"You keep arguing vehemently - and infinitum and ad nauseum - about technical arguments - without addressing the question of - if your arguments are so persuasive, why didn't Mr. Neal have a witness testify as to those issues? I have asked this question repeatedly, and you have all ducked it."
- as I've told you the answer several times now all I need do is to copy and paste my last response -
There's a fundamental concept here you seem to be struggling to grasp. The party which alleges patent infringement must first provide acceptable evidence of the alleged infringement.
It's not a case of "I accuse you of infringing my patents - prove you didn't!" That's not how the judicial system works in civilised countries.
ParkerVision's sole independent expert witness testified that for infringement to occur the baseband MUST be generated from energy accumulated in a storage device.
He also testified that the mixer in the accused products creates the baseband before the filter comes into play.
ParkerVision neither suggested nor provided evidence that the mixer acts as a storage device.
There is only one possible explanation for that failure - and I am sure the jury came to the same conclusion - just as an appeals court will. Unfortunately, there is just no way around that problem.
ParkerVision failed to meet its onus of proof - leaving Qualcomm with nothing to dispute.
Without evidence that the accused products met that one essential criterion for infringement - generation of the baseband from the carrier wave by means of energy accumulation and discharge - all of the other evidence provided was merely evidence of non-infringing down-conversion.
If you don't believe me, at least have the good manners to confirm you understand what your fellow-Long Tampa posted -
[ Neal closed with; "we respect the jury and courts time, and since you heard Dr. Prucnal testify under oath that double balance mixers do not infringe.... ]
"Fud - BTW precisely what "facts" have I lied about?"
- the following was a blatant lie on your part -
"I have asked this question repeatedly, and you have all ducked it."
If you don't believe me, ask one of your pumper buddies to explain to you the difference between a lie and the truth.
Nobody apart from a pumper would have a reason to "duck" your question.
The initial onus is never upon an alleged infringer to prove non-infringement. The patent owner must offer evidence a "reasonable mind" would accept as evidence of infringement. Only then is the alleged infringer in a position to offer a defense against the alleged evidence of infringement.
ParkerVision simply failed to offer evidence in support of the allegation that the accused products perform down-conversion by means of energy accumulation and discharge.
Do you agree?
If not, kindly point us to the evidence you believe would be accepted by a "reasonable mind" as evidence that the mixer in the accused products - which Prucnal testified performs the down-conversion - does so by means of energy accumulation and discharge.
You seem to miss the point that Mr. Neal made statements to the jury that were not true - that is , he made statements that were nowhere in evidence. However, I will not fence with you clowns - keep up the same patter you have had going for the last 2 years - remember when Summary Judgment was going to be entered in favor of Q and Parkervision was going to be thrown out of Court? Or that Parkervision was going to lose the Markman? Or that the Sterne law firm was going to get a judgment against them? If not, consult your buddy Mike Farmwald - he is a compendium of predictions that sadly never came to pass
In the meantime, this stock is slowly sneaking up to $5/share
1. PRKR stock was going to $10 after a favorable Markman
2. Dalton would not cause either side harm with his Daubert rulings
3. PRKR would get $3 billion in damages
4. PRKR would get a judgment of willful
Gee I wonder who made all those ridiculous predictions that were not even in the ballpark?
Could it have been OB (short for off base) LOL