Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Parkervision Inc. Message Board

  • fudfighter4 fudfighter4 Mar 22, 2013 3:37 PM Flag

    Allegations are often distant strangers to fact

    Longprkr - what specific extracts from the court documents can you point us to which support your belief that ParkerVision is likely to win substantial damages?

    McKool alleges that any infringement on the part of Qualcomm was wilful. But a verdict of wilful infringement unless Qualcomm can present EVIDENCE that Qualcomm believed the patents were valid.

    With no evidence of that belief, the judge can't even put it to the jury.

    Finding evidence to support that particular allegation seems a tall order when one considers the evidence which supports a belief on the part of Qualcomm that the patents were unenforceable on the grounds of prior art (and therefore not valid) -

    1. When ParkerVision first described the claimed invention to Qualcomm, Qualcomm's response was that it was already covered by prior art.

    2. Qualcomm abandoned the negotiation after analysing the D2D demo board.

    3. ParkerVision told its investors that Qualcomm would need a license from ParkerVision to sell the ZIF technology announced in 2000.

    4. Qualcomm didn't apply for a license.

    5. ParkerVision did nothing.

    I don't see in the foregoing anything at all which suggests that Qualcomm believed at any point that the claimed invention was validly patentable. In fact, the about-turn on the part of ParkerVision can only have been seen by Qualcomm as proof that ParkerVision thought it likely that the patents were indeed unenforceable.

    Longprkr - kindly offer an honest response which directly addresses the question I put to you at the start of this post.

    continued .....

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Fud - wow- I read one of your posts regarding Insmed! It appears that you are a technical genius not only on the intricacies of chipset design for mobile devices, but also on pharmaceuticals! (BTW - which one pays better? I always wondered) Anyway, so glad we have a Renaissance man here on the Board!

      Sentiment: Strong Buy

    • Fud - don't you also post on the board regarding Insmed? You have hats in both pharmaceuticals and electrical engineering/chipset design? I'm impressed (I think)

      Sentiment: Strong Buy

    • Aint' playing hour shortie games Fud. Ittakesone2 has you pegged correctly.

      Here's what I want to say:
      Parker won 43 of 44 definitions at the Markman. Qualcomm counter-sued over 7 various claims - now all of them dropped. A reverse engineering of the chip in question (WSC6270) shows the circuitry inside of Qcomm's chip uses PRKR's patented technology. Parker's 86 infringement contentions across all 6 patents in question remain active. The Parker patents have at least 10 more years before the expire.

      Trial starts Oct 7 in PRKR's home state. GET READY FUD. RUN WHILE YOU CAN and quit leading people down the wrong road. Have you no conscience?

      Sentiment: Buy

      • 1 Reply to longprkr
      • Re your -

        "A reverse engineering of the chip in question (WSC6270) shows the circuitry inside of Qcomm's chip uses PRKR's patented technology."

        - you could really help your fellow longs by pointing out the court document which alerted you to that info.

        However, I somehow doubt that you WILL be helpful - apart from helpful to a few of us here by your inability to do that.

    • Fud - where are you getting your facts from? There is absolutely no support for your factual statements regarding No. 1 and 2 of your post anywhere in the documents on the Court docket. Maybe you can cite to something.

      Query, if PV stated that Q would need a license for the Zif technology, did Qualcomm deny that PV's technology was used in the ZIF? Probably more importantly, aren't you discussing an irrelevant issue? Jeff Parker stated that Qualcomm did not start infringing until 2007 or so. Does this have to do with the 2006 patents that Rounder has referred to? ZIF seems irrelevant.

      Sentiment: Strong Buy

      • 2 Replies to overbrook10
      • : There is absolutely no support for your factual statements regarding No. 1 and 2 of your post anywhere in the documents on the Court docket.

        See PACER Doc 91, paragraph 19 & 21 (Yahoo isn't letting me post the quote - I'll try to edit it down & post as reply.)

      • : There is absolutely no support for your factual statements regarding No. 1 and 2 of your post anywhere in the documents on the Court docket.

        From PACER Doc 206-2 (excerpt from a long response):

        “In October, Qualcomm engineer Rob Gilmore concluded that ParkerVision’s D2D technology was “not worth it” for transmit and would not be a benefit on the receive side. (QCPV001391422-25 at QCPV001391422.) On October 18th, Prashant Kantak informed Jeff Parker that Qualcomm would continue its evaluation of ParkerVision’s technology only “when [ParkerVision] achieve[s] some
        concrete milestones on the CDMA receiver development front”. (QCPV001413158.)”

        There were no further discussions between PRKR & QCOM until the filing of this lawsuit.

    • Part 2 ...

      Secondly, do you agree that IF ParkerVision manages to come out of this with a verdict of (non-wilful) infringement - because of the limitations imposed by 35 USC § 287 royalties will only be payable on sales made after ParkerVision filed its initial complaint against Qualcomm on July 20 2011?

      From 35 USC § 287 -

      "In the event of failure so to mark, no damages shall be recovered by the patentee in any action for infringement, except on proof that the infringer was notified of the infringement and continued to infringe thereafter, in which event damages may be recovered only for infringement occurring after such notice. Filing of an action for infringement shall constitute such notice."

      From the Appeal Court ruling on Amsted v Buckeye -

      "For purposes of section 287(a), notice must be of "the infringement," not merely notice of the patent's existence or ownership. Actual notice requires the affirmative communication of a specific charge of infringement by a specific accused product or device. The 1986 letter does not meet this standard. It is irrelevant, contrary to the district court's conclusion, whether the defendant knew of the patent or knew of his own infringement. The correct approach to determining notice under section 287 must focus on the action of the patentee, not the knowledge or understanding of the infringer."

      "We thus conclude as a matter of law that the 1986 letter, which notified the whole industry, including Buckeye, only of Amsted's ownership of the patent and generally advised companies not to infringe, was not notice within the meaning of section 287. Amsted accordingly did not give Buckeye notice for purposes of section 287 until its 1989 letter, which specifically charged Buckeye with infringement and specified an infringing device."

      • 2 Replies to fudfighter4
      • Mike - thanks for the reference - and there you go. Unfortunately, I don't believe that those statements are the only evidence on this issue. There will be tons more. During the conference call, Jeff Parker (obviously reading from a prepared statement probably drafted by McKool) stated that there are substantial proofs regarding the offer (can't remember the exact language he used)

        Sentiment: Strong Buy

      • OMG. Ittakesone2 claimed this about you Fud:
        "...Fud gets fed info from somewhere, types it in, spins it and his day in the office is done. You're a classic BS'er. You're they guy that has figured out, much to your credit, how to sound like you know what you're talking ..."

        I've been watching and reading your posts. You post CONSTANTLY Fud. And they're just like Ittakesone2 said they were.Look at the technical sounding #$%$ you just posted. OMG. You always manage to put in some really seemingly technical #$%$ola that - to the unknowing person - would leave them saying "Wow -he must know SOMETHING - It sounds so...OFFICIAL!" Amsted vs. Buckeye, I mean, #$%$?

        You are being fed technical sounding #$%$ that you spin. I can't believe you've been truly pegged. You don't know one more ioata than anyone else here. Fud. How much to they pay you. I mean, are you like me? Do you have a lot of money in? I have decent amount of money in as a long. But you.....you MUST be getting paid. Even if you had a lot of skin in the game as a short, it still doesn't explain your #$%$ola that you post every frekin day. Multiple times a day. Doesn't make sense. I mean, you're addicted. Try not posting for several days Fud. Take the addicts's challenge.

        Ittakesone2 has you down pat.

        Sentiment: Buy

 
PRKR
0.8399+0.0043(+0.51%)Mar 27 4:00 PMEDT