Odd that this observation didn't prompt a single response from the Longs who post frequently.
Tampa - do you recall Prucnal offering his opinion that the accused products infringe? I would have thought any such opinion should have prompted an objection from the Qualcomm attorney.
This is only a request, but would you mind naming somebody you consider to be an idiot?
I only ask because I can't recall a more idiotic comment than -
[ You should read about the difference between an "order filed" and an "order granted". ]
Not many people leave school without appreciating the distinction between a request and an order.
Re your -
"Recall that the the unrefuted story is the PV showed QC their tech 14 years ago, proved.its value ..."
- ParkerVision accused Qualcomm of having used D2D since 2006, but was unable to supply any evidence of that during the subsequent court case.
Judge Dalton's ruling that the jury's verdict of infringement was "not supported by the evidence presented" would not have been possible had there been evidence of infringement.
Neither you nor any of your fellow pumpers has been able to point to one iota of evidence that the Qualcomm method of down-conversion includes the energy integration and baseband generation steps of D2D.
1. It is undisputed that no Qualcomm product incorporating D2D existed to hamper market adoption of D2D between 1998 and 2006.
2. You have zero proof that Qualcomm was using D2D from 2006 onwards.
3. Even if an Appeal Court was to order a new trial on the grounds of a procedural error, ParkerVision now has an additional obstacle to overcome - the undisputed testimony of a Professor of Electrical Engineering that the Qualcomm method of down-conversion does not include the combination of steps patented by ParkerVision to prevent unauthorized use of D2D.
4. Despite ParkerVision having approached numerous other potential partners, no product known to incorporate D2D has ever been commercialized by a potential partner.
5. The receiver ParkerVision unveiled a year or two back does not incorporate D2D.
What value would you assign to D2D at this stage?
Prucnal's "big board" comparison of the patent claims against the Magellan schematic was the closest ParkerVision could come to offering evidence of infringement.
Prucnal matched patent steps 3 and 4 to the schematic by asserting that the "energy storage devices" that follow the mixers are inside the box "labeled TX filter".
However Prucnal matched those steps without identifying which processes depicted on the schematic are part of the method of down-conversion.
When cross-examined about his comparison he admitted that the mixer "does, in fact, create the baseband before it hits the TX filter".
ParkerVision therefore offered no evidence that the Qualcomm method of down-conversion includes Step 3 (energy integration) or Step 4 (generation of the baseband signal via discharge of energy) of the ParkerVision method of down-conversion.
The following Appeal Court ruling supports Judge Dalton's decision to overturn the jury's verdict via a JMOL of Non-infringement -
[ 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. ]
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.
1. Tampa reported on October 9 2013 -
[ QCOM Magellan schematic shown on the big board ... that's used in the long list of infringing prods.
Prucnal ... compared the circuitry with the '518 patent claims and walked jury through each sentence, the patent diagram and the QCOM schematic.
Seeing the actual QCOM stamped confidential schematic relieved me of much concern. Every piece of D2D is there. The combination of switch clock rate, wiring to switches, and the MOSFET switches (Not continuous analog mode transistors found in prior art) indicate sampling with little doubt.
Also the load is implemented with transimpedance amplifiers which have a feedback path from output to input obviating that they are designed as low impedance loads. Low impedance draws current/charge and therefor energy.
The QCOM confidential schematic showed all the undisputable circuitry to infringe the '518 patent. He even had current measurements showing significant current (energy) transferring from the carrier to charge the capacitors and into the load.
QCOM laid out the circuit to mimic a prior art continuous analog double balance mixer. ]
2. Prucnal subsequently confirmed that the accused products incorporate a double balanced mixer -
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?
3. Tampa posted these within the last few days -
[ I believe because Neal re-asked the question again with "at least in QC's architecture" that Prucnal was answering wrt Nea's hypothetical double balanced mixer he was speaking of earlier for which we know no more than it has criss crosses. ]
[ I did not take detailed notes. That's the job of the court reporter. I only wrote down consequential passages. Prucnal running through the claims was that not that exciting to me and so I did not take many notes there. ]
Tampa, re your -
[ It's not clear in the "Prucnal Admission" question what the conditions were. This is why Prucnal struggled to answer, such a non specific question and why the Jury discounted the entire conversation. Dr. Prucnal was threatened by Neal to not qualify his answer beyond Y/N, so we don't know what Prucnal's assumptions were. I believe because Neal re-asked the question again with "at least in QC's architecture" that Prucnal was answering wrt Nea's hypothetical double balanced mixer he was speaking of earlier for which we know no more than it has criss crosses. ]
- sadly I need to correct you yet again. We know a little bit more about that mixer than you want us to.
Given Prucnal admitted that ...
"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"
... we know the mixer to which Prucnal was referring creates the baseband before it hits the TX filter Prucnal was "talking about".
Therefore if the mixer was hypothetical - so must have been the generation of the baseband by the TX filter that follows it.
You appear to be running out of evidence at an alarming rate, so perhaps it's just as well it couldn't be evidence of infringement whichever way you look at it.
Re your -
"The process has been highly simplified to make it understandable. You can't break the cap away from the switches and comment on their function independently."
1. The jury heard the ParkerVision attorney break the cap (in the TX filter) away from the switches (in the mixer) during his closing argument -
.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. The jury also heard a Professor of Electrical Engineering "break the cap away from the switches" AND "comment on their function independently" -
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?
How is that not confirmation to you that the accused products don't incorporate D2D?
Bjingles - I've avoided this line of reasoning up til now because it's a red herring in the context of any Appeal.
There is no evidence placing TX filter capacitor processes as part of a method of down-conversion, therefore an Appeal Court would consider irrelevant anything the jury heard concerning the TX filter.
Qualcomm clearly has not been using D2D. However, the logical conclusion of your argument seems to me that D2D cannot work unless it incorporates a mixer or other means of demodulation before the capacitor.
That's always good to know. Did they explain to you that when a company is not generating revenue, there is no reason for its share price to follow the market?
Tampa, re your -
"Disregarding Dalton's misunderstanding of EE, the Appeal Court would have to weigh evidence to accept the baseband being generated at either point."
the allegation is that Qualcomm infringed ParkerVision's patented method of down-conversion to baseband signal, no?
Prucnal testified that the mixer creates the baseband signal. It is undisputed that said process is part of a method of down-conversion.
Prucnal testified that the "generation" of the baseband signal by the TX filter capacitor occurs after down-conversion. It is undisputed that said process is not part of a method of down-conversion.
If you disagree with any of the foregoing, kindly have the honesty to cite evidence which supports your stance.
Otherwise, kindly explain why an Appeal Court would need to weigh evidence of a down-conversion process against evidence of a process occurring after down-conversion, when deciding whether or not ParkerVision supplied evidence of infringement of a method of down-conversion.
Btw - you are ducking so many of my questions now that people are getting a bit suspicious :-)
Tampa, re your -
"Why is it ridiculous to accept that PV made their case on infringement? Prucnal testified claim by claim testifying how the QC circuit practiced each claim."
- I covered that argument in the opening post of this thread -
"For an Appeal to succeed, the panel of judges would have to accept testimony that -
Steps 3 and 4 of the patented method of down-conversion are performed by the TX filter capacitor
as evidence that -
Steps 3 and 4 of the patented method of down-conversion are part of the Qualcomm method of down-conversion."
But Prucnal subsequently clarified that those TX filter capacitor processes are NOT part of the Qualcomm method of down-conversion.
And neither Prucnal nor any other witness claimed that the TX filter capacitor processes allegedly performing Steps 3 and 4 of the patented method of down-conversion are part of the Qualcomm method of down-conversion.
Do you agree an Appeal Court is unlikely to accept evidence of processes occurring AFTER down-conversion as evidence of infringement of a method of down-conversion?
"The blunt head longs continue to insist that Qualcomm provided no evidence to contradict PV's theory of circuit operation when, in fact, its been clear since the trial that they had."
True. But the Longs only do that in an attempt to switch the focus away from ParkerVision's failure to meet its onus of proof.
Even if the Appeal Court ignored all of the Qualcomm evidence, and all of the ParkerVision evidence pointing to Non-infringement - there would still be no evidence that the Qualcomm method of down-conversion includes the energy integration / baseband generation steps of the patented method of down-conversion.
Tampa - the evidence I don't mention does not contradict the evidence I do mention.
Furthermore, an Appeal Court would take into account EVERYTHING the jury heard, in order to best gauge how a "reasonable jury" would have interpreted the testimony.
For example -
[ Dr. Razavi argued that the down-converted signal is created immediately after the switch. In contrast, 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) ]
The judges would therefore understand Prucnal's argument to be that although down-conversion occurs "before the baseband signal hits the TX filter", the baseband signal is not "generated" until the TX filter capacitor.
If you disagree - why don't you give us an example of something Prucnal said which might have caused a "reasonable jury" to form a different understanding of his testimony?
The obvious perspective:
A mixer typically down-converts and outputs a baseband signal.
Prucnal testified that the Qualcomm mixer has baseband outputs.
Why didn't Prucnal then tell the jury that this particular mixer cannot down-convert a baseband signal without the help of the TX filter capacitor?
Why did he instead confirm that the mixer creates the baseband "before it hits the TX filter"?
All is explained by Prucnal's "plain and ordinary meaning of the generating limitations".
Prucnal was correct in claiming that the Qualcomm mixer does not "generate" a baseband signal in the context of the patent claims.
But anything outside of the method of down-conversion is irrelevant to the alleged infringement of a method of down-conversion.
Which leaves you once again confronted with the lack of testimony, let alone factual evidence, that the mixer requires a capacitor later in the circuit in order to down-convert to baseband.
Very high, when one considers that PRKR is once again little more than a trading vehicle. Surely you must have heard the expression "pump and dump"?
All that can reasonably be expected to interrupt the pump and dump cycle for the foreseeable future is a run-up of the share price in preparation for a share offer. If I were you I'd check out how much operating cash is left.
"The baseband appearing at the mixer output is TOTALLY CONSISTENT with testimony that the baseband is generated in the capacitor."
Irrelevant - as Prucnal's clarification that the baseband is down-converted "before it hits the TX filter" is TOTALLY INCONSISTENT with a TX filter capacitor process being part of the Qualcomm method of down-conversion.
Sadly for ParkerVision and yourself an Appeal Court would have access to the transcripts - and would know what Prucnal actually said.
Your repetition of ParkerVision's attempted deception doesn't make it any less ridiculous.
But even if Prucnal had not testified as he did, no "reasonable" jury could find for infringement having been informed that the outputs of the mixer are labelled "BBOP and BBOM".
No matter where you run the fact will still be waiting for you that there was no testimony - let alone factual evidence - that the mixer requires a capacitor later in the circuit in order to down-convert to baseband.
Good news Longs. Tampa has finally answered my question.
Perhaps he took the time to thoroughly review the notes he took in Court, in order to be sure of picking the most compelling evidence.
"Are you aware of any evidence placing those TX filter processes as PART of the method of downconversion?"
Tampa: "Yes the baseband is generated in the cap in the TX filter."
In my opinion Tampa's response is of more value than appears at first glance.
After Judge Dalton ruled that the jury had "reached a conclusion not supported by the evidence presented", and issued a JMOL of Non-infringement, ParkerVision held an invitation-only investor conference during which it set out its grounds for an Appeal.
The presentation (July 15, from memory) can be accessed via the Company's web site. The "killer argument" is that Prucnal testified that the "generation" of the baseband by the TX filter capacitor satisfies the "generating limitation" of the patented method of down-conversion.
Tampa attended the trial and took detailed notes - yet can only point to that same testimony.
Urspond attended the trial and also took notes - but hasn't come up with anything more convincing.
ParkerVision's Appeal document offers a new argument, but one entirely dependent upon a misrepresentation of Prucnal's testimony (see my Blatant lie Number 4 post).
For an Appeal to succeed, the panel of judges would have to accept testimony that -
Steps 3 and 4 of the patented method of down-conversion are performed by the TX filter capacitor
as evidence that -
Steps 3 and 4 of the patented method of down-conversion are part of the Qualcomm method of down-conversion.
Worse still - Prucnal subsequently clarified that the baseband signal is down-converted "before it hits the TX filter".
There was no evidence contradictory to his clarification.
If the Qualcomm method of down-conversion does not include the combination of steps patented by ParkerVision - it does not infringe the ParkerVision patent.
Re your -
"I don't believe his "Yes" had anything to do with downconversion."
- unfortunately Prucnal's confirmation that the baseband signal is created "before it hits the TX filter" was understood by Judge Dalton to be confirmation that down-conversion occurs in the accused products independently of the TX filter processes Prucnal had claimed match Steps 3 and 4 of the patented method of downconversion.
Are you aware of any evidence placing those TX filter processes as PART of the method of downconversion?
Re your -
"For 2, what's your point? Prucnal clearly testified that the QC circuit performed all the patent claims."
testimony that the QC circuit performed all the patent claims
testimony that the down-conversion part of the QC circuit performed all the patent claims.
The alleged infringement is of a method of down-conversion, no?
An Appeal Court could hardly fail to notice that ParkerVision omitted the obvious first step in proving infringement of a method of down-conversion - identifying the part of the QC circuit that performs the down-conversion.
Only under cross-examination did Prucnal finally admit that the QC circuit "does, in fact, create the baseband before it hits the TX filter".
Obviously had he started by telling the jury where down-conversion occurs he would then have been unable to match Steps 3 and 4 of the patented method of down-conversion to the TX filter -
[ the "energy storage devices" that follow the mixers are inside the box "labeled TX filter" ]
- without explaining the relevance of that testimony to the alleged infringement of a method of down-conversion.
1. Do you agree an Appeal Court would accept the following as true? -
... The expert testimony and opinions of experts are evidence.
... ParkerVision supplied evidence that the energy integration / baseband generation steps of the patented method of down-conversion to baseband are performed by the TX filter in the accused products.
... ParkerVision supplied evidence that down-conversion in the accused products occurs before the baseband hits the TX filter.
... In deciding the issue, the court has to accept as true all of the evidence submitted by ParkerVision.
2. Do you agree ParkerVision supplied NO evidence that the method of down-conversion to baseband in the accused products includes Steps (3) and (4) of the patented method? -
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.
[ Dr. Prucnal further stated that his testimony was specific to the Magellan product, but he had "concluded that the design documents and circuits show that the circuits are substantially the same as they relate to the patents. And they also infringe." ]
This is increasingly looking like the work of rank amateurs.
Prucnal is a Professor of Electrical Engineering.
His field of expertise qualifies him to offer expert opinion on issues such as ...
the down-conversion of the baseband signal "before it hits the TX filter"
the "generation" of the baseband signal by the TX filter
... therefore testifying that specific processes performed by the accused products match specific steps of the patent was appropriate.
However he is NOT qualified in patent law / patent infringement / patent interpretation ...
... therefore testifying that the accused products infringe was wildly inappropriate - and provides further justification for overturning the jury's verdict.
ParkerVision provided evidence that the accused products perform all of the steps of the patented method of down-conversion, but no evidence that those steps are performed in an infringing manner.