Recent

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

Insmed Incorporated Message Board

fud.fighter2 168 posts  |  Last Activity: 5 hours ago Member since: Aug 12, 2010
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Last September you predicted -

    "I am not a lawyer, but at the appeals level, I don't think that Budwin's error is fatal. Neal cannot reverse his decision not to offer expert testimony during the actual trial, but Donald Dunner can do a better job of explicating Prucnal's testimony."

    But sadly ParkerVision's case has claimed a third victim from among the legal fraternity -

    "I have just listened to the audio. Bad lawyering for ParkerVision seems to have continued from the May 1 hearing. It is too bad that Bob Sterne could not have represented ParkerVision in either the original case or at the appeals hearing. Both Budwin and Dunner seem a bit confused by it all."

    A district court judge and two highly rated attorneys have now failed to understand Prucnal's testimony as well as you do. You hit the nail on the head in observing that it's simply a matter of "sufficient" evidence -

    "Nonetheless, one trusts that the members of the appellate board will be able to focus on the matter at hand: whether or not the jury was presented with sufficient evidence to reach a verdict, whether or not Dalton or the appellate court agree with that verdict."

    Appeal Court precedent decrees -

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

    ParkerVision's Appeal brief points to such evidence -

    "Dr. Prucnal was asked three times ... whether that .11 microamp signal would be the baseband if the TX filter were removed. And in each instance, Dr. Prucnal testified that it would not."

    Did you ever manage to find that testimony?

  • Although we have to dismiss arguments unsupported by the case made to the jury - in years to come I predict we'll all be dining out on the fact that WE WERE THERE when Tampa discovered two new laws of physics.

    1. Prucnal testified that the capacitor accumulates energy during each aperture period, and "generates" the baseband signal at the end of the aperture period via discharge of energy -

    "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."

    However he later admitted that the baseband signal is down-converted "before" it hits the TX filter he identified as the location of the capacitor.

    Logical conclusion: Baseband "generation" must be separated in time from baseband down-conversion by an aperture period.

    But had the jurors been familiar with Tampa's First Law of Quantum Mechanics - LOW FREQUENCY ENERGY WAVES FOLD TIME - they would have reasoned as Tampa does -

    [ One must look at waveforms! ... before/after has no relevance. It's the same point electrically supporting the simultaneous operation. ]

    2. Prucnal testified that to the baseband signal the capacitor is effectively a "broken wire" -

    Q: "So at sufficiently low frequency, a capacitor will essentially look like a broken or disconnected wire, correct?"

    A: "Correct".

    Logical conclusion: The argument that the baseband signal after the mixer is the baseband signal after the capacitor because "all points on a wire are the same" is invalid.

    But had the jurors been familiar with Tampa's Second Law of Quantum Mechanics - LOW FREQUENCY ENERGY WAVES FOLD SPACE - they would have reasoned as Tampa does -

    [ You say PV "conceded that the baseband was generated at the output of the mixer." That point is also the output of the capacitor ... the admission argument is technically irrelevant because a single point can't have a before or after. ]

  • 1. Tampa's version -

    [ "Prucnal confirmed that the mixer in the accused products creates the baseband."? Actually, he didn't. The yes must be qualified in the context it was offered. Recall that Mr. Neal spent considerable time painting a picture of a hypothetical double balanced mixer. ]

    [ I don't recall any testimony identifying QCOM's circuit as containing a mixer or double balanced mixer, only Neal's asertion of such. ]

    [ Dalton put way too much emphasis on "the admission", ignoring the setup and manner in which it was garnered; in which the Jury rightfully discounted as hard lawyering to solicit an erroneous response. ]

    [ If Prucnal had just said no (the accurate answer) ... ]

    [ 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. ]

    2. The truth -

    Q: What has Dr. Fox shown us that this signal here represents?

    A: That's the baseband waveform coming out of the mixer.

    Q: Can you explain to the jury whether this is a high frequency or a low frequency signal?

    A: Well, the terms high frequency and low frequency are relative, of course. And when I talk about high frequency, it's generally in this context, related to the very high frequency oscillations of the radio wave. This is the baseband signal, so this would be a low frequency signal.

    Q: At this point, that is coming out of the mixer and before hitting a capacitor, the output of the mixer includes the baseband signal that we've been talking about, correct?

    A: Yes.

    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.

    Q: If the accused products down-convert without generating the baseband signal from energy in the capacitor, then the jury should find in favor of Qualcomm on all accused products under all claims, correct?

    A: Correct.

  • When you were sitting in the Courtroom listening to ParkerVision attorney Budwin question Prucnal, and you heard Prucnal volunteer the "fatal" testimony that the Qualcomm mixer creates the low frequency baseband signal before the current hits the capacitors in the TX filter - did it not occur to you to approach Budwin or Prucnal during the next break and point out that down-conversion to the lower frequency signal is impossible without baluns?

    Or failing that - couldn't you at least have shouted out in the Courtroom that the schematics Prucnal chose to use as the basis of his testimony were all outrageous fabrications - designed back in 2004/5 specifically to conceal the intended theft of ParkerVision's invention?

    What possessed you to remain silent, and allow the trial to conclude with the jury having heard absolutely nothing to support the conclusion that the accused products create the baseband signal from energy stored in a capacitor?

  • Re your -

    [ Why does "All points on a wire are effectively the same point" matter? Because the baseband output to the next stage has a switch matrix and capacitor connected to the same conductor. Likely on the chip, not a wire at all but a transistor and capacitor sharing the same blob of metal. Placing a probe at that point, you will measure baseband. There's no way to empirically measure if it's coming from the switch, before the capacitor, or from the capacitor before the switch. ]

    - isn't this one of the reasons ParkerVision's case was doomed from the start?

    Nothing in the expert testimony suggested that the baseband signal at the exit of the TX filter isn't simply the baseband signal down-converted by the mixer. Do you deny this?

    You've admitted that the schematic ParkerVision showed the jury depicted an architecture which "looks like" a double-balanced mixer. There was no dispute as to the accuracy of the schematic.

    ParkerVision's lead inventor -

    1. admitted that "if the accused products get the baseband signal somehow or somewhere other than from the carrier signal energy that has been stored in the capacitor, then those products do not infringe".

    ParkerVision's star witness -

    2. 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).

    3. admitted that the "output" of the double balanced mixers in the accused products "is the baseband".

    4. admitted that the "energy storage devices" that follow the mixers are inside the box "labeled TX filter".

    5. admitted that the "double balanced mixture(sic) not only is capable of, it does, in fact, create the baseband before it hits the TX filter".

    6. refused to claim that if the TX filter was "ripped out" there would be no baseband signal.

    What do YOU believe supports the conclusion that the mixer gets the baseband signal from stored energy?

  • Reply to

    What we were told vs what Prucnal actually said

    by fud.fighter2 May 24, 2015 10:41 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 May 26, 2015 9:30 AM Flag

    It's becoming increasingly evident that ParkerVision has only itself to blame for the ultimate failure of its litigation strategy.

    It would have been a completely different story had ParkerVision chosen Tampa as its expert witness - rather than the Professor of Electrical Engineering who failed to spot that the Qualcomm "mixer" does NOT down-convert the carrier frequency to the baseband frequency.

    Note that during the following exchange between ParkerVision attorney Budwin and Prucnal, the good doctor is blissfully unaware that the so-called "mixer" is merely using the local oscillator signal to sample the high frequency carrier signal -

    Q: Back to the figure of interest here, Dr. Prucnal. What does this represent? What has Dr. Fox shown us that this signal here represents?

    A: That's the baseband waveform coming out of the mixer.

    Q: Can you explain to the jury whether this is a high frequency or a low frequency signal?

    A: Well, the terms high frequency and low frequency are relative, of course. And when I talk about high frequency, it's generally in this context, related to the very high frequency oscillations of the radio wave. This is the baseband signal, so this would be a low frequency signal.

    As Tampa explains, what the mixer actually outputs is a sampled high frequency signal. And then -

    "The capacitor here takes in the HIGH FREQUENCY sampled carrier current and outputs LOW FREQUENCY baseband".

    Sadly the Appeal Court panel cannot ignore Prucnal's undisputed testimony that the baseband signal is generated "following" the capacitor rather than "by" the capacitor. The jury heard both Prucnal and Sorrells confirm that for infringement to occur the baseband signal had to come "from" energy stored in a capacitor.

    But the good news is that provided the panel recognises as fabrications the schematics Own Goal Prucnal chose to use, the patent itself should survive the Appeal - and can be used to sue others who have misrepresented infringing architecture.

  • Tampa, re your -

    [ Are you saying that expert testimony used in support of QC's theory of operation is factual based empirical evidence, but when that same expert and same evidence base is used to support PV's case, it's not proof? ]

    - no. We're pointing out that what ParkerVision did "prove" was not sufficient to properly support a verdict of infringement.

    The jurors failed to notice that ParkerVision's 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. This proves that the baseband is generated from energy transferred into this storage device. ]

    - corrupted Prucnal's testimony -

    [ 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. ]

    They were deceived by the ploy of misrepresenting the TX filter itself as a storage device.

    Prucnal merely testified that the baseband signal is created by the mixer and then generated "following" the storage device (capacitor) at the exit of the TX filter.

    He testified that a capacitor is effectively a "broken wire" to the low frequency baseband signal. What cannot enter a capacitor cannot be generated by a capacitor.

    This highlights the fundamental difference between the two methods. The lead inventor explained that his storage device / capacitor generates the low frequency signal from the high frequency signal -

    Q: Not only does ParkerVision have the burden of proving that current from the carrier signal is going into the storage device in the Qualcomm circuits, 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.

  • Reply to

    Teamrep - Fairy Dust / Lack of Enablement

    by fud.fighter2 Apr 3, 2015 4:43 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Apr 3, 2015 6:47 PM Flag

    Found this -

    "the USPTO during a reexamination proceeding will not consider 35 U.S.C. § 112, 1st paragraph issues with respect to the reexamination of original patent claims. It will, however, consider such issues where new or amended claims are presented"

    As for the Appeal, ParkerVision was still referring to "the" baseband in its closing argument.

    In the ensuing JMOL hearing Dalton asked Budwin why Prucnal's confirmation of where "the" baseband is created does not establish non-infringement -

    [ 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? ...

    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 ... is not a baseband signal.

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

    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. ]

    In lying about who raised the theory ParkerVision shows the Appeal Court its true colours -

    [ Qualcomm also criticizes "ParkerVision's New 'Generated More than Once' Theory." But this is not ParkerVision's theory: the district court raised it at the JMOL hearing and ParkerVision's counsel explained that "we don't agree with" it. ]

  • Reply to

    3 Appellate Judges

    by longprkr May 12, 2015 10:22 AM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 May 12, 2015 11:16 AM Flag

    Give it a rest already! This is the third time in two days that you've tried to scam gullible newbies with this pathetic drivel concocted by your imaginary "friend".

    Once again - you must be soiling your pants to be trying to prop up the value of your investment with such blatant lies. Re your -

    "Qualcomm's undisputed OWN title for their infringing Magellan product is that it is a 25% duty cycle mixer product! THAT IS NEW That is not prior art
    That is what ParkerVision technology invented."

    - would you mind pointing us to anything at all that could suggest to the three Appellate Judges that what ParkerVision claims to have invented is in some way similar to a 25% duty cycle mixer?

  • Reply to

    A few reality checks for delusional Longs

    by fud.fighter2 May 11, 2015 2:20 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 May 11, 2015 7:15 PM Flag

    Tampa - you seem to be in denial of the concept of "reasonable" conclusion.

    1. You ask me -

    "Fud, I'm lying that I don't recall? How would you know that?"

    If you had indeed (whilst in the courtroom) heard ParkerVision's star witness testify that "the circuit would not downconvert if the capacitor was ripped out" - you would have been quoting that testimony ever since in support of your arguments in this forum.

    2. The Appeal Court panel has an obvious starting point in this undisputed testimony by ParkerVision's lead inventor -

    Q: "In order for the jury, then, to conclude or determine whether you have established infringement or not, the jury has to consider whether the accused products, the Qualcomm accused products make the baseband signal from energy in the capacitor, correct?"

    A: "I believe so, yes, sir."

    Q: "If the accused products get the baseband signal somehow or somewhere other than from the carrier signal energy that has been stored in the capacitor, then those products do not infringe your patents, correct?"

    A: "I believe that's correct."

    If ParkerVision's star witness had indeed believed the accused products "get the baseband signal" from "energy that has been stored in the capacitor" it would have been reasonable for him to have furthered the interests of his employer by stating in no uncertain terms that the baseband signal would not be down-converted if the capacitor was ripped out.

    However he refused to testify as you claim to "recall". And his refusal can support only one reasonable conclusion on the part of the Appeal Court panel.

    You and your fellow pumpers have refused to acknowledge the fundamental flaw in ParkerVision's infringement case ever since the trial. The Appeal Court panel will find NOTHING AT ALL in the evidence record to support the reasonable conclusion that the accused products down-convert the baseband signal via the key energy integration step of ParkerVision's patented method of down-conversion.

  • Re your -

    " The baseband is generated in the capacitor from the sampled carrier energy and transferred to the low impedance load. That baseband is available at the output of the mixer which just so happens to share the same output of the capacitor because by definition they are shorted together by a wire or conductor. Cut that wire and no baseband is generated in either theory. Rezavi testified that all points on a wire are the same; which is just fact."

    - didn't Prucnal testify that a capacitor is effectively a "broken wire" to signals of certain frequencies?

    Did he subsequently explain why the energy-integrating capacitor should be viewed as a continuous wire for the purposes of his infringement argument?

    However - in arguing that the mixer and the TX filter are effectively inseparable you're overlooking a far more obvious flaw.

    Do you recall Prucnal's testimony concerning the outputs labelled "BBOP" and "BBOM" on the schematic upon which Prucnal chose to base his infringement testimony?

    Does the schematic position those outputs at the exit of the TX filter - or does it position them at the exit of the mixer?

    Recall ParkerVision's CLOSING 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.

    If the jury was told that the schematic chosen by ParkerVision positions those baseband outputs at the exit of the MIXER - then doesn't it logically follow that it's the mixer - not the TX filter - that creates the baseband signal?

    If so - what supports the conclusion that the mixer is in fact getting the baseband signal from the TX filter?

  • Perhaps the "bashers" wouldn't puzzle you if you understood their point of view.

    ParkerVision took a widely used prior art method of down-converting a modulated carrier signal to a baseband signal - lumped it together with a method of (allegedly) making more efficient use of the down-converted baseband signal - and misrepresented it as a revolutionary new method of down-converting a modulated carrier signal to a baseband signal.

    A suitable analogy would be the power plant (engine) and the transmission (gear box) in a motor vehicle.

    ParkerVision sued Qualcomm on the grounds that the Qualcomm power plant is covered by ParkerVision's patents.

    But the "new power plant" covered by ParkerVision's patents incorporates a transmission, and ParkerVision couldn't supply any evidence that the Qualcomm power plant needs a transmission to generate power from the combustion of fuel and air.

    Some of the "bashers" took exception to ParkerVision obtaining patents through deceit to which it had no right.

    Others took exception to ParkerVision's decision to sue Qualcomm despite being perfectly well aware before initiating the law suit that Qualcomm was using a prior art method of down-conversion.

    Me personally - I mainly took exception to the obnoxious wannabe shysters here who have been trying to further their personal financial interests by deceiving other investors.

  • Reply to

    What we were told vs what Prucnal actually said

    by fud.fighter2 May 24, 2015 10:41 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 May 26, 2015 10:26 AM Flag

    Tampa, re your -

    "Mr. Neal did a great job to confuse things"

    - he certainly did. In fact he succeeded in brainwashing both Prucnal and ParkerVision attorney Budwin to such an extent that they unwittingly conspired to irreparably damage their own infringement case with testimony that the mixer outputs the low frequency baseband signal.

    Your correction comes too late to salvage ParkerVision's case against Qualcomm. But hopefully they'll be better prepared in future law suits.

  • fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Apr 2, 2015 10:33 AM Flag

    Wallstrip, re your -

    [ It is an undeniable fact that in deciding this case the Court of Appeals must review the evidence "in the light most favorable to, and with all reasonable inferences drawn in favor of," Parker Vision. ]

    - I can see how this might make it more likely for the Appeal Court judges to agree with Judge Dalton that the evidence of invalidity Qualcomm provided was not sufficient to support a verdict of Invalidity.

    But can you see any way the Appeal Court judges - when reviewing the following evidence of infringement "in the light most favorable to, and with all reasonable inferences drawn in favor of," Parker Vision - could reasonably argue that it WAS sufficient to support a verdict of Infringement? -

    1. Sorrells testified that infringement could not be determined absent detailed information concerning how a particular circuit functions.

    2. Prucnal testified that infringement could not be determined absent review of materials that were unavailable to Sorrells.

    3. Sorrells testified that the accused products do not infringe if they "get the baseband signal" other than by energy integration.

    4. Prucnal testified that although the mixer creates the baseband signal, the signal is not generated from integrated energy until it "hits" the TX filter, within which he claimed a capacitor collects energy sampled by the mixer.

    If you're aware of contradictory evidence - that the mixer does in fact "get the baseband signal" from energy integration - please specify it.

  • fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Apr 2, 2015 12:26 PM Flag

    Wallstrip, re your -

    "Many, many believe" Qualcomm stole ParkerVision's technology

    - how does that explain the lack of commercialisation deals with third parties during the seven years between ParkerVision "teaching" Qualcomm the technology in 1999 and Qualcomm allegedly first using it in 2006?

    And why do you imagine it is that NOBODY - INCLUDING YOU - wants Tampa to post Prucnal's response when asked what would happen if the component Prucnal had claimed performs ParkerVision's trademark "energy integration" was ripped out of the accused products?

    If the accused products do indeed "get the baseband signal" from energy integration, the baseband signal would no longer be down-converted, no?

    Yet clearly neither you nor any other Long believes that Prucnal, when put on the spot, claimed the mixer would be unable to down-convert the baseband signal in the absence of the energy integration Prucnal had claimed occurs in the TX filter.

    I repeat - nobody still believes Qualcomm stole ParkerVision's technology. And nobody believes your ridiculous lies.

  • Just to reiterate, I do take your point.

    The reason I rarely mention the "Fairy Dust" ingredient in ParkerVision's case is that - because there is nothing in the evidence record to suggest the mixer "gets the baseband signal" from the TX filter - whether or not the TX filter generates the baseband signal via energy integration is immaterial.

    However as States regularly points out, Judge Dalton also cited as grounds for his JMOL of Non-infringement -

    [ There is no dispute that Mr.Sorrells' opinions - like those of Dr.Prucnal - were not based on appropriate testing or simulations. ]

    Judge Dalton also noted -

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

    And ParkerVision's closing argument was -

    [ .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. ]

    Occam's Razor will whisper to the Appeal Court judges that the baseband signal at the exit of the TX filter is the same baseband signal that "hits" the TX filter after being created by the mixer.

    As far as I know, there are only ParkerVision-financed opinions - unsupported by "appropriate testing or simulations" - to suggest anything more complicated than that is happening.

    But on the subject of Enablement - could the patents have been challenged under 35 U.S.C. 112 as part of the ongoing review? -

    "The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention."

  • fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Apr 13, 2015 3:19 PM Flag

    I'd already decided to recommend that "interesting read" to Longprkr, as he's the type of investor it targets. I'm surprised you beat me to it.

    It hadn't occurred to me that my opinion of Zack's could get any lower. But that is surely the most unconvincing attempt at pumping a stock I've ever read.

    Perfectly suited to PRKR though :-)

  • The Nasdaq site shows the PRKR market cap at $64.4 million, with year-end institutional ownership at 38.37%.

    Retail ownership must be approximately $40 million.

    Bearing in mind PRKR is such a high risk investment (see below) I'd suggest the average retail exposure is very unlikely to exceed $50,000 - suggesting at least 800 retail shareholders (common sense would dictate over 2,000).

    Bearing in mind PRKR is such a high risk investment (see below) I'd suggest the vast majority of those shareholders check this board on a daily basis.

    Bearing in mind PRKR is such a high risk investment (see below) I'd suggest there are at least that many people again who know about PRKR but no longer hold shares or have never bought shares.

    Therefore over a thousand people must regularly check this board.

    Every single one of those people - including you - must know by now that ParkerVision sued Qualcomm for infringement of its patented method of down-conversion despite knowing all along* that the accused products DO NOT down-convert via energy integration.

    Yet you are surprised that four people mock your pathetic attempts to deceive investors?

    * Before initiating the law suit ParkerVision commissioned a reverse-engineering of the Solo chip. ParkerVision dared not claim that a reverse-engineering conducted by a third party revealed anything other than down-conversion via a double-balanced mixer -

    [ This report, along with Qualcomm's own documents that make clear that the receiver portion of the QSC6270 is, in all material respects, identical to the other accused products, forms the foundation of ParkerVision's complaint, as well as its Ics. ]

    The Professor of Electrical Engineering hired by ParkerVision as an expert witness offered consistent and uncontradicted testimony that -

    a) as regards infringement the Magellan chip is representative of all of the accused chips.

    b) the Magellan chip down-converts via a double-balanced mixer, and not via energy integration.

  • Is your "belief" rooted in anything more than blind faith?

    If it is - which root could lead the Appeal Court judges (reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to, and with all reasonable inferences drawn in favor of Parker Vision) to infringement of a method of down-conversion involving energy integration?

    1. Sorrells testified that infringement could not be determined absent detailed information concerning how a particular circuit functions.

    2. Prucnal testified that infringement could not be determined absent review of materials that were unavailable to Sorrells.

    3. Sorrells testified that the accused products do not infringe if they "get the baseband signal" other than by energy integration.

    4. Prucnal testified that although the mixer creates the baseband signal, the signal is not generated from integrated energy until it "hits" the TX filter, within which he claimed energy integration occurs.

    5. Prucnal was presented with numerous opportunities to testify that the mixer would be unable to "get the baseband signal" in the absence of energy integration - but declined to do so.

    Prucnal nevertheless opined that the expert testimony had established infringement.

    Sorrells also opined that it had established infringement.

    The jurors believed Prucnal and Sorrells - and returned a verdict of infringement.

    But a judge believed otherwise - and ruled that a verdict of infringement was "not supported by the evidence presented".

    Appeal Court precedent supports his decision to disregard opinions inconsistent with the expert testimony -

    [ Where a party's expert offers legal conclusions on an ultimate issue, judgment as a matter of law may be appropriate when the expert's opinion cannot be reconciled with either the language of the claims at issue or the evidence presented at trial. ]

    Wallstrip - why not offer your fellow investors something more tangible than your "belief" - such as a "favorable" argument the Appeal Court judges could reasonably adopt.

  • Reply to

    Fud - an inconvenient question? No, not at all.

    by wallstrip Apr 21, 2015 4:15 PM
    fud.fighter2 fud.fighter2 Apr 21, 2015 5:29 PM Flag

    A Freudian slip Wallstrip? -

    "One Judge went rouge."

    If my question WASN'T inconvenient, why do you refuse to answer it?

    Lest we confuse it with questions you don't mind answering, here it is again -

    Why not offer your fellow investors something more tangible than your "belief" - such as a "favorable" argument the Appeal Court judges could reasonably adopt?

    Or if you prefer, I'm sure your fellow investors would be only too happy to settle for a "favorable" response to my follow-up suggestion -

    Why don't you just offer the evidence ParkerVision cites as the grounds for the Appeal - where Prucnal testified three times - or even one time - that the .11 microamps would no longer be the baseband signal?

    This failure to produce the testimony ParkerVision cites looks suspiciously like a tacit admission on the part of the Longs that ParkerVision lied in the Appeal brief.

    Your continued refusal to offer an honest answer could lead investors to wonder if the only "rouge" in this scenario is being applied to the lips of a pig.

INSM
23.88-0.54(-2.21%)Jul 1 4:00 PMEDT