Doc 171-15 is the only PACER document with any evidence of the Qualcomm “offer”.
It is a document from Qualcomm’s files with date of 6/10/99. It is clearly a Qualcomm document, discussing a copy of a undated ParkerVision response, almost surely itself a response to an earlier Qualcomm proposal of some sort.
There is no indication of the date of ParkerVision’s response, or of the date of Qualcomm’s original proposal (probably an LOI).
Either ParkerVision doesn’t have the original documents *or* the dates of the originals didn’t help the PRKR case, otherwise why not use the original docs as they would be much better evidence.
Either way, the date of the original offer was probably much earlier. Give ParkerVision’s history of negotiations, I believe that the original “offer” (i.e., LOI) probably predated any of the earliest disclosures of PRKR technology to Qualcomm. I say this because ParkerVision has, in every case I know the details of, insisted on an NDA and usually some tentative terms (LOI) before giving any technical details. This was true for D2P as well as D2D, and true for multiple negotiating “partners”. I see no reason to believe that the Qualcomm negotiation was any different.
So, I tend to believe (until I see further evidence) that the original LOI was probably much closer to very early 1999, and that is was, most likely, substantially before Qualcomm knew enough about the “technology” to be able to give specific prior invalidating prior art.
I'm also not really sure why it ultimately matters.
Farmwald, the sworn answer to interrogatory #1 at dkt #102, Exhibit B, completely contradicts what you are saying about the timing of the offer, and PV's supposed usual practice; and is consistent with everything I said on the this topic from the beginning. Once again, you have demonstrated are full of it, Farmwald.
An answer to an interrogatory is not evidence. Given that Qualcomm's answers (with a detailed history) and PRKR answers (vague conclusions) are quite different and generally inconsistent, the actual documents from the time period will determine the truth. The PRKR answer also doesn't actually say anything about the timing of the negotiations, merely offering the PRKR view of the history of the negotiations (with no dates or details).
I stand by my previous statements about the only actual evidence shown so far, which is that the "offer" probably was an LOI and was in advance of any detailed description of the technology. Clearly, according to Qualcomm, ParkerVision never was able to "overcome all of Qualcomm's technical and patent concerns", given that every test Qualcomm did of the PRKR technology either failed or showed no advantages, and the Qualcomm abandoned any further discussions in late 1999 after the final failure of of PRKR to demonstrate that D2D worked or was novel.
I know in detail about PRKR later negotiations with other companies and the Qualcomm answer is consistent with those negotiations, while PRKR’s is not.
Finally, PRKR, in the interrogatory, stated “Finally, Qualcomm has no credible defense in this litigation.” Given that Qualcomm has produced hundreds of invalidating prior art references, this is clearly untrue. So, there are at least a number of obviously false and misleading statements in the answer. It doesn’t really matter, in that none of the false statements had sufficient details to be perjury, and could be defended as being a true statement of PRKR beliefs (as compared to what actually happened.)
response to this lawsuit—counterclaiming Sterne Kessler and lodging various frivolous claims
against ParkerVision and Sterne Kessler—evidence a desperate reaction of a willful infringer
You kind of have to agree, no? If there is infringement, willful infringement is a slam-dunk. Invalidity is a non-starter, and Qualcomm knows it.
Let's say, arguendo, that the offer/:LOI came before March 1999: Why would that matter if the Parssinen objection was subsequently overcome?
It's a matter of record that QC withdrew it's counterclaims on I-E after it was revealed by Cawley at a hearing that subsequent to Younis Parssinen objection, some Qualcomm engineer wrote an e-mail saying Parssinen taught away from the "aperture approach";
So where is the final rejection linked to prior art? It's not. It's linked to poor performance.
If QC goes on to patent the same thing without citing PV and using the invention, pressing Parssinen/Younis at trial will only make QC look even worse.
I would also love to cross them and their expert: "are QC engineers not skilled in the art"?
"Did you not look at all the prior art and ULTIMATELY decide the "aperture approach" was not Parssinen?
And then you sent PV back to drawing board based on supposed poor performance?
Then you defrauded the USPTO and stole the technology?