We seem to have established that neither you nor any of the other Longs has a clear idea from first-hand analysis of whether or not infringement ever occurred - and that your confidence is based primarily upon the participation of others such as Pruncal and Cawley.
Re your -
"... as if numerous posters have not repeatedly pointed out that no one is relying on Parkervision, Jeff Parker, Sorrels at all - rather we are relying on Doug Cawley and his associates - partly because we can read and evaluate the case Cawley is presenting ..."
- I have pointed out to you the opinion of the JUDGE with regard to the complaint initially prepared by Cawley -
"It is plain that the complaint fails to state a plausible claim for relief for either inducement of infringement or contributory infringement under In re Bill of Lading."
Cawley submitted the initial complaint on July 20 2011. Having had seven months to rectify the flaws in the initial complaint, Cawley submitted an amended complaint on February 28 2012. But according to the judge, the amended complaint in part still failed to "state a plausible claim for relief".
On August 30 2012, just a week after the judge made that criticism, Cawley tried again - with two versions on the same day! The second apparently corrected a typing error in the first. Here's Qualcomm's analysis of his last attempt -
"ParkerVision's new complaint fails to meet the standard specified by this Court for pleading indirect infringement and fails to meet the requirements of the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit. While the new complaint may have added more words to its previous indirect infringement allegations, those words merely parrot the legal elements of indirect infringement, without any fact supporting a reasonable inference of indirect infringement in this particular case."
What was your conclusion following your own evaluation? Do you dispute that Cawley still failed to rectify the fundamental flaw in the initial complaint - the absence of a single fact supporting a reasonable inference of indirect infringement?
Assuming you are unable to identify a factual element included in that last complaint (and missing from the initial complaint) what is your opinion of the reason for Cawley's continued failure?
1. Is he not sufficiently competent to fully leverage such evidence as can be interpreted as suggestive of indirect infringement?
2. Is it basically a problem of the absence of evidence of indirect infringement - or even wilful infringement?
Are able to identify a single fact (as opposed to allegation) in that last complaint which supports a plausible inference that Qualcomm was even AWARE of those patents before the initial complaint was filed? (so that ParkerVision stands to win more than just "damages set at a reasonable royalty").
If you could share your thoughts with us on this issue it would help us to understand why you and the other Longs are so confident in the eventual outcome.
Can you point us to one or two specific facts which convinced you personally that Cawley's chances of winning this case are far greater than are suggested by his thus-far inept performance.
Btw - please bear in mind that the judge's adoption of almost every one of Cawley's claims construction proposals was very much a two-edged sword.
If the end result of the Markman rulings is that it made it easier for Qualcomm to prove the ParkerVision patents invalid because they cover prior art, those claims construction proposals will go down in history as an embarrassing own-goal on the part of Cawley.
Well Fud - where to begin. I can't take too much time because I am working today (The law is a demanding mistress - even more so than Mrs. Overbrook).
1. Cawley didn't draft the July 2011 Complaint. McKool was not in the case until November of 2011.
2. I don't have time right now to go back over all the pleadings - but as far as I know the claims of indirect infringement are still standing.
3. Evidence of awareness of Parkervision's technology that is being infringed? How many times do we have to point out that in 1999-2000 Parkervision disclosed its trade secret technology to Qualcomm as part of royaly negotiations? That as part of those negotiations Qualcomm offered Parkervision several hundreds of millions of dollars? That it is alleged that, after the negotiations broke down, Qualcomm just took that technology and stole it?
You don't think that, if infringement is shown, that is not evidence of intent? In fact, those negotiations and that offer is one aspect of this case that makes it so unique and so valuable. I have never heard of a patent case where there were circumstances such as this.
4. Anyone who describes Doug Cawley's performance so far in this case as "inept" has been asleep the last 18 months or so. I won't even go there
5. Markman ruling. I love how you shorts try to spin this one. For months we have been hearing that PV is going to get whipped at the Markman. I think it was pvnotes who said he was at the hearing and that Qualcomm clearly won. You'all predicted that PV was going to lose the Markman and the fraud of Parkervision was going to be finally exposed. Then when Qualcomm gets absolutely whipped - losing 43 out of 44 claim terms- you say its a 2-edged sword? Yeah - I guess that's one way of looking at it - one blade to cut Qualcomm's legs off and the other blade to cut its head off. Works for me.
What are you going to say after these guys settle this case for $2-4 billion - Cawley got taken??