Doc, you still don't get it. This Judge hates QC; He hates Hummel; It's clear as a bell; To overrule the decision to treble, the appellate courts will have to find an abuse of discretion; Threshold for which is much higher than error ... absent error, you are toast; In fact, unless you can stay solvent while QC bounces around in the appellate courts, you are toast, either way; Enjoy the ride; Couldn't happen to a nicer guy; But keep posting that all "passive mixers" are the same; I'm sure someone will believe you - poor devil(s)
Apparently you're not up on the latest case law. Do a search for "A Radical Change in Willful Infringement Litigation" (or just search for "willful infringement de novo"). An excerpt:
"Bard is important for two reasons: (1) the district court judge is now the final arbiter of willfulness and whether reliance upon a defense was reasonable, and (2) by making this a legal question, the district court's decision is subject to de novo review at the Federal Circuit."
If you don't already know, "de novo" means that the appeals court decides for itself from the facts - no deference is given to the original decision. Markman's are subject to the same "de novo" appeals decisions. The more the judge acts in a biased way, the more certain that the appeals court would overrule him.
WRT passive mixers, clearly they're not all the same. However, ParkerVision, in its filings to the court, clams to "own" any mixer with a controlled switch and a capacitor. That's pretty much all passive mixers (other than passive mixers built with diodes), and certainly covers many papers, chips and patents from the 1990s, published well before the ParkerVision patents. Tayloe is a good example, but there are many others. I suggest a good textbook, e.g. Tom Lee "The Design of CMOS Radio-Frequency Integrated Circuits", published Jan 1998 (i.e., it's prior art), Read pages 331-335. It's a very clear description of the same type of passive mixer that PRKR is claiming, and even has a derivation how much "energy" (i.e. power) the basic passive mixer transfers from input to output (about 64%, which anyone would agree is substantial.) This is from a very well-known textbook on RF, published before the PRKR patents, and never referenced by PRKR in any patent-in-suit.
Remember that PRKR never mentioned the words "passive mixers" *anywhere* in *any* of the patents-in-suit, but are now claiming to have invented the idea!?
Farmwald: I said that the appeals courts would have to find an abuse of discretion to overrule trebling, and I don't see anything from reports on Bard decision that changes that, though I haven't read the actual decision, yet.
It appears to me that Bard makes the justification for a finding of willfulness reviewable as an error, but not the amount, and that the threshold for any such "error" was arguably lowered from clear and convincing (75%) to preponderance ( 50%).
A finding that QC was reckless when it patented what it attempted to license without citing PV and then implemented it, shouldn't be difficult, and, if that is upheld, a full trebling should be very hard to overturn.
Meanwhile the question remains can you and the other shorts stay solvent, or will your positions be bought-in by brokers with regulators standing over their shoulders?
As to the a controlled switch and a capacitor: you still don't get what d2d is; even though Sorrells has testified publicly that it's how that energy is manipulated, stored and utilized that differentiates d2d from other approaches with the same basic components (e.g., not what is simply transferred from i to o, but rather what is utilized and how).