Health Discovery Corporation (EM) (HDVY)

So, what is an LLM?

An LLM is a machine-learning neuro network trained through data input/output sets; frequently, the text is unlabeled or uncategorized, and the model is using self-supervised or semi-supervised learning methodology. Information is ingested, or content entered, into the LLM, and the output is what that algorithm predicts the next word will be. The input can be proprietary corporate data or, as in the case of ChatGPT, whatever data it’s fed and scraped directly from the internet.

Training LLMs to use the right data requires the use of massive, expensive server farms that act as supercomputers.

LLMs are controlled by parameters, as in millions, billions, and even trillions of them. (Think of a parameter as something that helps an LLM decide between different answer choices.) OpenAI’s GPT-3 LLM has 175 billion parameters, and the company’s latest model – GPT-4 – is purported to have 1 trillion parameters.

For example, you could type into an LLM prompt window “For lunch today I ate….” The LLM could come back with “cereal,” or “rice,” or “steak tartare.” There’s no 100% right answer, but there is a probability based on the data already ingested in the model. The answer “cereal” might be the most probable answer based on existing data, so the LLM could complete the sentence with that word. But, because the LLM is a probability engine, it assigns a percentage to each possible answer. Cereal might occur 50% of the time, “rice” could be the answer 20% of the time, steak tartare .005% of the time.

“The point is it learns to do this,” said Yoon Kim, an assistant professor at MIT who studies Machine Learning, Natural Language Processing and Deep Learning. “It’s not like a human — a large enough training set will assign these probabilities.”

But beware — junk in, junk out. In other words, if the information an LLM has ingested is biased, incomplete, or otherwise undesirable, then the response it gives could be equally unreliable, bizarre, or even offensive. When a response goes off the rails, data analysts refer to it as “hallucinations,” because they can be so far off track.

“Hallucinations happen because LLMs, in their in most vanilla form, don’t have an internal state representation of the world,” said Jonathan Siddharth, CEO of Turing, a Palo Alto, California company that uses AI to find, hire, and onboard software engineers remotely. “There’s no concept of fact. They’re predicting the next word based on what they’ve seen so far — it’s a statistical estimate.”

Because some LLMs also train themselves on internet-based data, they can move well beyond what their initial developers created them to do. For example, Microsoft’s Bing uses GPT-3 as its basis, but it’s also querying a search engine and analyzing the first 20 results or so. It uses both an LLM and the internet to offer responses.

“We see things like a model being trained on one programming language and these models then automatically generate code in another programming language it has never seen,” Siddharth said. “Even natural language; it’s not trained on French, but it’s able to generate sentences in French.”

“It’s almost like there’s some emergent behavior. We don’t know quite know how these neural network works,” he added. “It’s both scary and exciting at the same time.”
Another problem with LLMs and their parameters is the unintended biases that can be introduced by LLM developers and self-supervised data collection from the internet.

Are LLMs biased?

For example, systems like ChatGPT are highly likely to provide gender-biased answers based on the data they’ve ingested from the internet and programmers, according to Sayash Kapoor, a Ph.D. candidate at Princeton University’s Center for Information Technology Policy.

“We tested ChatGPT for biases that are implicit — that is, the gender of the person is not obviously mentioned, but only included as information about their pronouns,” Kapoor said. “That is, if we replace “she” in the sentence with “he,” ChatGPT would be three times less likely to make an error.”

Innate biases can be dangerous, Kapoor said, if language models are used in consequential real-world settings. For example, if biased language models are used in hiring processes, they can lead to real-world gender bias.

Such biases are not a result of developers intentionally programming their models to be biased. But ultimately, the responsibility for fixing the biases rests with the developers, because they’re the ones releasing and profiting from AI models, Kapoor argued.

Interesting I'm learning slowly

...And yes we had 2 other lawsuits basically conducting during this time or intermitting.

Sun....it appears you and I and several others here have feelings one way or another about this being a scam or not. You also as Zenos are smart to see that the subject words were or probably generated by AI. So with that it would seem AI has no feelings to cloud it's generated analysis of possibilities pro and con but my question to you can you deny what AI has generated as true factors or is AI wrong in it's digging of factual information.

As for HDC still believe it is a scam no problem but I see it differently. Yes we will most likely end up with nothing and George McGovern may have done a few things that Marty just would not tolerate (besides not contributing money or not get his paychecks) but George kept the doors open. I believe paperwork for filing SEC past documents are a mess "if" they exist. You can see where our accounting service left HDC too. I feel but could be wrong that with a large enough settlement from Intel that HDC would have faced the SEC in the proper way however George died leaving the closest one to his heart with this mess. Settlement may have been premature too so with Colleen having the control (probably not wanting) settled early to lesson the stress plus she has her own business and family responsibilities.

So any of us shareholders left have to wait and as you know we were trained to wait but beyond that we must wait.

Will HDC ever trade on the OTC again? there is absolutely no reason period so updating all our back filings doesn't matter at this point however, if the settlement is larger enough it is a possibility (in my eyes) that we "must to clear" and make any wrong doings correct if need be but after that point settle up and close the damn doors ASAP.

>>> Anyone unfortunate still to be holding HDVY shares will be hosed, as always, while the crooks and promoters continue to hold out false promises of hope. >>>

Good morning, Sunshine!

After 20 years, we agree on something. Galin's was an obvious AI post and LLMs are prone to hallucinations.

We don't agree that HDC is a scam, with stock promoters and their "rubes.” These are your hallucinations. Your phantoms.

I don't think Galin was passing this as his/her own, and still some useful analysis. If you prompt AI, it is slightly against HDC winning. Maybe another hallucination.

Charles, in his non-AI, fleshy and suffused human consciousness (apologies to Michael Pollen) astutely points out the limits of AI, while pinpointing the reason I believe we will at least have a settlement,

“If Nvidia were to cite Judge Albright's rationale from his initial dismissal without prejudice that the '685 patent is an algorithm, and thus not patent eligible, this very same judge reversed his opinion in a subsequent ruling regarding the same patent. Intel attempted to reapply their Alice 101 defense strategy in that subsequent hearing of the case, but it didn't work. Judge Albright flatly rejected it.”

Happy Father’s Day for those with humans and pets.

"Excellent writing skill"

The poster used an AI Large Language Model to generate that post - such models can produce good prose, but are also prone to hallucinations.

Better to rely on common sense than ChatGPT fed with a leading and biased question.

In this case, the past is the best guide to the future. Anyone unfortunate still to be holding HDVY shares will be hosed, as always, while the crooks and promoters continue to hold out false promises of hope.

Excellent writing skill and breakdown of possibilities. I notice that you mention the ITC, I am wondering if you have a reporting document on what HDC filed with them as you made it sound as if dual documentation was filed when our CEO filed our lawsuit back on 12/31/25 or was the documentation filed with the ITC referencing the i-phone mel/app years ago around 2012 if I recall. We got our hand slapped involving that.

I seen your post last night and wow thank you so much as it is a easy and through read and of course bias- neutral..

Also...I did visit the ITC website but haven't started an account yet, I have been super busy with medical concerns but wanted to see what was filed with them and the filing date..

PM if you wish or not? ...have a great weekend and thanks again as it was super to read a very intelligent post and not my jibber.

Which AI LLM wrote this analysis and what prompt did you use?

TIA for your reply.

Thank you Galingolin. You demonstrate an impressive understanding of both the technical and legal aspects of this subject matter. I think that you have astutely presented an unbiased assessment of this case from both sides.
If Nvidia were to cite Judge Albright's rationale from his initial dismissal without prejudice that the '685 patent is an algorithm, and thus not patent eligible, this very same judge reversed his opinion in a subsequent ruling regarding the same patent. Intel attempted to reapply their Alice 101 defense strategy in that subsequent hearing of the case, but it didn't work. Judge Albright flatly rejected it. I believe that this occured after the PTAB's Inter Partes Review of the matter in which they made it abundantly clear that the '685 patent was (and is) patent eigible under the new Alice guidelines. They reaffirmed that HDC holds exclusive rights to the SVM-RFE technology.
This could get interesting, and it might make sense for Nvidia to simply initiate a settlement with HDC just to eliminate the uncertainties of litigation. JMHO.

Evaluating the strength of the plaintiff, Health Discovery Corporation (HDC), in this lawsuit requires looking beyond the basic facts of the complaint and analyzing the specific "chokepoints" that will decide this case.On a surface level, HDC appears to have an intimidating posture—they have a patent that survived a PTAB challenge and a track record of extracting a resolution from Intel. However, when you look at the strict technical mechanics of Claim 1 and historical litigation context, HDC’s case against NVIDIA has a highly vulnerable core. An analysis of HDC's strengths and fatal weaknesses breaks down as follows:1. The Fatal Weakness: The Technical Infringement TheoryThe entire case lives or dies on whether NVIDIA's software literally or equivalently executes the specific step: "subtracting a matrix from the kernel data to provide an updated kernel data." HDC’s complaint alleges that this is satisfied when a developer uses NVIDIA’s RAPIDS cuML to run standard machine learning pipelines like RFE(SVC(kernel="linear")), which updates kernel/Gram relationships through "refitting."This is a massive logical leap that NVIDIA’s software engineers and defense counsel will aggressively exploit:The Definition of "Refitting": In standard machine learning (such as scikit-learn or RAPIDS), when you eliminate a feature and "refit" the model, the algorithm typically discards the feature column from the input matrix and recomputes a brand-new kernel matrix from scratch using the remaining data.The Claim Requirement: The '685 patent specifically claims a shorthand mathematical trick—taking the existing kernel data and subtracting a specific matrix derived from the eliminated feature to bypass a full recalculation. If NVIDIA can prove that RAPIDS cuML simply recomputes the kernel matrix upon refitting (the conventional way) rather than doing a literal matrix subtraction step, there is zero literal infringement. HDC will be forced to rely on the Doctrine of Equivalents (arguing it does the same work in substantially the same way), which is a much harder legal hill to climb.2. The Historical Red Flag: The 35 U.S.C. § 101 HurdleThe executive summary notes that HDC "resolved" its disputes with Intel in September 2023. However, looking at the actual history of that Intel litigation reveals a massive structural vulnerability for HDC regarding patent eligibility.In the Western District of Texas (Health Discovery Corp. v. Intel Corp.), Judge Alan Albright actually granted Intel’s Motion to Dismiss under Section 101, ruling that HDC's Recursive Feature Elimination (RFE) patents were directed to an ineligible, abstract mathematical algorithm. He ruled that the claims merely improved the quality of data through mathematical manipulation rather than improving the internal physical functioning of the computer itself.While HDC managed to keep the fight alive via appeals and subsequent filings before settling with Intel, NVIDIA will absolutely use Judge Albright’s prior analysis as a roadmap. They will file an early Motion to Dismiss in Delaware, arguing that the '685 patent is a textbook example of trying to monopolize a mathematical optimization loop.3. The Structural Strengths: Why NVIDIA Still Has to CareDespite these massive hurdles, HDC is not a standard, easily dismissed non-practicing entity (NPE). They possess a few structural advantages that prevent this from being a quick "slam dunk" for NVIDIA:PTAB Survival (The IPR Shield): The fact that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied Intel's petition to institute an inter partes review in 2021 is a major win for HDC. It means the physical prior art footprint of the patent is robust. NVIDIA cannot easily knock this patent out on basic anticipation (Section 102) or obviousness (Section 103) grounds; they are largely stuck fighting on infringement and Section 101 eligibility. The ITC Weapon: By filing a concurrent complaint in the International Trade Commission (ITC) alongside the Delaware District Court action, HDC is swinging a massive hammer. The ITC moves incredibly fast (15–18 months) and does not award money—it awards Exclusion Orders (import bans). By naming Google, Supermicro, and Broadcom as respondents, HDC is intentionally putting immense pressure on NVIDIA’s entire commercial hardware supply chain. Even a weak patent case becomes terrifying to enterprise partners when an import ban on HGX or DGX server architectures is on the line.The VerdictElementStrength AssessmentPrior Art Validity (§ 102/103)Strong (Protected by the prior PTAB non-institution decision)Patent Eligibility (§ 101)Weak (Highly susceptible to being labeled an abstract mathematical algorithm)Infringement MappingVery Weak (Equating general software "refitting" to literal "matrix subtraction" faces an uphill battle)Leverage/VenueStrong (The Delaware/ITC dual-track creates rapid, high-stakes supply chain pressure)Overall Assessment: Low-to-Moderate Strength.HDC has excellent procedural leverage because of the ITC filing and the patent's survival at the PTAB. However, their actual technical case on the merits is incredibly fragile. If NVIDIA can show during early claim construction that "refitting" a model is computationally and mathematically distinct from "subtracting a matrix," HDC’s case will evaporate before it ever reaches a jury.

Thanks, LocWolf. This is a fairly comprehensive summary and analysis of the allegations against Nvidia.
With regard to the last paragraph (in red) this was the precise argument that Intel presented, which was, is this a patent eligible claim, or is it merely an algorithm?
That question was resolved once and for all by the PTAB, and carried the full backing of the USPTO. Their answer was that this is a patent eligible claim and not a mere algorithm. Nvidia may want to go down that road again in hopes of confusing the judge. After all, it is standard procedure in patent infringement cases to attempt to invalidate the patent. However, this judge should not allow it, as this question has already been resolved by the highest authority. JMHO.

Hey Loc, way out of my league. What does it mean in English

Interesting read now at the end of this you will see what I highlighted in red which probably matters greatly but I'm not sure?

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
• Parties & Counsel:
? Plaintiff: Health Discovery Corporation (Georgia)
? Defendant: NVIDIA Corp (Delaware)
? Plaintiff’s Counsel: Phillips, McLaughlin & Hall, P.A.; Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C.
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01588, D. Del., 12/31/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff asserts venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation, is subject to personal jurisdiction, has previously litigated in the district without challenging venue, and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s GPU-accelerated machine learning software stack infringes a patent related to a method for improving the performance of Support Vector Machine (SVM) classifiers by recursively eliminating irrelevant or redundant data features.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the field of machine learning, specifically improving the efficiency and accuracy of data classification systems by automating the selection of the most informative features from high-dimensional datasets.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 10,402,685, survived an inter partes review challenge when the Patent Trial and Appeal Board declined to institute proceedings in 2021. The patent was also previously asserted against Intel Corporation in litigation that began in 2020 and was resolved in September 2023.
Case Timeline
Date
Event
1999-10-27
’685 Patent Priority Date
2019-09-03
’685 Patent Issue Date
2020-07-23
Plaintiff files infringement action against Intel Corp.
2021-02-01
Intel Corp. requests inter partes review of the ’685 Patent
2021-01-01
PTAB declines to institute inter partes review of the ’685 Patent
2022-04-04
Plaintiff files second infringement action against Intel Corp.
2022-05-26
Federal Circuit remands the 2020 Intel action
2023-09-01
Plaintiff and Intel Corp. resolve disputes
2025-12-31
Complaint filed against NVIDIA Corp
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,402,685 - “Recursive Feature Elimination Method Using Support Vector Machines”
The Invention Explained
• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of "feature selection" in machine learning, where classifiers like Support Vector Machines (SVMs) are trained on datasets with a very large number of features (e.g., thousands of genes for dozens of patients) (Compl. ¶27; ’685 Patent, col. 2:37-49). This high dimensionality can lead to "overfitting," where a model performs well on training data but fails to generalize to new data, and can also create an impractical computational burden (’685 Patent, col. 2:34-39, 2:63-3:6).
• The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a method termed Recursive Feature Elimination (RFE) specifically for SVMs (Compl. ¶27). Instead of selecting features based on simple correlation, the method uses the SVM's own internal logic. It first trains the SVM, then uses the weights assigned by the classifier to its input features to compute a ranking criterion for those features. It then eliminates the feature with the smallest ranking criterion and repeats the process. This iterative pruning yields an optimized subset of features that improves the classifier's efficiency and predictive power (’685 Patent, Abstract; col. 17:39-49).
• Technical Importance: The claimed process automates feature selection, transforming it from a manual or heuristic task into a mathematically driven optimization loop integrated within the learning process itself (Compl. ¶19).
Key Claims at a Glance
• The complaint asserts infringement of at least method claim 1 (Compl. ¶34).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
? Retrieving training data for a processor.
? The processor determining a value for each feature in the data.
? Eliminating at least one feature that has a "minimum ranking criterion," where that criterion is based on the value determined for each feature.
? "Subtracting a matrix from the kernel data" to create an "updated kernel data," with the matrix being derived from training samples corresponding to the eliminated feature.
? Updating the value for each remaining feature based on the updated kernel data.
? Repeating the elimination and updating steps until a predetermined number of features remains, which generates a feature ranking list.
? Using the resulting ranked list to recognize new data.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but notes its allegations are "exemplary only" (Compl. p. 21, n.2).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
• Defendant’s GPU-accelerated machine learning stack, which includes RAPIDS cuML and the associated cuml.accel module (Compl. ¶34).
Functionality and Market Context
• The complaint alleges that the accused products are designed to execute machine learning pipelines, such as those built with the popular scikit-learn library, on Nvidia GPUs (Compl. ¶34). Specifically, Plaintiff identifies workflows named "RFE(SVC(kernel="linear"))" and "RFECV(SVC(kernel="linear"))" that Nvidia allegedly "publishes, promotes, and instructs developers to use" (Compl. ¶34). These workflows are alleged to implement an iterative process of training an SVM, ranking features, eliminating the lowest-ranked features, and updating the model, thereby mirroring the patented method (Compl. ¶¶20, 34).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that when developers use the accused RAPIDS cuML software as instructed by Nvidia, they perform each step of the patented method (Compl. ¶34). The complaint reproduces Figure 2 of the '685 patent, a flowchart that illustrates the iterative training and kernel adjustment process at the core of the invention (Compl. p. 9, ¶26).
’685 Patent Infringement Allegations
Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)
Alleged Infringing Functionality
Complaint Citation
Patent Citation
retrieving training data from one or more storage devices in communication with a processor,
The accused workflows retrieve training data to be processed on Nvidia GPUs.
¶34
col. 8:51-52
the processor operable for: determining a value for each feature in a group of features provided by the training data;
The underlying SVM in the accused workflows computes per-feature values (weights) during the model training phase.
¶34
col. 19:22-26
eliminating at least one feature with a minimum ranking criterion from the group,
The accused workflows eliminate the lowest-ranked features based on the values computed during SVM training.
¶34
col. 19:35-37
wherein the minimum ranking criterion is obtained based on the value for each feature in the group;
The ranking criterion is derived from the feature weights calculated by the SVM.
¶34
col. 19:33-34
subtracting a matrix from the kernel data to provide an updated kernel data,
The accused workflows update kernel relationships through a "refitting" process after a feature is eliminated.
¶34
col. 21:3-11
each component of the matrix comprising a dot product of two of training samples...that corresponds to the eliminated feature;
The alleged matrix subtraction mathematically alters the kernel representation of the SVM, which is based on dot products of training data.
¶36
col. 21:3-11
updating the value for each feature of the group based on the updated kernel data;
The "refitting" process in the accused workflows recomputes an updated kernel matrix with the eliminated features removed.
¶34
col. 19:15-17
repeating of eliminating the at least one feature from the group and updating the value for each feature of the group until a number of features in the group reaches a predetermined value to generate a feature ranking list; and
The accused workflows repeat the elimination-and-refit loop until a specified feature count is reached.
¶34
col. 19:15-17
recognizing a new data corresponding to the group of features with the feature ranking list.
The final, feature-ranked SVM is used to classify new data.
¶34
col. 9:11-17
Identified Points of Contention
• Scope Questions: The primary point of contention may be the claim element "subtracting a matrix from the kernel data to provide an updated kernel data." The complaint alleges this is met by "updating kernel/Gram relationships through refitting" (Compl. ¶34). The dispute may turn on whether the accused "refitting" process, which involves retraining the model on the reduced feature set, is equivalent to the specific mathematical operation of "subtracting a matrix" as required by the claim.
• Technical Questions: A key question for the court will be whether the internal computations performed by Nvidia's cuML SVM implementations during the RFE and RFECV workflows perform the specific steps recited in the claim. The analysis will require evidence showing how the accused software mathematically modifies the SVM's kernel representation after each feature elimination step.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
• The Term: "subtracting a matrix from the kernel data"
• Context and Importance: This term is central to the dispute because it describes the specific mechanism by which the claimed invention modifies the SVM classifier during the iterative process. The infringement allegation hinges on whether the accused product's "refitting" operation falls within the scope of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint’s infringement theory appears to equate a general "refitting" with a specific mathematical operation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
? Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the term should be interpreted functionally to cover any process that mathematically updates the kernel representation to reflect the removal of a feature. The patent's specification describes a more complex process of recomputing the kernel matrix H to create H(-i) after removing feature i, which could be argued to be conceptually equivalent to, if not literally, "subtracting a matrix" (’685 Patent, col. 21:12-22).
? Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the plain language of the claim requires a literal matrix subtraction operation, not a more general "refitting" or full recalculation of the kernel. The claim recites "subtracting a matrix," not "recomputing," "refitting," or "updating" the kernel data. An argument could be made that the patentee chose this specific language to distinguish the invention from prior art methods that might have involved complete retraining at each step.

VI. Other Allegations
• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges facts that may support a claim for induced infringement by stating that Nvidia "publishes, promotes, and instructs developers to use" the accused workflows, thereby encouraging them to perform the steps of the patented method (Compl. ¶34).

• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement has been "willful, deliberate, and intentional" (Compl. ¶66). The complaint does not, however, plead specific facts establishing that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the ’685 patent.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
• A core issue will be one of claim scope and construction: Does the claim term "subtracting a matrix from the kernel data" encompass the "refitting" process allegedly performed by NVIDIA's RAPIDS cuML, or does it require a more specific mathematical operation not present in the accused software?

• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: What specific calculations does the accused RAPIDS cuML software perform when executing its Recursive Feature Elimination workflows, and do those calculations map onto the discrete steps recited in claim 1 of the ’685 patent?

• A central legal question, potentially revisiting issues from prior litigation, will be patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Does claim 1 recite a patent-ineligible abstract mathematical algorithm, or is it directed to a specific improvement in the functionality of a computer-implemented learning system, as the complaint argues at length (Compl. ¶¶32, 38)?
_________________
Look above recall me talking about revisiting freakin Alice 1 & 2

The recent filing might be initiated as a result of what NVIDIA defense filed or a move so that HDC does not have to show or file various information. No doubt it would seem to me that HDC's attorneys opted for this and it could be something to keep from public, yet is it good or bad?

I really have no clue

TBF when was the last time HDVY filed a report with SEC? (Even if they are legally required to do so.)

Must be all those revenues and profits and deals making the accounting and reporting so difficult.

Just keeps getting better and better wolf. My gosh, uncle already

No new court filings yet....however?

Form 15-15D - Suspension of duty to report [Section 13 and 15(d)]
June 12 2026 - 1:38PM
Edgar (US Regulatory)
Alert
Print
Tweet Share On Facebook

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 15

CERTIFICATION AND NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION
12(g) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 OR SUSPENSION OF DUTY TO FILE
REPORTS UNDER SECTIONS 13 AND 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Commission File Number: 333-62216
Health Discovery Corporation
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Post Office Box 616, Devault, PA 19432 1-847-721-1200
(Address, including zip code, and telephone number, including area code, of registrant’s principal executive offices)
Common Stock, no par value
(Title of each class of securities covered by this Form)
n/a
(Titles of all other classes of securities for which a duty to file reports under section 13(a) or 15(d) remains)
Please place an X in the box(es) to designate the appropriate rule provision(s) relied upon to terminate or suspend the duty to file reports:

Rule 12g-4(a)(1) ?
Rule 12g-4(a)(2) ?
Rule 12h-3(b)(1)(i) ?
Rule 12h-3(b)(1)(ii) ?
Rule 12h-3(b)(1)(ii) ?
Rule 15d-6 ?
Rule 15d-22(b) ?
Approximate number of holders of record as of the certification or notice date: 276
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Health Discovery Corporation has caused this certification/notice to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned duly authorized person.

Date: June 11, 2026 By: /s/ Alan Hauser
Name: Alan Hauser
Title: Chief Exe
_________________
Other definitions........
Understanding the Mechanics of SEC Form 15-15D

Sections 13 and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 concern the filing of periodic documents, reports, and information to the SEC by a securities issuer necessary for a security registered pursuant under Section 12 of the act.2

A company or a trust may wish to end reporting obligations to the SEC for a security after a change has occurred that eliminates such a requirement. For example, corporate entities might form a trust that is required to make periodic regulatory filings because of the nature of that trust. Insurance companies could collaborate to form a retirement plan and trust that calls for such filings. If those insurers elect to dissolve the trust, then Form 15-15D may be filed to terminate the reporting obligation.
Reasons for Filing SEC Form 15-15D

Mergers and structural reorganizations can also lead a company to file Form 15-15D to suspend its reporting requirements. For instance, if a company owns subsidiaries it may decide to absorb those entities into itself and take ownership of all the outstanding stock of the subsidiaries. Form 15-15D would be filed with the SEC to indicate the termination of the duty to file reports related to the outstanding stock of the subsidiaries.

If a company takes action to remove itself from the public markets, an act referred to as going private or going dark, filing Form 15-15D or Form 15 is part of the process. The company must complete several steps as it goes dark. This includes deregistering securities and ending the obligation to file periodic reports to regulators. The number of shareholders who own a company’s stock must fall below a certain threshold before filings can be made with the SEC to deregister. Publicly held companies can deregister their equity securities if there are fewer than 300 shareholders of record or fewer than 500 shareholders of record if the company does not have substantial assets.3

If the number of shareholders rises above the appropriate threshold, the company will be compelled to file reports with the SEC regardless of the intent to go dark.

Companies may choose to go dark in order to end the monetary and time burdens associated with filing required reports to the SEC that are mandatory in order to comply with legislation such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

LocWolf,

I am fine and I hope you are as well. I wasn't expounding on our legal footing. I was just responding to a prior post that suggested that HDC can't sue since they weren't using their patent, so it was OK for someone else to use it.

I think everyone knows that are odds aren't good, but as long as the company shows up in my brokerage account every time I log in, there's no reason to sell to pocket 6 cents, or 1 cent, or whatever it would be.

I would like Alan to give us an update, rather to expect shareholders to stay dangling in the wind.

You make some good points, LocWolf. Things are not always as they appear, or even as they should be (if we had a justice system). Instead, we have a legal system. Judges don't always concur on any particular issue. However, once the USPTO issues a patent, the recipient is legally granted exclusive ownership rights to the use of that patent. But there are loopholes in the system which big money pockets take full advantage of. Yes, it is unfair, but it is what it is. Yet, every now and then, David wins this battle against Goliath. But it is a little like playing Russian roulette when the little guy, the patent owner, has to go through this gauntlet, known as our legal system, in the pursuit of justice. However, based upon the odds, it's about time that little ol' HDC had a win at the roulette table. JMHO.

Well hello to you hope everything is great at the ranch. I like your idea about the patents but believe it isn't cut and dry actually it isn't. For instance you buy a car and have a receipt, a registration and of course a title correct? It seems that is cut and dry correct?

Now a patent is given by the USPTO but it doesn't mean it is cut and dry simply and as you know the massive intermix and various wordings. The USTPO tries to do their best but if you recall during the court process at the USPTO 1 of the 3 judges desisted. Now would it of mattered having all 3 judges agree?...I doubt it.

Although to be fair Intel had that right to do the court business and regardless of everything it was legal do the the legal system we have. I try to be fair but Intel played all this far beyond reasonable period we got screwed and even though the USPOT allotted several years - extension what did we get? At any rate and as I complained deeply during all this time it would be interesting to be in the know if HDC attempted to do any business involving ANY OF OUR PATENTS . So with that thought I sure would like to know about that or did HDC just hangout and wait for money to fall out of the sky?

Now my hat is bowed in thinking CEO-Alan is indeed doing the best he can and of course doing his best with Colleen as I sincerely believe she does likes messing with this headache.

Enough of my mouth for now.

A patent is property. You can't use someone's property without their permission, even if they aren't using it, If I have a truck parked in my driveway and I'm not using it, you can't take my truck for your purposes and then claim, "well, you weren't using it, so you can't sue me."

Blackmail?  Yeah ok. 

https://www.biospace.com/health-discovery-corporation-settles-patent-infringement-suit-against-ciphergen-biosystems-inc
What sucks is that every company that has used our technology has excelled. The only company that NEVER does is HDC.

John????

I remember there was a lawsuit or the threat , for patent infringement against Ciphergen a biomarker biotech. I believe there was a settlement for $600,000 in favor of HDVY

It is not clear to me how infringement prevented HDVY from developing products. Were the companies that "stole" the SVM-RFE algorithm developing products that competed with the potential HDVY products? AFAIK, all the products HDVY was pursuing were in the medical field; we have yet to see a patent infringement suit against a medical company.

Patents and products are different. A patent is a property right to protect an underlying technology. A product is a digital or physical manifestation of an idea. I don't see HDVY developing anything similar to what INTC or NVDA were selling. I don't see any potential products coming out of HDVY, leaving them with only patents, and no products.

Well, the reason we’re a non-practicing entity and could never develop into a practicing entity is because of a decade or more of willful and ongoing infringement aided and abetted by SCOTUS interference in the Court at the behest of the Senate. That’s against the law. It’s illegal. You said we have a legal system not a justice system. Maybe you’re right.

We should probably change it from the DOJ to:

DOSLA: The Department of Sometimes Legal Affairs🤷‍♂️

We could leave in the shrugging guy for emphasis as if to say, buyer beware. If you you’re planning to participate in this matter, it might be legal. Depends on how much you can pay and how many politicians you can buy.

Yes, all "patent trolls" own their patents. You can not collect royalties on patents you don't own.

The revenue stream of a "practicing entity" is selling the products protected by the patent. OTOH, the revenue stream of a "non practicing entity" is only the royalties from the patents.

The term patent troll makes some sense, because you have to pay a toll (royalty) to the troll in order to use the bridge (patent).

Is it possible to be a, “patent troll”, if a company owns that specific patent? The statement in itself is the definition of an oxymoron.

NPE: could also be Non-Patented Entity which would be any company that uses patent technology without licensure.

We all know of the term patent troll and that while this term can be applicable in many cases it is also frequently used to gaslight legitimate claims to defend infringement by large monied corporate interests. IMO this is true here. Large wealthy corporate interests had their pocketed senators write a letter to influence the Supreme Court at the highest level. Senators Leahy and Tillis did not write that letter influencing SCJ Roberts to act on behalf of citizen Mom and Pops. That my friend is corruption. Interference by the Supreme Court at the District Court level. It totally changed the length and trajectory of proceedings in addition to health discovery corporation’s ability to financially carry on operations and or potentially license the patent or make products. Direct correlation. The current court proceedings should culminate in our favor or the Legal System is illegitimate and open to the highest bidder. I have left the Supreme Court and Senate alone for quite some time in hopes that they would sort this out in a Just manner. Perhaps it’s time to remind them that I’m not going away. I will sue the Supreme Court and the Senate if this is not resolved in an appropriate manner in our favor.

https://patentprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/11.2-TT-PL-Ltr-to-Judicial-Conference-re-Patent-Forum-Shopping-Final.pdf

I didn't mention prior about the dates of extending HDC answer to NVIDIA's request to misses the court case. Doc 13 allows HDC to answer NVIDIA motion by June 23 and then NVIDIA to reply motion extension to July 14th

Alan...nice to see you post here again...hope all is well.
I like HDC being a patent troll as they have made millions of dollars being as such. I gather Dr. Barnhill is laughing at all this if he even remember. For a man of his caliber prior HDC he was something special but no doubt the wrong man to deal with some of the directors we have had and no doubt the wrong person to deal with some of the possible deals we had thought were sealed yet never anything more than a damn laughing joke of a company...look at the infighting with past management "prior" George McGovern here was a man who kept Quirk away from the cookie jar.

I think that your friend is correct about our "legal" system. Again, what you say is factually true. I am merely pointing out the flaws in the system.

I have a friend who said "we don't have a justice system, we have a legal system". Ignoring what is, looking for what should be, may result in less than optimal outcomes

Thanks, Alan. Although what you state is factually true, owning a patent should be no different than owning any other piece of property, like a house for example.
Let's say that I own a house which is not producing income, because it is not being rented out. I am still the owner with full ownership rights and privileges. Let's say that a bold opportunist moves in and makes my house his new residence without my permission and refuses to pay me rent. This "theft" would be a blatant violation of my rights. Being the property owner entitles me to the same protections under the law regardless of whether I am producing income with it or not. I think that the term "patent troll" was invented by patent infringers, and they should not be treated more favorably than the patent owners. JMHO.

HDVY is considered an NPE (non practicing entity). Somewhere along the line, patents became the product rather than a way to protect a product. A company that sells access to their patent, rather than making products using that patent are considered an NPE. NPE's are often called patent trolls, and the two terms are synonyms.
This is significant, because in general the courts treat NPE's more harshly than they do companies who make a product with the patent.
Alan

Strange....documents 10, 11 & 12 no access but doc 13 HDC asking for an extension to supply an answer to NVIDIA's motion for dismissal. doc 14, 14-1 and 14-2 just about HDC counsel representing the reply referencing dismissal motion by NVIDIA.

Looking at my folder of copies no pages are missing in a consecutive number count yet for some court reason doc 10-11 & 12 were not or rather used nor exist? I don't have enough knowledge to explain this numbering aspect?

Court Document filed today June 1, 2026 but not visible yet.

Now a negative must be said as I personally believe....I feel strongly that Marty was against more than "1" thing that Colleens dad did CEO McGovern simply because Marty was close to George for years and it would take more than "1" instance for Marty to become so negative towards CEO McGovern. Now I feel this transpired as a result of George trying to survive the company so he may have crossed the line several times. Due to this (my thinking) it placed extreme stress on anyone to file ANY back filings. Some may call this a scam but George kept the doors open plus he did more, far more for HDC than any past CEO.

Yes it all sucks.....and I personally "don't believe" HDC is a scam but do believe they are not willing to produce any back filings simply because they are a miss or not to be found. It wasn't Colleens miss but her dads. She decided to take on this mess which I'm sure she regrets so if the money is gone fine but produce/show us the paperwork and at least explain the damn deal involving the present legal team. Where did the money come from to start this lawsuit and let us see that arrangement however, I find it sad that HDC attorney's submitted such a lame written complaint against NVIDIA.

LocWolf, I do not assert that the settlement amount of $2.25 million was somehow reasonable. I merely point out that, because the case between HDC and Intel was settled, the legal issue between them was dismissed with prejudice (which is customary). For example, when an insurance company settles a claim with you, in order to receive the money, you sign an agreement that this ends the matter for all time (which is what "with prejudice" means).
p.s. Nice talking with you too, LocWolf!

Wow! Pennypop, I had no idea that the trail behind the scenes led to such high places, nor of your involvement to such extent.
I was aware of the two suspect senators intervening at the US Supreme Court level on behalf of Intel, but the details that you alluded to were not made public. I had no idea. Thanks for your post! I would like to know more.

I assure you that the only place where Terry is skulking is rather hot and shared with Old Nick and all his little demons. Which is a just reward for all his contributions to penny stock fraud in times gone by.

As for me, I like to study those penny stock frauds and those who promote them.

What’s your excuse?

BTW I Agree Justice Roberts is corrupt but not for the same reason as you - I doubt he’s ever been involved with the crooks behind HDVY.

Rather he is corrupt because of his oleaginous obeisance to the malignant treasonous orange toad currently squatting, like a more repulsive version of Jabba the Hutt, at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

So then 2 of you it seems
0.000001 yet here you and Terry skulk about

How many tin foil hats would you like?

And maybe Sir would like some cleansing detergent to help with his filthy pen?

BTW, nobody pays me. Unlike the pimps who trapped you all in this train wreck in the first place, Terry being only the most notorious among several.

Why, one of them still posts here.

Patent troll?🫵😉

Really… that’s a skid stain’s rationale?

The patent is bonafide🤷‍♂️
Thrice+ vetted🫵💪
You are the afterbirth of a failing and fledgling technocracy doomed to fail. You, and those who pay you, will soon see how wrong you have been. You think that technology and its use to dominate all life will prevail over biology, conscience and ❤️.

It’s a shame HDVY don’t manufacture tin foil hats.

They’d make a fortune from marks like you.

Mind you, Barnhill et al didn’t do too badly out of selling shares in a penny stock scam that masqueraded as a wannabee patent troll.

Smart folk know those days have long gone, of course.

PS Whatever did happen to the proceeeds of that alleged $2.25 million settlement? I don’t recall them ever hitting the balance sheet.

I have asked the Supreme Court (I have copied emails) for documentation (telephone, text, email or otherwise) of the communication that occurred between SCJ Roberts and the Adjudicating Authority In WACO Tx at the time which DID occur, THEY SAID… we’LL looking into it. 🦗🦗

They have (NVIDIA clients) been using our patented technology from the get-go. It’s been a game of kick the can since Israel stole our technology to use in the iron dome. It’s widely known. THE 2011 INTERFERENCE AT THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and again by lil ol’ me in 2021 is on record.
Listen to me! The constitution is clear. There are three branches of government. Private interests, namely NVidia has been allowed to take the promise of was meant for good and sell it it to highest bidder or you will die lol. . The highest bidder are always the merchants of death🤷‍♂️

I’m not going anywhere. Actually… just getting my second wind😉

2.25 peanuts for a moot dismissal by a compromised Supreme Court serving the bid of bought senators (lower case) on behalf of parasitic warmongering blood sucking Military and Weapons Manufacturing soul sucking demons (also lowercase). Apologies for my vulgarity and… off track missives my fellow pursuants of truth✨

Was $2.25 million worth the case dismissal with prejudice to which party? It would seem to me that if Judge Albright would have sided with HDC and some type of award, Intel would have filed an appeal in Federal court but believe both parties had fear as Intel didn't want to mess with Albright and HDC didn't want to see this land in Federal Appeals court if Albright sided with HDC.

At any rate nice to get this thread active again nice talking with you.🙂

But LocWolf, the reason Judge Albright dismissed the HDC vs Intel case with prejudice is because HDC and Intel agreed to a settlement. It was NOT because our patents were not valid or that our case had no merit. We actually got paid by Intel.

Oh, I think he is. Like me and a few others, perhaps he sees no reason to post anything lately. We are still waiting for news.

Another possible problem as follows...Intel and HDC-The parties ultimately stipulated to dismissal of both the Intel 1 and 2 cases, and the court dismissed the cases with prejudice. Now with that it still is a risk having this in Federal court (if you recall all this) Now we are in Federal court! so this judge reviewing all this past mess isn't going to have this sitting on his lap and as far as PTAB that was 2 out of 3 judges. USPTO I doubt much help will come from them actually none to be exact. (these are my words)