Seeking Alpha

Mike Farmwald

View as an RSS Feed
View Mike Farmwald's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • ParkerVision - Fourth IPR Filed And General Update [View article]
    > I'm sorry but if the technology does not work, why waste all the money invalidating and filing IPR's?

    Are you asking the author (of this SA article?) If so, I've *never* said that the claims of these four patents don't cover technology that works - ever. You must be confusing other people's comments for mine.

    ParkerVision's claims *arguably* cover most types of passive mixers, which certainly work and are widely used.

    The problem is that that the ParkerVision claims were actually invented over 50 years ago, and so are clearly invalid. Some of the claims (claim 1 of the '551) cover crystal diode radios, which have been in use for over 100 years!

    ParkerVision only got the patent claims issued by grossly misleading the patent office, by changing the meaning of common technology words, by inventing new words for old ideas, and by simply hiding the prior art. This will be very clear to the PTAB during the course of the IPRs, which is why I'm so confident that the claims will be tossed.

    It's very simple - I don't see what is so hard to understand. Your analogy is wrong. The right analogy is that ParkerVision is claiming to have invented the wheel, by calling it a "energy transfer device" and never mentioning the word wheel in the patent or the fact that wheels have been around for a long time. After the patent issues, they want to sue everyone who uses a wheel.

    You can't do that. What ParkerVision has done is exactly the same, but with far more complicated devices so that it was less obvious to a judge and jury.

    The judge eventually got it, although it took quite a long time. He did the right thing.
    Jul 9 10:35 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • ParkerVision to Hold Investor and Analyst Meeting on July 15 [View article]
    I haven't received an invitation to attend yet.

    Maybe it got mislaid.
    Jul 8 05:23 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • ParkerVision - Fourth IPR Filed And General Update [View article]
    The patents-in-suit are invalid *because* ParkerVision is claiming ownership ideas that were first published in the 1940's (if not earlier). It is outrageous that a company could have gotten a $500M market for such outright theft of very old ideas. They were clever enough to "rename" the ideas so they would look new; and they managed to hide the prior art from the patent office to get the patents issued.

    ParkerVision's patents seem to be about 2 (maybe three) different ideas. D2D (down conversion, using "Energy Sampling", a phrase that only ParkerVision uses) and D2P (a supposedly high efficiency power amplifier.)

    I said this many times over the past 7 or 8 years, but I'll repeat it again - D2D works but is a very old idea and ParkerVision did not invent it. D2P doesn't work, and is pretty silly to anyone who knows how PAs work.

    Steve Cripps is a power amp expert - he has a lot to say about D2P and little to say about D2D.

    I intend to stay short until the stock is essentially zero. The company is a fraud, the patents are worthless, and the "products" never have and never will produce any revenues.

    Every PRKR patent I've look at carefully can be put into one of two categories (1) works but is invalid over very old prior art (D2D) or (2) doesn't work at all (D2P).

    Jeff Parker is only good at one thing - selling stock to foolish investors.
    Jul 7 06:24 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • ParkerVision Asserted Patents Are Invalid - Read The IPR Petitions [View article]
    > prospects of acceptable claim amendments made during the IPR

    I'm not a lawyer, and this is my first time through an IPR. ParkerVision indeed has (limited) options to modify claims during the IPR. I am skeptical that they could amend claims such that the the result would be valid and infringed.

    More important is that if they modify the claims, then the original verdict is lost. This may not matter much at this point, as Judge Dalton has granted the JMOL of invalidity, but if ParkerVision modifies claims then even if the CAFC reverses the Judge Dalton's JMOL, the verdict is still lost as the original claims-in-suit are gone and were never valid in the first place.

    Anticipation is always stronger than obviousness (and easier to prove), so we went with the stronger arguments for the first three petitions. For the fourth (recently filed) IPR, we used both anticipation as well as obviousness.
    Jul 3 03:51 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • ParkerVision: Investors Need To Watch Both The Courts And The USPTO Over Next 18 Months [View article]
    I can't speak for RPX, but I will be happy to fund the appeal.

    You do realize that the CAFC hasn't overturned any PTAB IPR decisions yet - if PRKR loses at the PTAB (which they will), the CAFC will not save them.
    Jun 25 10:15 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • ParkerVision: Investors Need To Watch Both The Courts And The USPTO Over Next 18 Months [View article]
    I fully intend to invalidate all of the asserted claims and to follow through to the end of the IPR process.

    This is not about PR, it's about eliminating some really bad (invalid) patents.
    Jun 25 12:37 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • ParkerVision: Investors Need To Watch Both The Courts And The USPTO Over Next 18 Months [View article]
    There is no rule against conflict of interest. Anyone who might be sued by ParkerVision arguably has a "conflict of interest".

    The AIA is quite clear - *anyone* can file a petition, who is not otherwise barred by the one year statutory bar after litigation. I am not subject to that bar, and neither is RPX.
    Jun 25 12:23 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • ParkerVision: Investors Need To Watch Both The Courts And The USPTO Over Next 18 Months [View article]
    > Farmwald and RPX filed an IPR in the Vernetix v. Apple case

    This is completely false. I had no involvement with the VirnetX IPR filings.

    The facts here are quite different. RPX has stated that Qualcomm is not a client of RPX. None of the issues from the VirnetX case apply here.
    Jun 25 12:11 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • ParkerVision: Investors Need To Watch Both The Courts And The USPTO Over Next 18 Months [View article]
    It's not about conflict of interest, but a specific provision of the AIA (America Invents Act), which says that a party that has been sued for patent infringement must file IPRs on the patents in suit within one year of being served. The AIA did not take effect until fall 2012, and thus Qualcomm never was eligible to file IPRs (PRKR filed in July 2011, and by the time the AIA took effect, more than one year has passed for Qualcomm.) Thus Qualcomm never got a "bite at the apple".
    Jun 25 11:49 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • ParkerVision: Investors Need To Watch Both The Courts And The USPTO Over Next 18 Months [View article]
    Excellent article.

    I would add one point - as you pointed out, Qualcomm can't file IPRs against the patents asserted in the first lawsuit. However, Qualcomm can file IPRs against the patents of the second ParkerVision lawsuit. Qualcomm has up to one year (from service of lawsuit, which hasn't happened yet - which is itself odd) to file these IPRs. I don't know what Qualcomm will do, but I think it likely that we will see IPRs in some small number of months (filing a good petition is difficult and time consuming work, as I can attest to...)
    Jun 25 11:17 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • ParkerVision Still Tremendously Overvalued [View article]
    > As to the IPR's those are probably all smoke

    You might want to actually read the filed IPRs.

    I assure they are not smoke. I believe they have a *very* high likelihood of invalidating all of the asserted claims.

    They are freely available on
    Jun 24 03:14 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • ParkerVision Still Tremendously Overvalued [View article]
    No one will license ParkerVision "technology" until there is finality on both the CAFC appeal and the IPRs.

    Why bother, unless the cost is zero (or less than zero, e.g. ParkerVision is paying Via Telcomm quite a lot to remain a "customer"?)

    The threat of a lawsuit against another (non-Qualcomm) party is pretty empty, as it would almost surely be stayed pending the results of the IPRs, and would likely result in the filing of additional IPRs.

    ParkerVision has no ability to materially assist other companies, no technology to offer that is not already well known, and the existing patents are, almost surely, invalid. ParkerVision have proven repeatedly that they are incapable of doing worthwhile chip design.

    D2D is a very old idea (and the patents are invalid), and D2P simply doesn't work.

    There is no reason to want to work with ParkerVision (unless PRKR pays you!)
    Jun 24 11:29 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • ParkerVision Still Tremendously Overvalued [View article]
    I certainly hope you're right about the CAFC invalidating the patents.

    I'm still proceeding on the recently filed IPR petitions - yesterday's ruling hasn't affected my desire to invalidate the PRKR patents. It's not very likely that the PTAB would invalidate them before the CAFC could reach a decision on the upcoming ParkerVision appeal - 18 months for the PTAB decision on the IPRs vs. probably 12-15 months for an appeal to the CAFC.

    I agree this it is *far* more likely that ParkerVision ends up worse off from the appeal than that they win.
    Jun 24 10:08 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • ParkerVision Asserted Patents Are Invalid - Read The IPR Petitions [View article]
    So many mistakes in a single post... The author clearly has not read Abidi's expert report or the petitions.

    > understand the difference between sample and hold (Weisskopf), Energy Transfer Sampling (Sorrells) and switched current mixers by now.

    As Abidi points out quite clearly, there are no differences. Tranferring current and/or voltage is equivalent to transferring energy. Sorrells tried to use different, made up words to obscure the fact that they are identical. Read Exhibit-1004.PDF for a quite clear explanation.

    > Just like Rezavi, MF and his new shill are combining independent multiple prior arts to take out dependent claims.

    Again, the author of this post has not read the petition. The ParkerVision patents are invalid by anticipation, which means that a single reference contains every element of every claim of ParkerVision. The petition gives three different prior art references, each of which anticipates every claim. Obviousness is used when combining references, which we did not do.

    My "shill" is a member of National Academy of Engineering, for his contributions to RF.
    Jun 16 01:40 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX / Apple Appeal: Bad News For VirnetX And Other Patent Assertion Entities [View article]
    > RPX lost the trial

    First of all, RPX did not "lose the trial". The PTAB decided that Apple was the real party in interest, and denied the petition as Apple is ineligible to file on these patents. The PTAB did not reach any conclusions on the merits of the IPR petitions.

    Second, this has nothing to do with CAFC appeal. I still feel, quite strongly, that the CAFC will reverse and remand. Listen to the oral hearing.

    Whether this results in a new trial or not, I don't know. We'll have to wait and see the details of the CAFC ruling.

    If there is a new trial, the IPR petitions being dropped will help VirnetX.
    Jun 12 10:57 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment