I think that my point could be made clearer if I rephrased it. First, the idea that HDC lawyers could have claimed lost licensing revenue as part of the damages they were seeking from Intel is now a pointless argument to make, as HDC withdrew and the case was dismissed with prejudice. However, a compelling argument could be made with the USPTO that, even though HDC ostensibly owned the patents to SVM-RFE the whole time, they were not free to monetize it through licensing, because this ownership was tied up in dispute with Intel. Afterall, what company would have forked out money to HDC for a license, when it was not clear who the real owner was? Also, and I think that Zenos made this point, even if the patent is set to expire next year, infringing companies (and there are many) could be compelled to pay licensing fees to HDC for all of the prior years of infringement and up to the date of patent expiration in 2025. The fact that Intel settled is a testament to the validity of HDC's claim of exclusive rights, which could be used as leverage in compelling other infringers to pay up or be sued. We do not know at this point what Dr. Hauser's gameplan is for HDC, which could include not only signing licensing deals (creating a revenue stream), getting HDC compliant with the IRS and SEC (which is a pathway to being relisted on the OTC), but potentially developing new diagnostic tests using SVM-RFE (after all, this is within his area of expertise). I remain very hopeful and now see and agree with Mr. Fromholzer's parting words that HDC has a bright future in the field of AI and medical diagnostics. Not since Dr. Barnhill, has HDC had a CEO who was also an expert in this field.
Bullish
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
