Sat, Dec 27, 2014, 3:12 AM EST - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

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

Insmed Incorporated Message Board

fud.fighter2 141 posts  |  Last Activity: Dec 19, 2014 3:35 PM Member since: Aug 12, 2010
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • 1.A pathetic lie from ParkerVision's Appeal document -

    [ The district court also criticized ParkerVision for allegedly raising a "new infringement theory" at the JMOL hearing in which "more than one 'baseband signal ...' might be created in the Qualcomm products" even though ParkerVision's counsel was simply responding to a hypothetical posed by the Court.

    In the Court's hypothetical, which was based upon Qualcomm's non-infringement argument, there were two separate baseband signals, one created "before" the capacitors without any influence from them and another one created "after" the capacitors with their involvement. ]

    2. What was actually said at the JMOL hearing -

    [ Dalton: My understanding of their argument was that the baseband signal is created prior to the storage capacitor, ergo, no infringement.

    Budwin: Exactly Your Honor. And that's the point I'm trying to address. So what baseband signal are we talking about? Can I switch back to my slides ...

    Dalton: And, again, I apologize for the interruption ... if I'm appreciating where you're headed, that baseband signal prior to the capacitors / baseband signal after the capacitor doesn't have to be the same signal ... I don't think Qualcomm is suggesting that the signal coming out of the storage capacitor or, to adopt their view, bypassing the storage capacitor is not a baseband signal.

    I think their argument is that it's created prior to the storage capacitor and that's evidence of noninfringement.

    Budwin: So as I understand the argument, Your Honor, is they say that there can be one and only one baseband signal in the claims ...

    I would say even accepting that there is another baseband signal before the capacitor, okay, which we don't agree with, but let's accept that as true, that doesn't ipso facto preclude the signal that follows the capacitor from meeting the definition of baseband signal that we're working from here. ]

  • fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Nov 20, 2014 10:40 AM Flag

    Overbrook, re your -

    "Budwin leads him through various claims of the patents, and shows how the Magellan and Solo chips infringe."

    - Prucnal did indeed match each of the four steps of the patented method of down-conversion to four processes depicted in the Magellan schematic. And he was qualified to offer those opinions.

    However, he was NOT qualified to opine on whether or not that electrical engineering testimony was evidence of infringement.

    And unsurprisingly, his electrical engineering testimony was not evidence of infringement.

    To prove infringement the patent owner must demonstrate an "exact" match between the claims of the patent and the accused products.

    All Prucnal did was to match the four steps of the patented method of down-conversion to random Magellan processes - only two of which turned out to be part of the Magellan method of down-conversion.

    Therefore Prucnal failed to match the patented claims "exactly", as he ignored the context, i.e. a method of down-conversion.

    But once again you ran away from my challenge.

    Show us two things Prucnal said which an Appeal Court might view as contradictory.

  • fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Nov 19, 2014 4:19 PM Flag

    Not as far as I can see. Why don't you explain how an Appeal Court could see an inconsistency here?

  • From a ParkerVision filing -

    [ Mr. Sorrells and Dr. Prucnal explained that the plain and ordinary meaning of the "generating" limitations meant that the baseband signal, lower frequency signal, or second signal was generated from the repeated accumulation and discharge of charge from the capacitor(s) ]

    From a Judge Dalton ruling earlier in the trial -

    [ The Court adopted ParkerVision's claim construction position that the generating limitation was clear enough that it need not be defined. ParkerVision cannot adopt a new position now.

    If, as ParkerVision now contends, the generating limitation is restricted to those devices and methods that discharge the transferred energy from a storage device, then it is not apparent to the Court why ParkerVision opposed the majority of Qualcomm's proposed claim constructions, which attempted to limited the scope of the claims to methods and devices that used storage devices such as capacitors. ]

    Should this ever reach the Appeal Court, it will be all too obvious that Prucnal's infringement testimony was CONSISTENT - if one assumes he consistently employed his "plain and ordinary meaning of the "generating" limitations" throughout the trial.

    Prucnal consistently and unambiguously argued that although the baseband signal is down-converted ("created") by the mixer, it is not "generated" until the storage device in the TX filter.

    However as Judge Dalton pointed out, ParkerVision had insisted the word "generate" needs no definition.

    Unfortunately, any dictionary will show that the words "generate" and "create" are synonymous. Therefore it is undeniable Prucnal testified that the baseband signal is generated by the mixer.

    His testimony concerning generation of the baseband signal by the TX filter capacitor was not contradictory. This subsequent generation of the baseband signal simply occurs after down-conversion - and is therefore irrelevant to the alleged infringement of a method of down-conversion.

  • Reply to

    ParkerVision's closing argument sealed its fate

    by fud.fighter2 Oct 28, 2014 12:56 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Nov 14, 2014 3:52 PM Flag

    Say it ain't so Tampa .....

    "However, Prucnal's confirmation that the baseband is created "before it hits" the TX filter undisputedly placed the TX filter processes as occurring AFTER down-conversion - and therefore of no relevance to the alleged infringement of a method of down-conversion."

    The key word here is "undisputedly".

    You've never been able to point to contradictory evidence, placing those TX filter processes as part of the method of down-conversion. Pumper assurances that such evidence was presented are now a massively devalued currency.

    I still think it highly unlikely ParkerVision will go through with the Appeal. I suspect it will be quietly shelved after the next round of financing.

    Judge Dalton concluded that the jury's verdict was not supported by the evidence.

    Appeal Court precedents -

    1. [ The question is not whether there is literally no evidence supporting the party against whom the motion is directed, but whether there is evidence upon which a jury could properly find a verdict for that party. ]

    The key word here is "properly".

    With zero factual evidence that the Qualcomm method of down-conversion includes the COMBINATION OF STEPS patented by ParkerVision, an Appeal Court would have zero grounds for ruling that the jury could properly have found for ParkerVision.

    2. [ Although judgment as a matter of law should be granted sparingly, it is mandated where the record is critically deficient of the minimum quantum of evidence necessary to support a jury verdict. ]

    The key word here is "minimum".

    The opinions of people paid by ParkerVision - unsupported by factual evidence of infringement such as appropriate testing - do not amount to the "minimum quantum of evidence necessary".

    A Qualcomm schematic with mixer outputs labelled "BBOP" and "BBOM" is factual evidence of Non-infringement. There was no factual evidence of infringement.

    Say it ain't so.

  • Reply to

    ParkerVision's closing argument sealed its fate

    by fud.fighter2 Oct 28, 2014 12:56 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Nov 14, 2014 8:43 AM Flag

    Do you agree that although ParkerVision supplied evidence that TX filter processes in the accused products correspond to Steps (3) and (4) of the patented method of down-conversion -

    1. ParkerVision also supplied evidence that down-conversion occurs in the accused products BEFORE those TX filter processes (the mixer outputs are labelled "BBOP" and "BBOM", and the baseband is created "before it hits" the TX filter)

    2. ParkerVision supplied NO evidence that down-conversion in the accused products includes Steps (3) and (4) of the patented method of down-conversion?

    [ 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 ...

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

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

    As usual I fully expect you to duck these questions. But investors new to PRKR should wonder why you'd rather not offer simple answers to such simple questions.

  • Reply to

    ParkerVision's closing argument sealed its fate

    by fud.fighter2 Oct 28, 2014 12:56 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Oct 30, 2014 1:28 PM Flag

    Tampa, you argue -

    [ Then he says "For example, Prucnal's testimony that the Magellan schematic depicts a mixer with outputs labeled BBOP and BBOP was factual evidence of NON-infringing down-conversion."

    REALLY!!!! This is laughable even for you, who usually makes reasonable arguments. Rezavi said labels don't indicate operation. ]

    Yet you told us only a week ago -

    [ The purpose of documentation is so if the design team gets hit by a bus, another can take the design and run with it, or a new team iterate the next gen from it. ]

    You're now asking us to believe that the fact a designer back in 2005 or earlier labeled the Magellan mixer outputs as baseband outputs doesn't qualify as factual evidence that the Magellan mixer outputs a baseband?

    Amusing :-)

  • Reply to

    ParkerVision's closing argument sealed its fate

    by fud.fighter2 Oct 28, 2014 12:56 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Oct 30, 2014 11:31 AM Flag

    Tampa, re your "Well FUD" post below -

    1. A juvenile response. And a tacit acknowledgement of my point.

    2. Another juvenile response. Those two pieces of testimony are not contradictory.

    3. You reported that the Magellan schematic Prucnal used as the basis of his infringement testimony "mimics a prior art continuous analog double balance mixer".

    Clearly that schematic could not in itself be viewed as evidence of infringement.

    All ParkerVision supplied to bridge the gap between evidence of down-conversion and evidence of infringing down-conversion was opinion. There was no factual evidence of infringing down-conversion.

    For example, Prucnal's testimony that the Magellan schematic depicts a mixer with outputs labeled BBOP and BBOP was factual evidence of NON-infringing down-conversion.

    ParkerVision desperately needed to offer a credible argument for the Magellan mixer being UNABLE to do what the schematic on the "big board" indicated it did, and what Sorrells had earlier told the jury a mixer does.

    But Prucnal instead later corroborated his BBOP/BBOM testimony with the admission that the mixer "does, in fact" create the baseband "before it hits" the TX filter.

    Isn't it about time you accepted the fact that consistent, compelling and uncontradicted evidence of non-infringement cannot realistically be rejected by an Appeal Court as grounds for a JMOL of Non-infringement?

  • Reply to

    Tampa - how many mixers did Prucnal describe?

    by fud.fighter2 Oct 29, 2014 6:33 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Oct 30, 2014 10:52 AM Flag

    Tampa, re your -

    "Both sides used the same term to mean different things. Dalton even acknowledged a mixer function when there was no supporting definition or testimony."

    - didn't Sorrells himself supply a definition - a "function that does down-conversion"?

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    Q And I think you said to the jury yesterday that that X symbol is an engineering symbol that designates a mixer, correct?

    A Yes, sir.

    Q And within that X, if you see a circuit like this, that X could be a mixer of a variety of different forms, correct?

    A Yes, sir. But this one specifically is a continuous time mixer.

    Q Okay. But put it -- leave that on the board for a just a minute, but just conceptually if we see circuits that have Xs in them, we know it's a mixer, but the fact that there's an X doesn't necessarily tell us what kind of mixer it is?

    A Well, A mixer is a label for function that does down-conversion. So we need to know what's in it to determine how that down-conversion is done.

    Q And would you agree its critically important for the jury to understand what the mixers are in this case?

    A Yes, sir.

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    Would you care to reconsider this part of your eyewitness report? -

    "Dalton even acknowledged a mixer function when there was no supporting definition or testimony."

  • Re your -

    "Fud, when you say "Mixer" are you referring to ..."

    - I am referring to the same mixer upon which the ParkerVision attorney based his closing infringement argument to the jury -

    [ .25 microamps go into the mixer.

    .11 go out and into the TX filter, where it's undisputed there are capacitors.

    And .11 comes out of the TX filter, the capacitors, to form the baseband signal. ]

    You were present. Are you confident that the jurors had a clear idea of the mixer to which the ParkerVision attorney was referring?

    And in retrospect, do you think it could have been a major blunder on the part of Prucnal - having implied that all of the accused products use the same down-conversion architecture ("if Magellan infringes, so do the others") - to then participate in an apparently pointless discussion about a hypothetical double balanced architecture fundamentally different to that of the accused products?

    How exactly did Prucnal end up offering testimony about a different architecture to the architecture he analysed, simulated and used as the basis for his infringement testimony?

    When Prucnal testified that the mixer output labels "BBOP" and "BBOM" stand for Baseband output plus and Baseband output minus respectively, he clearly wasn't explaining the meaning of labels on a hypothetical mixer.

    Do those labels therefore appear on the Magellan schematic Prucnal put up on the "big board" and used as the basis for his infringement testimony - or was there testimony about a THIRD architecture to confuse the jury?

  • Reply to

    ParkerVision's closing argument sealed its fate

    by fud.fighter2 Oct 28, 2014 12:56 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Oct 29, 2014 1:06 PM Flag

    Overbrook, you seem a little out of your depth here.

    1. [ "The opinions of Prucnal and Sorrells that the accused products infringe were not expert opinion." #$%$? If they were not expert opinions, what were they? Of course they were expert opinions - which a jury was entitled to rely upon. ]

    Neither Prucnal nor Sorrells had qualifications in patent law / patent infringement / patent interpretation.

    Testimony they gave concerning the processes described in the patents, the processes depicted in the schematic of the Magellan circuit, and the processes depicted in the reverse-engineering report of the Solo circuit, qualified as expert opinion.

    For instance the jurors had no reason to disbelieve the testimony that both circuits contain mixers.

    However the jurors had no reason to believe that either witness was better qualified than the jurors themselves to decide if the electrical engineering testimony they supplied was evidence that the patents were infringed.

    2. [ The contradictory evidence was that contained in Prucnal' s direct and cross- where he contradicted himself. The jury resolved the conflict in the testimony one way - and Dalton resolved it another way. ]

    Kindly cite two specific pieces of testimony you believe an Appeal Court would see as contradicting one another.

    Or change the subject as Tampa does.

    3. [ Moreover, Dalton relied in part on the alleged lack of testing/simulations. There is no legal requirement that the expert opinion be based on such testing. Just wrong there. ]

    Judge Dalton was making the point that opinion alone - unsupported by factual evidence such as appropriate testing - does not amount to the "minimum quantum of evidence" necessary to support a jury verdict.

    There are Appeal Court precedents for his JMOL -

    [ The question is not whether there is literally no evidence supporting the party against whom the motion is directed, but whether there is evidence upon which a jury could properly find a verdict for that party. ]

  • Reply to

    ParkerVision's closing argument sealed its fate

    by fud.fighter2 Oct 28, 2014 12:56 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Oct 29, 2014 10:01 AM Flag

    Tampa,

    1. Why do you keep referring to Prucnal's testimony that a TX filter capacitor "generates" the baseband signal, despite being perfectly well aware that I've debunked that particular line of argument on numerous occasions?

    Prucnal subsequently clarified that the TX filter capacitor processes occur AFTER downconversion of the baseband signal in the mixer. You have been unable to cite any contradictory testimony placing said processes as part of the method of downconversion.

    Why would an Appeal Court consider an undisputed post-downconversion process to be relevant to the alleged infringement of a method of downconversion?

    2. Expert opinion does indeed count as evidence. But there was no expert opinion supportive of a verdict of infringement.

    The opinions of Prucnal and Sorrells that the accused products infringe were not expert opinion. Furthermore, those inappropriate opinions were not supported by the testimony they gave within their areas of expertise.

    3. Isn't it about time you finally backed up your assertion that Judge Dalton weighed contradictory evidence?

    Judge Dalton concluded that the jury's verdict of infringement was "not supported by the evidence presented". People would be more inclined to believe you rather than Judge Dalton were you to identify two specific pieces of testimony they can see clearly contradict one another.

    4. Given the FIVE references to the mixer I've now quoted, would you care to reconsider this part of your eyewitness report? -

    [ Neal was successful with his tactic of confusing everyone! He injected "mixer", when there wasn't one ..... ]

  • The last argument the jury heard emphasized the fact that the accused products incorporate a MIXER followed by a TX filter -

    [ .25 microamps go into the mixer.

    .11 go out and into the TX filter, where it's undisputed there are capacitors.

    And .11 comes out of the TX filter, the capacitors, to form the baseband signal. ]

    Sorrells had earlier explained the function of a mixer -

    "A mixer is a label for function that does down-conversion."

    - and made the following observation -

    "And what I look at is, it's labeled mixer ..."

    Prucnal confirmed that the mixer has baseband outputs -

    [ Dr. Prucnal identified the baseband signal output as appearing on the "right-hand side of the mixer" designated by "BBOP and BBOM." (explaining that BB stands for baseband, O stands for output, P stands for plus, and M stands for minus). ]

    - and confirmed that the mixer does precisely what Sorrells had earlier told the jury mixers do - down-convert to baseband -

    [ Q. So at least in Qualcomm's architecture, the double balanced mixer not only is capable of, it does, in fact, create the baseband before it hits the TX filter that you're talking about now, correct?

    A. Yes. ]

    None of this was contradictory to Prucnal's testimony matching the energy accumulation / baseband generation steps of the patented method of down-conversion to processes occurring in the TX filter -

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

    However, Prucnal's confirmation that the baseband is created "before it hits" the TX filter undisputedly placed the TX filter processes as occurring AFTER down-conversion - and therefore of no relevance to the alleged infringement of a method of down-conversion.

    This left ParkerVision with zero evidence that the Qualcomm method of down-conversion includes the signature energy accumulation / baseband generation (via energy discharge) steps of the patented method of down-conversion.

  • fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Oct 23, 2014 12:52 PM Flag

    Tampa,

    1. You yourself reported at the time that the Magellan schematic you saw Prucnal put up on the "big board" and use as the basis of his testimony "mimics a prior art continuous analog double balance mixer".

    Prucnal testified that the "mixer" has baseband outputs "BBOP and BBOM".

    Prucnal pointed to the box "labeled TX filter" as the location of the "energy storage devices".

    When cross-examined about his TX filter testimony (see below) he confirmed that the schematic is of a double balanced mixer.

    ParkerVision's closing argument provided further confirmation -

    [ .25 microamps go into the mixer.

    .11 go out and into the TX filter, where it's undisputed there are capacitors.

    And .11 comes out of the TX filter, the capacitors, to form the baseband signal. ]

    2. Re your -

    "Judge Dalton mistook electrical schematic convention of only showing interconnection for that of a flow chart which shows a process (before /after) order."

    - you are simply regurgitating the "last throw of the dice" argument from the Appeal document, entirely dependent upon a misrepresentation of Prucnal's testimony.

    His testimony was clearly chronological in nature -

    Q: So at least in Qualcomm's architecture, the double balanced mixer not only is capable of, it does, in fact, create the baseband before it hits the TX filter that you're talking about now, correct?

    Prucnal: Yes.

    There is no realistic possibility of an Appeal Court accepting ParkerVision's spin that Prucnal was merely referring to positions on a schematic, and that Judge Dalton misunderstood.

    I remain convinced that the Appeal document was targeted at investors. ParkerVision will weigh the potential benefit of its slim chance of being granted a new trial against the potential damage of news that an Appeal failed.

    But I do hope I'm wrong. I'd love ParkerVision to go to the Appeal Court armed with the argument that a fellow judge lacked the intelligence to understand something a "reasonable jury" would understand.

  • fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Oct 23, 2014 10:19 AM Flag

    Tampa - that line of reasoning would apply to every receiver architecture out there which includes a mixer followed by one or more capacitors.

    Do you agree that once the baseband signal has been down-converted, any and every capacitor later in the circuit could be claimed to "generate" the baseband signal from accumulated energy?

    ParkerVision's patents do not cover the use of a mixer in combination with a capacitor - only a method of down-conversion whereby the down-conversion is (allegedly) accomplished by discharge of accumulated energy.

    Prucnal testified that the capacitor in which the energy accumulates is after the mixer, in the TX filter. But you're still missing the testimony required to place the TX filter as part of the down-conversion process.

    Prucnal's testimony that the baseband signal is down-converted "before it hits the TX filter" was merely a bonus for Qualcomm - as indeed was his testimony that the mixer has outputs labeled baseband (BBOP and BBOM).

    Ignore his testimony, and there is still no evidence that the Qualcomm method of down-conversion includes energy accumulation.

  • fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Oct 22, 2014 3:19 PM Flag

    Tampa, re your -

    [ Prucnal testified; "Energy from the carrier signal is "accumulated by the capacitor. And that energy is then used to generate the baseband signal following the capacitor." Trial Tr. 10/10 at 246:4-9) ]

    - shall we tell the rest of the story?

    Prucnal also testified that the "energy storage devices" that follow the mixers are inside the box "labeled TX filter".

    True?

    Prucnal also testified that the baseband signal is created "before it hits the TX filter" he was talking about.

    True?

    Judge Dalton concluded that this testimony PRECLUDED a verdict of infringement.

    True?

    You have no contradictory testimony - placing those energy accumulation and baseband generation processes as part of the method of down-conversion.

    True?

  • Reply to

    Habitual liar - or just Tamparary insanity?

    by fud.fighter2 Oct 18, 2014 12:25 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Oct 22, 2014 1:08 PM Flag

    Didn't take Tampa and Overbrook long to prove me right with this prediction of mine -

    [ Without evidence that the method by which the accused products down-convert to baseband signal includes the combination of steps patented by ParkerVision, there is no evidence of infringement.

    The pumpers who claim to know of evidence of infringement are lying. Doubtless they will continue trying to dupe gullible investors - but they will never produce one iota of evidence an Appeal Court could accept as evidence of infringement. ]

  • fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Oct 22, 2014 12:12 PM Flag

    Tampa - Prucnal testified that processes performed by the accused products match all four processes covered by the patent. But he did NOT testify that those processes in the accused products are part of the method of down-conversion.

    ParkerVision needed to supply evidence that the Qualcomm method of down-conversion infringes the patented method of down-conversion, no?

    ParkerVision's patents do not grant ownership of that combination of processes - merely ownership of a method of down-conversion via that combination of processes.

    Therefore evidence that the accused products perform all of those processes was inadequate. ParkerVision needed to supply evidence that those processes are performed in an infringing manner.

    Kindly point out testimony placing those processes as part of the method of down-conversion.

  • Reply to

    Another dreadful own-goal from the PRKR Appeal

    by fud.fighter2 Oct 12, 2014 4:08 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Oct 22, 2014 9:46 AM Flag

    Tampa - Prucnal's opinion that the accused products infringe you found compelling? Oh dear :-(

    Let us just hope for ParkerVision's sake that the transcript doesn't convey that impression. The absence of testimony that the Qualcomm method of down-conversion includes the combination of steps patented by ParkerVision seems an insurmountable obstacle in itself.

    It would be adding insult to injury should an Appeal Court conclude that the jury returned a verdict "not supported by the evidence presented" because its objectivity was compromised by testimony from an expert witness on a subject in which said witness had no expertise.

  • Reply to

    Update on the likelihood of a successful Appeal

    by fud.fighter2 Oct 15, 2014 11:54 AM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Oct 21, 2014 7:48 AM Flag

    Given that you've told us -

    "I have been trying cases for 35 years, and so have some familiarity with the subject we are speaking about."

    - I would have expected you to know how this works by now.

    If (perish the thought) I accused you of being a liar but didn't back up my accusation with evidence - how could you prove you were not a liar?

    The onus was upon ParkerVision to back up its accusation of infringement with evidence.

    Had ParkerVision offered evidence of infringement Qualcomm would then have addressed the evidence.

    But ParkerVision failed to offer any evidence that the method of down-conversion in the accused products includes the combination of steps patented by ParkerVision.

    If you disagree, kindly cite specific testimony you believe supports your stance.

INSM
15.37+0.08(+0.52%)Dec 26 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.
Virgin America Inc.
NASDAQFri, Dec 26, 2014 4:00 PM EST
Tesla Motors, Inc.
NASDAQFri, Dec 26, 2014 4:00 PM EST