A naive question for the lawyers. I had thought that appeals could only be based on points of law, not outcome. Can one appeal a jury verdict by simply saying "they got it wrong, we want someone else to look at it"? I had thought that a verdict was final and could only be overturned by judicial error or point of law, not finding of fact. Please correct me if this is wrong. Thanks.
2. The Federal Circuit directs district courts construing claim terms to focuses on intrinsic evidence - that is, the claims, specification, and prosecution histories - because intrinsic evidence is "the most significant source of the legally operative meaning of disputed claim language."
3. Claim terms must be interpreted from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time of the invention.
4. Claim construction starts with the claims, and remains centered on the words of the claims throughout.
5. In the absence of an express intent to impart a different or unique meaning to claim terms, the terms are presumed to have their ordinary meaning. ]
In this case there was no "absence of an express intent to impart a different or unique meaning to claim terms". The judge was obliged to to take into account the meanings unambiguously assigned to terms by the lead inventor during his sworn testimony.
The judge made a crucial error in accepting ParkerVision's proposed "Markman" definition of "non-negligible amounts of energy". He has no excuse for ignoring the definition implied by Sorrells during his testimony under oath during the earlier Tutorial hearing.
Ah, now we move to the next step. ;-))
Having been involved with this company for a lot of years I remember most of them. Beginning with....
1. What PRKR claims to have done violates fundamental laws of physics.
2. It can be mathematically proven that the PRKR technology would involve so much distortion that it would be useless as a radio.
3. Boeing hated it.
4. Numerous companies have looked at it and it does not work at all.
5. Well, it works but it provides performance inferior to already existing alternatives.
6. Well, it works but it provides no advantage over already existing alternatives.
7. Well, it doesn't work that well and anyway, PRKR did not invent it, Tayloe did.
8. QCOM does not infringe because it is using an analog double balanced mixer followed by Tx filter (Neal's assertion at trial but so risibly wrong that it effectively meant that he could not call an expert witness on infringement as his expert would have had to contradict him).
9. And now we get to THE CAFC IS CERTAIN TO REVERSE.
One never knows. I suppose the shorts can be dead flat wrong on numerous claims over a period of a dozen years and still get it right once. If it is appealed, which seems likely, we will see.
First, no one knows what you are talking about, including you;
Second, the judge has absolute discretion to exclude anything stated at the non-adversarial tutorial, and would have no reason to even consider it to any extent contradicted by intrinsic patent evidence ... you have zero chance in the circuit court with that one.