Recent

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

Insmed Incorporated Message Board

fud.fighter2 233 posts  |  Last Activity: Aug 14, 2015 2:59 PM Member since: Aug 12, 2010
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    Tampa - step back and adjust your perspective

    by fud.fighter2 Jul 5, 2015 2:32 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Jul 6, 2015 5:11 PM Flag

    Tampa, in response to your -

    [ Just the 25% duty cycle undoes the double-balanced-mixer theory. They just have never sampled in the past ]

    - I am merely asking you why you believe the circuits YOU MENTION were not sampling.

  • Reply to

    Overbrook - two questions you haven't answered

    by fud.fighter2 Jul 6, 2015 11:07 AM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Jul 6, 2015 5:01 PM Flag

    Overbrook, re your -

    [ FUD- once again you are misinterpreting the law. The issue is NOT "... how a reasonable jury would have viewed the evidence..." ]

    - the issue is precisely as I have explained.

    A JMOL is demanded if a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the non-movant.

    It is never a question of seeing if the evidence can be made to fit the verdict. Read Judge Dalton's ruling - as far as the post-verdict JMOL process is concerned "the jury's particular findings are not germane to the legal analysis".

    Here is an excerpt from the Appeal Court ruling in Dawn Equipment v Kentucky Farms:

    [ 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. ]

    Take it up with the relevant Appeal Court judges if you feel your grasp of the JMOL process is superior to theirs.

    But I suggest you first find someone to explain to you how rulings such as -

    [ The court must accept as true all evidence of the non-moving parties ]

    - affect the hypothetical "reasonable jury".

  • Reply to

    Tampa - step back and adjust your perspective

    by fud.fighter2 Jul 5, 2015 2:32 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Jul 6, 2015 3:11 PM Flag

    Tampa, re your -

    [ Fud, your statements are all wrong just from public information and physics. Just the 25% duty cycle undoes the double-balanced-mixer theory. They just have never sampled in the past ]

    - the demonstratives ParkerVision used during the trial indicate that the accused products -

    use a 25% duty cycle to generate an analog baseband signal output to a component the design documents indicate functions as a filter, which includes capacitors, which itself outputs an analog baseband signal.

    Certain widely used prior art circuits -

    use a 25% duty cycle to generate an analog baseband signal output to a component the design documents indicate functions as a filter, which includes capacitors, which itself outputs an analog baseband signal.

    Briefly (PLEASE), why do you believe those prior art circuits "have never sampled" yet the accused products do sample?

  • Reply to

    Overbrook - two questions you haven't answered

    by fud.fighter2 Jul 6, 2015 11:07 AM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Jul 6, 2015 2:48 PM Flag

    Overbrook, re your -

    [ It's curious that you didn't quote the balance of Judge Dalton's opinion on the standards. Well here it is:
    "The district court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and must refrain from deciding the credibility of witnesses or weighing the evidence. The court MAY give credence to the evidence supporting the moving party that is uncontradicted and unimpeached, at least to the extent that it comes from disinterested witnesses.; however the court must disregard all evidence favorable to the moving party that the jury is not required to believe. ]

    - the reason I didn't post that bit is that I can't see what difference it makes.

    Surely the fact that the COURT must accept as true all evidence of the non-moving party, view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and disregard certain evidence favorable to the moving party simply doesn't matter - given that the hypothetical "reasonable jury" created by the Court is - as you have pointed out several times now - free to pick and choose among the evidence and believe what it wants to and reject the rest?

    All that really matters is how a REASONABLE JURY would have viewed the evidence before the trial jury was asked to decide.

    Appeal Court precedent is quite clear -

    [ 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 on that issue, the court may ... ]

    [ After the jury's verdict, a renewed Rule 50 motion is decided "the same way it would have been decided prior to the jury's verdict, and ... the jury's particular findings are not germane to the legal analysis." ]

    [ The appropriate inquiry is whether a reasonable jury, given the facts before it, could have arrived at the conclusion it did. ]

    You're not getting the Court mixed up with the reasonable jury, are you? You can't put the jury in a straitjacket.

  • Reply to

    Overbrook - two questions you haven't answered

    by fud.fighter2 Jul 6, 2015 11:07 AM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Jul 6, 2015 12:44 PM Flag

    Overbrook, as you clearly are incapable of explaining the EFFECT the following ruling could have in the review of a JMOL -

    [ The court must accept as true all evidence of the non-moving parties. ]

    if the hypothetical "reasonable jury" created by the Court in the review of the JMOL could, as you claim -

    [ pick and choose among the evidence and believe what it wants to and reject the rest ]

    it seems you've offered all the value you're likely to offer to this discussion.

    I'll sign off by comparing -

    a) your understanding of the JMOL standard of review you've established from the Federal Circuit and US Supreme Court cases you reviewed -

    [ As I have repeatedly stated , the role of the court on a JMOL is to try to preserve the verdict ]

    with

    b) Judge Dalton's understanding (emphasis added) -

    [ After the jury's verdict, a renewed Rule 50 motion is decided "the same way it would have been decided PRIOR TO THE JURY'S VERDICT, and ... the jury's particular findings are not germane to the legal analysis." ]

  • Reply to

    Overbrook - the relevance of Becton v Tyco

    by fud.fighter2 Jul 4, 2015 10:29 AM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Jul 6, 2015 11:59 AM Flag

    "Elsewhere he testified that there were switches and capacitors in the mixer."

    I've been unable to find any such testimony. When you get home, would you mind posting the relevant excerpts please?

  • Reply to

    Overbrook - two questions you haven't answered

    by fud.fighter2 Jul 6, 2015 11:07 AM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Jul 6, 2015 11:42 AM Flag

    1. It will be interesting to see your examples. I can't imagine why you're only now agreeing to post them for the first time.

    2. First you tell us -

    [ The cases I reviewed and referenced are all Federal Circuit and US Supreme Court cases ... the caselaw says in reviewing a JMOL ... The court must accept as true all evidence of the non-moving parties. ]

    Now you tell us -

    [ The reasonable jury is free to reject whatever it wants and is also free to accept whatever it wants. ]

    How does the fact that the Court - in reviewing a JMOL - "must accept as true all evidence of the non-moving party"

    have any effect when the hypothetical "reasonable jury" the Court creates - in reviewing a JMOL - "is free to reject whatever it wants and is also free to accept whatever it wants"?

  • 1. Re your -

    [ He has Prucnal testify that the baseband is locaed all over the place - before the TX filter. and then has him testify about the capacitor in the TX filter being charged and then generating the baseband ]

    - are you referring to the testimony that energy accumulated by the capacitor in the TX filter is then "used" (by what?) to generate the baseband in the Baseband filter?

    On May 23 2014 you told us -

    [ I received my copy of the transcript yesterday, and it does not appear to be redacted. It's 256 pages long with lots of very complex arguments. I have not yet had the opportunity to read the whole thing. Will report when I do. ]

    After the jury's infringement verdict was overturned you reviewed the transcript, and corrected Tampa's "just one word supporting non-infringement" lie with this -

    [ Prucnal's cross is worse than I had thought. He repeatedly admits that the baseband is generated by the double-balanced mixer. I simply cannot understand it given his other testimony. The so-called "Prucnal admission" is not one slip of the tongue or lawyers trick I am surprised that Dalton did not focus on more examples. ]

    Kindly confirm that you've never found a single example of Prucnal testifying that in the accused products the baseband signal is generated either "in the output" of a capacitor or "by" a capacitor.

    2. Re your -

    [ What we are focusing on is the court's role in reviewing a grant of a JMOL ]

    - are we now agreed that when reviewing a grant of a JMOL, the Court must view the evidence as would a hypothetical "reasonable jury" - and that the Court's hypothetical "reasonable jury" would not be free to reject ANY "evidence of the non-moving parties"?

  • Reply to

    Case Law

    by wallstrip Jul 5, 2015 9:10 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Jul 5, 2015 11:18 PM Flag

    ParkerVision's closing argument was a tacit admission of how far short was ParkerVision from providing a "legally sufficient evidentiary basis" for a verdict of infringement -

    [ .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. This proves that the baseband is generated from energy transferred into this storage device. ]

    Err ..... hang on a minute!

    1. The TX filter is not a storage device.

    2. Your star witness testified that switches in the mixer generate a baseband signal output from a carrier signal input, and that the carrier signal has been "eliminated" at the output of the switches.

    3. Your star witness testified that although capacitors in the TX filter accumulate and discharge energy sampled from the carrier signal, "low frequency" signals such as those at baseband frequency are blocked by a capacitor.

    There's no reason for us to doubt the uncontradicted testimony of your star witness, is there?

    As the TX filter itself isn't a storage device - and the storage devices within the TX filter block signals at baseband frequency - what part of your evidence supports the "reasonable inference" that the accused products are getting the baseband signal from stored energy?

  • Reply to

    Case Law

    by wallstrip Jul 5, 2015 9:10 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Jul 5, 2015 10:00 PM Flag

    Nobody is disputing that expert witness testimony based upon design documents qualifies as evidence of infringement. The problem in this case is that it was the ONLY evidence of infringement ParkerVision offered.

    a) Nothing in the design documents suggests that the accused products do in fact operate in accordance with Prucnal's theory.

    b) ParkerVision supplied no testimony from the designers, or from anybody else at Qualcomm, suggesting that the accused products do in fact operate in accordance with Prucnal's theory.

    c) ParkerVision supplied no evidence by way of testing or simulations confirming that the accused products do in fact operate in accordance with Prucnal's theory.

    ParkerVision needed SOMETHING to convert a theory that infringement is possible into evidence that infringement has occurred.

  • Reply to

    The Crystal Radio patent is back

    by bjingles Jul 5, 2015 2:41 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Jul 5, 2015 8:21 PM Flag

    Bjingles - my jaw dropped with Fette's tacit admission that the 551 patent covers a Crystal Radio receiver UNLESS the following claim implies the use of a control signal -

    (2) transferring non-negligible amounts of energy from the carrier signal, at an aliasing rate that is substantially equal to a frequency of the carrier signal plus or minus frequency of the lower frequency signal, divided by n, where n represents a harmonic or sub-harmonic of the carrier signal.

    Ouch :-)

    My gut feeling from the IPR documents I've read is that the patents are toast.

  • As Mick Jagger would say - you can't always get what you want.

    Before initiating the first law suit, ParkerVision commissioned a reverse-engineering of a Qualcomm chip.

    We now know that ParkerVision went ahead despite knowing full well -

    1. the accused products could only infringe its patented method of down-conversion if a capacitor was able to receive the gigahertz frequency carrier signal.

    2. the gigahertz frequency carrier signal is down-converted to a megahertz frequency baseband signal by the accused products via a widely used, capacitor-free, prior art method - which "eliminates" the carrier signal.

    3. the only signal a capacitor in the accused products could possibly receive is at baseband frequency - which is in the order of a thousand times lower than gigahertz frequency and is therefore simply blocked by a capacitor.

    How likely is it that ParkerVision would press ahead with Law Suit No.1 - which it knew must ultimately fail - if it thought Law Suit No.2 had more going for it?

    It logically follows that no amount of evidence supplied by Qualcomm is likely to "remove any question of insufficient evidence".

    Therefore I guess all that really matters is whether or not - in supplying schematics and other documents - Qualcomm is deemed to have met its legal burden under the federal Rules of Civil Procedure, no?

    [ Any party may serve on any other party a request (1) to produce and permit the party making the request, or someone acting on the requestor's behalf, to inspect, copy, test, or sample any designated documents or electronically stored information — including writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, sound recordings, images, and other data or data compilations stored in any medium from which information can be obtained — translated, if necessary, by the respondent into reasonably usable form ]

  • Reply to

    Overbrook - the grounds for the disputed JMOL

    by fud.fighter2 Jul 4, 2015 11:43 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Jul 5, 2015 1:02 PM Flag

    Tampa, all of the "non-moving party" evidence I've listed is accurate.

    Shouldn't we leave it to the Court's hypothetical "reasonable jury" to make its own "reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party" from the totality of the evidence it would not be free to disbelieve?

    However I'll just address your first mistake -

    [ Switches in the mixer generate a baseband signal "output" from a carrier signal "input".
    -The term Neal used was create, not generate ]

    Budwin and Prucnal confirmed during Prucnal's direct testimony that the baseband signal is generated by the switches in the mixer -

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

    Q: So this page, again 2000, this is showing us what's going on inside the mixer?

    A: Yes.

    Q: What on this page shows controlling and charging and discharging cycle of first and second capacitors with first and second switching devices electrically coupled to the first and second capacitors?

    A: Well, the outputs BBOP and BBOM --

    Q: So here, BBOP and BBOM?

    A: Yes.

    Q: How are those outputs generated, first of all? Remind us.

    A: Well, 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 in the case of the P and also in the case of the M, inverted one.

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

    When you're ready to deal with what actually is in the evidence record I'll be happy to discuss it.

  • Reply to

    WOW-bizarre post from Tampa

    by statesrip Jul 4, 2015 10:58 AM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Jul 5, 2015 12:58 PM Flag

    And how is that relevant to whether or not the accused products themselves actually infringe?

    Just because Qualcomm has simulated the operation of a product does not mean that the simulation reflects with 100% accuracy how the product itself operates.

  • Reply to

    Overbrook - the grounds for the disputed JMOL

    by fud.fighter2 Jul 4, 2015 11:43 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Jul 5, 2015 12:17 PM Flag

    I certainly wouldn't have expected an individual even STUDYING to be a lawyer to make the following accusation -

    [ Fud- you are missing the point in your attempt to arrive at a predetermined conclusion. }

    - apparently entirely oblivious to the fact that it's precisely what he has been doing all along.

    I'll give it a little while to see if he attempts to dig himself out of that hole , and then offer what I believe to be the correct approach. It will be interesting to see if he counters that by trying to argue an alternative approach.

  • Reply to

    WOW-bizarre post from Tampa

    by statesrip Jul 4, 2015 10:58 AM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Jul 5, 2015 11:39 AM Flag

    Tampa - that was very perceptive of you to comfort OB just then.

    As to the matter of simulations, I assumed (silly me) that you'd pick up on the fact that Qualcomm - in supplying schematics and making available other documents - was adjudged by the Court to have met its legal obligation under the Federal rules of Civil Procedure.

    Here's an excerpt -

    [ Any party may serve on any other party a request (1) to produce and permit the party making the request, or someone acting on the requestor's behalf, to inspect, copy, test, or sample any designated documents or electronically stored information — including writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, sound recordings, images, and other data or data compilations stored in any medium from which information can be obtained — translated, if necessary, by the respondent into reasonably usable form ]

    Presumably ParkerVision is now arguing that design documents, blueprints and schematics do not qualify as "reasonably usable form", and that simulations must be supplied?

  • Reply to

    Overbrook - the grounds for the disputed JMOL

    by fud.fighter2 Jul 4, 2015 11:43 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Jul 5, 2015 10:49 AM Flag

    Overbrook, I've no wish to put words in your mouth here. I'm merely trying to reconcile -

    the JMOL standard of review you've established from the Federal Circuit and US Supreme Court cases you reviewed

    with

    your understanding of how the standard of review is applied.

    Is it your understanding that -

    For the purposes of the JMOL decision, although the Court's hypothetical reasonable jury

    must accept as true each of the ten pieces of evidence I've listed

    it can pick and choose among the evidence and believe what it wants to and reject the rest?

  • From Judge Dalton's JMOL ruling (emphasis added) -

    [ 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 on that issue, the court may ... ]

    [ After the jury's verdict, a renewed Rule 50 motion is decided "the same way it would have been decided prior to the jury's verdict, and ... the jury's particular findings are not germane to the legal analysis." ]

    In response to your -

    [ The cases I reviewed and referenced are all Federal Circuit and US Supreme Court cases ... the caselaw says in reviewing a JMOL ... The court must accept as true all evidence of the non-moving parties. ]

    - I asked you to confirm that a "reasonable jury" would not have been able to reject any of "non-moving party" evidence.

    Your response was -

    [ The jury can believe anything it wants - and can also reject any evidence that it wants. ]

    I'll try again.

    Do you agree that for the purposes of the JMOL decision - the Court's hypothetical "reasonable jury" would NOT have been able to reject any of the following evidence of the non-moving party?

    1. For infringement to occur, the baseband signal must be generated "in the output" of a capacitor.

    2. Switches in the mixer generate a baseband signal "output" from a carrier signal "input".

    3. At the output of the switches the carrier signal has been "eliminated".

    4. Before "hitting a capacitor" the output of the mixer includes the baseband signal.

    5. The baseband signal is a "low frequency" signal.

    5. A capacitor "blocks" signals at low frequency.

    7. Capacitors in the TX filter accumulate sampled "energy" from the carrier signal.

    8. The TX filter provides "matching to the next stage".

    9. The TX filter is "a necessary part of the energy transfer".

    10. Energy accumulated by capacitors in the TX filter is used to generate the baseband signal "across the transimpedance amplifiers" in the Baseband filter.

  • fud.fighter2 by fud.fighter2 Jul 4, 2015 4:42 PM Flag

    He's had to tweak his story slightly.

    Before: The cases I reviewed and referenced are all Federal Circuit and US Supreme Court cases. The standard of review is very well known and accepted on a JMOLs. That's not what I think- it's what the caselaw says. And the caselaw says in reviewing a JMOL ... The court must accept as true all evidence of the non-moving parties.

    After: No Fud- the jury is not required to believe any evidence at all . The jury can believe anything it wants - and can also reject any evidence that it wants.

    Not that it could make any difference, as ParkerVision supplied no evidence to convert the argument that infringement is possible into evidence that infringement has occurred (see the Appeal Court ruling in Becton v Tyco), but in a nutshell -

    [ The appropriate inquiry is whether a reasonable jury, given the facts before it, could have arrived at the conclusion it did. ]

    (Dawn Equip. Co. v. Kentucky Farms, Inc.)

    It would be considered "reasonable" to -

    1. accept as true all evidence supplied by ParkerVision (unless Overbrook made that up)

    2. give credence to evidence supporting Qualcomm - as long as it is "uncontradicted and unimpeached, at least to the extent that that evidence comes from disinterested witnesses"

    3. draw "legitimate inferences" in favor of ParkerVision.

  • Reply to

    Instances Where Judge Dalton is Clearly Wrong

    by overbrook10 Jul 4, 2015 11:58 AM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Jul 4, 2015 2:18 PM Flag

    For clarication Overbrook - you confirm that a "reasonable jury" would NOT have been able to reject any of the ten pieces of evidence I've listed?

    All of the evidence of the non-moving party is "evidence a jury is required to believe". Agreed?

    Although reasonable inferences must be drawn in favor of ParkerVision - for an inference to qualify as "reasonable" it cannot be inconsistent with any part of the evidence the jury is required to believe.

    Do you therefore confirm that Judge Dalton would have been compelled to overturn the infringement verdict UNLESS a jury could reasonably have inferred FROM THE EVIDENCE I'VE LISTED that the baseband signal is generated "in the output" of a capacitor?

INSM
25.69+0.56(+2.23%)Aug 28 4:00 PMEDT