SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

   Microcap & Penny StocksDecision Diagnostics Corp (OTC: DECN)


Previous 10 Next 10 
To: hdl who wrote (205)5/18/2016 8:27:23 AM
From: Pogeu Mahone
   of 267
 
HDL

Can you confirm? Thank you.

Formal mandates aren't issued for PATO cases. We will not see a mandate appearing on PACER.

Rule 41. Mandate: Contents; Issuance and Effective Date; Stay
(a) Contents. Unless the court directs that a formal mandate issue, the mandate consists of a certified copy of the judgment, a copy of the court's opinion, if any, and any direction about costs.
law.cornell.edu

Procedure..

I.OFFICE PROCEDURE FOLLOWING DECISION BY THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has heard and decided the appeal, the Clerk of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit forwards to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office a certified copy of the court’s decision. This certified copy is known as the “mandate.” The mandate is entered in the file of the application, reexamination or interference which was the subject of the appeal. The date the mandate was issued by the Federal Circuit marks the conclusion of the appeal, i.e., the termination of proceedings as that term is used in 35 U.S.C. 120. See 37 CFR 1.197.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s opinion may or may not be precedential. Whether or not the opinion is precedential, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will not give the public access to the administrative record of an involved application unless it is otherwise available to the public under 37 CFR 1.11. However, since the court record in a 35 U.S.C. 141 appeal generally includes a copy of at least part of the application, the application may be inspected at the Federal Circuit. In re Mosher, 248 F.2d 956, 115 USPQ 140 (CCPA 1957).

uspto.gov

from :

hugh_jackoman Tuesday, 05/17/16 10:29:34 PM
Re: None
Post # of 31247

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: thomas a. burke who wrote (215)5/18/2016 2:41:00 PM
From: NAG1
   of 267
 
Thomas,

The numbers can be very interesting as you said if
1)they have gotten a nice settlement from J&J
2)they can sell their strips at a nice margins

If the above is correct, your $3 guesstimate could be very low. If they can't perform as expected, then maybe they can reach a buck a share.

Just got a chance to look at todays trading and it looks like the longer traders have to wait for significant news, the more profit taking that will occur. I picked up some trading shares last week. I will wait and see if the share price drops further to see if I should pick up some more.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: NAG1 who wrote (217)5/19/2016 5:04:59 PM
From: thomas a. burke
   of 267
 
Neal....looks like another wasted day here. It is trading as if there was absolutely no financial benefit awarded to DECN from J&J. I guess if you are homeless, $10 could be considered "healthy". Oh well, I am also considering flipping a portion of my shares. Over the last 7 or 8 years, the flippers are the only ones who have made money here. Kudos to the flippers!!!

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: thomas a. burke5/25/2016 4:05:42 PM
   of 267
 
Gotta wonder who dumped 355,000 shares this afternoon? Wonder if it was the same person that dumped 175,000 shares yesterday. We should be back in the mid twenties by next week. Gotta love pennyland.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


From: thomas a. burke5/27/2016 11:31:48 AM
   of 267
 
I know only a handful of people read this board but I am really curious as to what others think about the absolute collapse of the share price after such a supposedly "monumental" win in court. Was this the ultimate pump and dump for a .40 run? I just don't get it.

Many long term holders (8 years here) thought this would easily run over a buck on news of the recent court victory yet here we are with no idea of what the alleged victory was worth and a crashing stock price. Of course we can always wait another 8 years to see if they ever get a product to market. I am really starting to wonder if they have any intention of selling products to a "mass" market or just plan on collecting from J&J and walking out the back door. Afterall, this is pennyland.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: thomas a. burke who wrote (219)5/27/2016 11:34:14 AM
From: ksuave
   of 267
 
Tom -- What is your take on the settlement being "sealed"? Someone who just started posting on he Ihub DECN thread (a Mr. Smith) seems to have become the new spokesman for Berman. He said that Berman said that the settlement, having been sealed, won't ever show up in the financials. This seems fishy to me. I am curious as to your take.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: thomas a. burke who wrote (220)5/27/2016 11:38:39 AM
From: ksuave
   of 267
 
If you follow the IHub thread, you already know my feelings.

My previous cynicism has to turned to absolute disbelief. I don't believe a thing about this company.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: ksuave who wrote (222)5/27/2016 12:21:05 PM
From: thomas a. burke
   of 267
 
Ksauve...you have always had a healthy amount of skepticism when it comes to DECN. IMO, that view is well warranted and I for one find it helpful. Unfortunately too many investors don't value that realistic view, especially when dealing with the cesspool known as pinkieland.

As for the "alleged" settlement, it is very probable that the results were sealed however, at some point they would have to be divulged by one of the companies. My guess would be J&J as they file with the SEC and are held to much higher standards, DECN standards...not so much.

I have been here for 8 years now and still believe there is hope but it sure seems this company does everything in its power to confuse or dissuade the investors. As for believing what this company says, hard to say because they never say anything.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: thomas a. burke who wrote (223)5/27/2016 12:31:21 PM
From: ksuave
   of 267
 
I think the speak through their spokesmen, and since they do nothing but insinuate things at best, and outright lie at their worst, I think that says a lot.

I believe itf the settlement has been sealed, it has been sealed at DECN's request because it was embarrassingly low and falls way below what the pumpers have been promising.

I was holding a small number of shares -- just in case -- but i have lost all faith and sold them all. I don't think the nevada case is something they will be anything they will be able to pump the price back up. I'm suspecting it's just about game over for DECN.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: ksuave who wrote (224)6/1/2016 12:41:55 PM
From: thomas a. burke
   of 267
 
You might be right Ksuave...it could be close to game over for this outfit. It is pretty obvious to me that there are no plans to become an "operational" company on a large scale...IMO. We are left with a litigation play and may never know "if" there was ever a monetary reward other than a "healthy" sum...could be $10 for all we know.

I am hoping there is one more pump to .40 and that would be the time to hit the exits. I now believe this will never be a profitable long term investment...strictly a flipper, and those opportunities seem to be fading fast. What I don't understand is how the company stands by and watches this happen...constantly. It makes no sense....UNLESS?

Once again Ksuave, you appear to be right. You have amazing radar when it comes to these stinky pinkies.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)
Previous 10 Next 10