The Patent Board's "rankings" tell you nothing about the true value of any ParkerVision patent. A patent only has value if it is valid and infringed (or likely to be infringed). The rankings tell you nothing about either validity or infringement.
Wall Street Journal April of 2013 states PRKR leads the Telecom Industry in three categories: (1) Research Intensity, (2) Science Strength and (3) Industry Impact. Now how does that balance with all the short negativity? Makes me think of the school yard refrain to taunts, "Whatever you say, comes back on you to stay." POS stock? POS shorts!
I spoke the Patent Board CEO at length. They use an automated measurement which artificially makes the ParkerVision patents look far stronger than they really are. It is *not* based on a detailed analysis of the actual value of the patents.
"Science Strength" is measured by counting the number of journal (non-patent) articles referred to in the PRKR patents. ParkerVision puts massive quantities of (mostly irrelevant) prior art references in all of its patent filings (which makes it very hard for the examiner to find the useful references) but give it any artificially high score.
"industry Impact" is the number of references to the PRKR patents from other patents and papers. The Patent Board measures both self-references (from PRKR patents to other PRKR patents) and non-self-references (non PRKR papers and patents referring to PRKR patents). The Wall Street Journal article use the measure which included self-references. Each new ParkerVision patent refers to every old ParkerVision patent. This leads to an N^2/2 number of self-references (where N is the number of PRKR patents), which make the PRKR numbers look artificially (absurdly) good. He told me that PRKR scores very poorly when measured by non-self-references.
My notes aren’t clear, but I believe that “Research Intensity” tries to measure the complexity of the math & chemistry equations of the patent body. PRKR puts lots of equations in its patents, so it scores artificially high here also.
Another observation I will make is that *no* non-PRKR journal or conference paper has *ever* referred to a ParkerVIsion patent or paper. Absolutely no one in the RF industry or academia takes Sorrells seriously.
In the trial, Qualcomm can use this as partial proof that the PRKR ideas were not new - the lack of any industry or academic acceptance (via references) is generally accepted as an indication that the ideas were not recognized as new or useful.