Teamrep was coherent for a brief moment then lapsed back into la-la land with a prediction of PRKR's chances as "slim" and then note a 10-15% chance. If you turn those around to Qualcomm, you might have it right:
A urspond post from long ago:
Infringement lawsuits frequently involve fine parsing of sentences and abstruse etymological arguments about the meaning of particular words. Those can be extraordinarily difficult and expensive. In most such litigation, the argument is whether the alleged infringer has put his toe across the line.
One of the intrinsic advantages of the PRKR patents is that they don't protect a little patch of sand in the middle of a beach that is covered by literally thousands of other patents. The PRKR patents claimed a brand new beach - the whole beach.
On a crowded beach, it can be very difficult to articulate (much less enforce) your feeling that the next beach towel has been laid down too close to yours. The boundaries are somewhat indefinite (language is sadly imprecise) and the extent of the infringement is measured in inches (though it may make you quite uncomfortable). Big companies are very expert at crowding in the full knowledge that an infringement lawsuit can ruin a small company.
If you own the beach, the issue of infringement is much, much clearer. If someone comes onto the sand, they are infringing. In fact, just their presence is arguably wilful infringement (triggers exemplary damages).
So, why does that make a big difference? Because the infringement case is both much easier to try and the potential damages are much larger. That being the case, IMHO PRKR could engage the smartest, most aggressive patent litigators out there. Those litigators happen to work most of the time for contingency fees.
Once the case passes a threshold level of obviousness (and most infringements of the PRKR patents would do that) the bigger and richer the defendant is, the bette
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Great analogy - and I also like Overbrook's contribution -
"In other words, PV invented a whole new beach and anyone that steps on the beach infringes."
The only problem I see here is the testimony of ParkerVision's chief technical expert Dr. Prucnal - to the effect that the beach already had an owner before ParkerVision discovered it.
A week or two back I asked the Longs here how they thought ParkerVision would get around that testimony. What in your opinion was the best course of action suggested?
For those who aren't aware of this problem - ParkerVision's chief technical expert testified as follows -
1. A sawtooth pattern on the capacitor is one of the telltales of energy sampling.
2. His simulation of the voltage across the capacitor in the Estabrook Circuit exhibited a sawtooth pattern.
It seems to me that you have misinterpreted what Prucnal said. There is, however, no point in us debating the point. It does not matter one whit what I think he said or what you think he said. It matters what the jury, and to some extent, the judge, thinks.
Anyone who believes they know the clear, shining truth of these matters and that the truth will absolutely determine the outcome, does not, in my opinion, understand the nature of litigation, especially litigation of highly technical issues.
Great post - I was thinking precisely about the beach reference when I read Mr. Wheatley's email to Qualcomm's executives after he spent 6 hours reviewing the Parkervision patents and stated (I'm paraphrasing) that anyone who attempts to use the Parkervision approach to downconversion can't avoid stepping on its claims. In other words, PV invented a whole new beach and anyone that steps on the beach infringes.
If you look at ther various attachments to both the summary judgment motions and the Daubert motions, there are incredible admissions by Qualcomm exceutives that will just kill Q at trial. For example, how can Q maintain an invalidity defense when its own executives and chief scientists are praising the PV technology as if it were the best thing since sliced bread? - "holy grail" of downconvesrion - that PV contributes up to 80.1% of Qualcomm's operating profits from receiver sales - the list goes on and on
What - is Qualcomm going to maintain that its top technology people came to these conclusions - engaged in ongoing and detailed royalty negotiations concerning hundreds of millions of dollars - without conducting a simple prior art search to determine if this was unique? To listen to pvnotes and his cohorts, one would think that it was plain as day that PV's technology was a scam and just old, well-known technology with new names. Is Q seriouly going to contend that it was not aware of these simple facts when it was negotiating these deals? That its very own technical people were so inept that they were victims to this obvious scam? Make me laugh.
I could go on for pages about this and the Qualcomm admissions. Only question is - why is the stock price stuck where it is? Only possible answer - Qualcomm through proxies. Artificially depress the stock price and try to buy the company on the cheap to make this all go away. Fortunately, I am sure Cawley sees this one too and has an adequate response.
Sentiment: Strong Sell
So, my point of view is not informed by my own expertise. It is informed by watching (closely) the reactions and actions of those who are expert. By that standard, QCOM's actions suggest that the assertion of invalidity is deficient. Doesn't mean they won't win. Doesn't even mean that they won't win on invalidity. It comes down to whether you like the odds.
My three parts have posted with the last first. Sorry about that.
First, I remember the days when the expert opinion was that the disclosed invention would simply not demodulate a radio signal and that, in the words of one expert, "these people are either criminals or fools." I am not sure MF was one of those who opined that the device would not work at all. Perhaps he remembers. I do recall him stating a number of times that he had contacts in pretty much every RF using company and that they had universally determined that the technology was clearly inferior to available alternatives. And, of course, if that is strictly true, then QCOM never used the technology (because Wheatley was wrong and it is useless) and there is no need to invalidate the patents because there was no infringement.
Second, with a clear case to invalidate a pesky patent, an almost universal strategy is to seek a re-examination. The recent holding in Fresenius USA v. Baxter Int'l shows us clearly why this is an essential step if there are serious doubts about validity.
Third, there was no comprehensive SJ motion seeking invalidation. With strong prior art, the SJ motion is both an extra bite at the apple and a pitch made to a less volatile and better educated audience. PVNotes has suggested, as I recall, (he will correct me if I have misremembered) that QCOM does not want to reveal its trial strategy. I don't think that is persuasive. The invalidity argument will be made through an expert witness. That witness has submitted a written report and has been deposed. Any new arguments (new prior art, for example) that appears at trial is quite unlikely to be admitted and might result in sanctions. (End of Part Two)
Rereading the beach metaphor, it strikes me as slightly overstated. This is, after all, litigation. That being the case, the issue is not whether there is prior art. It isn't even whether you can "prove" there is prior art. It is, narrowly put, whether you can convince a jury that there is clear and convincing evidence that prior art exists. Two important factors in predicting what a jury will do (a pretty risky proposition) are (1) how much evidence is there of prior art, (2) will the jury follow the technical issues well enough to follow the argument. Some jurors will probably try hard to understand the technical issues. Some will give up on that early and will simply focus on who is the bad guy in the courtroom.
I cannot say that there is not prior art that invalidates PRKR's patents. I am not sufficiently expert. There are several facts, however, that make me moderately sanguine about PRKR's chances of prevailing on this point. (end of Part One)