This keeps keeps getting better and better. Shorts watch you're behind because the band keeps playing Parker melodies. Here's a cut--and-paste from a buddy in North Carolina who watches this case on a whole different level. Judge Dalton just issued rulings today (1/29/13). Once again, all in favor of PRKR.
[In the ruling, the appeals court noted that given the motivation to avoid the "hangman's noose" of an inequitable conduct finding, "it is unsurprising that patent prosecutors regularly bury [patent office] examiners with a deluge of prior art references, most of which have marginal value."
As a result, Judge Dalton concluded that "an equally if not more reasonable inference" from the numerous references provided during application of ParkerVision's patent is that the company aimed to insulate itself from inequitable conduct claims by over-disclosing references.
The judge also dismissed Qualcomm's counterclaim that ParkerVision engaged in inequitable conduct by belatedly disclosing a relevant reference, thereby misrepresenting the significance of the reference.
The reference was ultimately disclosed to the USPTO before the patent issued, so the belated disclosure cannot be considered inequitable conduct, the judge ruled.
"One cannot assume that a [USPTO] examiner is an ignorant rube who is easily misled by attorney argument, hyperbole, or understatement," he wrote.
The judge let stand Qualcomm's third inequitable conduct theory, that ParkerVision misled the patent office by saying four prior art references were different from the patent, when they actually teach the same elements.
Although he ruled that the claim was adequately pled, the judge said he was concerned about the "potential chilling effect" on attorneys were he to rule that making distinctions between patent claims and prior art could be inequitable conduct.
It remains to be seen whether Qualcomm has evidence to support its claims, the judge said, but "Qualcomm should also understand that the court will supervise carefully the material misrepresentation theory going forward, and if it ultimately proves to be specious, the court may impose sanctions." ]
Fud was just making fun of my recent post on how the rulings keep favoring Parker. Sorry Fud, but here's another. They just keep piling up.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
"The judge let stand Qualcomm's third inequitable conduct theory, that ParkerVision misled the patent office by saying four prior art references were different from the patent, when they actually teach the same elements."
I believe this was a quote from the ruling re: the above:
"But each of the four references listed above plainly discloses these elements....."On its face, Fisher 1981 teaches all of the elements that the Applicants described as missing from Fisher 1981:"
Does that not seem like an extremely damning comment? It's one thing to argue that that the applicants simply provided a deluge of information for belts and suspenders - it's quite another to go out of one's way to contort and twist prior art references and the judge is saying that they PLAINLY disclose the elements that the applicant said they do not.
What am I missing here? Perhaps Obi-Wan can weigh in on this.
Sentiment: Strong Sell
I think we are getting a little over-excited here. The judge's ruling is pretty steaightforward. First, he dismissed the inequitable conduct claims based on allegations of intentionally overloading the PTO with irrelevant references and "burying" relevant refernces. He also dismissed those claims based on the late filing of prior art references. These dismissals were on the pleadings - meaning that, even if true, you just can't sue on those allegations. There is no right involved - the Therasense case is quite clear.
Second, the judge ruled that Q has properly PLED a claim for inequitable conduct based on lying to the PTO. In other words, if Q can prove those allegations, it has stated a claim.
However, the judge was clearly troubled by allegations that respected patent counsel affirmatively defrauded and lied to the Patent Office. He allowed the claim, but indicated that it should be dealt with on a summary judgment motion. Here's some of the judge's discussion in his decision (note that the judge indicated that Q's allegations only barely stated a claim):
The Court is concerned about the potential chilling effect that a determination of inequitable conduct arising out of distinctions between patent claims and prior art would have on practitioners appearing before the PTO. Nevertheless, while Qualcomm’s allegations certainly skirt the line between fraud and zealous attorney argument regarding the scope or extent of the teachings of disclosed prior art, they are sufficient to meet the pleading standards of Rule 9(b), as they state with particularity the circumstances constituting the alleged fraud. That is, Qualcomm has specifically pled the who, what, when, where, and how of the representations that it alleges were false.
As noted at the January 10, 2013 hearing, the Court is troubled by the serious nature of the allegations that Lee and Sorrells, a practitioner before the PTO and a private citizen, respectively, materially misrepresented with specific intent to deceive the scope of the four references.
Once again, I note that in a prior post, crg has explained how the prior art references cited in the claim are distinguishable from the PV patents. Apparently, Q produced an internal Qualcomm email that admitted that Parsinnon did not apply.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Those words are Qualcomm's not the judge's. You are engaging in inequitable conduct.
The judge simply stated that, unlike Qualcomm's other contentions, that this one at least was a properly written plea. He had clear doubts that there was inequitable conduct in the matter, as the latter is serious and has grave implications, and the burden of proof is on the party making the accusation.
Since this is clearly tied to the accusations of lying hurled at fellow attorneys, the judge is inviting Qualcomm's attorneys to provide evidence for their baseless claim before he throws the book at them at the end of the trial.
Bonk - the extract you quoted is from QCOM's allegations. It remains to be established that an individual of skill in the art would read that prior art as disclosing the elements ParkerVision told the patent office said prior art does not disclose.
Are you insane?
That ruling was not made today - it was the exact ruling from which I quoted earlier to expose your lie that all of the rulings thus far had favoured ParkerVision.
Btw - since I posted that I've been rummaging through all of the Court documents, and found several more rulings which went against ParkerVision.
To save yourself further embarrassment I suggest you take the trouble to actually read the earlier rulings before you post any more drivel on this subject.
And BTW, the court ruling was actually issued yesterday, 1/28....so if my being off by only one day ranks me an "idiot" ---- With those same rules applied, with the far largest bulk of the court rulings so far falling in favor or Parker, it would seem you rank in the .... "irrelevant" category?
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Okay, Mr. Hair Splitter. Let's say the "majority of the rulings." How about the "largest portion." "Most." I'll remove "All" and we can insert any of these terms instead. You feel better and I'll be left alone to feel the groove of this court case leaning towards Parker's favor.
Sentiment: Strong Buy