, the demand for hypochlorous acid can be split across five regions: North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, Latin America, and Middle East & Africa. In terms of consumption, Asia Pacific dominated the global hypochlorous acid market in 2018. Developing economies such as China, India, Vietnam, and Indonesia are the leading consumers of hypochlorous acid in Asia Pacific. Rapid industrialization and increase in demand for sodium hypochlorite in chemical, agriculture, and pharmaceutical industries are anticipated to fuel the hypochlorous acid market during the forecast period. Demand for hypochlorous acid in countries in Europe such as Germany, France, and the U.K. is projected to increase during the forecast period primarily due to the rise in demand for sodium and calcium hypochlorite in the food & beverages industry in the region. The U.S. is the leading consumer of hypochlorous acid in North America. Increase in demand for hypochlorous acid in industrial applications such as cooling water treatment is propelling the market in the U.S. Latin America and Middle East & Africa are highly dependent on hypochlorous acid import. This is likely to hamper the sales of hypochlorous acid in these regions. However, production capacity expansion by various manufacturers in Brazil, Mexico, and GCC is expected to augment the demand for hypochlorous acid in Latin America and Middle East & Africa during the forecast period. Key Players in Hypochlorous Acid Market: New product launches and mergers & acquisitions are the key strategies adopted by top players operating in the market. For instance, in 2018, URGO Medical, a leading player in wound care products, entered into an asset purchasing agreement with REALM Therapeutics, a biopharmaceutical company based in the U.S. REALM Therapeutics engages in research activities to discover new hypochlorous acid based treatments for atopic dermatitis and allergic conjunctivitis. This acquisition is expected to help URGO Medical become the leading player in advanced wound care business across the globe. Key players operating in the global hypochlorous acid market include Lenntech B.V. BASF SE Arkema S.A. Lonza. Inovyn Chlorvinyls Limited Olin Corporation Nouryon (Previously under Akzo Nobel N.V.'s coating division) Occidental Petroleum Corporation Kuehne Company AGC Chemicals Surpass Chemical Company, Inc. Westlake Chemical Corporation Clorox Company Tianjin Ruifuxin Chemical Tosoh Corporation Aditya Birla Chemicals Aqualution Systems Ltd Ultrapure HOCL (Pty) Ltd Others
=================== Friday, April 3, 2020 10:10:28 AM Cherry Re: None Post # 80097 of 80187 WHY YOU WANT TO BUY ALL THE PCTL YOU CAN
Right now, IMO, before PCT LTD (ticker PCTL) announces the UK hospital results which might potentially lead to 600+ hospital installations in the UK, before the March 2020 revenues from increased fluid sales are known, before the scientific data on treating disease/mold/fungi in the citrus & cannabis industries is announced, before results from the oil & gas industry testing, and before the delayed 2019 Q3 of which will contain outdated information from over 6 months ago-
People reading here may have read and seen, in bits and pieces, all these things below.
How anyone interprets & verifies anything, and researches further, is up to them. Nothing here is advice.
Since late 2019: More hospitals, More distribution, More geographic regions, More production capacity, More sales of the fluid itself & increasing dramatically, EPA approved on List N to disinfect surfaces for NCOV-19-SARS-2, Existing clients are buying more systems or extending their contracts,
=============== Tuesday, 04/07/20 11:13:24 AM Re: Patience 1 post# 81708 0.005 Post # 81730 of 82300
Quote:
NEWS OUT!! 4/7/20, 9:55 AM LITTLE RIVER, S.C.--(BUSINESS WIRE)
PCT LTD (OTC Pink: PCTL) ("PCTL") is excited to announce they have increased production capacity at their Little River, South Carolina facility.
Updating an earlier release (March 25th), the South Carolina facility is now capable of producing up to 10,000 gallons of fluids per day. A marked increase over earlier capabilities. The company is now better positioned to meet the growing demand for its Hypochlorous Acid-based disinfecting fluids.
“Our team has been working around the clock over the last several weeks to make this happen,” says Stuart Emmons, PCTL Executive VP of Engineering and R & D. “The South Carolina facility is now better positioned to fulfill the daily orders we have been receiving.”
Due in part to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, the company has seen an exponential increase in sales and inquiries from current and prospective customers. Late last month the company shifted its short-term focus towards fluid production and sales to meet increasing demand.
“It’s supply and demand,” according to PCTL CEO Gary Grieco. “The demand is there and now so is the supply. We needed to shift our focus towards where we can have the most impact and do the most good for our customers and the communities they serve. At the same time, this presents an opportunity for us to elevate our profile, grow our business, and showcase how effective our products can be in the ongoing fight against the spread of infectious disease.”
The company has also been hiring additional support staff to support growing business operations. Most recently, the company engaged Joseph Tippmann, graduate of The University of Michigan’s Industrial Design and Architecture program, as a new design engineer. Tippmann joined the company on a contract basis initially and has spent the past two weeks performing design updates on Annihilyzer and Hydrolyte Rack systems in addition to helping design a more modular system for easier assembly.
Tippmann is also a co-owner of Werks Manufacturing, a Fort Wayne, Indiana based manufacturing company which PCTL engages for the purpose of manufacturing and assembling parts for use in the company’s Annihilyzer® Infection Control System and other systems.
Werks Manufacturing is expanding their operation and will increase parts and assembly production to meet PCTL’s growing demand. In addition, Werks will also serve as a fluid depot for PCTL’s clients in the northern Midwest part of the United States. Werks will initially be capable of producing up to 4,000 gallons per day of disinfecting fluids, including Hydrolyte®, for sale and use by PCTL to clients in Detroit, Chicago, and throughout the region. This fluid production capacity can be increased as needed to serve growing demand.
“We are continuing our rapid growth plans,” says Grieco. “Through strategic partnerships, distribution agreements, and more, we are gaining market share, increasing revenue at a rapid pace, and growing our business both quickly and efficiently.”
Additional News and Corporate Updates:
PCTL would like to warn its stockholders and potential investors that material corporate information regarding sales, areas of business and other corporate updates will only be made through press releases or filings with the SEC. PCTL does not utilize social media, chatrooms or other online sources to disclose material information. The public should only rely on official press releases and corporate filings for accurate and up to date information regarding PCTL. ====================
Wednesday, April 8, 2020 1:22:30 PM Beer money Re: None Post # 82319 of 82350 Yes Gary Grieco, PCTL CEO, stated, "As a result of the capabilities and benefits of our products, many companies and municipalities across a variety of industries and geographic locations are engaging in intense discussions with PCT LTD."
PCTL "The 800 pound gorilla, Corona-virus, that has opened up a huge opportunity for us and I can not say any more than that we have been contacted by, and are actively negotiating to address the problem with both companies and government officials and I can not say more than that."
In addition, Grieco further commented, "All of our hospital customers using our infection control system and disinfectant are utilizing the systems as a front-line defense throughout their facilities, including in all public area such as restrooms, lobbies, waiting rooms, elevators, corridors, cafeterias, etc. all throughout the day and night and in the presence of patients, staff and visitors."
============ Thursday, April 9, 2020 10:01:52 AM Re: None Post # 82599 of 82789 Hypochlorous Acid Okay For Easter Eggs Hypochlorous acid is cleared by the FDA for use on meat, poultry, fish & seafood, fruits & vegetables and shell eggs as a no-rinse sanitizer. FCN 1811 is a Food Contact Notification (FCN) from the FDA for using electrolytically generated hypochlorous acid as an antimicrobial agent in an aqueous solution in the production and preparation of whole or cut meat and poultry; processed and preformed meat and poultry; fish and seafood; fruits and vegetables; and shell eggs. To read more about food contact notification 1811, visit the FDA website in the link below. https://www.hypochlorousacid.com/regulation [Suppressed Image]
================== Thursday, April 9, 2020 10:35:37 AM Re: None Post # 82670 of 82807 Why the NHS and Private Clinics Should Look Further than Alcohol-Based Sanitisers The CoViD-19 pandemic has brought alcohol to the fore; whether it is the amount the British public is consuming to get through self-isolation or the level required in hand sanitiser to make it effective, the news stories are everywhere. Many of these revolving around the shortage of traditional alcohol-based hand sanitisers and how prices are soaring. With this being the case, why then don’t the NHS and other health care facilities look elsewhere? Is there no other option? In fact, there is another option which is rapidly emerging as the new go-to sanitiser during the CoViD-19 pandemic; Hypochlorous Acid (HOCl). What is Hypochlorous Acid? HOCI is generated when white blood cells attack harmful bacteria and is harmless to the human body. In December 2019 Optometry Times published an article on HOCl and they explain it much better than I can… “HOCl is a weak acid that occurs naturally in our body. Neutrophils are white blood cells that are the first to arrive on site when an invading pathogen is detected. Neutrophils will chase down and engulf the pathogen through phagocytosis. Upon contact, neutrophils release a burst of bactericidal chemicals including its most powerful oxidizing agent, HOCl. This kills the pathogen by tearing down the cell membranes and proteins”. Optometry Times called HOCl “the perfect weapon to fight germs. It hits hard against pathogens like Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) and Pseudomonas Aeroginosa. Yet this powerful weapon is 100 percent safe for humans, chemical free, non-toxic and all-natural”. Due to these attributes HOCl is being widely used in South Korea in their battle against CoViD-19, disinfecting everything from food to people to hospital wards and their mass transit systems. Looking at the way in which they have taken control of the spread of the virus it is clear to see that HOCl can also help the United Kingdom to gain the upper hand in this struggle. https://www.belle.org.uk/news-1/2020/4/2/why-the-nhs-and-private-clinics-should-look-to-hypochlorous-acid-rather-than-alcohol-based-sanitisers
=============
beer$$money ?
Sunday, April 12, 2020 8:04:27 PM Re: BIGBUCKS post# 83703
Post # 83709 of 83745 Alex Guttman Author> Huge interest being developed on LinkedIN VP marketing and Research at Ace Janitorial, Sales Mgr Escalator Cleaning company, Senior VP HAI Consultants
Randy Stiles can't mention names without permission but I can say that most of the major healthcare systems in NYC are now using our system
Randy Stiles +Executive Account Manager at Paylidify
Jon Pickett, MBA is this being used at all Memorial Healthcare Locations? The feedback on the system has been great.
Jody Read CEO at PCT Health, PCT LTD
Glad to see that the efforts of the entire team at ACE and PCT to bring this system to market has been a success and we are looking forward to placing these systems into every hospital, surgical center, nursing homes, and long-term care facilities!
Good am Mr Jody.could I represent your company in Dubai.? Tnx
Fritz Oehler Executive Director at Sprenger Health Care Systems Looks like this product could be an answer to many infection control issues in our industry.
Sunday, April 12, 2020 8:53:14 PM Re: BIGBUCKS post# 83629
Post # 83715 of 83745 Some additional DD. The full section in that recent PCTL release includes: Quote:
The company has also been hiring additional support staff to support growing business operations. Most recently, the company engaged Joseph Tippmann, graduate of The University of Michigan’s Industrial Design and Architecture program, as a new design engineer. Tippmann joined the company on a contract basis initially and has spent the past two weeks performing design updates on Annihilyzer and Hydrolyte Rack systems in addition to helping design a more modular system for easier assembly. Tippmann is also a co-owner of Werks Manufacturing, a Fort Wayne, Indiana based manufacturing company which PCTL engages for the purpose of manufacturing and assembling parts for use in the company’s Annihilyzer® Infection Control System and other systems. Werks Manufacturing is expanding their operation and will increase parts and assembly production to meet PCTL’s growing demand. In addition, Werks will also serve as a fluid depot for PCTL’s clients in the northern Midwest part of the United States. Werks will initially be capable of producing up to 4,000 gallons per day of disinfecting fluids, including Hydrolyte®, for sale and use by PCTL to clients in Detroit, Chicago, and throughout the region. This fluid production capacity can be increased as needed to serve growing demand.
I could not find much on google in regards to Joseph Tippmann. I did find Werks Manufacturing Inc. = http://werksmfg.com ;... but ... website is “under construction”. It appears to be located at 2300 Meyer Road Fort Wayne, IN 46803. It appears the phone number might be (260) 428-2698. Also at this address appears to be: Advanced Media Integration LLC = Video production service = Vincent P Tippmann. same phone number?
I did also find Vincent P. Tippmann at this website: https://vptag.com/ Tippmann Affiliated Group is a family owned organization with a diversified group of business segments throughout North America and around the world. Approaching a half-century in business, Tippmann Affiliated Group businesses hold 17 patents and numerous product and service awards in various industries, including Automotive, Food Service, Refrigeration, Medical Device and Transportation. As it stands today, Tippmann Affiliated Group remains a family owned organization with a diversified group of business segments throughout North America and around the world. Headquartered in Fort Wayne, IN, Tippmann Affiliated Group operates its main campus on 75 acres and 810,000 sq/ft. of manufacturing and office space. 4410 New Haven Ave Fort Wayne, IN 46803. Phone:(260) 428-2500. It appears that 2300 Meyer Road Fort Wayne, IN 46803 is immediately adjacent to 4410 New Haven Ave Fort Wayne, IN 46803. Father & son? Could Vincent Tippman be the co-owner of Werks Manufacturing (together with Joseph Tippmann?
=====================
Ronin Wednesday, 04/15/20 10:42:51 AM Re: TKane post# 86153 Post # 86171 of 86190
News hit DOW JONES and BUSINESS wire! Lots of eyes on this now!
Evaluate Wednesday, April 15, 2020 3:12:04 PM Re: Evaluate post# 86473 Post # 86479 of 86491 https://pureandclean.us/disinfectant-sanitizer-gallon/ It appears that Pure & Clean is a distributor for PCT's HOCl, at 460 PPM, since their web page shows it is a distributor of EPA Reg. No. 92108-1. Only available in the following states: Florida, Kansas Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, Oklahoma and Texas. For all other states, please order the Surface Cleaner Pro products: https://pureandclean.us/surface-cleanser-pro/ Pure&Clean Disinfectant/Sanitizer? 460 ppm HOCl. This is a New Generation Disinfectant formulated using Hypochlorous Acid (HOCl) that cleans, deodorizes, and disinfects. As a distributor of EPA Reg. No. 92108-1, the product pure&clean™ (EPA Reg. No. 92108-1-88098) is included on the list of products approved by the US
=====================
BIGBUCKS Wednesday, April 15, 2020 3:09:42 PM Re: None Post # 86478 of 86491 PCT LTD Reports Q3 2019 Financials; Revenue Increases 435%, Operating Expenses Decrease
At 0’37: it shows that the “Annihilyzer is “Presented By: Annihilare and Paradigm Convergence Technology Corp” I was surprised to see this. Question: Does Annihilare also share in the revenues/profits of selling/leasing Annihilyzers?
=========== BRITT2575 ? Friday, 04/17/20 12:41:50 AM Re: None ? 0 Post # 88648 of 88658
PCT EUROPE LTD SIGNS DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT WITH UK NHS COMPANY, RECEIVES ADDITIONAL NYC HOSPITAL ORDER April 17 2020 - 12:08AM InvestorsHub NewsWire Print PCT EUROPE LTD SIGNS DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT WITH UK NHS COMPANY, RECEIVES ADDITIONAL NYC HOSPITAL ORDER
Little River, SC -- April 17, 2020 -- InvestorsHub NewsWire -- PCT LTD (OTC Pink: PCTL) is pleased to announce new growth and expansion activities in the UK and NYC. PCT Europe Ltd, the UK-based partner of PCTL is pleased to announce they have signed an exclusive trading partnership/distributor agreement with an NHS (U.K. National Health Service) company.
In tandem with PCT Europe Ltd, the UK NHS company will introduce PCT technology to each NHS Hospital Trust with the intention of them rolling out PCT's unique technology and system throughout the health services 233 Trusts comprising over 600 hospitals. In addition, approximately 14,000 Care Homes in the U.K. will also be introduced to PCT's technology. A steady flow of orders is expected to commence throughout the remainder of 2020 and into 2021.
The first PCT system has now been installed in a large NHS hospital in the north of England. This system is expected to enter clinical service early in May once the final series of biological tests of the PCT hospital disinfectant solution have been completed. Results of these tests have so far demonstrated that the PCT disinfectant has met or exceeded its ability to kill the range of pathogens previously achieved during EPA tests in the United States.
"We couldn't be happier with the results thus far in our UK trials and are delighted with the progress our UK partner is making. This arrangement will introduce our system to thousands of hospitals and healthcare facilities," says PCTL CEO Gary Grieco. "At the same time, the reality of the current healthcare crisis both domestically and abroad is sobering. We're thrilled to be able to grow our business but nevertheless remain focused on our core mission which from day one has always been helping people."
The company continues to expand domestically as well. Following an earlier release dated April 14th, the company is also announcing an additional purchase order for PCT Corp.'s Annihilyzer® Infection Control Systems in New York City.
The order comes from a large NYC hospital with a current bed count in excess of 2,500. Installation will be made in coordination with PCT Corp's primary healthcare distributor, ACE Janitorial Services.
"With three PO's for our infection control system this week and more on the way, we continue to make strides both in growing our business as well as our goal of helping our clients fight the spread of infectious diseases," says Grieco. "We are on pace for unprecedented and record growth in all areas of our business."
Additional News and Corporate Updates:
PCTL would like to warn its stockholders and potential investors that material corporate information regarding sales, areas of business and other corporate updates will only be made through press releases or filings with the SEC. PCTL does not utilize social media, chatrooms or other online sources to disclose material information. The public should only rely on official press releases and corporate filings for accurate and up to date information regarding PCTL.
Post # 92362 of 92385 PCTL> UK NHS is the largest single healthcare delivery organisation in the world.
SELLING TO THE NHS
SUMMARY This guide outlines the structures that exist to help companies contact and sell existing and innovative products into the NHS, a huge organisation which can appear very complex.
IN BRIEF NHS Supply Chain Procurement routes – national, regional and local contracts
Products for GP prescription
Estates – capital equipment
Innovation – new products
The NHS is the largest single healthcare delivery organisation in the world. It constitutes a major opportunity for UK medical device companies. NHS trusts can purchase products through one of five main routes:
Directly from suppliers using National Framework Contracts
From the NHS Supply Chain which provides end-to-end supply chain services incorporating procurement, logistics, e-commerce and customer and supplier support
The NHS Supply Chain is a single organisation created for the benefit of NHS trusts, hospitals and other healthcare organisations. The organisation combines the former NHS Logistics Authority, significant parts of the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency, expertise in healthcare logistics from DHL and procurement experience from Novation.
PROCUREMENT ROUTES National contracts Tenders: Contracts for products and services valued at over £90,319 (01 Jan 2008) must be advertised in the Supplement to the daily Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU). Procurement levels change, but you can confirm the current level by visiting: http://www.ojec.com.
NHS-sid: This is the official NHS supplier information database on which companies can enter their information for free:
http://www.sid4health.nhs.uk. It rationalises the management of pre-qualification data during the procurement process and can only be fully accessed by authorised NHS personnel. Suppliers looking to compete for advertised NHS contracts must still submit applications in the required format. Any supplier is free to register its services on NHS-sid. The information published is made freely available to NHS users. Registering on this system does not imply that a supplier has any special or ‘approved’ status. Regional contracts Collaborative organisations: Most NHS trusts are now partners in ‘collaborative procurement organisations’ where, normally on a regional basis, they can share information and resources to achieve economies of scale.
Local contracts Individual trust contracts: Local contracts are often managed by a trust’s supplies department. Its approach to suppliers will vary according to the value, size and complexity of its requirements. DH has set down procurement guidelines indicating that for contracts valued below £3,000 a trust should ask for telephone quotes; for contracts valued between £3,000 and £10,000, it should request a minimum of three written quotes; for contracts valued above £10,000, a minimum of three formal written tenders should be sought. Actual interpretations of these guidelines vary from trust to trust.
PRODUCTS FOR GP PRESCRIPTION
Suppliers wishing to list their products under the Drug Tariff for prescription by GPs or nurses must seek approval from the NHS Business Service Authority (NHSBSA). These will usually be products for self-administration, possibly with a carer’s help, and will normally fall into the following categories: dressings, bandage and associated appliances, incontinence appliances, stoma appliances, and chemical reagents. If the NHSBSA grant approval, the cost, either comparatively with other similar products, or, if it is a new treatment regime, by comparison with alternatives, will be reimbursed. You can access the application form at: www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk.
ESTATES – CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
DH uses two major Public and Private Partnerships (PPPs) to deliver its NHS Plan: the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) and NHS Local Improvement Finance Trust (LIFT). The NHS ProCure 21 Framework brings the NHS and the construction industry together for new-build projects. You can find information on PPPs and associated procurement policies at: www.dh.gov.uk.
INNOVATION – NEW PRODUCTS
The procurement routes above apply to established products. If you are a supplier of innovative products, you should be aware of the organisations involved in product approval:
The UK Medicines and Healthcare product Regulatory Agency (MHRA) This is the government agency responsible for ensuring that medicines and medical devices work and are safe.
Regulatory affairs: Medical devices can only be placed on the market in the UK/EU if they are certified safe, are of the required quality to fulfill the manufacturer’s ‘intended purpose’ and comply with the appropriate Medical Device Directive (CE marking). The MHRA audits the performance of manufacturers and notifies bodies responsible for granting CE marks. You can find more details at: www.mhra.gov.uk.
Clinical trials: The MHRA approves clinical trials/investigations and provides guidance for manufacturers. To obtain a CE mark, a manufacturer must show that the device complies with the relevant ‘Essential Requirements’ of the appropriate Medical Device Directive. In some instances, a clinical investigation will be required. The MHRA website (listed above) provides guidance on this issue.
Small Business Research Initiative (SBRI): The new SBRI is a cross-government programme for the procurement of technology development projects, including the demonstration and evaluation of new technologies. DH has run a pilot SBRI competition in Healthcare Associated Infections in conjunction with the Technology Strategy Board. The benefit to the Department and the NHS is to make new developments available faster and more effectively. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) NICE (www.nice.org.uk) is responsible for providing national guidance on the promotion of good health and the prevention and treatment of ill health. Its activities include:
Technology appraisals – Recommendations on the use of new and existing medicines and treatments within the NHS, based upon a review of clinical and economic evidence Interventional procedure guidance – Many of the procedures that NICE investigates are new, but it also looks at more established procedures if there is uncertainty about their safety or how well they work
NHS National Innovation Centre (NIC): NIC determines the need for innovative products, particularly in the development stage, and speeds up the development and adoption of those that deliver the best results for patients. It provides a point of entry to innovators of healthcare technology via its website and through a web-based assessment process. By considering ideas and products at every stage, it can direct them to the most.
ACTION NEEDED Pctl has been trying to get in contact with the government to make them aware of our machine & what it can do We can help with & in our numbers send them copies of the DD that’s been posted
This is the contact point in government that needs to know about pctl Paradigm Convergence Technology. (Read below)
Info they’ll need: PODCAST LINK click Click in search....Pctl
This is who we can contact in government to make them aware of our machine.
point of entry for the submission of market research packages and meeting requests from interested stakeholders. The U.S. government, in response to the COVID-19 outbreak, seeks information from stakeholders on available medical countermeasures in development. We are particularly interested in products and technologies that have progressed into or beyond non-clinical trials, have established large-scale cGMP manufacturing capability, or utilize an approved platform. Information regarding diagnostics, therapeutics, vaccines, and other products or technologies relevant to addressing this outbreak are sought. At this time, we ask for a brief description of your product or technology, accompanied by a slide deck, manuscript, publications, or other non-confidential information of your choosing. Please note that while we will use any information you present as market research, submission is no guarantee of a meeting or funding and your submission will be shared across U.S. Government agencies involved in COVID-19 medical countermeasure research and development. Only U.S. government officials are invited to join a CoronaWatch meeting, and are bound by law to maintain confidentiality of what is presented and discussed. Ideal technologies and products would (but are not required to) be: * - Relevant to the U.S. government COVID-19 medical countermeasure research and development efforts and/or Emerging .Infectious Disease rapid response capabilities * - Utilize an already-approved platform, have non-clinical data suggesting efficacy, and/or have significant manufacturing capability * - Fully owned or licensed by your organization (you have full IP rights and/or freedom to operate)
Would you like to meet with a federal agency regarding a product that you are developing for COVID-19? If you are interested in requesting a CoronaWatch meeting, please Register for an account and Login, or if you have an account Login to submit some basic product information.
Paradigm Convergence Technologies Corporation Summarized Due Diligence Sheet for Investing [color=red]
ACTION NEEDEDPctl has been trying to get in contact with the government to make them aware of our machine & what it can do We can help with & in our numbers send them copies of the DD that’s been
This is the contact point in government that needs to know about pctl Paradigm Convergence Technology. (Read below)
This is who we can contact in government to make them aware of our machine.
point of entry for the submission of market research packages and meeting requests from interested stakeholders. The U.S. government, in response to the COVID-19 outbreak, seeks information from stakeholders on available medical countermeasures in development. We are particularly interested in products and technologies that have progressed into or beyond non-clinical trials, have established large-scale cGMP manufacturing capability, or utilize an approved platform. Information regarding diagnostics, therapeutics, vaccines, and other products or technologies relevant to addressing this outbreak are sought. At this time, we ask for a brief description of your product or technology, accompanied by a slide deck, manuscript, publications, or other non-confidential information of your choosing. Please note that while we will use any information you present as market research, submission is no guarantee of a meeting or funding and your submission will be shared across U.S. Government agencies involved in COVID-19 medical countermeasure research and development. Only U.S. government officials are invited to join a CoronaWatch meeting, and are bound by law to maintain confidentiality of what is presented and discussed. Ideal technologies and products would (but are not required to) be: * - Relevant to the U.S. government COVID-19 medical countermeasure research and development efforts and/or Emerging .Infectious Disease rapid response capabilities * - Utilize an already-approved platform, have non-clinical data suggesting efficacy, and/or have significant manufacturing capability * - Fully owned or licensed by your organization (you have full IP rights and/or freedom to operate)
Would you like to meet with a federal agency regarding a product that you are developing for COVID-19? If you are interested in requesting a CoronaWatch meeting, please Register for an account and Login, or if you have an account Login to submit some basic product information.
Company Site: para-con.com Twitter: @PCTL2020 Investor Relations Chesapeake Group - Get on the email list for news info@chesapeakegp.com
About: a technology licensing company specializing in environmentally safe solutions for global sustainability with products for various markets they serve.
Mission: Infectious Disease and Contamination Control
About Products: Products and solutions are designed to take an environmentally conscious approach to combating the spread of infectious disease in the Healthcare and Cleaning industries, as well as contributing to the sustainability of global natural resources in the energy and agriculture markets.
The PCT Annihilyzer® Patented Monitoring, Tracking & Reporting System The Kiosk, which sits on top of the Filling Station Cabinet, houses The PCT Annihilyzer® System’s computer controls, information system, RFID tagging and reading system and an interactive touch screen display.
---FINANCIAL INFO---
Filings: LINK
Current info as of 3/9/20 Authorized- 1,000,000,000 Outstanding- 511,315,300 Restricted- 35,139,690
Standard Registrar and Transfer Company 440 East 400 South, Suite 200 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Phone: 801-571-8844 or 801-596-2150 www.standardtransferco.com Amy Merrill Email: amy@standardregistrar.com
---CURRENT CLIENT LIST---
1: Morgan Stanley Presbyterian Children’s Hospital. (3959 Broadway At, W 165 St, New York NY 10032)
2: Mount Sinai South Nassau Hospital (1 Healthy Way, Oceanside NY 11572)
3: Carson Tahoe Regional Medical Center (1600 Medical Pkwy, Carson City NV 89703)
4: SUNY Downstate Medical Center (450 Clarkson Ave, Brooklyn NY 11203)
6: Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center ??? Maybe (1275 York Avenue New York, NY 10065)
7: North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust, (UK Trial underway began Jan 15th 2020 - 60 day trial) (University Hospital of Hartlepool, Holdforth Road, Hartlepool, TS24 9AH) (University Hospital of North Tees, Hardwick, Stockton on Tees, TS19 8PE)
8: New York Presbyterian Columbia Hospital (Ranked Top 5 in the Nation) (622 W 168th St, New York NY 10032) ---VP recently endorsed in a LinkedIn post---
9: New York Hospital -- as per PR Release (labeled #1 below)
---PR & RELATED INFORMATION---
1. 03/11/20 - PCT LTD Experiencing Rapid Increase in Interest and Receives Purchase Order from Additional Hospital in New York City PR LINK
2. 03/09/20 - Interview: PCT LTD Hospital Infection Control System installed in seven hospitals and expanding INTERVIEW LINK
3. 02/14/20 - PCT LTD Schedules Investor Call (Call took place on 2/20/20) PR LINK Audio Link (Written Summation below)
4. 01/30/20 - PCT LTD Executes Term Sheet for Debt Financing PR LINK
5. 01/08/20 - PCT LTD Discusses Their International Expansion and Growth Strategy with The Stock Day Podcast PR LINK
6. 12/16/19 - PCT LTD Issues Company Update and Signs Collaborative Agreement for Oil & Gas, and Cannabis Applications PR LINK
7. 10/31/19 - PCT LTD Continues to Expand By Signing Agreement with SUNY Downstate Medical Center Worth over $500,000 PR LINK
8. 10/25/19 - 3rd Quarter 8K released (see above FILINGS link)
9. 10/22/19 - Hospital-acquired Infection Control Market Is Estimated To Expand At a Healthy CAGR in the Upcoming Forecast Period MARKET RESEARCH PR
10. 10/22/19 - PCT LTD Deploys Initial Annihilyzer(R) Infection Control System to the United Kingdom PR LINK
11. 10/4/19 - PCT LTD Announces Additional Hospital Installation of Annihilyzer(R) Infection Control System PR LINK
12. 7/26/19 - The Infection Prevention Strategy is pleased to announce our Top Innovations of the Year: 2019 (Annihilyzer) PR LINK
13. 5/6/2019 - PCT LTD Announces New Purchase Order as the Result of a Successful Trial of Annihilyzer® Infection Control Systems (A TOP 5 hospital in the U.S. AND --#1 in NY-- CONVERTED from Trial to a customer AFTER a successful trial period) - Morgan Stanley Presbyterian Children’s Hospital PR LINK
14. 2/25/19 - PCT LTD Installs a Large Volume Hydrolyte® System with Option Agreement for 4 additional LVH Systems with Oil & Gas Industry Customer PR LINK
15. 1/10/19 - PCT LTD Executes New Master Service Agreement for Installation of Annihilyzer® Hospital Infection Control System at Carson Tahoe Regional Medical Center PR LINK
16. 11/08/18 - PCT LTD Announces Completion of Major Commercialization Milestones and Promotion of Jody Read to CEO Position PR LINK
17. 5/16/18 - Newly Launched Disinfecting System Reduces Hospital Acquired Infections PR LINK
18. 5/10/18 - PCT LTD Receives Patents for RFID Tracking Technology in Cleaning System (US Patent#9679170) PR LINK
3rd Quarter 10Q In final review with auditors & SEC Attorneys Expected to be completed in up to 3 weeks (updated per IR email--- expected in the next week)
10K Expected to be filed by April 13th
Convertible Notes "very active negotiations" to come to a resolve by time of 10K filing (April 13th)
No material change is O/S in months
very actively negotiating financing with negligible, if any, dissolution No anticipation of R/S
---Growth of about 400% in 2019--- on target to grow exponentially in 2020
G&A down significantly company become more efficicent, losses narrowed significantly down around 75% from 2018
---Currently Doing---
PCT UK joint venture partner Trial ongoing: Universities as well as hospitals involved to verify U.S. results "unless bacteria and virsuses are any different, which they aren't, don't anticipate any difficulty verifying claims"
"Preliminary discussions between PCT UK and National Healthcare system of the UK"
---Markets--- Primary Focus on healthcare sector - hospitals, medical centers assisted living, rehab facilities
Secondarily - Oil & Gas, remediation of Hydrogen Sulfide (very poisonous, corrosive, and flammable)
Recently - Cannabis Industry - purveyor of service "Happy to discover our product greatly mitigates or totally eliminates the 3 major problems they are having"
---Current Placement--- (Does not include newest NY Hospital announced above in PR on 3/11/20) 8 hospitals, 11 units installed with "3 more slated in next few weeks with more behind it"
Endorsement from VP of MY Presbyterian [Suppressed Image]
Not sure how many are aware of BARDA, but I came across a post on Twitter this evening and after doing a little digging, found this:
Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, was established to aid in securing our nation from chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) threats, as well as from pandemic influenza (PI) and emerging infectious diseases (EID).
In my eyes that's most certainly an organization that should be aware of the Annihilyzer product, so I connected with their Director, Rick B and provided a post on Linkedin for more exposure to their request of building out a comprehensive portfolio of COVID-19 countermeasures. See below.
(For my privacy, I did redact my information on the image)
Post made to BARDA Director, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Preparedness & Response - U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
[Suppressed Image]
Post made to BARDA Director, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Preparedness & Response - U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
UPDATED DUE DILIGENCE 3-17 - RESEARCH NOW Below is a good portion of the DD done here, by myself and others. Do YOURS now! (Also pinned on top of board)
Paradigm Convergence Technologies Corporation Summarized Due Diligence Sheet for Investing
---GENERAL INFORMATION---
Company Site: para-con.com Twitter: @PCTL2020 - (I urge you to follow them and review their posts) Investor Relations Chesapeake Group - Get on the email list for news info@chesapeakegp.com
About: a technology licensing company specializing in environmentally safe solutions for global sustainability with products for various markets they serve.
Mission: Infectious Disease and Contamination Control
About Products: Products and solutions are designed to take an environmentally conscious approach to combating the spread of infectious disease in the Healthcare and Cleaning industries, as well as contributing to the sustainability of global natural resources in the energy and agriculture markets.
The PCT Annihilyzer® Patented Monitoring, Tracking & Reporting System The Kiosk, which sits on top of the Filling Station Cabinet, houses The PCT Annihilyzer® System’s computer controls, information system, RFID tagging and reading system and an interactive touch screen display.
---FINANCIAL INFO---
Filings: LINK
Current info as of 3/9/20 Authorized- 1,000,000,000 Outstanding- 511,315,300 Restricted- 35,139,690
Standard Registrar and Transfer Company 440 East 400 South, Suite 200 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Phone: 801-571-8844 or 801-596-2150 www.standardtransferco.com Amy Merrill Email: amy@standardregistrar.com
---CURRENT CLIENT LIST---
1: Morgan Stanley Presbyterian Children’s Hospital. (3959 Broadway At, W 165 St, New York NY 10032)
2: Mount Sinai South Nassau Hospital (1 Healthy Way, Oceanside NY 11572)
3: Carson Tahoe Regional Medical Center (1600 Medical Pkwy, Carson City NV 89703)
4: SUNY Downstate Medical Center (450 Clarkson Ave, Brooklyn NY 11203)
6: Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center ??? Maybe (1275 York Avenue New York, NY 10065)
7: North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust, (UK Trial underway began Jan 15th 2020 - 60 day trial) (University Hospital of Hartlepool, Holdforth Road, Hartlepool, TS24 9AH) (University Hospital of North Tees, Hardwick, Stockton on Tees, TS19 8PE)
8: New York Presbyterian Columbia Hospital (Ranked Top 5 in the Nation) (622 W 168th St, New York NY 10032) ---VP recently endorsed in a LinkedIn post---
9: New York Hospital -- as per PR Release (labeled #1 below)
---PR & RELATED INFORMATION---
1. 03/18/20 - PCT LTD Receives Large Purchase Order for Recurring Sales of Fluids for Non-Medical Use and Explains Current Revenue Streams PR LINK
2. 03/16/20 - PCT LTD Interview with Stock Day Podcast (MUST LISTEN) PR LINK
3. 03/13/20 - PCT LTD Adds International Distributor and Sells High-Volume Equipment to Existing Customer as a Result of Heightened Demand PR LINK
4. 03/11/20 - PCT LTD Experiencing Rapid Increase in Interest and Receives Purchase Order from Additional Hospital in New York City PR LINK
5. 03/09/20 - Interview: PCT LTD Hospital Infection Control System installed in seven hospitals and expanding INTERVIEW LINK
6. 02/14/20 - PCT LTD Schedules Investor Call (Call took place on 2/20/20) PR LINK Audio Link (Written Summation below)
7. 01/30/20 - PCT LTD Executes Term Sheet for Debt Financing PR LINK
8. 01/08/20 - PCT LTD Discusses Their International Expansion and Growth Strategy with The Stock Day Podcast PR LINK
9. 12/16/19 - PCT LTD Issues Company Update and Signs Collaborative Agreement for Oil & Gas, and Cannabis Applications PR LINK
10. 10/31/19 - PCT LTD Continues to Expand By Signing Agreement with SUNY Downstate Medical Center Worth over $500,000 PR LINK
11. 10/25/19 - 3rd Quarter 8K released (see above FILINGS link)
12. 10/22/19 - Hospital-acquired Infection Control Market Is Estimated To Expand At a Healthy CAGR in the Upcoming Forecast Period MARKET RESEARCH PR
13. 10/22/19 - PCT LTD Deploys Initial Annihilyzer(R) Infection Control System to the United Kingdom PR LINK
14. 10/4/19 - PCT LTD Announces Additional Hospital Installation of Annihilyzer(R) Infection Control System PR LINK
15. 7/26/19 - The Infection Prevention Strategy is pleased to announce our Top Innovations of the Year: 2019 (Annihilyzer) PR LINK
16. 5/6/2019 - PCT LTD Announces New Purchase Order as the Result of a Successful Trial of Annihilyzer® Infection Control Systems (A TOP 5 hospital in the U.S. AND --#1 in NY-- CONVERTED from Trial to a customer AFTER a successful trial period) - Morgan Stanley Presbyterian Children’s Hospital PR LINK
17. 2/25/19 - PCT LTD Installs a Large Volume Hydrolyte® System with Option Agreement for 4 additional LVH Systems with Oil & Gas Industry Customer PR LINK
18. 1/10/19 - PCT LTD Executes New Master Service Agreement for Installation of Annihilyzer® Hospital Infection Control System at Carson Tahoe Regional Medical Center PR LINK
19. 11/08/18 - PCT LTD Announces Completion of Major Commercialization Milestones and Promotion of Jody Read to CEO Position PR LINK
20. 5/16/18 - Newly Launched Disinfecting System Reduces Hospital Acquired Infections PR LINK
21. 5/10/18 - PCT LTD Receives Patents for RFID Tracking Technology in Cleaning System (US Patent#9679170) PR LINK
3rd Quarter 10Q In final review with auditors & SEC Attorneys Expected to be completed in up to 3 weeks (updated per IR email--- expected in the next week)
10K Expected to be filed by April 13th
Convertible Notes "very active negotiations" to come to a resolve by time of 10K filing (April 13th)
No material change is O/S in months
very actively negotiating financing with negligible, if any, dissolution No anticipation of R/S
---Growth of about 400% in 2019--- on target to grow exponentially in 2020
G&A down significantly company become more efficicent, losses narrowed significantly down around 75% from 2018
---Currently Doing---
PCT UK joint venture partner Trial ongoing: Universities as well as hospitals involved to verify U.S. results "unless bacteria and virsuses are any different, which they aren't, don't anticipate any difficulty verifying claims"
"Preliminary discussions between PCT UK and National Healthcare system of the UK"
---Markets--- Primary Focus on healthcare sector - hospitals, medical centers assisted living, rehab facilities
Secondarily - Oil & Gas, remidiation of Hydrogen Sulfide (very poisonous, corrosive, and flammable)
Recently - Cannabis Industry - purveyor of service "Happy to discover our product greatly mitigates or totally elimiants the 3 major problems they are having"
---Current Placement--- (Does not include newest NY Hospital announced above in PR on 3/11/20) 8 hospitals, 11 units installed with "3 more slated in next few weeks with more behind it"
Endorsement from VP of MY Presbyterian and other execs [Suppressed Image]
[Suppressed Image]
[Suppressed Image]
[Suppressed Image]
Not sure how many are aware of BARDA, but I came across a post on Twitter this evening and after doing a little digging, found this:
Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, was established to aid in securing our nation from chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) threats, as well as from pandemic influenza (PI) and emerging infectious diseases (EID).
In my eyes that's most certainly an organization that should be aware of the Annihilyzer product, so I connected with their Director, Rick B and provided a post on Linkedin for more exposure to their request of building out a. comprehensive portfolio of COVID-19 countermeasures. See below.
(For my privacy, I did redact my information on the image)
Post made to BARDA Director, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Preparedness & Response - U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
================= exactly what the EPA said
Quote:
List N includes products that meet EPA’s criteria for use against SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus that causes the disease COVID-19.
The key word here is against The EPA does not come out and say any products on these lists will kill CV-19. However I doubt the EPA would use a strong word as against in the above statement.
Quote:
Note: Inclusion on this list does not constitute an endorsement by EPA. There may be additional disinfectants that meet the criteria for use against SARS-CoV-2. EPA will update this list with additional products as needed.
It's pretty obvious this disclaimer is stating the EPA does not endorse as in recommend any product that's listed. They do not because it would constitute marketing for that product.... The EPA also recognizes that there are other products that meet the criteria against SARS-CV-2 AKA Coronavirus. Why do they make this statement? Because there are other products that are registered with the EPA that are not on this list that meets the criteria against CV-19
Nothing hard to understand there. Here is the a pic of it below:
[Suppressed Image]
Lets move on
List N: Disinfectants for Use Against SARS-CoV-2 | Pesticide ...www.epa.gov › pesticide-registration › list-n-disinfectants-use-against-... If a product qualified for the Emerging Viral Pathogen Claim, it demonstrated efficacy against a harder-to-kill virus than the enveloped human coronavirus
From this statement we know that EXCELYTE which meets this criteria. How do we know this? We know because they are on the N list under EPA registration 92108-1. I also believe this Reg number can be used against the harder to lill Norovirus. Coronavirus is easier to kill than Norovirus. Any amount of basic DD will show that.
Below is the reg and product number for EXCELYTE [Suppressed Image]
Finally Below is the EPA reg link for EXCELYTE showing it's registered to PCT Ltd. This link is the original registration.
Pretty basic stuff is you ask me lol ============== Pics of the product - Sorry about it being sideways
[Suppressed Image]
[Suppressed Image]
[Suppressed Image]
============ PCT LTD Obtains EPA Approval for Emerging Pathogens Labeling for Use Against SARS-CoV-2, the Novel Coronavirus That Causes the Disease COVID-19 Business WireMarch 27, 2020, 9:49 AM CST
PCT LTD (OTC Pink: PCTL) ("PCTL") is pleased to announce that it has received approval for "emerging pathogens" labeling with the US EPA.
The application was filed under the guidance document "Guidance to Registrants: Process for Making Claims Against Emerging Viral Pathogens Not on EPA-Registered Disinfectant Labels." It was approved on March 26th, 2020. The guidance document provides the following information regarding different classes of viruses and their resistance to being killed by disinfectants:
EPA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recognize that certain microorganisms can be ranked with respect to their tolerance to chemical disinfectants. The Spaulding Classification model, used by CDC, tiers microorganisms in accordance with the level of resistance to being killed (inactivation) by typical disinfectant products. With this approach viruses are divided into three viral subgroups (small non-enveloped, large non-enveloped, and enveloped) based on their relative resistance to inactivation … According to this hierarchy, if an antimicrobial product can kill a small, non-enveloped virus it should be able to kill any large, non-enveloped virus or any enveloped virus. Similarly, a product that can kill a large, non-enveloped virus should be able to kill any enveloped virus.
Small, Non-Enveloped Viruses (<50 nm): These small, non-enveloped viruses can be highly resistant to inactivation by disinfection. Despite the lack of a lipid envelope, these organisms have a very resistant protein capsid…
Large, Non-Enveloped Viruses: Compared to small, non-enveloped viruses, these viruses are less resistant to inactivation by disinfection. Although they have a resistant protein capsid, their larger size (50-100nm) makes them more vulnerable than their smaller viral counterparts…
Enveloped Viruses: Enveloped viruses are the least resistant to inactivation by disinfection. The structure of these viruses includes a lipid envelope, which is easily compromised by most disinfectants. Once the lipid envelope is damaged, the integrity of the virus is compromised, thereby neutralizing its infectivity.
In addition to being "an EPA-registered, hospital/healthcare or broad-spectrum disinfectant …", in order to meet product eligibility criteria, the product "should have disinfectant efficacy claims against at least one of the following viral pathogen groupings:
a) A product should be approved by EPA to inactivate at least one large or one small non-enveloped virus to be eligible for use against an enveloped emerging viral pathogen.
b) A product should be approved by EPA to inactivate at least one small, non-enveloped virus to be eligible for use against a large, non-enveloped emerging viral pathogen.
c) A product should be approved by EPA to inactivate at least two small, non-enveloped viruses with each from a different viral family to be eligible for use against a small, non-enveloped emerging viral pathogen.
This approach, where disinfectant products registered for use against viral pathogens in one category of the Spaulding Classification model can be presumed effective against viral pathogens in less-resistant categories, is intended to serve as a conservative approach to identifying disinfectant products likely to be effective against emerging pathogens."
As a result of meeting all of the Product Eligibility Criteria, PCT LTD can now make the following statement "only through the following communication outlets: … "1-800" consumer information services, social media sites and company websites (non-label related) … [as well as] technical literature distributed exclusively to health care facilities, physicians, nurses and public health officials":
This Product meets the criteria to make claims against certain emerging viral pathogens from the following viral category[ies]:
Enveloped Viruses
Large Non-Enveloped Viruses
Small Non-Enveloped Viruses
For an emerging viral pathogen that is a/an… …follow the directions for use for the following organisms on the label: Enveloped virus Norovirus Large, non-enveloped virus Norovirus Small, non-enveloped virus Norovirus, Rhinovirus (Type 16)
Hydrolyte® has demonstrated effectiveness against viruses similar to SARS-CoV-2 virus on hard, non-porous surfaces. Therefore, Hydrolyte® can be used against SARS-CoV-2 virus when used in accordance with the directions for use against Norovirus and Rhinovirus type 16 on hard, non-porous surfaces. Refer to the CDC website at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/home/cleaning-disinfection.html for additional information.
COVID-19 is caused by SARS-CoV-2 virus. Hydrolyte® kills similar viruses and therefore can be used against SARS-CoV-2 virus when used in accordance with the directions for use against Norovirus and Rhinovirus type 16 on hard, non-porous surfaces. Refer to the CDC website at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/home/cleaning-disinfection.html for additional information.
"We are very pleased to receive approval for an "emerging pathogens" claim on our product label," says CEO Gary Grieco. "It represents an important step for us as a business and in helping to control the spread of infectious disease as a whole. Additionally, we are now prequalified for future emerging pathogens of any virus classification."
Due to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, PCT LTD has seen an increased number of inquiries from existing clients, sub-registrants, and distributors; in addition to new and prospective customers. The company recently announced that they had temporarily shifted their focus towards producing mass quantities of disinfecting fluids to meet growing demand.
"Fluid sales have been tremendous for us," says PCT Ltd CEO Gary Grieco. "To put it simply, we are routinely shipping fluids out at rapid pace and into the hands of trained professionals where our product can be put to good use fighting the spread of infectious disease in our communities. We are limited only by our capacity to produce the fluids, but we expect to double our production capacity by April 1st."
Additional News and Corporate Updates:
PCTL would like to warn its stockholders and potential investors that material corporate information regarding sales, areas of business and other corporate updates will only be made through press releases or filings with the SEC. PCTL does not utilize social media, chatrooms or other online sources to disclose material information. The public should only rely on official press releases and corporate filings for accurate and up to date information regarding PCTL.
About PCT LTD:
PCT LTD ("PCTL") focuses its business on acquiring, developing and providing sustainable, environmentally safe disinfecting, cleaning and tracking technologies. The company acquires and holds rights to innovative products and technologies, which are commercialized through its wholly-owned operating subsidiary, Paradigm Convergence Technologies Corporation (PCT Corp). Currently trading on OTC, "PCTL" aspires to and is actively engaged in preparations for up-listing its common stock to a national securities exchange. The Company established entry into its target markets with commercially viable products in the United States and now continues to gain market share in the U.S. and U.K.
Forward-Looking Statements:
This press release contains "forward-looking statements" as defined in Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21B of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Any statements that express or involve discussions with respect to predictions, expectations, beliefs, plans, projections, objectives, goals, assumptions or future events or performance are not statements of historical fact and may be "forward-looking statements."
Such statements are based on expectations, estimates and projections at the time the statements are made that involve a number of risks and uncertainties, which could cause actual results or events to differ materially from those presently anticipated. Such statements involve risks and uncertainties, including but not limited to: the impact of having met the EPA Criteria for use Against SARS-CoV-2, actual sales derived by the Company; the transition to producing large quantities of fluids; PCTL's and its subsidiary's business prospects; PCTL's ability to raise sufficient funds to satisfy its working capital requirements; the ability of PCTL to execute its business plan; any other effects resulting from the information disclosed above; risks and effects of legal and administrative proceedings and government regulation; future financial and operational results; competition; general economic conditions; and the ability to manage and continue growth. Should one or more of these risks or uncertainties materialize, or should underlying assumptions prove incorrect, actual outcomes may vary materially from those indicated. Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking statements PCTL makes in this press release include market conditions and those set forth in reports or documents it files from time to time with the SEC. PCTL undertakes no obligation to revise or update such statements to reflect current events or circumstances after the date hereof or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.
Gary Grieco, CEO and Chairman, PCT LTD (843) 390-7900 Office (843) 390-2347 Fax www.para-con.com www.pctcorphealth.com www.survivalyte.com
Brokers and Analysts: Chesapeake Group +1-410-825-3930 info@chesapeakegp.com ==================================================================================================================. CANADA INFO & LINKS BokehRebl Tuesday, 03/31/20 10:29:25 PM Re: Long term post# 78282 ? 0 Post # 78283 of 78339
Here’s THE list I put together of all relevant contact in the US and Canadien Government, Feel free to add more!
Louisiana Alexander Billioux, MD, DPhil [Bio] Assistant Secretary of Health Alexander.Billioux@LA.GOV
Maine Nirav Shah, MD, JD* Director, Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention Nirav.Shah@Maine.Gov
Maryland Robert Neall Secretary of Health Frances B. Phillips, RN, MHA [Bio] Deputy Secretary for Public Health Services S/THO Designee robert.neall@maryland.gov
Michigan Joneigh Khaldun, MD, MPH, FACEP [Bio] Chief Deputy Director for Health and CME khaldunj@michigan.gov
Minnesota Jan Malcolm [Bio] Health Commissioner jan.malcolm@state.mn.us
Mississippi Thomas Dobbs, MD, MPH* State Health Officer thomas.dobbs@msdh.ms.gov
Missouri Randall W. Williams, MD, FACOG [Bio] Director randall.williams@health.mo.gov
Montana Sheila Hogan Director Gregory Holzman, MD [Bio] Chief Medical Officer S/THO Designee gHolzman@mt.gov
Nebraska Dannette Smith, MSW * Chief Executive Officer, Nebraska Department of Health & Human Services Gary Anthone, MD Chief Medical Officer and Director, Division of Public Health S/THO Designee Dannette.Smith@nebraska.gov
Nevada Lisa Sherych, MBA* Administrator lsherych@adsd.nv.gov
New Hampshire Lisa Morris, MSSW [Bio] Director, Division of Public Health Service lisa.morris@dhhs.nh.gov
New Jersey Judith Persichilli RN, BSN, MA* Commissioner of Health Judith.Pershichilli@doh.nj.gov
New York Howard Zucker, MD, JD [Bio] Commissioner of Health howard.zucker@health.ny.gov
North Carolina Mark Benton [Bio] Assistant Secretary for Public Health mark.benton@dhhs.nc.gov
North Dakota Mylynn K. Tufte, MBA, MSIM, RN [Bio] State Health Officer mylynntufte@nd.gov
Ohio Amy Acton, MD, MPH [Bio] Director of Health DirectorAmyActon@odh.ohio.gov
Oklahoma Gary Cox, JD* Commissioner of Health GaryC@health.ok.gov
Oregon Lillian M. Shirley, BSN, MPH, MPA [Bio] Public Health Director lillian.shirley@state.or.us
Pennsylvania Rachel Levine, MD [Bio] Secretary of Health ralevine@pa.gov
Puerto Rico Rafael Rodriguez Mercado, MD, FACS, FAANS Secretary of Health Catherine De La Cruz-Duran* S/THO Designee drrafael.rodriguez@salud.pr.gov
Rhode Island Nicole Alexander-Scott, MD, MPH [Bio] Director nicole.alexanderscott@health.ri.gov
South Carolina Richard Toomey, MHA, DHA [Bio] Director, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control Rick.Toomey@dhec.sc.gov
South Dakota Kim Malsam-Rysdon [Bio] Secretary kim.malsam-rysdon@state.sd.us
Tennessee Lisa Piercey MD, MBA, FAAP [Bio] Commissioner tn.health@tn.gov
Texas John Hellerstedt, MD [Bio] Commissioner john.hellerstedt@dshs.texas.gov
Utah Joseph Miner, MD [Bio] Executive Director joeminer@utah.gov
Vermont Mark Levine, MD [Bio] Commissioner of Health mark.levine@vermont.gov
Virginia M. Norman Oliver, MD, MA [Bio] State Health Commissioner norm.oliver@vdh.virginia.gov
Washington John M. Wiesman, DrPH, MPH [Bio] Secretary of Health secretary@doh.wa.gov
West Virginia Cathy Slemp, MD, MPH [Bio] Commissioner and State Health Officer catherine.slemp@wv.gov
Wisconsin Jeanne Ayers, RN, MPH [Bio] Administrator, Division of Public Health Jeanne.Ayers@dhs.wisconsin.gov
Wyoming Alexia Harrist, MD, PhD [Bio] State Health Officer alexia.harrist1@wyo.gov —————————————
davidsan Wednesday, April 1, 2020 4:57:18 PM Re: None Post # 78774 of 78834 Can PCTL's fluid turn sour crude oil into sweet?
I vaguely remember this was something said in discussing why that large unnamed oil&gas company was so interested in setting up the customized trial they are doing. I remember clearly that it helped make the liquid involved in fracking much more environmentally friendly, much more green, with a more pure and less costly product, something to that effect. There was some big reason why that oil&gas company was so excited about it. If the oil&gas industry incorporates this into their standard processes, with the sheer volume of this fluid they will need every day, that will be HUGE, just that one piece of all this alone. Somewhere in there I thought I remembered that in the process it helped turn sour crude into sweet, just don't recall how specific that point was.
Anyone here remember?
This is so much more than just hospitals and spraying to kill the coronavirus. The agricultural/cannabis industry and oil&gas industry customized trials are going on as well.
And, of course, the UK trials are about to hit (The UK hospital trial already completed, and the 2 university studies are supposed to complete the end of March to first week of April, meaning anytime now). Just waiting on results and orders, both expected to be very favorable.
Hypochlorous Acid Market Demand Would Increase Rapidly Hypochlorous Acid Market: Excellent Microbial and Oxidizing Properties Hypochlorous acid is a weak acid formed by dissolving chlorine in water. It possesses excellent microbial and oxidizing properties. It is used as a disinfectant agent in medical, water treatment, and food additives in food & beverages industry. Sodium hypochlorite and calcium hypochlorite are the two types of hypochlorous acid. Sodium hypochlorite is a widely consumed hypochlorous acid. Sodium hypochlorite can be easily stored and transported. It is more effective than chlorine gas in various applications. Read report Overview@ https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/hypochlorous-acid-market.html Hypochlorous acid is employed in various end-user industries such as water treatment, wound management, food & beverages, oil & gas, and personal care. Demand for hypochlorous acid in the wound management segment is projected to rise significantly in the near future. Hypochlorous acid acts as an excellent disinfectant in wound healing applications. It accelerates the healing process of any wound and other infections such as eye infection, ear infection, etc. Hypochlorous acid has excellent disinfectant properties, which help destroy pathogens, bacteria, and fungi. Request PDF Brochure@ https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/sample/sample.php?flag=B&rep_id=68783 Key drivers of Hypochlorous Acid market Rise in demand for oxidizing and disinfecting agents in order to provide quality water is driving the global hypochlorous acid market. Hypochlorous acid is highly cost effective. It is non-toxic to humans and animals. Therefore, it is highly preferred in the water treatment industry. Rise in usage of hypochlorous acid in sterilizing bacterial infection by drying out blood cells is boosting its demand in the medical industry. Hypochlorous acid is also used as an active sanitizing agent in swimming pools and skin cleansing agent in cosmetic applications. It is used in the manufacture of calcium hypochlorite (Ca(OCl)2) and sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), which are further used in the manufacture of disinfectants, bleaches, and deodorants. Food & Beverage Industry and Wound Management to offer attractive opportunities Increase in usage of hypochlorous acid in the food & beverages industry is estimated to provide lucrative opportunities to manufacturers of hypochlorous acid in the near future. Hypochlorous acid is used for cleaning food processing equipment and dish washers. It is also employed as food additive in processing poultry products and seafood products. Hypochlorous acid is gaining momentum as a potential wound care agent in the pharmaceutical industry. It is a highly effective wound irrigation solution, which is entirely safe for human tissues. It aids in elimination of unpleasant wound odor and removes bacteria from wound surface. Hypochlorous Acid may form Explosive Gas in Concentrated Form likely to Restrain Market Hypochlorous acid is highly dangerous and can form explosive gas if used in concentrated form. This is anticipated to restrain the market during the forecast period. When exposed to air, it disintegrates and causes nausea, abdomen pain, etc. If released in water bodies, hypochlorous acid may harm aquatic animals, thereby adversely affecting biodiversity. These factors are estimated to restrain the demand for hypochlorous acid during the forecast period. Stuck in a neck-to-neck competition with other brands? Request a custom report on competition on Hypochlorous Acid Market here Asia Pacific Expected to Hold Leading Share in the Global Hypochlorous Acid Market In terms of region, the demand for hypochlorous acid can be split across five regions: North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, Latin America, and Middle East & Africa. In terms of consumption, Asia Pacific dominated the global hypochlorous acid market in 2018. Developing economies such as China, India, Vietnam, and Indonesia are the leading consumers of hypochlorous acid in Asia Pacific. Rapid industrialization and increase in demand for sodium hypochlorite in chemical, agriculture, and pharmaceutical industries are anticipated to fuel the hypochlorous acid market during the forecast period. Demand for hypochlorous acid in countries in Europe such as Germany, France, and the U.K. is projected to increase during the forecast period primarily due to the rise in demand for sodium and calcium hypochlorite in the food & beverages industry in the region. The U.S. is the leading consumer of hypochlorous acid in North America. Increase in demand for hypochlorous acid in industrial applications such as cooling water treatment is propelling the market in the U.S. Latin America and Middle East & Africa are highly dependent on hypochlorous acid import. This is likely to hamper the sales of hypochlorous acid in these regions. However, production capacity expansion by various manufacturers in Brazil, Mexico, and GCC is expected to augment the demand for hypochlorous acid in Latin America and Middle East & Africa during the forecast period. Key Players in Hypochlorous Acid Market: New product launches and mergers & acquisitions are the key strategies adopted by top players operating in the market. For instance, in 2018, URGO Medical, a leading player in wound care products, entered into an asset purchasing agreement with REALM Therapeutics, a biopharmaceutical company based in the U.S. REALM Therapeutics engages in research activities to discover new hypochlorous acid based treatments for atopic dermatitis and allergic conjunctivitis. This acquisition is expected to help URGO Medical become the leading player in advanced wound care business across the globe. Key players operating in the global hypochlorous acid market include Lenntech B.V. BASF SE Arkema S.A. Lonza. Inovyn Chlorvinyls Limited Olin Corporation Nouryon (Previously under Akzo Nobel N.V.'s coating division) Occidental Petroleum Corporation Kuehne Company AGC Chemicals Surpass Chemical Company, Inc. Westlake Chemical Corporation Clorox Company Tianjin Ruifuxin Chemical Tosoh Corporation Aditya Birla Chemicals Aqualution Systems Ltd Ultrapure HOCL (Pty) Ltd Others
=================== Friday, April 3, 2020 10:10:28 AM Cherry Re: None Post # 80097 of 80187 WHY YOU WANT TO BUY ALL THE PCTL YOU CAN
Right now, IMO, before PCT LTD (ticker PCTL) announces the UK hospital results which might potentially lead to 600+ hospital installations in the UK, before the March 2020 revenues from increased fluid sales are known, before the scientific data on treating disease/mold/fungi in the citrus & cannabis industries is announced, before results from the oil & gas industry testing, and before the delayed 2019 Q3 of which will contain outdated information from over 6 months ago-
People reading here may have read and seen, in bits and pieces, all these things below.
How anyone interprets & verifies anything, and researches further, is up to them. Nothing here is advice.
Since late 2019: More hospitals, More distribution, More geographic regions, More production capacity, More sales of the fluid itself & increasing dramatically, EPA approved on List N to disinfect surfaces for NCOV-19-SARS-2, Existing clients are buying more systems or extending their contracts,
=============== Tuesday, 04/07/20 11:13:24 AM Re: Patience 1 post# 81708 0.005 Post # 81730 of 82300
Quote:
NEWS OUT!! 4/7/20, 9:55 AM LITTLE RIVER, S.C.--(BUSINESS WIRE)
PCT LTD (OTC Pink: PCTL) ("PCTL") is excited to announce they have increased production capacity at their Little River, South Carolina facility.
Updating an earlier release (March 25th), the South Carolina facility is now capable of producing up to 10,000 gallons of fluids per day. A marked increase over earlier capabilities. The company is now better positioned to meet the growing demand for its Hypochlorous Acid-based disinfecting fluids.
“Our team has been working around the clock over the last several weeks to make this happen,” says Stuart Emmons, PCTL Executive VP of Engineering and R & D. “The South Carolina facility is now better positioned to fulfill the daily orders we have been receiving.”
Due in part to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, the company has seen an exponential increase in sales and inquiries from current and prospective customers. Late last month the company shifted its short-term focus towards fluid production and sales to meet increasing demand.
“It’s supply and demand,” according to PCTL CEO Gary Grieco. “The demand is there and now so is the supply. We needed to shift our focus towards where we can have the most impact and do the most good for our customers and the communities they serve. At the same time, this presents an opportunity for us to elevate our profile, grow our business, and showcase how effective our products can be in the ongoing fight against the spread of infectious disease.”
The company has also been hiring additional support staff to support growing business operations. Most recently, the company engaged Joseph Tippmann, graduate of The University of Michigan’s Industrial Design and Architecture program, as a new design engineer. Tippmann joined the company on a contract basis initially and has spent the past two weeks performing design updates on Annihilyzer and Hydrolyte Rack systems in addition to helping design a more modular system for easier assembly.
Tippmann is also a co-owner of Werks Manufacturing, a Fort Wayne, Indiana based manufacturing company which PCTL engages for the purpose of manufacturing and assembling parts for use in the company’s Annihilyzer® Infection Control System and other systems.
Werks Manufacturing is expanding their operation and will increase parts and assembly production to meet PCTL’s growing demand. In addition, Werks will also serve as a fluid depot for PCTL’s clients in the northern Midwest part of the United States. Werks will initially be capable of producing up to 4,000 gallons per day of disinfecting fluids, including Hydrolyte®, for sale and use by PCTL to clients in Detroit, Chicago, and throughout the region. This fluid production capacity can be increased as needed to serve growing demand.
“We are continuing our rapid growth plans,” says Grieco. “Through strategic partnerships, distribution agreements, and more, we are gaining market share, increasing revenue at a rapid pace, and growing our business both quickly and efficiently.”
Additional News and Corporate Updates:
PCTL would like to warn its stockholders and potential investors that material corporate information regarding sales, areas of business and other corporate updates will only be made through press releases or filings with the SEC. PCTL does not utilize social media, chatrooms or other online sources to disclose material information. The public should only rely on official press releases and corporate filings for accurate and up to date information regarding PCTL. ====================
Wednesday, April 8, 2020 1:22:30 PM Beer money Re: None Post # 82319 of 82350 Yes Gary Grieco, PCTL CEO, stated, "As a result of the capabilities and benefits of our products, many companies and municipalities across a variety of industries and geographic locations are engaging in intense discussions with PCT LTD."
PCTL "The 800 pound gorilla, Corona-virus, that has opened up a huge opportunity for us and I can not say any more than that we have been contacted by, and are actively negotiating to address the problem with both companies and government officials and I can not say more than that."
In addition, Grieco further commented, "All of our hospital customers using our infection control system and disinfectant are utilizing the systems as a front-line defense throughout their facilities, including in all public area such as restrooms, lobbies, waiting rooms, elevators, corridors, cafeterias, etc. all throughout the day and night and in the presence of patients, staff and visitors."
============ Thursday, April 9, 2020 10:01:52 AM Re: None Post # 82599 of 82789 Hypochlorous Acid Okay For Easter Eggs Hypochlorous acid is cleared by the FDA for use on meat, poultry, fish & seafood, fruits & vegetables and shell eggs as a no-rinse sanitizer. FCN 1811 is a Food Contact Notification (FCN) from the FDA for using electrolytically generated hypochlorous acid as an antimicrobial agent in an aqueous solution in the production and preparation of whole or cut meat and poultry; processed and preformed meat and poultry; fish and seafood; fruits and vegetables; and shell eggs. To read more about food contact notification 1811, visit the FDA website in the link below. https://www.hypochlorousacid.com/regulation [Suppressed Image]
================== Thursday, April 9, 2020 10:35:37 AM Re: None Post # 82670 of 82807 Why the NHS and Private Clinics Should Look Further than Alcohol-Based Sanitisers The CoViD-19 pandemic has brought alcohol to the fore; whether it is the amount the British public is consuming to get through self-isolation or the level required in hand sanitiser to make it effective, the news stories are everywhere. Many of these revolving around the shortage of traditional alcohol-based hand sanitisers and how prices are soaring. With this being the case, why then don’t the NHS and other health care facilities look elsewhere? Is there no other option? In fact, there is another option which is rapidly emerging as the new go-to sanitiser during the CoViD-19 pandemic; Hypochlorous Acid (HOCl). What is Hypochlorous Acid? HOCI is generated when white blood cells attack harmful bacteria and is harmless to the human body. In December 2019 Optometry Times published an article on HOCl and they explain it much better than I can… “HOCl is a weak acid that occurs naturally in our body. Neutrophils are white blood cells that are the first to arrive on site when an invading pathogen is detected. Neutrophils will chase down and engulf the pathogen through phagocytosis. Upon contact, neutrophils release a burst of bactericidal chemicals including its most powerful oxidizing agent, HOCl. This kills the pathogen by tearing down the cell membranes and proteins”. Optometry Times called HOCl “the perfect weapon to fight germs. It hits hard against pathogens like Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) and Pseudomonas Aeroginosa. Yet this powerful weapon is 100 percent safe for humans, chemical free, non-toxic and all-natural”. Due to these attributes HOCl is being widely used in South Korea in their battle against CoViD-19, disinfecting everything from food to people to hospital wards and their mass transit systems. Looking at the way in which they have taken control of the spread of the virus it is clear to see that HOCl can also help the United Kingdom to gain the upper hand in this struggle. https://www.belle.org.uk/news-1/2020/4/2/why-the-nhs-and-private-clinics-should-look-to-hypochlorous-acid-rather-than-alcohol-based-sanitisers
=============
beer$$money ?
Sunday, April 12, 2020 8:04:27 PM Re: BIGBUCKS post# 83703
Post # 83709 of 83745 Alex Guttman Author> Huge interest being developed on LinkedIN VP marketing and Research at Ace Janitorial, Sales Mgr Escalator Cleaning company, Senior VP HAI Consultants
Randy Stiles can't mention names without permission but I can say that most of the major healthcare systems in NYC are now using our system
Randy Stiles +Executive Account Manager at Paylidify
Jon Pickett, MBA is this being used at all Memorial Healthcare Locations? The feedback on the system has been great.
Jody Read CEO at PCT Health, PCT LTD
Glad to see that the efforts of the entire team at ACE and PCT to bring this system to market has been a success and we are looking forward to placing these systems into every hospital, surgical center, nursing homes, and long-term care facilities!
Good am Mr Jody.could I represent your company in Dubai.? Tnx
Fritz Oehler Executive Director at Sprenger Health Care Systems Looks like this product could be an answer to many infection control issues in our industry.
Sunday, April 12, 2020 8:53:14 PM Re: BIGBUCKS post# 83629
Post # 83715 of 83745 Some additional DD. The full section in that recent PCTL release includes: Quote:
The company has also been hiring additional support staff to support growing business operations. Most recently, the company engaged Joseph Tippmann, graduate of The University of Michigan’s Industrial Design and Architecture program, as a new design engineer. Tippmann joined the company on a contract basis initially and has spent the past two weeks performing design updates on Annihilyzer and Hydrolyte Rack systems in addition to helping design a more modular system for easier assembly. Tippmann is also a co-owner of Werks Manufacturing, a Fort Wayne, Indiana based manufacturing company which PCTL engages for the purpose of manufacturing and assembling parts for use in the company’s Annihilyzer® Infection Control System and other systems. Werks Manufacturing is expanding their operation and will increase parts and assembly production to meet PCTL’s growing demand. In addition, Werks will also serve as a fluid depot for PCTL’s clients in the northern Midwest part of the United States. Werks will initially be capable of producing up to 4,000 gallons per day of disinfecting fluids, including Hydrolyte®, for sale and use by PCTL to clients in Detroit, Chicago, and throughout the region. This fluid production capacity can be increased as needed to serve growing demand.
I could not find much on google in regards to Joseph Tippmann. I did find Werks Manufacturing Inc. = http://werksmfg.com ;;... but ... website is “under construction”. It appears to be located at 2300 Meyer Road Fort Wayne, IN 46803. It appears the phone number might be (260) 428-2698. Also at this address appears to be: Advanced Media Integration LLC = Video production service = Vincent P Tippmann. same phone number?
I did also find Vincent P. Tippmann at this website: https://vptag.com/ Tippmann Affiliated Group is a family owned organization with a diversified group of business segments throughout North America and around the world. Approaching a half-century in business, Tippmann Affiliated Group businesses hold 17 patents and numerous product and service awards in various industries, including Automotive, Food Service, Refrigeration, Medical Device and Transportation. As it stands today, Tippmann Affiliated Group remains a family owned organization with a diversified group of business segments throughout North America and around the world. Headquartered in Fort Wayne, IN, Tippmann Affiliated Group operates its main campus on 75 acres and 810,000 sq/ft. of manufacturing and office space. 4410 New Haven Ave Fort Wayne, IN 46803. Phone:(260) 428-2500. It appears that 2300 Meyer Road Fort Wayne, IN 46803 is immediately adjacent to 4410 New Haven Ave Fort Wayne, IN 46803. Father & son? Could Vincent Tippman be the co-owner of Werks Manufacturing (together with Joseph Tippmann?
=====================
Ronin Wednesday, 04/15/20 10:42:51 AM Re: TKane post# 86153 Post # 86171 of 86190
News hit DOW JONES and BUSINESS wire! Lots of eyes on this now!
Evaluate Wednesday, April 15, 2020 3:12:04 PM Re: Evaluate post# 86473 Post # 86479 of 86491 https://pureandclean.us/disinfectant-sanitizer-gallon/ It appears that Pure & Clean is a distributor for PCT's HOCl, at 460 PPM, since their web page shows it is a distributor of EPA Reg. No. 92108-1. Only available in the following states: Florida, Kansas Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, Oklahoma and Texas. For all other states, please order the Surface Cleaner Pro products: https://pureandclean.us/surface-cleanser-pro/ Pure&Clean Disinfectant/Sanitizer? 460 ppm HOCl. This is a New Generation Disinfectant formulated using Hypochlorous Acid (HOCl) that cleans, deodorizes, and disinfects. As a distributor of EPA Reg. No. 92108-1, the product pure&clean™ (EPA Reg. No. 92108-1-88098) is included on the list of products approved by the US
=====================
BIGBUCKS Wednesday, April 15, 2020 3:09:42 PM Re: None Post # 86478 of 86491 PCT LTD Reports Q3 2019 Financials; Revenue Increases 435%, Operating Expenses Decrease
At 0’37: it shows that the “Annihilyzer is “Presented By: Annihilare and Paradigm Convergence Technology Corp” I was surprised to see this. Question: Does Annihilare also share in the revenues/profits of selling/leasing Annihilyzers?
=========== BRITT2575 ? Friday, 04/17/20 12:41:50 AM Re: None ? 0 Post # 88648 of 88658
PCT EUROPE LTD SIGNS DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT WITH UK NHS COMPANY, RECEIVES ADDITIONAL NYC HOSPITAL ORDER April 17 2020 - 12:08AM InvestorsHub NewsWire Print PCT EUROPE LTD SIGNS DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT WITH UK NHS COMPANY, RECEIVES ADDITIONAL NYC HOSPITAL ORDER
Little River, SC -- April 17, 2020 -- InvestorsHub NewsWire -- PCT LTD (OTC Pink: PCTL) is pleased to announce new growth and expansion activities in the UK and NYC. PCT Europe Ltd, the UK-based partner of PCTL is pleased to announce they have signed an exclusive trading partnership/distributor agreement with an NHS (U.K. National Health Service) company.
In tandem with PCT Europe Ltd, the UK NHS company will introduce PCT technology to each NHS Hospital Trust with the intention of them rolling out PCT's unique technology and system throughout the health services 233 Trusts comprising over 600 hospitals. In addition, approximately 14,000 Care Homes in the U.K. will also be introduced to PCT's technology. A steady flow of orders is expected to commence throughout the remainder of 2020 and into 2021.
The first PCT system has now been installed in a large NHS hospital in the north of England. This system is expected to enter clinical service early in May once the final series of biological tests of the PCT hospital disinfectant solution have been completed. Results of these tests have so far demonstrated that the PCT disinfectant has met or exceeded its ability to kill the range of pathogens previously achieved during EPA tests in the United States.
"We couldn't be happier with the results thus far in our UK trials and are delighted with the progress our UK partner is making. This arrangement will introduce our system to thousands of hospitals and healthcare facilities," says PCTL CEO Gary Grieco. "At the same time, the reality of the current healthcare crisis both domestically and abroad is sobering. We're thrilled to be able to grow our business but nevertheless remain focused on our core mission which from day one has always been helping people."
The company continues to expand domestically as well. Following an earlier release dated April 14th, the company is also announcing an additional purchase order for PCT Corp.'s Annihilyzer® Infection Control Systems in New York City.
The order comes from a large NYC hospital with a current bed count in excess of 2,500. Installation will be made in coordination with PCT Corp's primary healthcare distributor, ACE Janitorial Services.
"With three PO's for our infection control system this week and more on the way, we continue to make strides both in growing our business as well as our goal of helping our clients fight the spread of infectious diseases," says Grieco. "We are on pace for unprecedented and record growth in all areas of our business."
Additional News and Corporate Updates:
PCTL would like to warn its stockholders and potential investors that material corporate information regarding sales, areas of business and other corporate updates will only be made through press releases or filings with the SEC. PCTL does not utilize social media, chatrooms or other online sources to disclose material information. The public should only rely on official press releases and corporate filings for accurate and up to date information regarding PCTL.
========================
Details for EXCELYTE VET * EPA Contract Info EPA Contact Information
PM Re: None Post # 92362 of 92385 PCTL> UK NHS is the largest single healthcare delivery organisation in the world.
SELLING TO THE NHS
SUMMARY This guide outlines the structures that exist to help companies contact and sell existing and innovative products into the NHS, a huge organisation which can appear very complex.
IN BRIEF NHS Supply Chain Procurement routes – national, regional and local contracts
Products for GP prescription
Estates – capital equipment
Innovation – new products
The NHS is the largest single healthcare delivery organisation in the world. It constitutes a major opportunity for UK medical device companies. NHS trusts can purchase products through one of five main routes:
Directly from suppliers using National Framework Contracts
From the NHS Supply Chain which provides end-to-end supply chain services incorporating procurement, logistics, e-commerce and customer and supplier support
The NHS Supply Chain is a single organisation created for the benefit of NHS trusts, hospitals and other healthcare organisations. The organisation combines the former NHS Logistics Authority, significant parts of the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency, expertise in healthcare logistics from DHL and procurement experience from Novation.
PROCUREMENT ROUTES National contracts Tenders: Contracts for products and services valued at over £90,319 (01 Jan 2008) must be advertised in the Supplement to the daily Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU). Procurement levels change, but you can confirm the current level by visiting: http://www.ojec.com.
NHS-sid: This is the official NHS supplier information database on which companies can enter their information for free:
http://www.sid4health.nhs.uk. It rationalises the management of pre-qualification data during the procurement process and can only be fully accessed by authorised NHS personnel. Suppliers looking to compete for advertised NHS contracts must still submit applications in the required format. Any supplier is free to register its services on NHS-sid. The information published is made freely available to NHS users. Registering on this system does not imply that a supplier has any special or ‘approved’ status. Regional contracts Collaborative organisations: Most NHS trusts are now partners in ‘collaborative procurement organisations’ where, normally on a regional basis, they can share information and resources to achieve economies of scale.
Local contracts Individual trust contracts: Local contracts are often managed by a trust’s supplies department. Its approach to suppliers will vary according to the value, size and complexity of its requirements. DH has set down procurement guidelines indicating that for contracts valued below £3,000 a trust should ask for telephone quotes; for contracts valued between £3,000 and £10,000, it should request a minimum of three written quotes; for contracts valued above £10,000, a minimum of three formal written tenders should be sought. Actual interpretations of these guidelines vary from trust to trust.
PRODUCTS FOR GP PRESCRIPTION
Suppliers wishing to list their products under the Drug Tariff for prescription by GPs or nurses must seek approval from the NHS Business Service Authority (NHSBSA). These will usually be products for self-administration, possibly with a carer’s help, and will normally fall into the following categories: dressings, bandage and associated appliances, incontinence appliances, stoma appliances, and chemical reagents. If the NHSBSA grant approval, the cost, either comparatively with other similar products, or, if it is a new treatment regime, by comparison with alternatives, will be reimbursed. You can access the application form at: www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk.
ESTATES – CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
DH uses two major Public and Private Partnerships (PPPs) to deliver its NHS Plan: the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) and NHS Local Improvement Finance Trust (LIFT). The NHS ProCure 21 Framework brings the NHS and the construction industry together for new-build projects. You can find information on PPPs and associated procurement policies at: www.dh.gov.uk.
INNOVATION – NEW PRODUCTS
The procurement routes above apply to established products. If you are a supplier of innovative products, you should be aware of the organisations involved in product approval:
The UK Medicines and Healthcare product Regulatory Agency (MHRA) This is the government agency responsible for ensuring that medicines and medical devices work and are safe.
Regulatory affairs: Medical devices can only be placed on the market in the UK/EU if they are certified safe, are of the required quality to fulfill the manufacturer’s ‘intended purpose’ and comply with the appropriate Medical Device Directive (CE marking). The MHRA audits the performance of manufacturers and notifies bodies responsible for granting CE marks. You can find more details at: www.mhra.gov.uk.
Clinical trials: The MHRA approves clinical trials/investigations and provides guidance for manufacturers. To obtain a CE mark, a manufacturer must show that the device complies with the relevant ‘Essential Requirements’ of the appropriate Medical Device Directive. In some instances, a clinical investigation will be required. The MHRA website (listed above) provides guidance on this issue.
Small Business Research Initiative (SBRI): The new SBRI is a cross-government programme for the procurement of technology development projects, including the demonstration and evaluation of new technologies. DH has run a pilot SBRI competition in Healthcare Associated Infections in conjunction with the Technology Strategy Board. The benefit to the Department and the NHS is to make new developments available faster and more effectively. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) NICE (www.nice.org.uk) is responsible for providing national guidance on the promotion of good health and the prevention and treatment of ill health. Its activities include:
Technology appraisals – Recommendations on the use of new and existing medicines and treatments within the NHS, based upon a review of clinical and economic evidence Interventional procedure guidance – Many of the procedures that NICE investigates are new, but it also looks at more established procedures if there is uncertainty about their safety or how well they work
NHS National Innovation Centre (NIC): NIC determines the need for innovative products, particularly in the development stage, and speeds up the development and adoption of those that deliver the best results for patients. It provides a point of entry to innovators of healthcare technology via its website and through a web-based assessment process. By considering ideas and products at every stage, it can direct them to the most.
========================== DesertEagle Saturday, 08/15/20 01:06:56 AM Re: None 0
Post # of 125226
It doesn't take a rocket scientist...
to figure out where PCT Ltd is heading and why the Q1 was average and each subsequent Q will be much better. As the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words...
1. PCT LTD Increases Fluid Capacity, Hires New Design Engineer, Ramps Up Midwest Fulfillment Capabilities. 2. PCT LTD Announces Receipts of New Purchase Orders for Annihilyzer Infection Control Systems in NYC Hospitals. 3. PCT LTD Reports Q3 2019 Financials; Revenue Increases 435%, Operating Expenses Decrease 4. PCT EUROPE LTD Signs Distribution Agreement with UK NHS Company, Receives Additional NYC Hospital Orders. 5. PCT LTD Discusses Its Rapid Growth and Expansion Plans. 6. PCT LTD Continues Accelerated Expansion with New Hospital Installations and Fluids Distributors. 7. PCT LTD Formalizes Agreement with PCT EUROPE and Provides Update on Current Business Operations. 8. PCT LTD Adds Additional Distributors, Announces New Hospital Installations and Provides Shareholder Update. 9. PCT LTD Discusses the Increasing Demand for Disinfecting Solutions. 10. PCT LTD Provides Update to Public, Distributors and Sub-Registrants Regarding Use of Products. 11. PCT LTD Provides Update on 2019 10-K Filing, Highlights Revenue Growth, Expense Decrease. 12. PCT LTD Provides Update on US Healthcare Related Activities. 13. PCT LTD Provides Update of Authorized Distributors and Supplemental Registrants.
When the "STOP" comes off and the Q2 comes out we go from Dip to Rip... that is my projection.
Updated list as of 8/14/20 of businesses using PCT Ltd. fluids in some part of their product line. With yesterday's PR I changed the format. I listed by level and retail. I have a separate listing for Seriously clean bc their to big.
PCTL level 2 and 3 distributors/ fluid manufactures with EPA Registrations by year registered off the EPA site
Year Registered 2014 PCT LTD. EXCELYTE VET Hydrolyte vetrinox 92108-1 registered 2/6/2014
Year registered 2018 DANOLYTE DANOLYTE GLOBAL, INC. 92108-1-91582 Registered 2/13/2018 Bio Blasting BIOBLAST DISINFECTANT 92108-1-91707 Registered 9/12/2018
Year Registered 2019 Seriously Clean CuraClean Disinfectant/Sanitizer GROW WASH RX GRUNGEWASH RX HOCL SOLUTIONS DISINFECTANT/SANITIZER NIXALL DISINFECTANT/SANITIZER PURE & CLEAN DISINFECTANT/SANITIZER PURE & CLEAN SPORTS DISINFECTANT/SANITIZER 92108-1-88098 Registered 12/9/2019
DesertEagle Saturday, 08/01/20 10:58:19 AM Re: beer$$money post# 122827 100.000
Post # of 122846
Yes sir, will be big business for PCTL...
Currently there are 225 NHS Trusts in the United Kingdom and anyone who knows how the social healthcare systems work knows that once one trust comes on board, the rest will normally follow suit.
One or two trusts doesn't sound like much to someone that doesn't understand how the system works, but each one of those is responsible for the approval and purchasing of equipment for multiple hospitals, clinics and long term care facilities.
As an example, Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust manages 14 Hospitals and Clinics and North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust manages 17 Hospitals and Clinics. And those 31 Hospitals and Clinics do not represent the Long Term Care facilities under their control as well.
As many people like "Facts not Fiction" and "Proof", the below list represents the current Trusts operating in the United Kingdom...
Airedale NHS Foundation Trust Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust Ashford and St Peter's Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health NHS Trust Barnsley Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Barts Health NHS Trust Bedford Hospital NHS Trust Berkshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust Birmingham Community Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust Birmingham Women's and Children's NHS Foundation Trust Black Country Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust Blackpool Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Bolton NHS Foundation Trust Bradford District NHS Foundation Trust Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Bridgewater Community Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust Burton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust Cambridgeshire Community Services NHS Trust Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust Central London Community Healthcare NHS Trust Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Foundation Trust Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust Cornwall Partnership NHS Foundation Trust Countess Of Chester Hospital NHS Foundation Trust County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust Coventry and Warwickshire Partnership NHS Trust Croydon Health Services NHS Trust Cumbria Northumberland Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust Derbyshire Community Health Services NHS Foundation Trust Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust Devon Partnership NHS Trust Doncaster and Bassetlaw Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Dorset County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust Dudley and Walsall Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust East Cheshire NHS Trust East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust East London NHS Foundation Trust East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust East Of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust East Suffolk and North Essex NHS Foundation Trust East Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust Gateshead Health NHS Foundation Trust George Eliot Hospital NHS Trust Gloucestershire Care Services NHS Trust Gloucestershire Health and Care NHS Foundation Trust Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust Great Western Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Harrogate and District NHS Foundation Trust Hertfordshire Community NHS Trust Hertfordshire Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust Homerton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Hounslow and Richmond Community Healthcare NHS Trust Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust Humber Teaching NHS Foundation Trust Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust Isle Of Wight NHS Trust James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Kent and Medway NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust Kent Community Health NHS Foundation Trust Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation Trust King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Kingston Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Lancashire & South Cumbria NHS Foundation Trust Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Leeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust Leeds Community Healthcare NHS Trust Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust Lincolnshire Community Health Services NHS Trust Lincolnshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust Liverpool Heart and Chest NHS Foundation Trust Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Liverpool Women's NHS Foundation Trust London Ambulance Service NHS Trust London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust Luton and Dunstable University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust Medway NHS Foundation Trust Mersey Care NHS Foundation Trust Mid and south Essex Foundation Trust Mid Cheshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust Midlands Partnership NHS Foundation Trust Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust Norfolk Community Health and Care NHS Trust North Bristol NHS Trust North Cumbria Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust North Cumbria University Hospitals NHS Trust North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust North East London NHS Foundation Trust North Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust North Staffordshire Combined Healthcare NHS Trust North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust North West Ambulance Service NHS Trust North West Anglia NHS Foundation Trust North West Boroughs Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust Northern Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Foundation Trust Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust Poole Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust Project Nightingale NHS Trust Queen Victoria Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic and District Hospital NHS Trust Rotherham Doncaster and South Humber NHS Foundation Trust Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust Royal Papworth Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust Sheffield Children's NHS Foundation Trust Sheffield Health and Social Care NHS Foundation Trust Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust Shropshire Community Health NHS Trust Solent NHS Trust Somerset Partnership NHS Foundation Trust South Central Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust South East Coast Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust South Tyneside And Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust South Tyneside NHS Foundation Trust South Warwickshire NHS Foundation Trust South West London and St George's Mental Health NHS Trust South West Yorkshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust South Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust Southport and Ormskirk Hospital NHS Trust St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust St Helens and Knowsley Hospitals NHS Trust Stockport NHS Foundation Trust Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust Sussex Community NHS Foundation Trust Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust Tameside Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Taunton and Somerset NHS Foundation Trust Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust The Christie NHS Foundation Trust The Clatterbridge Cancer Centre NHS Foundation Trust The Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust The Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust The Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust The Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn. NHS Foundation Trust The Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust The Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust The Royal Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Foundation Trust The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust The Walton Centre NHS Foundation Trust Torbay and South Devon NHS Foundation Trust United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust University Hospital of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust University Hospitals Of Leicester NHS Trust University Hospitals Of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust University Hospitals of North Midlands University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust Warrington and Halton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust West London NHS Trust West Midlands Ambulance Service University NHS Foundation Trust West Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Whittington Health NHS Trust Wirral Community NHS Foundation Trust Wirral University Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust Worcestershire Health and Care NHS Trust Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust Wye Valley NHS Trust Yeovil District Hospital NHS Foundation Trust York Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust
Now when people tell you that PCTL getting their foot into the door of the NHS system isn't a big deal, you can tell them you know better.
DE
aandt Saturday, August 1, 2020 9:32:43 AM Re: None Post # of 122844 Repur/Collaborative Technologies
Looks like they will be in the food industry, they were just approved by the USDA and added to the NSF (National Sanitation Foundation) list. https://info.nsf.org/USDA/Listings.asp (search for RePur).
Egold Monday, July 27, 2020 1:48:03 PM Re: None Post # of 121773 New updated list Looks a lot better. Stick this one if ya want
Updated list as of 7/27/20 of businesses using PCT Ltd. fluids in some part of their product line. PCTL level 2 and 3 distributors/ fluid manufactures with EPA Registrations by year registered
Year Registered 2014 PCT LTD. EXCELYTE VET Hydrolyte vetrinox 92108-1 registered 2/6/2014
Year registered 2018 DANOLYTE DANOLYTE GLOBAL, INC. 92108-1-91582 Registered 2/13/2018 Bio Blasting BIOBLAST DISINFECTANT 92108-1-91707 Registered 9/12/2018 Bio Blasting BIOBLAST DISINFECTANT KYUNG NONG CORPORATION S. Korea 92108-1-91707 Registered 9/12/2018
Vision source Vision Source has over 3,300 locally owned optometry practices. Each one could carry Pure and Clean's products. https://visionsource.com/vendors/ Pure and Clean's website for Vision source https://pncvision.com/
Lots of interesting info. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7315945/ J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020 Jun 25 doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2020.06.029 [Epub ahead of print] PMCID: PMC7315945 PMID: 32653307 Hypochlorous Acid: A Review Michael S. Block, DMD** and Brian G. Rowan, DMD, MD† includes, for example: Quote:
Abstract The surgeon needs to have an inexpensive, available, nontoxic, and practical disinfectant that is effective in sanitizing against the COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease 2019) virus. The purpose of this article was to review the evidence for using hypochlorous acid in the office setting on a daily basis. The method used to assemble recommendations was a review of the literature including evidence for this solution when used in different locations and industries other than the oral-maxillofacial clinic facility. The results indicate that this material can be used with a high predictability for disinfecting against the COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease 2019) virus.
Quote:
Stability of Solution Rossi-Fedele et al35 investigated the shelf life of HOCl by being either exposed to or protected from sunlight. When the HOCl solution was exposed to sunlight, the chlorine reduction started on day 4. When it was sheltered from sunlight, the chlorine reduction started after day 14. The half-life increases with decreasing pH owing to the decreasing ratio of OCl–to HOCl.36 The parts per million (ppm) is the concentration of the –OCl, which is the active ingredient and is known as the available free chlorine (AFC) in the solution. HOCl solutions are less stable when exposed to UV radiation, sunlight, or contact with air or when the temperature of the solution is elevated greater than 25°C. HOCl solutions should be stored in cool, dark places, and contact with air should be minimized. The water for fabrication should be water that contains organic and inorganic ion concentrations that are as small as possible.37, 38, 39, 40
Concentration Related to Time Needed for Virucidal Action HOCl has been shown to inactivate a variety of viruses including coronaviruses in less than 1 minute.39 At a concentration of 200 ppm, HOCl is effective in decontaminating inert surfaces carrying noroviruses and other enteric viruses in a 1-minute contact time. When diluted 10-fold, HOCl solutions at 20 ppm were still effective in decontaminating environmental surfaces carrying viruses in a 10-minute contact time.
Quote:
Discussion The coronavirus pandemic has caused both a massive health care and economic disruption across the world. The current unavailability of an effective antiviral drug or approved vaccine means that the implementation of effective preventive measures is necessary to counteract COVID-19. Oral-maxillofacial surgeons are high-risk providers providing needed care to patients. As more OMS and surgical offices open during reopening in the United States and elsewhere in the world, the need to reduce the risk of transmission of COVID-19 between patients and providers is necessary. It is widely believed that with proper screening and discretion, along with adequate personal protective equipment, there is a low probability of becoming infected. The goal of this article is to provide information regarding disinfection in the clinical office setting using HOCl, a relatively inexpensive, nontoxic, noncorrosive, and well-studied compound.
HOCl has uses in many industries from farming and restaurants, regarding food, to health care applications, including chronic wound care and disinfection.34 , 36 , 43 , 45 , 46 , 63 In addition to the use of HOCl as a liquid-based disinfectant, fogging with hypochlorous vapor has shown virucidal activity against numerous types of viruses and bacteria.40 , 56 , 57 This is of potential benefit to disinfect large spaces such as medical and dental offices where aerosols can be airborne for extended periods.42 , 44 , 64 In terms of particle size, oral-maxillofacial surgeons may be at a slightly lower risk than their dental counterparts because ultrasonic scaling and high-speed handpieces create smaller particles that remain airborne longer.42 However, aerosols are still created with surgical handpieces. Additionally, the COVID-19 virus can be present on some surfaces for days, and the disinfection of all surfaces of an operatory is important to reduce transmission.9 , 10
Many properties of HOCl contribute to why it may be the disinfectant of choice in the OMS setting. Although the shelf life of HOCl is relatively short, it is effective for up to 2 weeks under ideal conditions.35 It can be made on-site inexpensively. A gallon of HOCl can be purchased from manufacturers but it is far more economical for an oral-maxillofacial surgeon to produce the solution on-site in the office.65 A variety of HOCl systems costing less than $275 are available on the market.66 By combining non-iodinated salt, water, and electricity,33 1 L of HOCl can be made in 8 minutes and the process can be repeated many times throughout the day. By comparison, a pack of common disinfecting wipes containing quaternary ammonium compounds costs between $4 and $15 for a pack containing 80 sheets. These wipes may only last a day or two depending the size of the office and area to clean. Shortages of these products can occur, making sourcing them difficult as well.67
In addition to using HOCl in the form of wipes for disinfecting, using HOCl vapors through a fogging machine is an economical way to disinfect a large operating room or suite in which aerosols were produced during surgery. Foggers or misting machines are handheld machines and can be purchased for a reasonable cost.68 The aerosol mist ideally should be less than 20 µm in size to maximally disinfect an area. It is important to note that the fogging process can alter the physical and chemical properties of the disinfectant, making it more dilute and basic. As mentioned before, the AFC concentration can be reduced by approximately 70% and the pH can increase by about 1.3.40 To make a vapor as effective as a solution containing 100 ppm of HOCl, the solution would need to be concentrated. The fine mist can be left in the empty surgical room without thought regarding harmful chemical effects; the surfaces are then wiped clean and dry after a few minutes and, for a more dilute solution, after 10 minutes.
HOCl is one disinfectant that, when combined with adequate personal protective equipment, screening and social-distancing techniques, hand washing, and high-volume evacuation suction, may help reduce the transmission of COVID-19 in the outpatient OMS setting. It comprises many of the desired effects of the ideal disinfectant: It is easy to use, is inexpensive, has a good safety profile, and can be used to disinfect large areas quickly and with a broad range of bactericidal and virucidal effects.
March 23, 2020 Hypochlorous acid (HClO) is recommended for hand washing and disinfecting the environment Oliver Ho, Ph.D. Candidate | Institute of Health and Welfare Policy, School of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan A study published by Allison E. Aiello in 2012 (1) suggested that in the early stages of an influenza outbreak, the government should promote anti-epidemic measures to wear masks and maintain hand hygiene. The community infection caused by the COVID-19 virus caused panic among the population, which caused insufficient resources for masks and disinfectant supplies.
In Japan, research on the use of hypochlorous acid was carried out 20 years ago (2). Hypochlorous acid has a good effect in disinfection. It is not as toxic as bleach and it is not as prone to fire as alcohol. In Japan it is also used for medical, food, and workplace disinfection, including hand washing or surgery, and even as a mouthwash (2, 3). However, too high a concentration may cause damage to the skin, and too low a concentration may lack bactericidal power. If hypochlorous acid water is used on the skin, like alcohol, excessive use may cause skin allergies. The use of hypochlorous acid in environmental disinfection should be avoided on iron and rust. Hypochlorous water for environmental disinfection is 100 ppm, If sprayed directly on the hands, 30-50 ppm is recommended to avoid excessive damage to the skin. To avoid skin irritation, rinse with water after use.
References: 1. Aiello, AE, Perez, V., Coulborn, RM, Davis, BM, Uddin, M., & Monto, AS (2012). Facemasks, hand hygiene, and influenza among young adults: a randomized intervention trial. PloS one, 7 (1).
2. OKUBO, K., URAKAMI, H., & TAMURA, A. (1999). Cytotoxicity and microbicidal activity of electrolyzed strong acid water and acidic hypochlorite solution under isotonic conditions. Journal of Infectious Diseases, 73 (10).
3. Ono Tomoko. (2012). Examples of application of various germ bactericidal effects of weakly acidic hypoglycinic acid aqueous solution. Journal of the Japan Society of Pharmaceutical Industry = Journal of the Brewing Society of Japan, 107 (2), 100-109.
========================= fourfive6 Wednesday, July 22, 2020 10:15:17 AM Re: None Post # of 121147 I’m hearing some chatter re: this G2/Blackstone mashup — Y2X Life Sciences — anyone hearing anything?
This all ties back to NY Presbyterian and allegedly, a handful of their board members making introductions — I’m wondering if the PR last Friday is related?
If nothing else, nice to see the sector continue its take off — this rising tide will continue to elevate PCTL and the IP.
I am a former dairy farmer and have family members still running farms, so I also have been curious about this. Here is some research I have found. Not specific to PCTL but general to HOCL applications
After 10K 0.048-0.066 After 1st 10Q 0.065-0.127 with certain news it could go much higher to the dollar range After 2nd 10Q 0.18-0.776 with certain news it could go well over a dollar on a run
From Me: Reasons for PCTL to run...
1) The patented Annihilyzer® Infection Control System, Annihilyzer® On Site Generator and Large Volume production unit sales and leases continue to grow in 2020. PCTL is expanding to meet the increase in demand with new facilities in Fort Wayne, Indiana.
2) PCT Ltd recently announced they had reached a final agreement with Paradigm Convergence Technologies (Europe) Ltd. The agreement was enacted on May 25th, 2020 and will secure a mutually beneficial business relationship between the two entities, in which PCTL will hold a beneficial stake. This agreement opens up the United Kingdom and 5 European countries to the PCT Ltd systems. The equipment will be manufactured in the United Sates and shipped to the United Kingdom and Europe.
3) PCT Ltd continues to increase hospital installations. In a recent interview, Mr. Grieco (CEO) indicated that 3 additional installations have been completed since May 18th 2020 and he sees PCT Ltd performing an additional 2 to 3 installations per month through the rest of the year. Each one of these systems represent recurring revenue to the company.
4) PCT Ltd is adding additional distributors to continue its expansion. BOX Bioscience (www.boxbioscience.com) of Mount Pleasant, SC with operations in North Carolina was recently approved as a Level 3 distributor. Ryan Cowell, CEO of BOX Bioscience stated “We were very excited to learn of this distributorship opportunity because our business was seeking this type of high-quality source for HOCL”.
5) Although PCT Ltd is primarily focused on the development and deployment of their patented Annihilyzer® Infection Control System and Annihilyzer® On Site Generator to address the 36 Billion Dollar per year Hospital Acquired Infections market, they have quickly adapted their business model to also supply their Hydrolyte® disinfecting fluids to all parts of the country due to the surge in demand caused by the current Covid-19 pandemic.
6) PCT Ltd’s Hydrolyte® is currently listed on 6 EPA lists of registered products. List B: Products Effective Against Mycobacterium tuberculosis List C: Products Effective Against Human HIV-1 Virus List F: Products Effective Against Hepatitis C List G: Products Effective Against Norovirus List H: Products Effective Against MRSA and/or VRE List N: Products for use against SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19
7) PCT Ltd’s revenue continue to increase year over year. 2015: $141 2016: $113,387 2017: $123,105 2018: $266,122 2019: $534,852 (9 months ending September 30, 2019) 2020: Record Breaking
8) Due to the current Covid-19 Pandemic, the Full Year 2019 10-K has been delayed. It is expected that the Full Year 2019 10-K will be released quickly followed by the 1st Quarter 10-Q and then the 2nd Quarter 10-Q soon after that.
Because we believe these releases will happen in quick succession and show that the company is increasing revenue while decreasing debt and at the same time expanding hospital installations and distributors to meet current and future demand, we feel that a substantial run up in share price is inevitable when the company becomes current.
9) As PCT Ltd expands their footprint in the United States, United Kingdom and Europe, we expect the company to move up to the OTCQB later in 2020 and move off the OTC and on to a major exchange early in 2021.
Here is my updated list as of 7/16/20 including a few that were not on the list you are referring to. I did include NetZero since you brought them up.
Updated list as of 7/16/20 78+ businesses using PCT Ltd. fluids in some part of their product line. PCTL level 2 and 3 distributors/ fluid manufactures with EPA Registrations by year registered
Year Registered 2014 PCT LTD. EXCELYTE VET Hydrolyte vetrinox 92108-1 registered 2/6/2014
Year registered 2018 DANOLYTE DANOLYTE GLOBAL, INC. 92108-1-91582 Registered 2/13/2018 Bio Blasting BIOBLAST DISINFECTANT 92108-1-91707 Registered 9/12/2018 Bio Blasting BIOBLAST DISINFECTANT KYUNG NONG CORPORATION S. Korea 92108-1-91707 Registered 9/12/2018
Vision source Vision Source has over 3,300 locally owned optometry practices. Each one could carry Pure and Clean's products. https://visionsource.com/vendors/ Pure and Clean's website for Vision source https://pncvision.com/
And the above is missing these 5 distributors: Advanced Environmental Solutions, Inc Collaborative Technologies Llc Danolyte Global, Inc. Earth Safe Solutions, Llc Net Zero Tools Inc
I am not trying to be controversial. It seems like you appreciate that proper DD is done. I am just adding to the DD for this stock, so that the correct info is posted. If you believe there are 77 sites instead of the above 47 sites, then what are your additional 30 sites?
======================================================= falon Wednesday, July 15, 2020 9:24:50 AM Re: None Post # of 119913 The evolution of Paradigm Convergence Technologies Corporation
PCTL's successful launch of the Annihilyzer System 18 months ago leads to a system in 20% of hospitals in New York City. PCTL’s flagship product Annihililyzer was, is and will be the foundation of the company’s success moving forward.
The company was on the brink of faltering due to its growing debt and had to execute toxic financing for its survival.
Then PCTL received an unexpected gift due to unprecedented demand for HOCI because of the Covid-19 pandemic.
What the CEO did by shifting the focus to supplying HOCI due to the high demand and need, enabled PCTL to establish a more stable financial condition that it has ever seen.
There are many companies selling HOCI so to increase PCTL’s footprint the CEO increased production and brought on more distributors. The high demand for HOCI will continue in the foreseeable future however it isn’t going to last forever and competition will increase moving forward.
What has given PCTL an edge is that we were already established providing HOCI, they have a supply chain already in place and have equipment to produce large quantities of product.
ALL the other areas PCTL has business interests including oil and gas, food safety, agriculture, and cannabis to name a few should be adding to the bottom line moving forward.
There are many types of whole room disinfection systems but none like the Annihilyzer.
It is my belief that the Annihilyzer is really going to be the ultimate game changer. It is just too versatile, cost effective and provides hospitals not only with a whole room disinfection system but a second product for the price of one.
FACTS about the Annihilyzer:
The best solution to a multi-billion dollar problem.
The Most Technologically Advanced Disinfection System Ever Created to Eliminate Hospital Associated Infections (HAIs) using Patented RFID Technology for Tracking and Disinfecting Protocols.
Why is the Annihilyzer Infection Control System one of the best and most versatile in the world ?
The Annihilyzer System is truly a cost-effective Green Seal Certified end-to-end total facility disinfection and cleaning system. This system generates both a hospital grade disinfectant and a very effective cleaning solution to cover virtually all of your cleaning and disinfection needs. These on-site generators produce stable electrochemically activated solutions, OSG 460D - Hospital Grade Disinfectant that is effective against C. diff, MRSA, and VRE, and an OSG 11-12 All Purpose Cleaner, and downtime for the process is only 15 - 20 minutes with no special preparation or precautions necessary.
The Annihilyzer System doesn't stop there, though. The icing on the cake is our state-of-the-art whole-room and handheld electrostatic sprayers that make quick work of completely disinfecting a room. Our 460D disinfectant can even be used to disinfect floors without leaving a haze or residue. We use a powerful non-synthetic disinfectant along with an automated electrostatic spray cart and/or electrostatic sprayers and patented RFID tracking technology that together are unmatched the industry to ensure proper and complete application.
What can the Annihilyzer do?
Save time and money by generating disinfectant and all-purpose cleaner on-site, on-demand
Eliminate the toughest bacteria, viruses, and fungi, including C. diff, C. auris, MRSA, VRE, blood-borne pathogens, and more.
Create 'industry best' protocols and 'push' them out to your cleaning staff in real-time with the Annihilist dashboard and mobile app
Generate reports that show when the areas were cleaned, who cleaned them, and what was done
Increase staff efficiency and effectiveness with process tracking, training, and accountability
How does the Annihilyzer save companies money?
Costs associated with purchasing and managing chemicals – eliminated
Freight charges for chemical deliveries – eliminated
Chemical container disposal or recycling costs – eliminated
Personal protection gear for cleaning – eliminated
Wastewater disposal costs and related fines for non-compliance – eliminated
Workers comp claims due to chemical burns and fume inhalation – eliminated
Happier, healthier and more productive workers
Same or better cleaning power than traditional hazardous chemicals for less
Eliminates costs associated with ordering, inventorying and disposing of chemicals and containers
How many hospitals are in NYC?
There are 62 acute care hospitals in New York City.
How many hospitals in NYC have at least one Annihilyzer System?
PCTL has installed at least 14 systems and gained 22.5% market share in NYC hospitals in less than 18 months.
Most Technologically Advanced Disinfection System Ever Created Annihilyzer the future for Healthcare and other Industries
During the Coronavirus Pandemic a Hospital with the Annihilyzer in place was in a better position than a hospital without it. Many hospitals will be asking themselves what could we have done differently? If they know about the Annihilyzer, having one will certainly be one of their answers. This is not the last so they have to put themselves in the best position for future events.
What is a better investment for a whole room Infection Control System:
Annihilyzer versus an UV system?
They both disinfect effectively however the Annihilyzer provides an additional products, an all purpose cleaner and handheld electrostatic sprayers that can be used in other parts of the hospital in the presence of people because it is “Green Certified”. Also the Annihilyzer cost less than half that of one of the best UV system on the market, the Xenex “LightStrike” cost about $125,000,
Annihilyzer versus a Chemical (Hydrogen Peroxide) based system?
They both disinfect effectively however the Annihilyzer provides an additional products, an all purpose cleaner and handheld electrostatic sprayers that can be used in other parts of the hospital in the presence of people because it is “Green Certified”. Chemical based solutions require protective equipment, are more expensive and are harsh on furniture and one company called Hanosil sells their machine for under $10,000 however it costs $20 in product to clean each room.
It cost $1 in HOCI to clean a room.
================================================
DesertEagle tv debut ( this will not be active till probably end of August) will post when an interview/ or when DE’s add’s begin appearing.
——————————————— Friday, 07/10/20 01:18:54 PM Re: None 0 Post # of 119239 Updated list as of 7/10/20 77+ businesses using PCT Ltd. fluids in some part of their product line.
In 2020 PCT brought on 10 new level 2 or 3 sub registrants. This is only in 7 months. The last one was yesterday. As these distributors develop their businesses they will add to revs. Doesn't happen over night unless your like Germinator who already has 17 franchises.
In 2019 seriously clean/ clean republic and nixall all became EPA subs. These companies with the companies they started in the AG, Human eye and wound use, disinfectants are already becoming a major force.
So many are stuck on the financials well this little company in litter river SC started selling Annihilyzer systems to health care facilities in 11/2018. Slowly they have been building the business. Not one hospital has ever returned a system. They announced a steady supply of hospital installations since bringing the Annihilyzer to market less then 2 years ago. Revs were up over 500% from 2018 to 2019 probably from the Annihilyzer sales and those large capacity machines.
All of a sudden CV-19 becomes a pandemic. PCT's business model was not of retail sales but selling Annihilyzer systems and large capacity machines gets slammed with orders for disinfectant. Infrastructure gets slammed also. As Gary said they shifted gears to the profit center of retail. Staff are doing multiple jobs and Gary hires more staff. The company is hiring more staff for the increase in demand. Takes time to hire and train.
Meanwhile demand is increasing for distributors and sub registrants. like I said 10 in just the 7 months of 2020.
Oh but I want my 2019 10k and 202o Q1 10Q.. No I don't want it I demand it. Something has to be wrong. Gary already said the issue is with the pandemic. Naaaa can't still be that the pandemic is getting better. Umm wrong it's getting worse in many states.
Look at what's happening the company is growing even as the fins are late. Oh, but maybe Gary doesn't give a damn about fins. Maybe Gary can get financing with a SS. Maybe he can get big investors to come in with a SS. lol Wrong if you don't think he wants the SS down as quickly as possible think again. The company is on the verge of being a dominant player in the HOCL industry if they aren't already.
So many with their eyes closed oh well. I've been adding and will continue to do so.
Good luck to everyone hope ya'll make the right decision when it comes to PCTL
PCTL level 2 and 3 distributors/ fluid manufactures with EPA Registrations by year registered
Year Registered 2014 PCT LTD. EXCELYTE VET Hydrolyte vetrinox 92108-1 registered 2/6/2014
Year registered 2018 DANOLYTE DANOLYTE GLOBAL, INC. 92108-1-91582 Registered 2/13/2018 Bio Blasting BIOBLAST DISINFECTANT 92108-1-91707 Registered 9/12/2018 Bio Blasting BIOBLAST DISINFECTANT KYUNG NONG CORPORATION S. Korea 92108-1-91707 Registered 9/12/2018
I just read the board from time to time. Today, I was buying and selling puts on the stocks that the college kids used their student loan money to "squeeze." Made money, but, now, I must rest. Stay safe. AJ
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
