Seeking Alpha

Daniel B. Ravicher

View as an RSS Feed
View Daniel B. Ravicher's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • ParkerVision V. Qualcomm: Daubert Ruling And First Week Of Trial [View article]
    What on earth makes you "think they have good odds to win on appeal"? Please, explain your reasoning, or else admit it's pure naked wishful thinking.

    I haven't attacked Farmwald. I've merely asked him to explain why he has negatively covered the company for nearly a decade now. Also, his point in this article is that the judge ruled that PRKR could only ask for at most $100M. That's demonstrable 100%, as the judge has allowed PRKR to ask for $432M just in past damages. The judge has also allowed them to ask the jury to find QCOM's infringement was willful, which would give the judge the right to triple the awarded damages. I'm not attacking Farmwald as a person, I'm attacking what he says, because it's 100% false, just like your saying I'm not a trial lawyer was 100% false.
    Oct 20 09:05 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • ParkerVision V. Qualcomm: Daubert Ruling And First Week Of Trial [View article]
    Well, PRKR's burden on infringement is only to make a preponderance of the evidence showing. QCOM's burden on invalidity is to make a clear and convincing evidence showing. Thus, by not calling rebuttal experts, it's much easier to PRKR to still carry its burden on infringement than it is for QCOM to carry its burden on validity. So, it's not true to say the failure to call rebuttal witnesses cuts against both parties equally.
    Oct 15 11:58 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • ParkerVision V. Qualcomm: Daubert Ruling And First Week Of Trial [View article]
    Can you please provide any evidence to support your claim they have non-infringing alternatives available to them? Nothing of the sort has been offered in court.
    Oct 15 11:53 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • ParkerVision V. Qualcomm: Daubert Ruling And First Week Of Trial [View article]
    Qualcomm didn't ask Parkervision's expert a single question on cross examination about the patents or claims in the patents. Instead, they just tried to make him look stupid (pointing out he made mistakes in his original analysis), which won't work because he's a professor at Princeton, and asked him about general electrical engineering concepts. Parkervision's redirect completely pointed this out, within a minute. So, the cross of Prucnal did not do anything to overcome his direct, which indeed made a very clear case for infringement, and much more than the preponderance of the evidence standard. Prucnal went through the yellow paper specs of the Qualcomm chips (on yellow paper because the docs are so sensitive they aren't even being shared electronically between the parties) and pointed out each claim element of each of the claims of each of the patents in suit. Qualcomm also stipulated that all of the accused products have the same design. So, again, I'm not sure who you're talking to at the trial, but they have radically different opinions than me. We'll see what Qualcomm's expert on infringement, Dr. Fox from UF, says when he takes the stand this week.

    I do agree with you that proving invalidity will be nearly impossible, given the clear and convincing evidence standard and the fact that all four patents cite pages of prior art, which the PTO reviewed. You try to spin this very positive fact for Parkervision as though they "buried" the prior art, but that's a lame attempt to turn what is unquestionably a strong fact for them against them. As you may or may not know, a patent applicant is required to disclose to the Patent Office every piece of prior art of which they are aware. They can't pick and choose what to disclose. They have to give it all to the PTO, and that's what they did here.

    On cross examination of Qualcomm's expert on invalidity, he admitted that it is his opinion that the PTO made a mistake in granting each of the four patents in suit, but did not make any mistake in granting him his 17 patents. Parkervision's attorney also got Qualcomm's invalidity expert to admit that he thinks only people with four year degrees are competent to invent down converters, even though the named inventor on the four patents in suit does not have a four year degree. In other words, he said the inventor is stupid and a liar, because he could not have invented the things the PTO says he invented. This looks very conceded and arrogant to a jury filled with common people, including a plumber, two nurses, and a teacher. Even the electrical engineer on the jury didn't like it when Razavi said that about Sorrells.
    Oct 15 08:02 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • ParkerVision V. Qualcomm: Daubert Ruling And First Week Of Trial [View article]
    Well, I guess we'll see what the jury thinks about all that. Although, you still haven't explained why it's Parkervision that's garnered so much of your time and effort. There are plenty of bogus patents and unsuccessful companies around. Why'd you pick them?
    Oct 15 12:40 AM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • ParkerVision V. Qualcomm: Daubert Ruling And First Week Of Trial [View article]
    Even wikipedia http://bit.ly/1gGsCqc says you've had a personal hatred of Parkervision since 2005. Care to tell us why? What did they do to you?
    Oct 15 12:29 AM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • ParkerVision V. Qualcomm: Daubert Ruling And First Week Of Trial [View article]
    I've written several briefs on the issue of willfulness and teach it in my law school class, so I'm more than familiar with the doctrinal developments. It is indeed more difficult to prove, but when you have facts like those in this case, where the infringer had repeated access to the technology, including the patent applications, and whose internal emails concede it was a breakthrough development and the "holy grail", then the case for willfulness seems nearly slam dunk.
    Oct 15 12:26 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • ParkerVision V. Qualcomm: Daubert Ruling And First Week Of Trial [View article]
    From here forward, for issues on which you say I'm wrong, and I say you're wrong, I'll let the reader decide who they think knows more about what they're talking about, a non-lawyer non-attendee with an apparent personal vendetta against the plaintiff, or a registered patent attorney and law professor who's been in court for the entire trial and has no personal feelings one way or the other towards the parties.
    Oct 15 12:23 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • ParkerVision V. Qualcomm: Daubert Ruling And First Week Of Trial [View article]
    As for higher royalty rates to be awarded after a verdict of infringement and no invalidity, see, e.g., ActiveVideo Networks v. Verizon Communications, 694 F. 3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012), which says:

    The district court found that after the patent is held not invalid and infringed by Verizon, ActiveVideo is in a much better bargaining position with Verizon than it was with Cablevision in 2009. Based on the fact that Verizon may be able to design around, but does not know precisely how effective such a design around might be, the court discounted the profit split from the 50/50 to 60/40 (in favor of Verizon). This may seem high, and while it is likely true that Verizon would not have agreed to that amount prior to litigation, Verizon has been adjudicated to infringe and the patent has been held not invalid after a substantial challenge by Verizon. See Paice, 504 F.3d at 1317 (Rader, J., concurring) ("[P]re-suit and post-judgment acts of infringement are distinct, and may warrant different royalty rates given the change in the parties' legal relationship and other factors."); Amado, 517 F.3d at 1362 ("Prior to judgment, liability for infringement, as well as the validity of the patent, is uncertain, and damages are determined in the context of that uncertainty. Once a judgment of validity and infringement has been entered, however, the calculus is markedly different because different economic factors are involved."). The district court is correct; there has been a substantial shift in the bargaining position of the parties. See Amado, 517 F.3d at 1362 ("There is a fundamental difference, however, between a reasonable royalty for pre-verdict infringement and damages for post-verdict infringement."). We reject Verizon's argument that the district court erred in concluding that the jury verdict placed ActiveVideo in a stronger bargaining position.

    We held in Amado that an assessment of prospective damages for ongoing infringement should "take into account the change in the parties' bargaining positions, and the resulting change in economic circumstances, resulting from the determination of liability." Amado, 517 F.3d at 1362. And, although Amado dealt with the imposition of royalty damages while an injunction was stayed during appeal, this holding applies with equal force in the ongoing royalty context.[8] Though we vacate the district court's injunction, we see no error in its post-verdict royalty calculation. The district court, on remand, should determine an appropriate ongoing royalty, an inquiry that is much the same as its sunset royalty analysis. The district court may wish to consider on remand additional evidence of changes in the parties' bargaining positions and other economic circumstances that may be of value in determining an appropriate ongoing royalty. See Paice, 504 F.3d at 1315 ("Upon remand, the court may take additional evidence if necessary to account for any additional economic factors arising out of the imposition of an ongoing royalty."). Indeed, ActiveVideo's bargaining position is even stronger after this appeal. We leave the procedural aspects of how to proceed on the issue of prospective damages to the discretion of the district court.
    Oct 15 12:19 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • ParkerVision V. Qualcomm: Daubert Ruling And First Week Of Trial [View article]
    I don't understand what gives you such conviction in your opinions. You're not an attorney, much less a patent attorney, and you weren't even in the courtroom at all last week. Your article, and your history of only writing negative articles about Parkervision, smells like a personal vendetta against the company. Regardless, what other patent trials have you predicted successfully such that we can rely on your predictions here to be anything more than wishful thinking?
    Oct 15 12:15 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • ParkerVision V. Qualcomm: Daubert Ruling And First Week Of Trial [View article]
    As a registered patent attorney, I completely disagree with your legal analysis and conclusions, which are flawed and incomplete. But even if one were to assume everything you say is correct, you are only considering here past damages that the jury will award if it finds at least one claim of at least one of Parkervision's four patents in suit infringed and not invalid. If a single claim of a single Parkervision patent is found to be infringed and not invalid, then Parkervision is entitled to not just past damages from the jury, but also ongoing royalties, which the judge will set, and which are required to be at a royalty rate higher than that used by the jury to calculate past damages. You also fail to acknowledge the judge can award Parkervision up to three times the awarded past damages and its attorneys fees if the jury finds Qualcomm's infringement was willful, which seems very likely from the extensive history between the parties, and Qualcomm's own internal emails acknowledging that Parkervision had broad patents on the "holy grail" of down converter technology.
    Oct 14 11:50 PM | 8 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX Patents Challenged By Recently Formed LLC - A Closer Look [View article]
    All the "IPR Challenge" links are dead.
    Aug 30 12:39 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Might Other Companies Be Liable If Herbalife Is A Pyramid? [View article]
    That's all exactly what happened with MBIA. In fact, MBIA got the regulators to investigate Ackman! And in the end, he was right. So, keep on buying shares in the mother of all pump and dump pyramid schemes. Free country.
    Aug 6 07:41 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Might Other Companies Be Liable If Herbalife Is A Pyramid? [View article]
    Oh, is it over? Didn't hear a fat lady singing. Also, you haven't done your research, my friend. Look up Ackman and MBIA and see how that all played out.
    Aug 5 08:47 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Shares of Vringo (VRNG +15.4%) jet higher on more speculation about the direction a patent infringement case with Google will go. Double-digit moves are nothing new for the stock which SA contributor Dan Ravicher thinks could see $5 on a favorable outcome. [View news story]
    I wrote my article back in June: http://seekingalpha.co....
    Jul 26 12:56 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
346 Comments
308 Likes