From Pickard's old 836,531 patent (thanks bjingles) -
"This invention relates to means for receiving intelligence communicated by electric waves.
The object of the invention is to provide a commercially-useful means for operating a device for translating the communications into intelligible form exclusively by the energy of the oscillatory current generated by the receipt of the waves."
So ..... Pickard long ago patented a passive down-conversion/demodulation architecture (with a claimed efficiency of upward of ten per cent).
However, this trial is about the ParkerVision patents. The actual architecture ParkerVision is using has of itself no bearing on the outcome.
When we factor in the latest claims construction rulings, it seems that ParkerVision's fate now hangs on the answers to the following three questions -
1. Is there anything non-obvious from the prior art (and therefore a valid basis for a patent) about down-conversion which transfers amounts of energy from the carrier signal in the following manner? -
at an aliasing rate that is substantially equal to a frequency of the carrier signal plus or minus frequency of the lower frequency signal, divided by 0.5, 1 or an integer greater than 1.
2. If this is indeed a non-obvious application of the passive down-conversion concept, can ParkerVision demonstrate that Qualcomm has been using said non-obvious application?
3. Can ParkerVision rectify its failure to date (see Document 169) to submit evidence that Qualcomm was aware of the allegedly-infringed patents prior to the initiation of this law suit? (No wilful infringement - no punitive damages).
4. If Qualcomm cannot demonstrate that the now-wider scope of the ParkerVision patents (given the latest ruling) renders the patents invalid because they cover prior art - and if ParkerVision can demonstrate that the Qualcomm architecture falls within the scope of their patents - will the judge's decision to ignore the extrinsic evidence from the Tutorial hearing constitute adequate grounds for Qualcomm to contest the verdict, and give Qualcomm the right to have the dispute settled via the appeal court process?
p.s. - from the latest ruling -
1. Claim construction is a matter of law.
2. The Federal Circuit directs district courts construing claim terms to focuses on intrinsic evidence - that is, the claims, specification, and prosecution histories - because intrinsic evidence is "the most significant source of the legally operative meaning of disputed claim language."
3. Claim terms must be interpreted from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time of the invention.
4. Claim construction starts with the claims, and remains centered on the words of the claims throughout.
5. In the absence of an express intent to impart a different or unique meaning to claim terms, the terms are presumed to have their ordinary meaning.
Can the testimony of Sorrells during the Tutorial hearing in the context of the alleged novelty of the claimed method of down-conversion be construed as an express intent to impart a different or unique meaning to the term "non-negligible amounts of energy"?
I'm struggling to form a clear idea of the architecture ParkerVision is claiming it invented, and Qualcomm has been using. It would be really helpful if Roundermatt or one of the other Longs posted a brief outline of precisely where the alleged infringement lies.
I'm not hopeful that any of the Longs here will be interested in posting anything not calculated to support the illusion that ParkerVision is in a strong position. But it's worth noting the topics these people have been avoiding.
Clearly ParkerVision did not invent what ParkerVision's lead inventor told the judge during the Tutorial hearing his team invented - passive down-conversion/demodulation.
One assumes that Sorrells and his colleagues invented a TYPE of passive downconversion/demodulation nobody before them had envisaged. If that is indeed the case, one wonders why Sorrells during the Tutorial hearing compared his invention with the established non-passive architectures rather than with the established passive architectures.
I've seen it suggested here that the allegedly-infringing architecture is covered by Qualcomm's US patent 7769361.
Investors who are not familiar with the process of establishing intellectual property rights may be unaware that both Qualcomm and ParkerVision protect their respective technologies by applying for patents both in the US and in Europe. The European Patent Register site in particular is a useful source of background information. It has the following information on the European equivalent of US7769361 -
Patent no. EP2038997
Application published by WIPO in one of the EPO official languages on January 17 2008
Bibliographic data published in section I.1 EP Bulletin on March 25 2009
It's safe to assume that Sterne is aware of those steps in the process. From the record of one of the ParkerVision patents -
Application published by WIPO in one of the EPO official languages on November 22 2001
Bibliographic data published in section I.1 EP Bulletin on April 2 2003
Fwiw - the international search for prior art deemed relevant to the Qualcomm application unearthed at least four examples, none of which were any of the ParkerVision patents previously issued by the European patent office.
More significantly - one wonders why Sterne, who has been paid a considerable amount of money over the years to protect ParkerVision's intellectual property, didn't mention the Qualcomm application to ParkerVision when he was first alerted to it in January 2008.
One assumes he could not have mentioned it, as ParkerVision claims (in an attempt to avoid having its patents ruled as unenforceable under the Doctrine of Laches) to have been unaware of the allegedly-infringing architecture until almost three years later -
"In late 2010, Richard Harlan discovered the two Qualcomm patents that ParkerVision cited in its infringement contentions. This led Richard Harlan to find the conference paper describing a Qualcomm chip titled "A 65nm CMOS SoC with Embedded HSDPA/EDGE Transceiver, Digital Baseband and Multimedia Processor" in early 2011. This paper appears to have been published in February of 2011.
This paper raised ParkerVision's suspicions of Qualcomm's infringement. Before reviewing this paper, ParkerVision had no reason to believe that Qualcomm was infringing its patents."
None of the above constitutes hard evidence that ParkerVision did know about the Qualcomm architecture before late 2010. But it does rather suggest that ParkerVision WILL need to produce hard evidence that Qualcomm knew about the ParkerVision patents (in order to make possible the multi-billion dollar punitive damages award predicted in this forum).
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Roundermatt, re your -
"Finally. Qualcomm could have moved the USPTO to invalidate those last three, which were, I believe, beyond the ex-parte review limitation: why didn't they?"
- kindly note (and make an effort to understand) the third question I offered in the initial post of this thread.