"This report, along with Qualcomm's own documents that make clear that the receiver portion of the QSC6270 is, in all material respects, identical to the other accused products, forms the foundation of ParkerVision's complaint, as well as its Ics."
There is a glaring omission from that guidance - the suggestion that the reverse-engineering of that Qualcomm chip had revealed ParkerVision's "accumulated energy" architecture.
Which got me wondering. Could it really be possible that the relentless bombardment of this forum ever since the law suit was initiated, by a handful of posters reminding us several times a day that Qualcomm "stole poor little ParkerVision's invention" has been necessary to disguise the fact that ParkerVision itself has NEVER claimed that Qualcomm stole the invention?
If ParkerVision did have proof before initiating this law suit that Qualcomm had NOT stolen the invention, clearly ParkerVision could not afford to make a clear accusation to the contrary.
It would be of real help to other investors who use this forum if Nubuzzman, Roundermatt, Overbrook, Noshort, Longprkr, Trublvrprkr, Awmboat, Crj or one of the other Longs would point to at least one extract from the 200-plus court documents which includes something stronger than a vague suggestion that Qualcomm did actually steal ParkerVision's "accumulated energy" architecture.
Kindly don't attempt to muddy the waters by pointing to allegations of patent infringement instead of allegations of theft of the architecture. If you wish to discuss infringement I'm only too happy to do so in a separate thread. Let's leave this thread free for proof that some of you haven't been posting blatant lies in this forum.
No comments thus far from anybody apart from Overbrook - who has offered nothing of value, and pointed to nothing in the court documents which can be interpreted as a clear suggestion on the part of ParkerVision that Qualcomm has been using the "accumulated energy" architecture ParkerVision claims to have invented.
It's beginning to look suspiciously like a tacit admission on the part of the Longs I named that ParkerVision itself has never accused Qualcomm of stealing the invention
For anybody still undecided on this issue, consider the following -
1. ParkerVision had access to the results of a reverse-engineering of a Qualcomm chip before initiating this law suit, and knew for certain whether or not the chip incorporated ParkerVision's "accumulated energy" architecture.
2. When it came to the Markman (claims construction) hearing, ParkerVision proposed definitions calculated to widen the scope of their patents to include impulse-sampling architectures as well as the "accumulated energy" architecture.
I did remember a couple of documents where one might have expected to find a reference to the evidence revealed by the pre-suit reverse-engineering -
Document 71 -
"The reason is that this case is exceptional, in the sense that Qualcomm's past dealings with ParkerVision - where ParkerVision taught Qualcomm about its patented technology and where Qualcomm attempted to license ParkerVision's patents for considerable royalties - are exceptionally bad for Qualcomm."
Document 96 -
"The reason is that this case is exceptional, in the sense that Qualcomm's past dealings with ParkerVision - where ParkerVision taught Qualcomm about its patented technology and where Qualcomm attempted to license ParkerVision's patents for hundreds of millions of dollars - are exceptionally bad for Qualcomm."
Note the amendment. Somebody decided that a reference to "hundreds of millions of dollars" would suggest to the judge a stronger motivation for theft on the part of Qualcomm.
But if it was so all-fired important for ParkerVision to plant this "exceptionally bad for Qualcomm" idea in the mind of the judge, why wasn't the pre-suit reverse-engineering of the Qualcomm chip absolutely catastrophic for Qualcomm?
Not even a hint that Qualcomm had more to worry about than a provisional offer made subject to verification by Qualcomm of ParkerVision's performance measurements?
Btw - Document 206 reveals that Qualcomm was unimpressed by the measurements from the demo boards ParkerVision supplied -
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.
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".
Possibly the reason for the focus on the offer was to show evidence of intentional infringement. Without the proofs regarding the offer and the surrounding circumstances, there would be no basis for an intentional infringement claim.