The claimed invention Qualcomm is accused of stealing is protected by patents issued to ParkerVision covering a "method for down-converting a carrier signal to a baseband signal".
The onus here was upon ParkerVision to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the method by which the accused products down-convert a carrier signal to a baseband signal infringes the patented method.
The jury found that the method by which the accused products down-convert a carrier signal to a baseband signal does indeed infringe the patented method.
However the jury managed to arrive at that conclusion even though the method by which the accused products down-convert a carrier signal to a baseband signal was never established.
If anybody doubts me they need only ask one of the Longs who attended the court case - Tampa or Urspond - to describe the manner in which ParkerVision established the processes which comprise the accused method for down-converting a carrier signal to a baseband signal.
From the reports they posted in this forum it never happened.
And we know that ParkerVision COULD NOT have done so - because ParkerVision's independent expert witness knew from the outset, and subsequently admitted under cross-examination, that the method by which the accused products down-convert a carrier signal to a baseband signal does not include the processes he earlier claimed correspond to Steps 3 and 4 of the patented method.
Either ParkerVision discovered a loophole overlooked by everybody before them involved in a patent infringement law suit - or an entire step in the mandatory legal process was omitted.
If Judge Dalton allows the verdict to stand he risks being made to look guilty of gross incompetence by the Appeal Court judges.
OMG... you are still arguing the same old #$%$. I am starting to think you are mentally challenged or on some kind of medication. Were you at the trial???? The monotonous rhetoric you expose is simply ignorance. Let me sum it for you... Parker won the case, the Judge will continue to stand by the verdict, Parker will be granted a Royalty contract and receive all past damages. Its plain and utterly simple. And yes... the Shorts are going to get crushed. :) End of story!!!!!
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Fud - Several points. First the burden of proof on infringement is preponderance of the evidence, no "beyond reasonable doubt". Thats a criminal standard. Second, a prima facie case of infringement was made when Prucnal gave it as his expert opinion that the QCOM circuits infringe. QCOM did not offer an expert witness on infringement, deciding not to put Fox on the stand. There was lots of assertion and argument by Neal the circuits did not infringe - but that is not evidence. it is argument and, as such, appropriately weighed by the jury as advocacy but not evidence. What Prucnal "admitted" was that a double balanced mixer followed by a filter and a high impedance load does not infringe. Neal said that was what QCOMs chips do. He did not put on a witness who would say that. Even had he been sworn as a witness, he would not have been permitted to opine on the subject as he had not established any credentials as a witness.
You are conflating attorney's argument with evidence.
***What Prucnal "admitted" was that a double balanced mixer followed by a filter and a high impedance load does not infringe***
Unfortunately for Neal, and more unfortunately for Qualcomm, the load is low impedance, not high impedance. It is low impedance so as to drain the current stored in the capacitor before the next aperture begins. One more example of Qualcomm shooting themselves in the foot, like when they tried to convince the jury that ParkerVision's technology was insignificant, because it occupied such a small part of the chip.
At least we now have a response from Tampa, a tacit admission that ParkerVision did indeed entirely omit a fundamental step in the legal process.
Tampa asks us to believe that the opinions of paid experts alone are a "legally sufficient evidentiary basis" for a verdict of infringement by jurors capable of reason - even though the leading expert unambiguously invalidated the testimony of the other expert - and then his own prior testimony with that admission under cross-examination.
The truth is that even credible opinions carry little weight as evidence -
[ Here, the Court has granted RIM's Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law.
Fed.R.Civ..P.50(c) states that if a court "grants a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, it must also conditionally rule on any motion for a new trial by determining whether a new trial should be granted if the judgment is later vacated or reversed."
Thus, because RIM has filed a Motion for a New Trial concurrently with its Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, and because the Court has granted RIM's Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, Rule 50(c) requires the Court to conditionally rule on the motion for a New Trial.
Accordingly, the Court conditionally grants RIM's Motion for a New Trial ...
Because the other findings made by the jury were predicated on its finding as to infringement, the Court's conditional decision to grant the Motion for a New Trial as to that issue means that the remainder of the jury verdict, including the jury's findings as to damages and RIM's defenses, would be vacated as well. ]
[ In sum, the Court finds that Mformation failed to establish that RIM infringes Claim 1 of the '917 Patent, insofar as the evidence shows that RIM's accused products do not practice the '917 Patent.
Thus, the Court finds that there was no "legally sufficient evidentiary basis" on which a reasonable jury could have found for Mformation on the issue of infringement. ]
insmview - You comment, "Tampa asks us to believe that the opinions of paid experts alone are a "legally sufficient evidentiary basis" for a verdict of infringement by jurors capable of reason" Actually it is the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that asks you to believe that. Read some cases.
An expert opinion of infringement is a prima facie case. If you doubt that, read the CAFC opinions on the point. A naked expert opinion is nevertheless weak evidence. However, QCOM chose not to present a witness on the issue of infringement (guess why!) so the prima facie case stands. If there was countervailing material in the cross-exam (I don't agree that there was, but assume arguendo that there was) the jury was free to choose what to believe. The mistake being made here is to assume that the factual issues get essentially relitigated on a JMOL. There is a reason why judges very rarely grant JMOLs. It is because they don't like getting reversed. If JMOLs were as available as many here seem to think we wouldn't need a jury system of justice at all. We could simply try cases to the court.
Tampa, re your -
"I and the jury saw PV's patented technology in QC's schematics and design documents and in Prucnal's simulations of such."
- nobody here is suggesting otherwise.
We're asking whether or not you saw PV's patented technology in the PART of QC's schematics and design documents which describes the "method for down-converting a carrier signal to a baseband signal".
Dang Teddy_KGB, I can't keep up with all your handles. I assume since you tacitly ignored my request for your source of redacted transcripts from which you've hypothesized that PV didn't offer infringement evidence, that your just making stuff up. I and the jury saw PV's patented technology in QC's schematics and design documents and in Prucnal's simulations of such. They are all in evidence and were available to the jury which had an electrical engineer among them. If that isn't proof enough, what would you suggest PV should have presented that would have met your soiled-shortz standards? PV's experts demonstrated that QC's circuits infringe PV's patents. QC did not defend this testimony with any of their own experts as Dalton confirmed May 1.
"beyond a reasonable doubt", eh? Uh, since when did this become a criminal prosecution?
More speculative bullsquat from Fud. You rarely fail to meet our abysmal expectations of you, but you've truly outdone yourself with that patently inane, totally incorrect statement. Well done, loser. You can take the rest of your life off.