Battelle’s Admitted Patent Filing Fraud: Misrepresenting Inventions to USPTO

Battelle Exhibits & PNNL Deposition Testimony Confirm Ongoing Patent Fraud:

• Practice of Renaming Old Inventions to Reset Patent Filing “Timeframes”[Deadlines/Bars]

• 2005 Example/Incident: Patenting “NEW” Invention RDADS [Rename of 2002 MDM software]

Note: DOE’s Technical Assistance Program [TAP] funded the 2002 Mobile Data Manager [MDM] software inventions and

the 2003 enhancements on behalf of small business owner Pulver. In December 2002, Battelle granted Pulver an exclusive

worldwide license to MDM/PDAC and derivative [follow-on] versions. In August 2002, Battelle also renamed MDM to PDAC.

Battelle’s own documents and explicit PNNL deposition testimony confirmed that Battelle circumvents patent filing rules of US Patent & Trademark Office [USPTO] by rewriting/renaming prior inventions to reset “Timeframes” and evade statutory deadlines/bars due to its publicly disclosing or using the invention. In summary, this evidence confirms their following 2005 RPMP-related “new code” scheme:

After DHS Radiation Portal Monitor Project [RPMP] implemented/adapted the 2002 MDM software inventions to run on BlackBerry and other devices in 2004 and after acknowledging small business owner Pulver’s exclusive license to follow-on [derivative] MDM versions, Battelle suddenly called it “new code”, wrote a “NEW” invention report named “RDADS”, thus reset and obtained a ‘new’ filing deadline [statutory bar], and Battelle's Dorow submitted a patent application on RDADS invention in Sept. 2005 [USPTO Published March 2007]. Later, Battelle produced evidence and extensive testimony proving RDADS is derivative version of MDM that’s exclusively licensed to Pulver.

__________________________________________________________________

Battelle deposition excerpts & exhibits below confirm these two patent fraud violations against the USPTO:

1. Misrepresenting Inventions in Patent Filings: Battelle writes “new” reports on pre-existing inventions to buy more time for filing patent applications. By resetting the clock, Battelle circumvents USPTO statutory filing bars, thus misrepresenting the originally-dated inventions. This is confirmed by emails & testimony, e.g.,, this deposition excerpt of Battelle commercialization manager Morgan:

Page 34 5 Q. So in order to justify a new Invention Report, there 6 would have had to be something new... 9 A. Most probably that would be the reason for doing a new 10 Invention Report, although there could be other 11 reasons, too. 12 Q. Okay. What, for instance? I mean, can you think of 13 any? 14 A. Timeframes. 15 Q. What sort of timeframes? I don't understand why a 16 change in time would justify a new Invention Report.

17 A. The timing on how long we have to process the patent 18 application. 19 Q. So you only have so long after -- What event triggers 20 you only having so much time to patent it? Releasing 21 it to the public or what? 22 A. I'm not sure, but there are time constraints. [USPTO Statutory Bar] 23 Q. So sometimes you might do a new Invention Report 24 because you need a new timeframe to run to get a 25 patent? Page 35 1 A. That's correct.

2. Example/Incident of Misrepresentation: In January 2005, after acknowledging that PDAC/MDM was exclusively licensed to Pulver, Battelle suddenly wrote a “NEW” report on the 2002 MDM inventions after DHS-RPMP adapted/ported MDM to the BlackBerry in 2004, renamed the invention “RDADS”, reset the statutory patent filing deadline/bar from 10/1/03 [2002 MDM inventions] to 1/31/06 [2005 RDADS “new” invention], filed RDADS patent application in Sept. 2005 and commercially marketed RDADS [Battelle now admits this]. Documents/emails cited below confirm PDAC/MDM was marketed & publicized [example] in 2003 by Battelle, thereby invalidating the 1/31/06 deadline for the “new” 2005 RDADS invention. Battelle commercialization manager Morgan’s explicit testimony is quite clear:

Page 31 22 Q. Were you having conversations with Mr. Dorow around 23 this timeframe regarding PDAC?... Page 32 6 A. We later decided to try and get a patent on it, after 7 we did a fairly in-depth market analysis. 8 Q. So when you say, "New name - totally different 9 please," what does that refer to? 10 A. It refers to trying to get a name that means something 11 in the marketplace. 12 Q. So you were trying to get the name changed from PDAC 13 because you didn't feel that was -- 14 A. That didn't mean anything to anybody. 15 Q. So when you say, "New IP number driven from the NEW IR

16 that you write, "IR", is that Invention Report? 17 A. Correct. 18 Q. But it sounds like you were just changing the name; it 19 doesn't sound like the invention had changed. Is that 20 inaccurate? 21 A. No. He was still in the process of filing, I believe. ... Page 37 23 Q. And is this the IR that you had asked Mr. Dorow to 24 submit with a new name on it? 25 A. I assume so. Page 38 1 Q. Okay. So the new name is Rapid Data Acquisition and 2 Dissemination System? [RDADS] 3 A. That appears to be the case.

Note: Battelle’s own patent analyst [Tuan] was concerned that 2005 RDADS “NEW” invention was in fact the 2002 MDM inventions.

Architecture diagrams & screens alone visually confirm RDADS is DOE-funded MDM/PDAC exclusively licensed to Pulver.

See Derivative Section for other extensive Battelle evidence that RDADS is just another name for the 2002 MDM/PDAC inventions.

__________________________________________________________________

Evidence – Battelle Exhibits Confirming its Misrepresenting RDADS [“New Code”] Invention to USPTO [Fraud]

Battelle Bypasses Statutory Patenting Deadlines [“Timeframes”], e.g., 2002 MDM Renamed RDADS in 2005

Exhibit P-1a cites Commercialization Manager Morgan’s deposition testimony (1) confirming Battelle practice of renaming/rewriting

prior inventions [calling them “new”] to extend filing deadlines and (2) acknowledging 2002 MDM/PDAC “morphing” into 2005 RDADS

as an example. His testimony confirms Battelle acknowledged Pulver’s exclusive license to PDAC one day before calling it “new code”.

Exhibits P-2b & P-3b are Battelle-PNNL Intellectual Property Legal Office memos stating October 1, 2003 as statutory patent filing

deadline for the 2002 MDM inventions, shown publicly in 2002-2004 by Battelle [as discovery documents confirm in Exhibit P-11].

Exhibits P-4 are emails that chronologically show Battelle’s calling MDM/PDAC software “new code”, writing “new” invention report,

naming it RDADS, filing a patent on “new” RDADS invention and marketing it commercially. Exhibit P-4h actually cites RDADS inventor

Shoemaker stating that the old name for RDADS is “MDM mobile data manager”. Emails confirm that Battelle in Jan. 2005, after

acknowledging Pulver’s exclusive license to PDAC/MDM that was ported to BlackBerry in 2004, and realizing the emerging commercial

market for this mobile technology, suddenly commenced the “new code” tactics on the very next day.

Exhibit P-5a is the Battelle IP Office memo setting January 31, 2006 as the statutory filing deadline on the “new” RDADS invention,

which in-effect granted Battelle a 28-month extension from the original 10/1/03 deadline for the 2002 MDM inventions.

2002 MDM Invention Reports & 2002 Representations to DOE; RDADS [“new code”] Patent Application Published 2007

Exhibits P-2a & P-3a are the signed 2002 MDM invention reports that resulted from research funded by DOE Technical Assistance

Program that paid Battelle-PNNL to develop the MDM software on behalf of small business owner Pulver and his nationwide

marketing partners. Note, these reports certified that Pulver was the first witness of the MDM inventions.

Exhibit P-9 is Battelle’s 2002 MDM representations made to DOE patent counsel for obtaining copyright on the MDM inventions.  

MDM functionality, operability and uniqueness are clearly documented and show that 2005 RDADS is the MDM inventions.

Exhibit P-5b is the RDADS patent application that Battelle filed in Sept. 2005 and USPTO published on 3/22/07.

Battelle’s refusal to turn over the RDADS invention report prevents side-by-side comparison to the MDM inventions.

Battelle Emails & 2008 Testimony Confirming 2005 RDADS Patent Application is 2002 MDM Software Inventions

Exhibit P-1b cites RDADS [“new code”] inventor Shoemaker’s testimony that RDADS patent system flow chart is from

the 2002-2003 MDM software and consistent with the 12/18/03 MDM White Paper [Exhibit P-10c].

Exhibit P-10a is a December 2002 MDM Product Specification showing MDM is the direct origin/basis of RDADS.

Exhibit P-10b is a February 2004 Newsletter citing MDM/PDAC novelty that was later cited as the RDADS [“new code”] novelty.

Exhibit P-10c is the 12/18/03 MDM White Paper for which RDADS inventor Shoemaker testified is the basis for RDADS.

Exhibit P-11 is a July 2003 email showing Battelle publicly disclosed the MDM/PDAC inventions in a detailed white paper.

2002-03 MDM vs. 2005 RDADS Patent: Side-by-Side Comparison [Text & Graphics] Confirm RDADS Invention is MDM

Exhibit P-6a is side-by-side graphical comparison showing that the 2005 RDADS control panel lifted/copied [verbatim] the

entire 2002 MDM control panel. Exhibit P-6b confirms the RDADS architecture is actually/clearly the MDM architecture.

Exhibit P-7 is transcribed verbatim text of the RDADS patent application with highlighted text citing material directly lifted

from the 2002 MDM Inventions; comments were added for clarification.

Exhibit P-8 are 2003 & 2004 MDM/PDAC color screens and 2008 Battelle court filings confirming MDM is RDADS.

Exhibit P-12 simply links to USPTO documents: Patent Rules - §10.23 Misconduct and Patent Laws - 18 USC §1001 Statements or entries generally

PDF Version of this Page with Exhibits: Patenting Misrepresentations Fraud Evidence Document [Battelle Testimony & Exhibits]

Back to Evidence Site Index