Recent

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

Insmed Incorporated Message Board

fud.fighter2 257 posts  |  Last Activity: 4 hours ago Member since: Aug 12, 2010
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 4 hours ago Flag

    Overbrook - you really should take a bow.

    Pumpers such as yourself have unwittingly been of immense value to other investors in recent years - through your lies.

    Without lies to address I'm certain the "bashers" here would have made available only a small fraction of the information which has in fact been made available because of you.

    Re your latest inspiration -

    [ Prucnal used QCOM's own simulations to demonstrate that the APs perform energy sampling ]

    - here's Appeal Court reality -

    ---------------

    Q: Are you aware that the TX filter in all of the accused devices was designed so that TX current could go through the capacitor and be blocked?

    A: Yes.

    Q: And if you translate that into power, the power going into the TX filter is 16 million times greater than the power of the baseband signal, correct?

    A: I have to do the math -- Yes.

    Q: We can tell how much of the transmit jamming current is going into the capacitor by looking at the mix out number of 449 and subtracting the TX filter out of 109, correct?

    A: Yes.

    Q: So that data alone lets the jury and you and all of us make a determination as to how much of the transmit jamming current is going into the capacitor, correct?

    A: Yes.

    Q: If you look right above that at the baseband line that we were talking about where it shows exactly the same amount of current at the baseband, both before and after the capacitor, there is no way looking at that, would you agree, to calculate how much, if any, of the baseband current is going into and out of the capacitor?

    A: Yes.

    Q: And you haven't done any tests of Qualcomm circuits to determine how much, if any, of the baseband current is going into the capacitor and coming back out, correct?

    A: Correct.

    ---------------

    Budwin would subsequently have given Prucnal a chance to clarify his responses - assuming Prucnal DID supply evidence that the current at the capacitors includes energy from the baseband signal distinguishable from noise.

    Show us if you can.

  • Reply to

    The ultimate legal issue in the appeal

    by nubuzzman Jul 25, 2015 9:43 AM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 5 hours ago Flag

    Overbrook, re your -

    [ Why would Prucnal try to do his own tests, when he has QCOM's tests - which legally are "admissions"? ]

    - he was tasked with supplying evidence that the accused products actually DO operate in an infringing manner, no?

    However, all the Qualcomm materials evidence is a Non-infringing method of operation.

    Prucnal needed evidence that they operate in an infringing manner - but all he could offer was a theory that they COULD be operating in an infringing manner.

    See Becton v Tyco. What leads you to believe that ruling doesn't apply here?

  • fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 6 hours ago Flag

    Overbrook, re your -

    [ I already HAVE posted the quotes of the Questions and answers between Neal and Prucnal yesterday during which Neal supplies the essential testimony in his questions ... as the numerous quotes I posted yesterday showed, Dr. Prucnal was quite clear and detailed in his description of how the BB was generated. ]

    - you've not only been caught with your pants down, but they're on fire.

    However I'm glad you've reminded me of what you posted yesterday, as it gave me a little chuckle at the time that this is your idea of "clear and detailed" -

    ---------------

    1. It consists of the switch, which closes to transfer energy into the storage device, and the storage device itself that is accumulating energy and then generating a signal from that.

    2. Q. And the energy from the carrier signal that is transferred into the storage device is then used in the inventions to make the baseband signal, correct? A. Yes.

    3. Q. And then the energy - then the current from the carrier signal, which is flowed into the storage device, is then used to generate the baseband, correct? A. Correct

    4. That's because the energy from the baseband signal - from the carrier signal is transferred through the switch. It's accumulated by the capacitor. And that energy is then used to generate the baseband signal following the capacitor.

    ---------------

    a) I've pointed out to you before that in Item I Prucnal was presenting the jurors with a graphical representation of the relevant claim before addressing the schematic (I'll come back to that in a new thread).

    b) The remaining items convey his understanding of what happens in the accused circuit - energy/current flows into capacitors in the TX filter, and is then "used" by the transimpedance amplifiers in the Baseband filter to generate the baseband signal.

    It will be obvious to the Appeal Court judges that Prucnal did not believe a capacitor could generate the baseband signal from a signal the capacitor had "smeared out".

  • fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 8 hours ago Flag

    Overbrook, re your -

    [ Thankfully, it was Mr. Neal who repeatedly had Prucnal testify or agree that the carrier was sampled, the sampled energy is transferred into the caps, and the caps then generate the BB. Repeatedly he stated this- which is what I quoted ]

    - how weird was THAT???

    It must surely make this case unique in modern day patent litigation, no?

    It's almost unfathomable that an attorney of Budwin's experience should have been so appallingly negligent as to forget to prompt his expert witness to supply key testimony - without which the infringement case was certain to fail.

    But not only did that "once in a blue moon" example of gross negligence actually occur - it just so happens it occurred in a trial where his vastly experienced opposite number FAILED TO NOTICE that Christmas had come early for him, and presented the expert witness with multiple opportunities to supply the testimony that kept the other side in the game.

    If anybody but you had told me that, I'd have just dismissed it as the pathetic lie of a third-rate pumper caught with his pants down.

    But this I have just got to see!

    Would it be any trouble for you to post a few of the relevant exchanges between Neal and Prucnal?

    I have the strangest premonition that you won't be able to post them any time soon. But please say you'll post them at some point in the next ten years?

  • fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 10 hours ago Flag

    I don't recall Prucnal saying that. But as long as the Appeal Court judges consider your inference from what Prucnal DID say as "reasonable" you have nothing to worry about.

  • fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 10 hours ago Flag

    Teamrep - one imagines there are several places in a receiver where the baseband signal is "generated".

    And when a mixer is on a circuit it could be claimed that current elsewhere on that circuit is carrying "energy" from the carrier signal, from which the baseband signal is generated.

    However only the initial generation of the baseband signal is relevant to the alleged infringement of the patented method of down-conversion - because the carrier signal is "eliminated" in the process.

    Absent evidence of a signal at a third frequency - how can anything apart from the initial generation be DOWN-conversion?

    ---------------

    Q: Remind us again what we're seeing on this page, Dr. Prucnal.

    A: These are the switches inside the mixer. We see the inputs on the left, the outputs on the right. These transistors are the eight switches. And coming in from the top are signals labeled LO that are controlling the top four.

    Q: So we see the LO control signals here?

    A: Yes.

    Q: And the input here, which is the radio frequency signal or the carrier signal?

    A: Yes.

    Q: And then the output here?

    A: That's right.

    Q: Is that the baseband?

    A: The baseband output.

    Q: How are those outputs generated?

    A: Those outputs are generated by closing the switches under the control of the local oscillator to allow energy to flow through the switch to the output.

    Q: And if you show the equivalent spot to the jury that you just showed on the Plaintiff's Exhibit, can you point where that is for the jury?

    A: This is the baseband output of this transistor.

    Q: So it's once there. And then let's identify the other places where the baseband output is.

    A: The baseband output is also here, on this mixer on the top.

    Q: At those locations, the double balance has eliminated the RF signal, correct?

    A: You don't have the RF at this point when considered with the circuit that follows it.

    Q: At the points that you have circled, the RF signal has been eliminated, correct?

    A: That is correct.

  • fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 12 hours ago Flag

    Overbrook, how do you expect to be taken seriously when you keep contradicting yourself?

    First you tell us -

    [ I reviewed Prucnal's testimony last night. Amazingly, not once in Budwin's questioning does he have Prucnal say that the capacitors generate the baseband. ]

    Now you tell us -

    [ I can't figure out why Dalton could possibly say that Prucnal was "notably vague" about the generating limitation when he repeatedly states that the Caps generate the BB. ]

    First you tell us -

    [ Now as to the "fatal admission" Judge Dalton never explained why it was "fatal" to infringement. ]

    Now you tell us -

    [ Judge Dalton opined that the admission was "fatal" because Parkervision's case "points to the TX filter as the [ONLY] location of the capacitors that generate the baseband by charging and discharging." ]

    ---------------

    Here are the relevant excerpts from Judge Dalton's ruling -

    [ Dr. Prucnal's testimony was ... consistent on the crucial issue that the baseband signal is created in the Qualcomm products before the storage capacitors which precludes a finding of infringement. ]

    [ 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. ]

    ---------------

    In order to establish Direct Infringement ParkerVision needed to match all four steps of the patented method of down-conversion to the accused products "exactly".

    The reason Prucnal's numerous concessions that transistors in the mixer perform the down-conversion are "fatal" is that he matched two of the four steps of the patented method of down-conversion to processes occurring outside of the mixer.

    He claimed that what happens in the TX filter is "a necessary part of the energy transfer" - rather than necessary for down-conversion.

  • 1. A court may issue a JMOL if a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party.

    2. The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to, and with all reasonable inferences drawn, in favor of the non-moving party.

    3. If substantial evidence is presented opposed to the motion, and the evidence is of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions, the motion must be denied.

    4. In reviewing factual issues for substantial evidence, the inquiry is whether a reasonable jury, given the record before it viewed as a whole, could have arrived at the conclusion it did.

    Witnesses for the non-moving party testified -

    Q: Now, Dr. Prucnal, what's your understanding about the last part of this limitation where it says energy is transferred to such an extent that accurate voltage reproduction of the first signal is prevented?

    A: Well, my understanding is that because the switch is closed for a long time, it is allowing the carrier signal to flow in for a long time, and causing it to be smeared out and stored in the capacitor.

    Q: How can we determine whether the discharging of the first and second capacitors generate the first and second down-converted information signals across the transimpedance amplifiers?

    A: Well, the capacitors are located in the TX filter, right here. And they charge and they discharge into the transimpedance amplifier, which is located here in the baseband filter.

    Q: ParkerVision also has the burden of proving that the current that has gone into the storage capacitor is then what is generating the baseband signal in the circuit in the Qualcomm accused device, correct?

    A: In the output, yes, sir.

    Would it have been "reasonable" to conclude that the baseband signal is generated "in the output" of a capacitor?

  • Doc.82 omits pages of the transcripts not considered relevant. The Appeal Court panel, we hear, has requested the (complete) transcript of the JMOL hearing.

    Sadly Doc.82 doesn't include the pages from Day One of the trial covering the two hours just after the newly selected jury members had taken their seats.

    During that time one assumes Judge Dalton educated them on issues such as burden of proof, e.g. the criteria for establishing Direct Infringement.

    Had Overbrook actually been the legal professional he's always pretended to be he would have known that stuff - and therefore why Prucnal's concessions were "fatal".

    I don't have any legal expertise either. But I imagine the net result would have been to equip the jurors with a level of awareness equivalent to this:

    1. ParkerVision's high level objective is to have Qualcomm adjudged legally liable for a financial injury suffered by ParkerVision.

    2. Item 1 is totally dependent upon evidence that Qualcomm has received revenue and in so doing has deprived ParkerVision of revenue to which it is entitled.

    3. Item 2 is totally dependent upon evidence that Qualcomm has sold products which have actually operated in an infringing manner.

    The jurors would have known they were looking for evidence that infringement has actually occurred.

    Evidence that a product COULD be infringing equates only to evidence that Qualcomm COULD be legally liable.

    Which is why the infringement case has exactly the same fundamental flaw the Appeal Court identified in Becton v Tyco.

    ParkerVision needed to supply evidence that a capacitor actually receives energy distinguishable from noise from the carrier signal, and from it generates the baseband signal.

    Prucnal admitted that the capacitors were designed to capture TX current - and opined that a tiny proportion of the current passing through (he couldn't say how much, if any) COULD be from the baseband signal.

    Hence the JMOL grounds of lack of appropriate testing.

  • Reply to

    The Moment of Truth during the court case

    by fud.fighter2 Jul 23, 2015 1:56 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Jul 26, 2015 2:24 PM Flag

    Tampa - I'm sure I'm not the only one here who would be interested in what you might have to offer in response to the two questions in the post currently third in this thread.

  • Reply to

    Zero testimony of generation "by" a capacitor

    by fud.fighter2 Jul 26, 2015 1:03 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Jul 26, 2015 1:43 PM Flag

    Overbrook, re your -

    [ Where does Parkervision EVER state that its cased is limited to the capacitors in the TX filter ...? ]

    Steps 3 and 4 of the patented method of down-conversion are, in brief, -

    3. integration of energy sampled from the carrier signal, and

    4. generation of the baseband signal "from" the integrated energy.

    The ONLY components identified by Prucnal as being capable of energy integration were capacitors in the TX filter.

    But although Prucnal matched Step 3 to those capacitors, ParkerVision offered no evidence whatsoever that they were relevant to the method by which the transistors in the mixer down-convert the baseband signal.

    Therefore ParkerVision failed to show Direct Infringement - which required all four steps of the patented method of down-conversion to be matched to the accused products "exactly".

    Which is why Judge Dalton described Prucnal's "concessions" as fatal to ParkerVision's Infringement case.

  • Reply to

    Location of BB Generation

    by overbrook10 Jul 26, 2015 1:06 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Jul 26, 2015 1:22 PM Flag

    Prucnal testified to baseband generation in two places -

    1. Transistors in the mixer generate the baseband signal.

    2. Transimpedance amplifiers in the Baseband filter generate the baseband signal (using energy discharged by capacitors in the TX filter).

    However ParkerVision's lead inventor had previously told the jury how to recognise infringement of his patented method of down-conversion - baseband generation "in the output" of a capacitor.

  • Things that make you go hmm .....

    Overbrook yesterday -

    [ I can't figure out why Dalton could possibly say that Prucnal was "notably vague" about the generating limitation when he repeatedly states that the Caps generate the BB. ]

    Overbrook July 9 -

    [ I reviewed Prucnal's testimony last night. Amazingly, not once in Budwin's questioning does he have Prucnal say that the capacitors generate the baseband. ]

    Only one of the foregoing is true.

    In fact Prucnal believed that a signal at baseband frequency would be blocked by a capacitor - and that any signal flowing into a capacitor would be "smeared out".

    He merely testified that -

    1. Switches in the mixer cause "energy" from the carrier signal to accumulate in capacitors in the TX filter.

    2. The energy is then "used" in the Baseband filter to generate the baseband signal "across the transimpedance amplifiers".

    ---------------

    Q: Now, again, this is a diagram you've shown us many times, Dr. Prucnal ... how can we determine whether the discharging of the first and second capacitors generate the first and second down-converted information signals across the transimpedance amplifiers ... ?

    A: Well, the capacitors are located in the TX filter, right here. And they charge and they discharge into the transimpedance amplifier, which is located here in the baseband filter.

    Q: Now, Dr. Prucnal, what's your understanding about the last part of this limitation where it says energy is transferred to such an extent that accurate voltage reproduction of the first signal is prevented?

    A: Well, my understanding is that because the switch is closed for a long time, it is allowing the carrier signal to flow in for a long time, and causing it to be smeared out and stored in the capacitor.

    Q: Do you agree that low frequency current signals can't flow through a capacitor?

    A: Yes.

    Q: And low frequency signals, therefore, are blocked by a capacitor, correct?

    A: Yes.

  • Reply to

    The ultimate legal issue in the appeal

    by nubuzzman Jul 25, 2015 9:43 AM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Jul 25, 2015 3:39 PM Flag

    It will have been obvious to the Judges that ParkerVision had known all along Qualcomm was using a prior art method of down-conversion - yet had not only gamed the judicial system but lied like rugs to avoid the consequences of "sitting on their rights" for so long.

    [ In late 2010, Richard Harlan discovered the two Qualcomm patents ... This led Richard Harlan to find the conference paper ... This paper raised ParkerVision's suspicions ]

    ---------------

    Q: Mr. Sorrells, when did you first suspect that Qualcomm was infringing your patents?

    A: Jeff Parker brought a technical paper to me that he said that he would like me to evaluate and review.

    Q: Is there anything about that figure in that paper that made you suspicious?

    A: There were several things.

    Q: Can you tell us what they were?

    A: Well, the first one is what we call the timing. And what you see here is there are four signals that control the operation of the switches in the down-converter. And what you'll see is, is that if you look at that timing, you'll see that there's something called an LO-I in-phase signal and LO-Q signal. And LO -- there's both positive and negative I and Q signals. When you look at this timing, what you'll see is that this indicates that the Qualcomm circuit is sampling.

    Q: Did you see anything else in the paper that made you believe that Qualcomm was infringing your patent?

    A: I started looking at the storage elements.

    Q: Is there anything else?

    A: The configuration of their output circuit.

    Q: What about that made you believe they were infringing?

    A: Well, it's set up in a way that they can control the output impedance. And the paper also specifically lists some performance characteristics.

    ---------------

    However Sorrells subsequently admitted that back in 1998/9 ParkerVision had critcized double balanced mixers as being "out-of-date" technology.

    And I don't recall any of those ETS "performance characteristics" being cited by Prucnal as evidence of infringement.

  • Reply to

    The ultimate legal issue in the appeal

    by nubuzzman Jul 25, 2015 9:43 AM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Jul 25, 2015 10:56 AM Flag

    The mistake you and your fellow Longs appear to be making is in overlooking the reality that Teamrep's point concerning requirements of proof is encompassed in the excerpts you keep quoting by a single word ..... "reasonable".

    "Reasonable" means whatever the presiding Judge(s) deem it to mean.

    For example - in Becton v Tyco the Appeal Court deemed it reasonable to recognise that evidence that the hinges could store energy is not evidence that the hinges do store energy - i.e. the difference between evidence that infringement could occur and evidence that infringement HAS occurred.

    Prucnal's testimony fails the same "lack of homework" test.

    However addressing the point you intended to make - if we combine two of the criteria, we have -

    Only when a court is convinced that reasonable persons - after examining evidence taken from the record as a whole - could not have reached a verdict for the non-moving party should it grant a motion for JMOL.

    Agreed Nubuzzman?

    If so - here's a nice easy question for you in case for some reason you decide not to answer the a / b / c question I initially addressed to Overbrook.

    The "record as a whole" includes the following uncontradicted testimony of the non-moving party's lead inventor (i.e. not evidence a "reasonable person" would have reason to ignore) -

    ---------------

    Q: ParkerVision also has the burden of proving that the current that has gone into the storage capacitor is then what is generating the baseband signal in the circuit in the Qualcomm accused device, correct?

    A: In the output, yes, sir.

    ---------------

    Do you believe a "reasonable person" could have concluded that the accused products infringe, in the absence of evidence of baseband generation "in the output" of a capacitor?

    I'll understand perfectly if your response is -

    "All that matters now is whether or not the Appeal Court believes that".

  • Reply to

    OB misunderstands fundamental burden of proof

    by fud.fighter2 Jul 24, 2015 2:51 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Jul 25, 2015 9:19 AM Flag

    "point out where in Judge Dalton's Opinion he asks the questions or raises the issues that you do".

    Not a problem -

    [ Dr. Prucnal's concessions during cross-examination as well as his direct testimony are fatal to Parkervision's infringement case ]

  • Reply to

    OB misunderstands fundamental burden of proof

    by fud.fighter2 Jul 24, 2015 2:51 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Jul 25, 2015 8:40 AM Flag

    Overbrook - a vastly experienced legal professional such as yourself should have no problem whatsoever in answering the following question.

    Re your -

    [ I believe your conclusions are wrong Fud as follows: ... First, the one thing Budwin DID do was lead Prucnal step by step to match the steps of the patents to the Accused Products ]

    - the patent in brief reads -

    ---------------

    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.

    ---------------

    Which of the following do you believe?

    {a) ParkerVision matched

    the energy integration step of the patented method of down-conversion

    to

    an energy integration step in the Qualcomm method of down-conversion

    OR

    (b) ParkerVision met the "exact" match criterion of Direct Infringement even though the match described in (a) didn't happen

    OR

    (c) ParkerVision supplied "substantial" evidence of Infringement even though the exact match criterion of Direct Infringement was not met.

    ---------------

    Given the track records of certain Longs in refusing to offer honest responses to questions inconvenient to their personal agendas - consider that question addressed to ANY Long who believes the Appeal Court has valid grounds to overturn the JMOL of Non-infringement.

  • I can only imagine how completely brainwashed you must be to have replied -

    [ You're still back at the "fatal admission" ]

    - when I pointed out to you Judge Dalton's ruling -

    [ Dr. Prucnal's concessions during cross-examination as well as his direct testimony are fatal ... ]

    You really need to face the fact that Tampa played you for a fool when he spoon-fed you lies such as -

    [ Everyone there knows about the yes and how it was obtained and that the jury properly discounted it's weight in the overall body of evidence, of which QC only has 1-word supporting their theory. ]

    Overbrook is just as bad, STILL insisting -

    [ When it comes down to it- the only issue Q has is the "Admission" As for me, I don't think it is inconsistent with P's other testimony. ]

    The manner in which wannabe shysters like this pair home in on investors such as yourself and exploit your gullibility is positively heartless.

    It's simply not true that a "reasonable jury" could have returned a verdict of infringement had it ignored Tampa and Overbrook's "1-word" evidence of Non-infringement.

    The truth (as clearly implied by Judge Dalton) is that numerous things Prucnal said were fatal to ParkerVision's infringement case.

    And even had it been "reasonable" to have ignored each and every one of them, that would still have left at least two fatal defects -

    1. the complete absence of evidence that anything occurring outside of the mixer is relevant to the alleged infringement.

    2. the complete absence of evidence that infringement has actually occurred (in the manner Prucnal "thought" was possible).

  • Reply to

    OB misunderstands fundamental burden of proof

    by fud.fighter2 Jul 24, 2015 2:51 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Jul 24, 2015 3:40 PM Flag

    Yep - OB is so far ahead of me he's got himself hopelessly lost.

    You haven't told us what you thought about the game-changing evidence of infringement on Page 2001.

    How worried are you about the fact that the most compelling evidence a "reasonable jury" would have been able to find matching Step 3 of the patent to the accused products were just 17 words - the first 2 of which were "I think"?

    What does that even MEAN?

  • With regard to -

    [ The problem with this is that I can find no testimony from Parkervision that contends that the TX filter is the ONLY place where the baseband is generated. Insofar as Judge Dalton's opinion is based on a factual error, this is one more reason to reverse. ]

    - he overlooks the fundamental burden of proof. The patentee must match all of the steps of the patented method to the accused device "exactly".

    Failing that, infringement can still be found under the Doctrine of Equivalents - provided the patentee can show that the accused device "performs substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the same result".

    Either way ParkerVision failed to provide "substantial" evidence of infringement - supplying no evidence whatsoever that anything occurring outside of the mixer is relevant to the alleged infringement.

    Absent that evidence, in order to match the steps of the patented -

    "method for down-converting a carrier signal to a baseband signal"

    - to the accused products, ParkerVision needed to match all four steps to the mixer - which undisputedly down-converts a carrier signal to a baseband signal, and in so doing eliminates the carrier signal.

    Hence the grounds for Judge Dalton's JMOL of Non-infringement -

    [ Dr. Prucnal's testimony was ... consistent on the crucial issue that the baseband signal is created in the Qualcomm products before the storage capacitors which precludes a finding of infringement. ]

    [ 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. ]

    Whether or not terms such as "before" accurately reflect physical operation is irrelevant. ParkerVision burned its boats opting to portray the process as a sequence of events.

INSM
25.66-0.50(-1.91%)Jul 27 4:00 PMEDT