Mon, Dec 22, 2014, 12:54 AM EST - U.S. Markets open in 8 hrs 36 mins

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Insmed Incorporated Message Board

fud.fighter2 395 posts  |  Last Activity: Dec 19, 2014 3:35 PM Member since: Aug 12, 2010
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    An Appeal cannot rectify the lack of evidence

    by fud.fighter2 Dec 18, 2014 4:19 AM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Dec 19, 2014 3:35 PM Flag

    It seems ParkerVision didn't match ANY of the steps of the patented method of down-conversion to the Accused Products.

    I'm told Prucnal put up a schematic on the "big board", and matched some of the steps to down-conversion processes described - other steps to post-down-conversion processes described.

    But experts have since pointed out that words and diagrams on a schematic describing processes are not evidence that a product actually performs said processes.

  • Reply to

    An Appeal cannot rectify the lack of evidence

    by fud.fighter2 Dec 18, 2014 4:19 AM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Dec 19, 2014 12:18 PM Flag

    Considering the complete absence of factual evidence of infringement, at first glance it seems unforgivable for the jury to have returned a verdict of infringement.

    But I guess what happened is that the jury fell for ParkerVision's ploy of associating the initial Qualcomm interest in D2D with the fact that the Qualcomm architecture includes all of the components of the D2D architecture.

    The jury decided Qualcomm was using D2D, and failed to appreciate that there could be a difference between the accused products incorporating D2D, and the accused products infringing ParkerVision's patents.

    Judge Dalton didn't make that mistake, and neither would an Appeal Court.

    ParkerVision failed to match all of the steps of the patented method of down-conversion to the Qualcomm method of down-conversion. All over bar the shouting.

  • This observation by Tampa goes right to the heart of ParkerVision's long-running scam -

    "Fud, I don't believe PV patents specify where or when the baseband must be created or down-conversion occurs."

    In order to persuade the jury that Qualcomm had stolen D2D Sorrells used diagrams to demonstrate the similarity between the D2D circuit and the Qualcomm circuit, and testified as follows -

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    Q Let me ask to go back to Plaintiff's Exhibit 160. I want to go to page 14 of this presentation. Is this something that you showed Qualcomm in that meeting?

    A Yes, sir.

    Q What do we see here?

    A What we see is a differential pair of transistors, coupled to an energy storage device that operates in accordance with energy transfer sampling.

    Q Is this an implementation of your invention?

    A Yes, sir. There's several ways to implement it. And this is one of our recommended approaches to Qualcomm.

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    The use of a differential pair of transistors to generate a baseband signal from a modulated carrier signal is prior art. ParkerVision was only able to obtain patents by claiming it had invented a method of down-conversion involving a differential pair of transistors and a storage device (e.g. a capacitor) which integrates energy -

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    A method for down-converting a carrier signal to a baseband signal, comprising the steps of:

    (1) receiving a carrier signal ...

    (2) sampling the carrier signal over aperture periods to transfer energy from the carrier signal ...

    (3) integrating the energy over the aperture periods; and

    (4) generating the baseband signal from the integrated energy.

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    However in claiming that the last two steps are part of the method by which D2D down-converts to baseband, ParkerVision ended up with patents covering a method of down-conversion which can only ever exist on paper.

    Hardly surprising that Prucnal confirmed that down-conversion in the accused products doesn't require the last two steps.

  • Reply to

    Why Is The Prucnal Admission "Fatal"

    by overbrook10 Dec 18, 2014 8:41 AM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Dec 18, 2014 1:11 PM Flag

    You didn't miss anything. Prucnal, as you say, merely confirmed that the mixer creates the baseband.

    My use of the term down-conversion was intended to emphasize the fact that because the baseband enters the TX filter capacitor there can be no DOWN-conversion from baseband.

    And yes - we're still looking for evidence that down-conversion actually occurs.

  • Reply to

    Why Is The Prucnal Admission "Fatal"

    by overbrook10 Dec 18, 2014 8:41 AM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Dec 18, 2014 10:49 AM Flag

    Perhaps he answered the question truthfully because ParkerVision wasn't paying him enough to perjure himself.

    Or perhaps he, like you, thought it sufficient to match the claims of the patent to any old processes occurring in the receiver - down-conversion processes or otherwise.

  • Reply to

    Why Is The Prucnal Admission "Fatal"

    by overbrook10 Dec 18, 2014 8:41 AM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Dec 18, 2014 10:17 AM Flag

    He did. He focussed upon the fact that Prucnal had admitted that the mixer creates the baseband signal. Everybody concerned understood the implications of that admission for Prucnal's presentation whereby he matched the claims of the patent to the Qualcomm schematic.

    The fact that you are in denial because the bleedin obvious wasn't spelled out for you is immaterial. You may be absolutely sure than an Appeal Court judge wouldn't fail to appreciate why Prucnal's admission destroyed ParkerVision's case.

  • Reply to

    Why Is The Prucnal Admission "Fatal"

    by overbrook10 Dec 18, 2014 8:41 AM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Dec 18, 2014 9:49 AM Flag

    Overbrook, there's no point in lying about Prucnal's presentation. He did NOT match the energy integration and baseband generation steps of the patented method of down-conversion to the mixer -

    [ Dr. Prucnal concluded that the "energy storage devices" that follow the mixers are inside the box "labeled TX filter." ]

    ParkerVision failed to match those steps "exactly". If you don't believe me, why don't you ask Urspond?

  • Reply to

    Why Is The Prucnal Admission "Fatal"

    by overbrook10 Dec 18, 2014 8:41 AM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Dec 18, 2014 9:23 AM Flag

    Re your -

    "Well, why IS that admission fatal to the case? Dalton never explained why"

    - the truth is that Judge Dalton did indeed explain why -

    [ Upon careful review of the record, the Court agrees with Qualcomm that Dr. Prucnal's concessions during cross-examination as well as his direct testimony are fatal to ParkerVision's infringement case, which points to the TX filter as the location of the capacitors that "generate" the baseband by charging and discharging. ]

    Which brings us neatly to your latest attempt to persuade investors that ParkerVision's burden of proof was less onerous than was in fact the case -

    "Well, if a patent case requires the plaintiff to prove that each of the construed claims are practiced by the accused products, has not Dr. Prucnal done that?"

    Don't you think it's a bit childish of you to pretend I didn't point out to you a day or two back that ParkerVision was required to match the claims of the patent "exactly"?

    It would only have been an exact match if Prucnal had matched all four steps of the patented method of down-conversion to four steps in the Qualcomm method of down-conversion.

    But as Judge Dalton pointed out - Prucnal's admission that the baseband is down-converted before it hits the TX filter was fatal to the case because it clarified that Prucnal had matched two of the steps of the patented method of down-conversion to processes occurring AFTER down-conversion in the accused products.

    Do you agree that was not an "exact" match?

  • Tampa, the problem with your -

    [ Fud, so we are back to the word and label game ... brilliant smoke screen strategy by QC council to use word associations and labels to give operational meaning ]

    - is that everybody who has been following this case - including you - knows this was ParkerVision's "game" not Qualcomm's.

    It was ParkerVision's litigation strategy to have its expert witness, Dr. Prucnal, match the claims of a patent to various processes depicted on a schematic of an accused product.

    If the words and diagrams on the schematic have no operational meaning, where's your evidence that the accused products perform down-conversion at all - let alone perform down-conversion via the combination of steps patented by ParkerVision?

    If you argue that an Appeal Court will accept as evidence interpretation of a Qualcomm schematic, you're stuck with the evidence that the mixer depicted on the schematic down-converts the baseband "before it hits the TX filter".

    And your "no before and after" gibberish is equally futile -

    [ The bigger concern is what understanding "created before reaching the TX filter" conveys? The before separates the "mixer" function from the "TX filter" function into two events in time; which we know from circuit principals isn't possible. ]

    ParkerVision chose to portray the allegedly-infringing process to the jury as a sequence of events, one of which was the integration of energy by a capacitor in the TX filter during aperture periods.

    A period demands the "two events in time" you "know" from circuit principals isn't possible. Oops?

    You cannot invalidate Prucnal's testimony that the TX filter processes occur AFTER down-conversion without invalidating his testimony matching the energy accumulation step to the accused products.

    ParkerVision failed to match two of the steps of the patented method of down-conversion to the Qualcomm method of down-conversion. That fact alone compelled Judge Dalton to overturn the jury's infringement verdict.

  • Reply to

    Tampa, an Appeal Court can't accept new evidence

    by fud.fighter2 Dec 10, 2014 11:26 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Dec 17, 2014 9:04 AM Flag

    I have to agree that Tampa's argument that words and diagrams on a schematic are not evidence of function was extremely perceptive. But I'm struggling to see how that argument makes the chance of a successful Appeal any stronger.

    Tampa seems to be far better at destroying ParkerVision's case than he is at strengthening it.

  • Reply to

    Tampa, an Appeal Court can't accept new evidence

    by fud.fighter2 Dec 10, 2014 11:26 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Dec 17, 2014 8:44 AM Flag

    Was that intended as a response to my first question? If so, would you mind being more specific - as I don't recall any ParkerVision witness mentioning down-conversion.

  • Reply to

    Tampa, an Appeal Court can't accept new evidence

    by fud.fighter2 Dec 10, 2014 11:26 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Dec 17, 2014 5:24 AM Flag

    Tampa?

    1. Can you remember ParkerVision supplying any evidence that down-conversion actually occurs?

    2. Do you agree that Prucnal and ParkerVision attorney Budwin portrayed the allegedly-infringing process to the jury as a sequence of events?

  • Reply to

    Where Are the Lawyers on this Board?

    by overbrook10 Dec 15, 2014 2:59 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Dec 17, 2014 4:58 AM Flag

    Overbrook, why don't you just ask the only poster you know is a vastly experienced legal professional - Nubuzzman? -

    "I have practiced law, and tried more cases, than Cawley and Hummell combined."

    It's almost as though you don't really want an informed opinion.

  • Reply to

    Tampa, labels are not evidence of function

    by fud.fighter2 Dec 12, 2014 5:25 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Dec 15, 2014 1:32 PM Flag

    Overbrook, you're missing the point.

    The point is that the mapping FAILED to point to the mixer as a location of the capacitors that generate .....

    That left zero evidence that the Qualcomm method of down-conversion includes Steps 3 and 4 of the patented method of down-conversion.

    Can you remember seeing any evidence of that?

  • Reply to

    Tampa, labels are not evidence of function

    by fud.fighter2 Dec 12, 2014 5:25 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Dec 15, 2014 12:48 PM Flag

    Really? What do you think he meant by "ParkerVision's infringement case"?

    Haven't you been telling us that the mapping was ParkerVision's evidence of infringement?

    [ Dr. Prucnal's concessions during cross-examination as well as his direct testimony are fatal to ParkerVision's infringement case, which points to the TX filter as the location of the capacitors that "generate" the baseband by charging and discharging. ]

  • Reply to

    Tampa, labels are not evidence of function

    by fud.fighter2 Dec 12, 2014 5:25 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Dec 15, 2014 12:19 PM Flag

    Overbnrook, re your -

    "Well, in this case the mapping of claims was upheld by a jury verdict. So what are we missing here?"

    - you're missing Judge Dalton's decision to overturn the jury's verdict on the grounds that the mapping of the claims PRECLUDED a verdict of infringement.

    The claims were mapped - but not mapped "exactly", as some were mapped to processes occurring after down-conversion.

  • Reply to

    Overbrook - where's the ambiguity?

    by fud.fighter2 Dec 10, 2014 3:53 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Dec 15, 2014 12:10 PM Flag

    Sadly an Appeal Court will employ a different definition of the word "exact" than you employ - and the same definition of the word "exact" Judge Dalton employs.

  • Reply to

    Overbrook - where's the ambiguity?

    by fud.fighter2 Dec 10, 2014 3:53 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Dec 15, 2014 11:57 AM Flag

    It's in the legislation.

    In order to prove infringement the patent owner is required to match all of the claims of the patent to the accused product "exactly".

    The generation of the baseband is a step in a patented method of down-conversion. Unless it's matched to a step in a method of down-conversion it's not an exact match.

    Prucnal confirmed that down-conversion occurs before the baseband hits the TX filter - and that the baseband is created by the mixer.

  • Reply to

    Overbrook - where's the ambiguity?

    by fud.fighter2 Dec 10, 2014 3:53 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Dec 14, 2014 6:23 AM Flag

    Overbrook - I can't be held responsible for what people are making of your reluctance to answer the two questions I asked you (above) on December 10.

    But while we're waiting, I'm always happy to answer YOUR questions. I have nothing to hide. Re your -

    "So of course Prucnal was correct when he said that Q's architecture allowed for the creation of the baseband. Inside the mixer, the switches opens up a circuit allowing energy to flow into the capacitor INSIDE THE MIXER - which then generated the baseband - all before it hits the TX filter. See P 31 of P's opening Brief. So what's the big deal?"

    - the only big deal is your apparently limitless capacity for embarrassing yourself.

    For ParkerVision to have had any chance of successfully suing Qualcomm for patent infringement, the Qualcomm mixers needed to operate precisely as you've just described.

    As Sorrells told the jury - if it down-converts it's a mixer. And if it's a mixer it must down-convert.

    The ParkerVision patents cover a method of down-conversion. Prucnal needed to be able to match the patented combination of steps to the mixer alone.

    If you're telling the truth, why did Prucnal instead match the energy integration and baseband generation steps of the patented method of down-conversion to -

    "energy storage devices" that follow the mixers, inside the box "labeled TX filter."

    Try to answer that question also. For sure it's one of the first questions an Appeal Court would ask.

  • Your latest explanation -

    "ParkerVision clearly used the terms "mixer" and "TX filter" as nouns to identify portions of the circuit in the schematic. Not as verbs describing function ..."

    - rather spookily touches upon a problem that's been troubling me.

    Let's assume that a "reasonable jury" would have been entitled to dismiss Prucnal's "fatal" admission that the mixer creates the baseband signal - and would have interpreted the testimony of Sorrells that the term "mixer" is a label for a component that performs down-conversion as just that, a label.

    ParkerVision cannot win an Appeal unless it can convince an Appeal Court that Judge Dalton ignored (or misunderstood) evidence of infringement of the ParkerVision patents.

    The invention covered by those patents is down-conversion via a specific combination of steps.

    Overbrook and yourself cite Prucnal's presentation as evidence of infringement, where he used a schematic on the "big board" to match all of the steps of the patented method of down-conversion to the accused products.

    Specifically, he matched

    1. "receiving a carrier signal" to an "aerial" depicted on the schematic.

    2. "sampling the carrier signal over aperture periods to transfer energy from the carrier" to a "mixer" depicted on the schematic.

    3. "integrating the energy over the aperture periods" to "energy storage devices" inside the "TX filter" depicted on the schematic.

    4. "generating the baseband signal from the integrated energy" to "energy storage devices" inside the "TX filter" depicted on the schematic.

    As you correctly point out it's only a schematic. Terms such as "mixer" are only labels - not evidence of function.

    What's been troubling me is the complete absence of evidence of function.

    The patents don't confer ownership of those steps - only ownership of down-conversion via that combination of steps.

    Did ParkerVision forget to supply evidence that down-conversion actually occurs?

INSM
16.42+0.37(+2.31%)Dec 19 4:00 PMEST

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.