Pulver V Battelle Case

Unt i t l ed
Fr om: pul ver @bmi . net [ mai l t o: pul ver @bmi . net ]
Sent : Monday, J anuar y 30, 2012 11: 53 PM
To: Sat el l i t eOf f i ces
Cc: Khan, Azam; Kappos, Davi d
Subj ect : To avoi d char ges of unf ai r ness/ bi as/ cor r upt i on and pr ot est s, USPTO shoul d
not awar d sat el l i t e of f i ce t o Col umbus OH, home of Bat t el l e t hat ' s admi t t edl y
engaged i n pat ent f r aud [ Fal si f yi ng i nvent i ons] and per j ur y t o conceal 2nd f al se
cl ai ms vi ol at i on.
USPTO,
Re: Publ i c Comment on Fut ur e Locat i ons f or USPTO Sat el l i t e Of f i ces
I send t hese comment s [ wi t h 4- year emai l chai n] i n r esponse t o ( i ) Bat t el l e Memor i al
I nst i t ut e' s [ PNNL] admi t t ed pat ent f r aud and ( i i ) The 1/ 26/ 12 Congr essi onal l et t er
t o USPTO Di r ect or Kappos ur gi ng hi mt o sel ect Col umbus, OH, headquar t er s of
Bat t el l e.
As 2008- 11 emai l s and t he evi dence si t es [ w/ Bat t el l e smoki ng- gun emai l s] conf i r m,
Bat t el l e at PNNL has engaged i n f al si f yi ng- mi sr epr esent i ng i nvent i ons [ 18 USC 1001]
t o t he pat ent of f i ce; not abl y, t hei r st af f openl y admi t t ed t o such mi sconduct dur i ng
2008 deposi t i ons f or a 7- year l awsui t t hat ' s st i l l ongoi ng. Al l of t he evi dence
i mpl i cat i ng Bat t el l e and chr oni cl i ng i t s mi sconduct i s at www . Pat ent Fr aud. or g.
Rat her t han r epeat t he det ai l s her e, I ci t e t hese excer pt s t hat summar i ze Bat t el l e s
def r audi ng USPTO:
1. Mi sr epr esent i ng I nvent i ons i n Pat ent Fi l i ngs: Bat t el l e wr i t es new r epor t s on
pr e- exi st i ng i nvent i ons t o buy mor e t i me f or f i l i ng pat ent appl i cat i ons. By
r eset t i ng t he cl ock, Bat t el l e ci r cumvent s USPTO st at ut or y f i l i ng bar s, t hus
mi sr epr esent i ng t he or i gi nal l y- dat ed i nvent i ons. Thi s i s conf i r med by emai l s &
t est i mony, e. g. , , t hi s deposi t i on excer pt of Bat t el l e commer ci al i zat i on manager
Mor gan:
Page 34
5 Q. So i n or der t o j ust i f y a new I nvent i on Repor t , t her e
6 woul d have had t o be somet hi ng new. . .
9 A. Most pr obabl y t hat woul d be t he r eason f or doi ng a new
10 I nvent i on Repor t , al t hough t her e coul d be ot her
11 r easons, t oo.
12 Q. Okay. What , f or i nst ance? I mean, can you t hi nk of
13 any?
14 A. Ti mef r ames.
15 Q. What sor t of t i mef r ames? I don' t under st and why a
16 change i n t i me woul d j ust i f y a new I nvent i on Repor t . 17 A. The t i mi ng
on how l ong we have t o pr ocess t he pat ent
18 appl i cat i on.
19 Q. So you onl y have so l ong af t er - - What event t r i gger s
20 you onl y havi ng so much t i me t o pat ent i t ? Rel easi ng
21 i t t o t he publ i c or what ?
22 A. I ' mnot sur e, but t her e ar e t i me const r ai nt s. [ USPTO St at ut or y Bar ]
23 Q. So somet i mes you mi ght do a new I nvent i on Repor t
24 because you need a new t i mef r ame t o r un t o get a
25 pat ent ?
Page 35
1 A. That ' s cor r ect .
2. Exampl e/ I nci dent of Mi sr epr esent at i on: I n J anuar y 2005, af t er acknowl edgi ng t hat
PDAC/ MDM sof t war e was excl usi vel y l i censed t o Pul ver , Bat t el l e suddenl y wr ot e a
NEW r epor t on 2002 MDM i nvent i ons af t er DHS- RPMP adapt ed/ por t ed MDM t o t he
Bl ackBer r y i n 2004, r enamed t he i nvent i on RDADS, r eset t he st at ut or y pat ent f i l i ng
deadl i ne/ bar f r om10/ 1/ 03 [ 2002 MDM i nvent i ons] t o 1/ 31/ 06 [ 2005 RDADS new
i nvent i on] , f i l ed RDADS pat ent appl i cat i on i n Sept . 2005 and commer ci al l y mar ket ed
RDADS [ Bat t el l e now admi t s t hi s] . Document s/ emai l s ci t ed bel ow conf i r mPDAC/ MDM was
Page 1

Unt i t l ed
mar ket ed & publ i ci zed [ exampl e] i n 2003 by Bat t el l e, t her eby i nval i dat i ng t he
1/ 31/ 06 deadl i ne f or t he new 2005 RDADS i nvent i on. Bat t el l e commer ci al i zat i on
manager Mor gan s expl i ci t t est i mony i s qui t e cl ear :
Page 31
22 Q. Wer e you havi ng conver sat i ons wi t h Mr . Dor ow ar ound
23 t hi s t i mef r ame r egar di ng PDAC?. . .
Page 32
6 A. We l at er deci ded t o t r y and get a pat ent on i t , af t er
7 we di d a f ai r l y i n- dept h mar ket anal ysi s.
8 Q. So when you say, " New name - t ot al l y di f f er ent
9 pl ease, " what does t hat r ef er t o?
10 A. I t r ef er s t o t r yi ng t o get a name t hat means somet hi ng
11 i n t he mar ket pl ace.
12 Q. So you wer e t r yi ng t o get t he name changed f r omPDAC
13 because you di dn' t f eel t hat was - -
14 A. That di dn' t mean anyt hi ng t o anybody.
15 Q. So when you say, " New I P number dr i ven f r omt he NEWI R 16 t hat you
wr i t e, " I R" , i s t hat I nvent i on Repor t ?
17 A. Cor r ect .
18 Q. But i t sounds l i ke you wer e j ust changi ng t he name; i t
19 doesn' t sound l i ke t he i nvent i on had changed. I s t hat
20 i naccur at e?
21 A. No. He was st i l l i n t he pr ocess of f i l i ng, I bel i eve.
. . . Page 37
23 Q. And i s t hi s t he I R t hat you had asked Mr . Dor ow t o
24 submi t wi t h a new name on i t ?
25 A. I assume so.
Page 38
1 Q. Okay. So t he new name i s Rapi d Dat a Acqui si t i on and
2 Di ssemi nat i on Syst em? [ RDADS]
3 A. That appear s t o be t he case.
These and ot her quest i ons/ concer ns wi l l be r ai sed by out r aged ci t i es and t hei r
r epr esent at i ves i f USPTO never t hel ess awar ds Col umbus [ and Bat t el l e] wi t h one of t he
t wo new sat el l i t e of f i ces:
I s t he USPTO over l ooki ng Bat t el l e' s admi t t ed pat ent f r aud and r ewar di ng i t wi t h a
sat el l i t e of f i ce i n i t s back yar d because i t s a maj or cust omer of I BM [ Kappos
empl oyer ( 1983- 2009) ] due t o i t s near - monopol y on r unni ng bi l l i on- dol l ar nat i onal
l abs [ DOE, DHS] t hat ut i l i ze i t s l ucr at i ve mai nf r ame comput er s?
Af t er r ef usi ng t o i nvest i gat e Bat t el l e' s admi t t ed pat ent f r aud f or over t wo year s,
why i s Kappos r ewar di ng t hemwi t h a sat el l i t e of f i ce down t he st r eet f r omt hei r
headquar t er s? I sn' t t hat enabl i ng t hemt o f ur t her i nf l uence t he pr ocess by
est abl i shi ng r el at i onshi ps wi t h pat ent exami ner s t o seek mor e f avor abl e t r eat ment ,
pr i or i t y and hence compet i t i ve advant age r egar di ng Bat t el l e' s pendi ng and f ut ur e
pat ent appl i cat i ons?
Doesn' t t hi s f ur t her conf i r mt o many smal l busi ness i nvent or s t hat USPTO, under
Kappos who advocat ed t he r ecent l y- passed Amer i ca I nvent s Act [ f i r st t o f i l e]
despi t e t hei r concer ns, i s cl ear l y bi ased i n f avor of Bat t el l e and ot her behemot hs
who ar e maj or f ee r evenue sour ces t o t he t i ght - budget pat ent of f i ce? Why i s
Bat t el l e bei ng r ewar ded when such document ed f r aud woul d di squal i f y any ot her
busi ness and communi t y f r omget t i ng a sat el l i t e of f i ce?
For mor e i nf or mat i on on Bat t el l e' s admi t t ed pat ent f r aud, pl ease vi si t www .
Pat ent Fr aud. or g wher e t hi s emai l wi l l be post ed f or t he benef i t of ot her
ci t es/ communi t i es r esear chi ng t he i nt egr i t y/ f ai r ness of t he USPTO/ Kappos sat el l i t e
of f i ce sel ect i on pr ocess, especi al l y af t er t he l ocat i on of t he t wo addi t i onal
of f i ces i s announced. Thank you.
Si ncer el y your s,
Page 2

Unt i t l ed
Phi l i p C. Pul ver
CCOL I nc.
2415 Sout h Gar f i el d St r eet
Kennewi ck, Washi ngt on 99337
Fr aud Evi dence Si t e wi t h 2008- 10 Emai l s t o USPTO r e Bat t el l e: www . Pat ent Fr aud.
or g
Mi r r or Si t es: www . pat ent i ngf r aud. or g www . pat ent f r aud. i nf o www .
i nvent i onf r aud. or g
Pat ent Fr aud Rel at ed Document s:
ht t p : / / / pat ent f r aud. or g/ Tr anscr i pt - DeposTest i mony- Mor gan- Bat t el l ePat ent Fr aud. pdf
ht t p : / / / pat ent f r aud.
or g/ 2- Emai l s2005- - NewCodeNewNameTact i cToEvadeLi cense- Def r audPat ent Of f i ce. ht m
ht t p : / / / pat ent f r aud. or g/ Bat t el l eRenamed2002I nvent i onsI n2005- Appl i edFor Pat ent . ht m
[ Vi sual Evi dence of Pat ent Fr aud]
- - - - - Or i gi nal Message - - - - -
Fr om: Phi l i p Pul ver
Sent : Sat ur day, Sept ember 25, 2010 7: 20 PM
To: Davi d. Kappos@USPTO. GOV
Subj ect : I G Gr eg Fr i edman' s Cl osi ng/ Rej ect i ng t he DOE- OI G Compl ai nt Submi ssi on Re:
Bat t el l e- PNNL Admi t t ed Pat ent Fi l i ng Fr aud - - PNNL
Test i mony & Document s Conf i r mPr act i ce of I nvent i on
Mi sr epr esent at i ons/ Fr aud t o t he USPTO [ e. g. , Fal se St at ement s ( 18 USC 1001)
Mr . Kappos,
Your emai l ser ver r ej ect ed t hi s emai l bel ow due t o si ze of t he at t achment s.
Pl ease cl i ck ht t p : / / / www . ccol - i nc.
com/ PvB/ Tr anscr i pt - DeposTest i mony- Mor gan- Bat t el l ePat ent Fr aud. pdf
f or t he ot her document t hat was or i gi nal l y at t ached. Thank you.
Phi l i p Pul ver
To: Madden, Ray
Cc: Fr i edman, Gr eg [ DOE- I G] ; St even Kooni n [ Sci ence] ; Secr et ar y Chu ; Commer ce
Secr et ar y Locke ; Davi d. Kappos@USPTO. GOV
Sent : Thur sday, Sept ember 23, 2010 3: 55 PM
Subj ect : Gr eg Fr i edman' s Cl osi ng/ Rej ect i ng t he DOE- OI G Compl ai nt Submi ssi on Re:
Bat t el l e- PNNL Admi t t ed Pat ent Fi l i ng Fr aud PNNL
Test i mony & Document s Conf i r mPr act i ce of I nvent i on
Mi sr epr esent at i ons/ Fr aud t o t he USPTO [ e. g. , Fal se St at ement s ( 18 USC 1001) ]
Ray,
Thanks f or i nf or mi ng me t hat Gr eg Fr i edman [ I G] has cl osed and won' t even
pur sue/ i nvest i gat e t hi s mat t er [ bel ow] of Bat t el l e' s admi t t ed pat ent i ng f r aud ( wi t h
ci t ed exampl e) occur r i ng at PNNL [ or at t he ot her f our Bat t el l e- managed DOE Of f i ce
of Sci ence nat i onal l abs] .
As I ment i oned t oday, t hi s now necessi t at es my pur sui ng ot her avenues t o addr ess
t hi s ongoi ng i l l egal pat ent f r aud [ 18 USC 1001 ( f al se st at ement s) ] t hat cast s
ser i ous doubt s on t he i nt egr i t y of Bat t el l e' s pat ent i ng of t axpayer - f unded
i nvent i ons acr oss t he DOE compl ex.
Page 3

Unt i t l ed
I r e- at t ached t he or i gi nal compl ai nt document s [ Submi t t ed 8/ 26/ 10 ( Bat t el l e
t est i mony/ admi ssi ons and document s pr ovi ng f r aud) ] as FYI . Pl ease pl ace t hemi n t he
cl osed case f i l e i f you have not al r eady done so. Thanks. [ I n f al l 2009, t hi s and
ot her evi dence was sent t o Sci ence Under secr et ar y Kooni n who never r esponded but
kept f undi ng Bat t el l e' s l i t i gat i on f r aud/ per j ur y ( r esear ch f al si f i cat i on et c. ) ; i t
was l at er sent t o Secr et ar y Chu. ]
[ Not e: As st at ed bel ow, " Secr et ar y Locke and USPTO Di r ect or Kappos ar e over l ooki ng
Bat t el l e' s f r aud j ust as t he SEC over l ooked Madof f ' s" . Gi ven Fr i edman' s deci si on,
DOE i s now al so l ooki ng t he ot her way r egar di ng pat ent f r aud by t he pr omi nent
bi l l i on- dol l ar t ax- exempt Bat t el l e, t her eby gr ant i ng i t an unf ai r / i l l egal advant age
over al l adver sel y i mpact ed ot her i nvent or s t hat abi de by t he USPTO pat ent Rul es and
Laws. Gi ven t he r ecent Congr essi onal , Whi t e House and publ i c concer n over t he
pat ent i ng pr ocess, many wi l l be di smayed/ out r aged. ]
Si ncer el y,
Phi l i p C. Pul ver , Compl ai nant
CCOL I nc.
2415 Sout h Gar f i el d St .
Kennewi ck, WA 99337
( 509) 586- 3051
( 509) 528- 9212 cel l
ht t p : / / / www . ccol - i nc. com/ PvB [ Evi dence Si t e]
To: Madden, Ray
Sent : Fr i day, August 27, 2010 8: 37 AM
Subj ect : Re: OI G Compl ai nt Submi ssi on: Bat t el l e- PNNL Admi t t ed Pat ent Fi l i ng Fr aud
- - PNNL Test i mony & Document s
Conf i r mPat ent i ng Mi sr epr esent at i ons/ Fr aud Pr act i ce t o t he USPTO
[ e. g. , Fal se St at ement s ( 18 USC 1001) ]
Ray,
See my answer s t hat i mmedi at el y f ol l ow your quest i ons bel ow. Thanks.
Phi l
Fr om: Madden, Ray
To: ' Phi l i p Pul ver '
Sent : Thur sday, August 26, 2010 1: 03 PM
Subj ect : RE: OI G Compl ai nt Submi ssi on: Bat t el l e- PNNL Admi t t ed Pat ent Fi l i ng Fr aud - -
PNNL Test i mony & Document s
Conf i r mPat ent i ng Mi sr epr esent at i ons/ Fr aud Pr act i ce t o t he USPTO [ e. g. , Fal se
St at ement s ( 18 USC 1001) ]
Phi l :
Good af t er noon and gr eet i ngs!
Thank you f or your t wo cal l s t o t he I G Hot l i ne t oday, f ol l owed by your e- mai l . I
wi l l i ncor por at e t hi s i nf or mat i on i nt o your compl ai nt , I G Hot l i ne Pr edi cat i on Number
P10HL597.
Pl ease pr ovi de me wi t h an e- mai l r esponse t o t he f ol l owi ng t wo quest i ons:
1. When di d you f i l e your i ni t i al compl ai nt wi t h t he USPTO and what was t he
out come? The i ni t i al compl ai nt was f i l ed on 10/ 24/ 08 [ see bel ow] . USPTO r esponded on
1/ 16/ 09 [ bel ow] by avoi di ng/ dr oppi ng t he whol e f r aud m
2. at t er and r ecommendi ng I vi si t t he onl i ne I nvent or s Assi st ance Cent er ( I AC)
Page 4

Unt i t l ed
f or gener al quest i ons. And despi t e my subsequent emai l s t o t hem, t her e' s been no
r esponse.
3. Why ar e you r epor t i ng t hi s mat t er t o t he DOE I G when t he mat t er / i ssue may be
under t he j ur i sdi ct i on of t he USPTO? Bat t el l e' s admi t t ed pat ent f i l i ng f r aud i s
occur r i ng on t he pr emi ses of DOE f aci l i t i es, PNNL whi ch i s t he f i r st l ab Bat t el l e
oper at ed pr i or t o t he ot her f our 4 DOE l abs i t now manages; hence, t her e' s
suf f i ci ent pr obabl e cause f or concer n t hat t hi s pat ent f i l i ng f r aud pr act i ce i s
syst emi c at t hese 4 l abs as wel l . Bat t el l e makes mi l l i ons f r ompat ent i ng of
DOE- f unded i nvent i ons; whi l e admi t t i ng pat ent f i l i ng f r aud, Bat t el l e i s l i kel y
i l l egal l y " ski mmi ng" r oyal t i es away f r omDOE. Dept . of Commer ce [ over seei ng USPTO]
has done not hi ng t o addr ess t hi s; mor eover , Commer ce has r ewar ded Bat t el l e by nami ng
i t t o t he Nat i onal Advi sor y Counci l on I nnovat i on & Ent r epr eneur shi p.
4. Cl ear l y, Secr et ar y Locke and USPTO Di r ect or Kappos ar e over l ooki ng
Bat t el l e' s f r aud j ust as t he SEC over l ooked Madof f ' s. Hence, i f t he DOE- I G passes on
i nvest i gat i ng t hi s admi t t ed pat ent f r aud by Bat t el l e, i t wi l l cont i nue unabat ed at
acr oss any or al l f i ve Bat t el l e- managed nat i onal l abs. Fi nal l y, keep i n mi nd t hat
I ssue 2 [ bel ow] i s an act ual 2005 i nci dent of such f r aud; i t per t ai ns t o t he MDM
sof t war e devel oped f or my busi ness under t he DOE Techni cal Assi st ance Pr ogr ami n
2002- 03 and t hus i s a cont i nuat i on of Bat t el l e' s f r aud ci t ed i n ( compl ai nt )
I 04RS007. .
Thank you f or your addi t i onal i nsi ght . I can j ust see my management aski ng me t hese
quest i ons. I f I shoul d have any f ur t her quest i ons af t er I t hor oughl y r evi ew t hi s
i nf or mat i on, I wi l l cont act you.
I hope you wi l l enj oy a good af t er noon.
Ray
Fr om: Phi l i p Pul ver [ mai l t o: pul ver ps@ver i zon. net ]
Sent : Thur sday, August 26, 2010 2: 47 PM
To: Madden, Ray
Subj ect : OI G Compl ai nt Submi ssi on: Bat t el l e- PNNL Admi t t ed Pat ent Fi l i ng Fr aud - -
PNNL Test i mony & Document s Conf i r mPat ent i ng Mi sr epr esent at i ons/ Fr aud Pr act i ce t o
t he USPTO [ e. g. , Fal se St at ement s ( 18 USC 1001) ]
Ray,
I amf i l i ng a compl ai nt t o t he DOE Of f i ce of I nspect or Gener al . The i ssues of t he
al l egat i ons ar e as f ol l ows:
I ssue 1 - - Pr act i ce of Pat ent Fi l i ng Mi sr epr esent at i on t o USPTO: I n swor n t est i mony
[ Al so at t ached] , Bat t el l e- PNNL openl y admi t s t o f r audul ent l y evadi ng st at ut or y USPTO
pat ent deadl i nes by wr i t i ng new i nvent i on r epor t s [ wi t h new names] on pr e- exi st i ng
i nvent i ons when i t needs new t i mef r ames [ ext ensi ons] t o f i l e a pat ent on t hose
i nvent i ons t hey pl an t o commer ci al i ze but f or whi ch pr i or pat ent f i l i ng deadl i nes
[ st at ut or y bar s] have expi r ed due t o Bat t el l e s usi ng or di scl osi ng t he i nvent i on
publ i cl y. By such r eset t i ng t he cl ock, Bat t el l e ci r cumvent s st at ut or y pat ent
f i l i ng r ul es, t her eby mi sr epr esent i ng t he or i gi nal l y- dat ed i nvent i on( s) t o t he USPTO
when appl yi ng f or a pat ent on t he new i nvent i on; such f al se st at ement s t o t he
USPTO vi ol at e 18 USC 1001 [ Fal se St at ement s] and i t s pat ent Rul es.
Not e, because PNNL i s Bat t el l e s f i r st nat i onal l ab managed, i t s most l i kel y t hat
such syst emi c pat ent f r aud pr act i ce i s occur r i ng at t he ot her Bat t el l e- r un nat i onal
l abs [ ORNL, BNL, I NL & NREL] . The publ i c, i ncl udi ng i nvent or s and ot her s who
l egi t i mat el y f i l e pat ent appl i cat i ons, has a r i ght t o know t hat DOE Of f i ce of
Sci ence i s gr ant i ng Bat t el l e an i l l egal exempt i on f r ompat ent r ul es [ and unf ai r
advant age] i n appl yi ng f or pat ent s on t axpayer - and pr i vat el y- f unded i nvent i ons.
I ssue 2 - - 2005 I nci dent / Exampl e of 1A: I n t he t est i mony ci t ed i n I ssue 1, Bat t el l e
acknowl edged an exampl e of such pat ent f r aud, i . e. , 2005 r enami ng t he MDM [ Mobi l e
Dat a Manager ] devel oped f or Pul ver s smal l busi ness vi a f undi ng f r omDOE s Techni cal
Assi st ance Pr ogr ami n 2002- 03. Namel y, af t er acknowl edgi ng t hat t he 2004- 05
f ol l ow- on MDM sof t war e ver si ons wer e excl usi vel y l i censed t o Pul ver , Bat t el l e wr ot e
Page 5

Unt i t l ed
a NEW i nvent i on r epor t on t he 2002 MDM sof t war e i nvent i ons [ af t er DHS Radi at i on
Por t al Moni t or Pr oj ect adapt ed MDM t o Bl ackBer r y] , r enamed t he NEW i nvent i on t o
RDADS, r eset t he st at ut or y pat ent f i l i ng bar / deadl i ne f r om10/ 1/ 03 [ 2002 MDM
i nvent i ons] t o 1/ 31/ 06 [ 2005 NEW i nvent i on] , mar ket ed RDADS under NDAs, f i l ed
RDADS pat ent appl i cat i on i n Sept . 2005, and l at er i nvest ed i n RDADS/ RFI D
commer ci al i zat i on. Bat t el l e s own document s conf i r mt hat MDM was
mar ket ed/ publ i ci zed/ demoed i n 2003, t her eby i nval i dat i ng t he new r eset 1/ 31/ 06
deadl i ne/ bar . Cl i ck on t he new code sect i on f or det ai l s on t hi s document ed pat ent
f r aud i nci dent .
See al so t he evi dence si t e [ www . ccol - i nc. com/ PvB] t hat has ext ensi ve suppor t i ng
Bat t el l e document at i on and deposi t i on t est i mony t r anscr i pt s. Bat t el l e s
pat ent - r el at ed f r aud i s det ai l ed i n t hi s wr i t e- up [ cl i ck t o downl oad] :
P- Bat t el l eMi sr epr esent at i onsToUSPTO. pdf [ Al so at t ached]
The emai l s bel ow pr ovi de f ur t her backgr ound. Not e, t he USPTO never r esponded t o my
emai l s or t he ci t ed evi dence i ncl udi ng Bat t el l e s admi t t i ng t o pat ent f i l i ng f r aud.
Because Bat t el l e manages hal f t he US nat i onal l abs, DOE' s i nvest i gat i ng and st oppi ng
such ongoi ng admi t t ed syst emi c pat ent f r aud of DOE- f unded r esear ch i s cl ear l y i n t he
publ i c i nt er est ; Bat t el l e ear ns many mi l l i ons of f i t s pat ent i ng each year .
Ray, i f you need mor e i nf or mat i on, i t ' s avai l abl e on r equest . Thanks.
Si ncer el y,
Phi l i p Pul ver
CCOL I nc.
2415 Sout h Gar f i el d
( 509) 586- 3051
( 509) 528- 9212 cel l
To: Ri char d Cr oni n
Cc: St even Kooni n ; Fr i edman, Gr eg [ DOE- I G]
Sent : Monday, August 23, 2010 10: 28 PM
Subj ect : Fur t her J ust i f i cat i on f or DOE- ORO t o Rel ease t he Tr ade Secr et
Pat ent - Rel at ed Pages Re: 2008- 09 Emai l s Ci t i ng Bat t el l e- PNNL
Test i mony & Document s Conf i r mi ng Pat ent i ng Mi sr epr esent at i ons/ Fr aud
Pr act i ce( s) t o USPTO [ e. g. , Fal se St at ement s ( 18 USC 1001) ]
Ri char d Cr oni n [ DOE- OHA] ,
Per my 8/ 17/ 10 emai l t o you, I ' mf or war di ng t hi s 1/ 29/ 10 emai l t o t he USPTO t hat
al so per t ai ns t o Bat t el l e' s admi t t ed pat ent f r aud pr act i ce [ e. g. , evadi ng f i l i ng
deadl i nes/ bar s] and exampl e/ i nci dent ; see at t ached t r anscr i pt and
P- Bat t el l eMi sr epr esent at i onsToUSPTO. pdf . That emai l ci t es i mpl i cat i ons of USPTO
[ and DOE] exempt i ng Bat t el l e [ managi ng 5 nat i onal l abs] f r ompat ent r ul es and l aws;
ci t at i ons f r omt he SEC I nspect or Gener al show t hat t he Commer ce [ USPTO] and Ener gy
Dept s. ar e over l ooki ng Bat t el l e' s f r aud i n t he same way t he SEC i gnor ed evi dence
i mpl i cat i ng pr omi nent Madof f who [ l i ke Bat t el l e] ser ved on advi sor y commi t t ees. As
st at ed bel ow, " I n key r espect s, USPTO s r ef usal t o addr ess t hi s subst ant i at ed pat ent
f r aud/ abuse [ whi l e st i l l i ssui ng pat ent s t o Bat t el l e] i s mor e egr egi ous t han
SEC/ Madof f " and gi ves " cr edence t o r ecent concer ns by Congr ess and busi nesses t hat
Commer ce Secr et ar y Locke and t he USPTO [ Kappos ( I BM) & Ber ej ka ( Mi cr osof t ) ] ar e
pr oposi ng pat ent r ef or ms f avor i ng t echnol ogy behemot hs t o t he det er mi nant of
smal l er busi nesses: ht t p : / / / www . pol i t i co. com/ news/ st or i es/ 1109/ 29002. ht ml " .
The Commer ce Dept . never r esponded t o my 1/ 29/ 10 emai l t hat ci t ed evi dence of
Bat t el l e' s admi t t ed pat ent f r aud; i nst ead, i t named Bat t el l e t o t he Nat i onal
Advi sor y Counci l on I nnovat i on & Ent r epr eneur shi p [ see 8/ 17/ 10 emai l ] . As I st at ed
Page 6

Unt i t l ed
t hen, " The absence of any meani ngf ul r epl y wi l l conf i r mt hat t he USPTO st ands by i t s
cur r ent of f i ci al posi t i on of i gnor i ng t he evi dence [ document s & t est i mony] ,
over l ooki ng bi l l i on- dol l ar Bat t el l e s ongoi ng mi sr epr esent at i ons t o t he USPTO,
gr ant i ng Bat t el l e exempt i on f r omUSPTO Rul es and Laws, and t hus t ai nt i ng t he
obj ect i vi t y [ l evel - pl ayi ng f i el d] of t he pat ent pr ocess whi ch adver sel y i mpact s
ent r epr eneur s, smal l busi nesses, uni ver si t i es and ot her s. " DOE r el easi ng t he t r ade
secr et and pat ent - r el at ed document s woul d pr ovi de compel l i ng evi dence f or t he
publ i c, t he admi ni st r at i on, Congr ess/ GAO and ot her s t o addr ess/ r ect i f y/ hal t t he
f r aud and i l l egal / unf ai r wai ver of pat ent r ul es/ l aws t hat USPTO & DOE have gr ant ed
Bat t el l e t o t he det r i ment / di sadvant age of ot her i nvent or s and cont r ar y t o t he
Pr esi dent ' s decl ar ed suppor t f or smal l busi ness i n t he wor st economy si nce t he
1930 s.
Not e: The sci ent i st [ Dor ow] i mpl i cat ed i n Bat t el l e s 2005 pat ent
f r aud/ mi sr epr esent at i on [ 18 USC 1001 & Pat ent Rul es 10. 23 Mi sconduct ] i s a
t op- secr et Q cl ear ance hol der who cont i nues accessi ng DHS ai r car go expl osi ves
r esear ch and ot her cl assi f i ed mat er i al . Thus, t her e i s pr obabl e cause t o concl ude
t hat t he st i l l wi t hhel d/ conceal ed pat ent - r el at ed mat er i al i n Pul ver s f i l e at Oak
Ri dge f ur t her i mpl i cat es Dor ow i n f al se st at ement s, f r aud & per j ur y whi ch concer ns
not onl y t he t axpayi ng publ i c [ r e: nat i onal secur i t y] and l aw enf or cement but al so
t he FBI , DOD, DOE, DHS and ot her agenci es di vul gi ng count er - t er r or i smand ot her
cl assi f i ed i nf or mat i on t o hi m. [ Thi s Bat t el l e br each of saf eguar di ng cl assi f i ed
i nf or mat i on ( 10 CFR 710) i s ci t ed i n my 1/ 13/ 10 l et t er t o Secr et ar y Chu. ]
Ri char d, i n addi t i on t o my evi dence- based J ul y FOI A appeal and ot her 2010 emai l s
demonst r at i ng t hat i t i s i n t he publ i c i nt er est t o r el ease al l t he st i l l - wi t hhel d
document s, t he above si t uat i on t hat ' s t ai nt i ng t he pat ent i ng pr ocess f ur t her
j ust i f i es DOE r el easi ng t he 180 t r ade secr et and pat ent - r el at ed pages t hat Oak Ri dge
conceal ed f r omi t s 7/ 1/ 10 FOI A r esponse, t hus vi ol at i ng DOE- OHA Or der TFA- 0362
[ Under Depar t ment of Ener gy ( DOE) r egul at i ons, a document exempt f r omdi scl osur e
under t he FOI A shal l nonet hel ess be r el eased t o t he publ i c whenever t he DOE
det er mi nes t hat di scl osur e i s not cont r ar y t o f eder al l aw and i n t he publ i c
i nt er est . 10 C. F. R. 1004. ] and f or f ei t i ng i t s r i ght t o st i l l wi t hhol d t hose
pages. OR s r ef usal t o even l i st / descr i be t he 180 pages r ai ses r easonabl e suspi ci on
t hat DOE- Sci ence i s hi di ng i l l egal and cr i mi nal act i vi t y by Bat t el l e t hat
r uns/ monopol i zes f i ve Of f i ce of Sci ence l abs and wi l l soon bi d PNNL; t hi s f ur t her
shows t hat r el easi ng t he ot her 106 pages [ wi t hhel d per l i t i gat i on FOI A exempt i on]
wi t h t he 180 pages i s i n t he publ i c i nt er est r egar di ng i nt egr i t y of t he US pat ent
pr ocess and saf eguar di ng cl assi f i ed i nf or mat i on at f i ve nat i onal l abs [ PNNL,
ORNL. . . ] and r egar di ng ot her mat t er s ci t ed i n t he ext ensi ve emai l s and at t he
evi dence si t e.
Si ncer el y,
Phi l i p Pul ver
CCOL I nc.
( 509) 586- 3051
( 509) 528- 9212 cel l
Evi dence si t e: www . ccol - i nc. com/ PvB
To: Rober t . St ol l @USPTO. GOV
Cc: Mar gar et . Focar i no@USPTO. GOV ; Davi d. Kappos@USPTO. GOV ; Commer ce Secr et ar y Locke
; TZi nser @OI G. DOC. GOV
Sent : Fr i day, J anuar y 29, 2010 1: 58 PM
Subj ect : Updat e t o USPTO & Request RE: 2008- 2009 Emai l s Ci t i ng Bat t el l e- PNNL
Test i mony & Document s Conf i r mi ng
Bat t el l e' s Pat ent i ng Mi sr epr esent at i ons/ Fr aud Pr act i ce( s) t o USPTO
[ e. g. , Fal se St at ement s ( 18 USC 1001) ]
Page 7

Unt i t l ed
I nf or mat i on on Bat t el l e' s mi sr epr esent at i ons and f al se st at ement s [ 18 USC 1001] t o
t he Uni t ed St at es Pat ent & Tr ademar k Of f i ce
i s bei ng pr ovi ded t o t hose wi t h t he aut hor i t y & obl i gat i on t o act i n t he publ i c
i nt er est . Evi dence Si t e i s at www . ccol - i nc. com/ PvB.
CCOL I nc.
( 509) 586- 3051
J anuar y 29, 2010
Mr . Rober t St ol l
Commi ssi oner f or Pat ent s
Uni t ed St at es Pat ent and Tr ademar k Of f i ce
U. S. Dept . of Commer ce
600 Dul any St r eet
Al exandr i a, VA 22314
Dear Pat ent Commi ssi oner St ol l ,
I ma smal l busi ness ent r epr eneur who i s pr ovi di ng evi dence of Bat t el l e pat ent i ng
mi sr epr esent at i ons [ Fal se st at ement s 18 USC 1001] t hat was r epeat edl y sent t o t he
USPTO si nce 2008, but whi ch was i gnor ed. These vi ol at i ons agai nst t he USPTO wer e
uncover ed dur i ng 2008 deposi t i ons at t he Paci f i c Nor t hwest Nat i onal Labor at or y
[ PNNL] ; Bat t el l e i s bei ng sued f or mi susi ng PNNL s Techni cal Assi st ance Pr ogr am
[ TAP] by wi t hhol di ng/ pocket i ng r esear ch [ Mobi l e Dat a Manager [ MDM] sof t war e] t hat
DOE speci f i cal l y pai d Bat t el l e t o devel op f or my smal l busi ness; det ai l s ar e at t he
evi dence si t e. My l awsui t i s NOT a pat ent di sput e. However , i n deposi t i on
t est i mony, Bat t el l e acknowl edged i t s vi ol at i ons of USPTO r ul es/ l aws:
( 1) Pr act i ce of Pat ent Fi l i ng Mi sr epr esent at i on t o USPTO: Bat t el l e wr i t es new
i nvent i on r epor t s on pr e- exi st i ng i nvent i ons when i t needs new t i mef r ames
[ ext ensi ons] t o f i l e a pat ent on i nvent i ons t hey i nt end t o commer ci al i ze but f or
whi ch t hey have shown publ i cl y or used [ st at ut or y bar ] . By r eset t i ng t he cl ock,
Bat t el l e ci r cumvent s USPTO st at ut or y f i l i ng r ul es and mi sr epr esent s t he
or i gi nal l y- dat ed i nvent i on( s) .
( 2) 2005 I nci dent / Exampl e [ new code scheme] : Af t er acknowl edgi ng t hat MDM
f ol l ow- on ver si ons wer e excl usi vel y l i censed t o Pul ver s smal l busi ness, Bat t el l e
wr ot e a NEW i nvent i on r epor t on 2002 MDM sof t war e i nvent i ons [ af t er DHS Radi at i on
Por t al Moni t or Pr oj ect adapt ed MDM t o Bl ackBer r y] , r enamed NEW i nvent i on t o
RDADS, r eset st at ut or y f i l i ng bar / deadl i ne f r om10/ 1/ 03 [ 2002 MDM i nvent i ons] t o
1/ 31/ 06 [ 2005 NEW i nvent i on] , mar ket ed RDADS under NDAs, f i l ed RDADS pat ent
appl i cat i on i n Sept . 2005, and l at er i nvest ed i n RDADS/ RFI D commer ci al i zat i on.
Not e, MDM was mar ket ed/ publ i ci zed/ demoed i n 2003, t her eby i nval i dat i ng t he 1/ 31/ 06
bar .
Pr evi ousl y sent t o USPTO, t he at t ached P- Bat t el l eMi sr epr esent at i onsToUSPTO. pdf
i ncl udes Bat t el l e emai l s, 2002 MDM i nvent i on r epor t s, RDADS 2005 pat ent appl i cat i on,
and 2008 PNNL t est i mony subst ant i at i ng t he vi ol at i ons. These excer pt s f r omt he PDF
and t he Mi sr epr esent at i onToUSPTO sect i on cl ear l y i mpl i cat e Bat t el l e:
Bat t el l e Test i mony: Wr i t i ng New Repor t s on Ol d I nvent i ons t o Reset Pat ent
Deadl i nes, wi t h 2005 Exampl e [ Q=Quest i on, A=Bat t el l e Answer ]
Q. So i n or der t o j ust i f y a new I nvent i on Repor t , t her e woul d have had t o be
somet hi ng new, somet hi ng di f f er ent bet ween. . . what Mr . Dor ow was doi ng and what was
pr evi ousl y l i st ed on t he I nvent i on Repor t ?
A. Most pr obabl y t hat woul d be t he r eason f or doi ng a new I nvent i on Repor t ,
Page 8

Unt i t l ed
al t hough t her e coul d be ot her r easons, t oo.
Q. Okay. What , f or i nst ance? I mean, can you t hi nk of any?
A. Ti mef r ames.
Q. What sor t of t i mef r ames? I don' t under st and why a change i n t i me woul d j ust i f y
a new I nvent i on Repor t .
A. The t i mi ng on how l ong we have t o pr ocess t he pat ent appl i cat i on. . . t her e ar e
t i me const r ai nt s. [ USPTO St at ut or y Bar ] . . .
Exampl e/ I nci dent :
Q. Wer e you havi ng conver sat i ons wi t h Mr . Dor ow ar ound t hi s t i mef r ame r egar di ng PDAC
[ Sof t war e] ?
A. We l at er deci ded t o t r y and get a pat ent on i t , af t er we di d a f ai r l y i n- dept h
mar ket anal ysi s.
Q. So when you say, " New name - t ot al l y di f f er ent pl ease, " what does t hat r ef er
t o?. . .
A. I t r ef er s t o t r yi ng t o get a name t hat means somet hi ng i n t he mar ket pl ace. . .
Q. But i t sounds l i ke you wer e j ust changi ng t he name; i t doesn' t sound l i ke t he
i nvent i on had changed. I s t hat i naccur at e?
A. No.
[ Not e, t he 2009 Tr i - Ci t y Her al d news ar t i cl e al so r ef er ences Bat t el l e s
pat ent - r el at ed mi sr epr esent at i ons. ]
2009 emai l s bel ow conf i r mt hat t he USPTO and Commer ce Dept . I nspect or Gener al
[ Zi nser ] have t aken t he of f i ci al posi t i on of i gnor i ng pr i ma f aci e
evi dence/ admi ssi ons of Bat t el l e s pat ent i ng mi sr epr esent at i ons [ Fal se St at ement s]
t hat s occur r i ng at PNNL and possi bl y/ l i kel y at ot her l abs [ ORNL, I NL, BNL. . . ] .
Si nce t hen, J ohn Dol l has r et i r ed; t her e ar e new of f i ci al s i n l eader shi p r ol es at
USPTO and Commer ce i ncl udi ng you, Davi d Kappos, and Secr et ar y Locke. Accor di ngl y, I
r equest t hat t he USPTO agai n r evi ew t he evi dence of Bat t el l e s mi sr epr esent at i ons t o
t he pat ent of f i ce and conf i r mt hat t he USPTO ei t her :
( 1) Af f i r ms i t s of f i ci al posi t i on of exempt i ng Bat t el l e f r omUSPTO r ul es/ l aws [ e. g. ,
st at ut or y bar s, f al se st at ement s] and cont i nues gr ant i ng Bat t el l e unf ai r advant age
over ot her s who accur at el y/ t r ut hf ul l y r epr esent i nvent i ons t o t he pat ent of f i ce.
OR
( 2) Resci nds Bat t el l e s exempt i on, wi l l conduct i nvest i gat i on [ or DOJ r ef er r al ] ,
hol ds Bat t el l e account abl e f or vi ol at i ons/ f r aud agai nst t he USPTO, and t akes
measur es pr event i ng t hi s pat ent i ng f r aud/ abuse at ALL l abs t hey manage [ PNNL,
ORNL. . . ]
Concer ns/ Quest i ons Re: Bat t el l e Bei ng Exempt ed f r omUSPTO Rul es & Laws
[ Not e: Pr i or ci t ed concer ns and i ssues ar e enumer at ed i n t he 2008 & 2009 emai l s
bel ow. ]
Thi s pat ent i ng f r aud/ abuse may be syst emi c pr act i ce at hal f t he US nat i onal l abs
wher e Bat t el l e pat ent s & commer ci al i zes DOE- f unded i nvent i ons. USPTO s cont i nui ng
t o gr ant such an exempt i on t o Bat t el l e mat er i al l y t ai nt s t he obj ect i vi t y of t he
pat ent i ng pr ocess and wi l l out r age ent r epr eneur s, cor por at i ons, and ot her s adver sel y
i mpact ed by t he doubl e- st andar d f avor i ng Bat t el l e, whi ch i s among t he most pr ol i f i c
pat ent f i l er s i n t he US, gener at es si gni f i cant f ee r evenue f or budget - st r apped
USPTO, ear ns mi l l i ons on pat ent i ng & commer ci al i zi ng t axpayer - f unded r esear ch,
r ecei ves bi l l i ons i n f eder al cont r act s annual l y, and manages ot her si t es [ e. g. , DHS
Nat i onal Bi odef ense Anal ysi s and Count er measur es Cent er at For t Det r i ck] . I s t he
USPTO over l ooki ng t hese vi ol at i ons t o ensur e t hat Bat t el l e [ a maj or r evenue sour ce]
wi ns t he upcomi ng bi d( s) of PNNL and ORNL [ Oak Ri dge] ?
For decades, Bat t el l e s pr omi nence/ exper t i se i n pat ent i ng and t echnol ogy
commer ci al i zat i on [ e. g. , R&D 100] has been wel l known by t he USPTO and by Secr et ar y
Locke f or whomBat t el l e- PNNL was a key const i t uent dur i ng hi s t er ms as WA gover nor .
Si mi l ar l y, undi sput ed was Madof f s st at ur e on Wal l St r eet and wi t h t he SEC, whi ch
hel ped hi mescape account abi l i t y f or many year s unt i l he conf essed. The 2009 SEC
I nspect or Gener al Repor t , ci t i ng Madof f s pr omi nence/ r eput at i on at t he SEC, cl ear l y
shows par al l el s bet ween SEC/ Madof f & USPTO/ Bat t el l e si t uat i ons. I t f ur t her expl ai ns
Page 9

Unt i t l ed
why USPTO seni or of f i ci al s ar e si mi l ar l y over l ooki ng Bat t el l e s admi t t ed pat ent i ng
mi sr epr esent at i ons/ f r aud, as t he f ol l owi ng excer pt s i l l ust r at e:
ht t p : / / / www . sec. gov/ news/ st udi es/ 2009/ oi g- 509. pdf - I G I nvest i gat i on of Fai l ur e
of t he SEC t o Uncover Ber nar d Madof f s Ponzi Scheme
The OI G i nvest i gat i on al so f ound t he Enf or cement st af f was skept i cal about
Mar kopol os compl ai nt because Madof f di d not f i t t he pr of i l e of a Ponzi scheme
oper at or , wi t h t he br anch chi ef . . . not i ng. . . an i nher ent bi as t owar ds sor t of peopl e
who ar e seen as r eput abl e member s of soci et y. [ Pg. 36]
Exami ner s. . . awar e of Ber nar d Madof f s st at ur e i n t he secur i t i es i ndust r y. . . t hat
Madof f s f i r mwas ver y pr omi nent . . . ser ved on var i ous i ndust r y commi t t ees, was a
wel l r espect ed i ndi vi dual . . . SEC exami ner s used an NASD manual wi t h Ber nar d Madof f s
name i n i t . . . st at ed. . . because of [ hi s] r eput at i on. . . may not have been any t hought t o
l ook i nt o Madof f s oper at i on any f ur t her . [ Pg. 50]
exami ner s r ecal l ed OCI E [ Of f i ce of Compl i ance I nspect i ons and Exami nat i ons] t el l i ng
t hemMadof f was a power f ul and wel l - connect ed i ndi vi dual . . . i nt er pr et ed t he
st at ement t o r ai se a concer n f or t hemabout pushi ng Madof f t oo har d. . . super vi sor s at
t he SEC appear t o have been r el uct ant t o push i ssues agai nst i nf l uent i al peopl e
[ Pg. 199]
Af t er Madof f conf essed, Lamor e [ Exami ner ] r ef l ect ed i n an e- mai l wi t h. . . Enf or cement
Assi st ant Regi onal Di r ect or , about why t hey wer e unabl e t o uncover t he
f r aud. . . acknowl edged t hat at t he seni or l evel s of t he SEC, t he hesi t ancy t owar ds
r ocki ng t he boat may be even mor e pr onounced wi t h r espect t o someone l i ke Ber ni e
Madof f , who s a wel l - known per son i n i ndust r y. . . easi er t o be mor e aggr essi ve when
you ar e exami ni ng a penny- st ock f i r m r at her t han, f or i nst ance, Gol dman
Sachs. . . ver y di f f i cul t . . . t o t el l Ber ni e Madof f t hat he s a l i ar . [ Pg. 387]
I f t he USPTO cont i nues al l owi ng Bat t el l e t o act as a Madof f of t he pat ent i ng &
i nt el l ect ual pr oper t y communi t y, t hen i nvent or s, Congr ess and ot her s need t o know
t hat USPTO has gr ant ed Bat t el l e [ 501( c) 3] unf ai r advant age over smal l busi nesses,
uni ver si t i es and ot her s who abi de by t he pat ent Rul es & Laws. I t woul d al so gi ve
cr edence t o r ecent concer ns by Congr ess and busi nesses t hat Commer ce Secr et ar y Locke
and t he USPTO [ Kappos ( I BM) & Ber ej ka ( Mi cr osof t ) ] ar e pr oposi ng pat ent r ef or ms
f avor i ng t echnol ogy behemot hs t o t he det er mi nant of smal l er busi nesses: ht t p
: / / / www . pol i t i co. com/ news/ st or i es/ 1109/ 29002. ht ml [ I n key r espect s, USPTO s
r ef usal t o addr ess t hi s subst ant i at ed pat ent f r aud/ abuse [ whi l e st i l l i ssui ng
pat ent s t o Bat t el l e] i s mor e egr egi ous t han SEC/ Madof f . ]
The cur r ent si t uat i on r ai ses many quest i ons; many ar e i n emai l s bel ow, but I al so
ci t e some her e. I s Bat t el l e now f ur t her embol dened t o vi ol at e USPTO r ul es/ l aws now
t hat Gar y Locke i s Commer ce Secr et ar y? Bat t el l e- PNNL was a key const i t uent when he
was WA gover nor . Wi l l Bat t el l e r el y on t hi s r el at i onshi p t o shi el d t hemf r om
over si ght & enf or cement i n t he same way t hat Madof f s i nt er act i ons/ r eput at i on wi t h
SEC of f i ci al s enabl ed hi mt o def r aud i nvest or s af t er SEC r ebuf f ed cr edi bl e
whi st l ebl ower compl ai nt s f or a decade? I s Bat t el l e usi ng i t s domi nance/ monopol y at
t he nat i onal l abs [ wi t h subst ant i al pat ent i ng] t o bul l y t he USPTO and/ or DOE t o
over l ook i t s admi t t ed f r audul ent pat ent pr act i ces at PNNL or el sewher e? I f so, i s
Bat t el l e vi ol at i ng ant i - t r ust l aws?
Not e: Addi t i onal concer ns, i mpl i cat i ons and quest i ons ar e i n t he 2008- 2009 emai l s
bel ow.
I f you need mor e i nf or mat i on or have quest i ons, pl ease l et me know. The absence of
any meani ngf ul r epl y wi l l conf i r mt hat t he USPTO st ands by i t s cur r ent of f i ci al
posi t i on of i gnor i ng t he evi dence [ document s & t est i mony] , over l ooki ng
bi l l i on- dol l ar Bat t el l e s ongoi ng mi sr epr esent at i ons t o t he USPTO, gr ant i ng Bat t el l e
exempt i on f r omUSPTO Rul es & Laws, and t hus t ai nt i ng t he obj ect i vi t y [ l evel - pl ayi ng
f i el d] of t he pat ent pr ocess whi ch adver sel y i mpact s ent r epr eneur s, smal l
busi nesses, uni ver si t i es and ot her s.
I l ook f or war d t o hear i ng f r omyou. Thank you.
Page 10

Unt i t l ed
Si ncer el y,
Phi l i p C. Pul ver
CCOL I nc. [ Smal l busi ness]
( 509) 586- 3051
( 509) 528- 9212 cel l
ht t p : / / / www . ccol - i nc. com/ PvB [ Evi dence Si t e - Mai n Page]
ht t p : / / / www . ccol - i nc. com/ PvB/ Mi sr epr esent at i onToUSPTO. ht m[ Dor ow Fal se
St at ement s t o Pat ent Of f i ce - Bat t el l e Commer ci al i zat i on admi t s evadi ng USPTO
St at ut or y Bar s]
ht t p : / / / www . ccol - i nc. com/ PvB/ Emai l s- NewCode- 2005. ht m[ Dor ow Suddenl y Cal l i ng
MDM- on- Bl ackBer r y new code t o Def r aud Li censee [ Pul ver i s Toast ] and Mi sl ead
USPTO]
ht t p : / / / www . ccol - i nc. com/ PvB/ Decl ar at i on- Pul ver Awar ds- Cr t Doc221. pdf [ Pul ver
Backgr ound & Ent r epr eneur i al Awar ds f r omBat t el l e]
ht t p : / / / www . ccol - i nc. com/ PvB/ Deposi t i ons. ht m[ Bat t el l e- PNNL Sci ent i st Test i mony
Showi ng Dor ow' s Per j ur y & Fal se Decl ar at i ons, and Fal se St at ment s t o USPTO]
ht t p : / / / www . ccol - i nc. com/ PvB/ Document s. ht m[ Summar y Det ai l ed Out l i nes by Topi c
wi t h Pop- Open Exhi bi t s]
To: Davi d. Wi l ey@USPTO. GOV
Cc: W. Covey [ USPTO. gov] ; j ohn. dol l @uspt o. gov ; M. Focar i no [ USPTO. gov] ;
TZi nser @OI G. DOC. GOV ; hot l i ne@oi g. doc. gov
Sent : Sunday, Mar ch 15, 2009 10: 34 PM
Subj ect : Response t o 2/ 23/ 09 USPTO Emai l Respondi ng t o Pul ver ' s 1/ 31/ 09 Emai l Re:
Test i mony & Document s Conf i r mi ng Bat t el l e Pat ent Fr aud Pr act i ce( s)
Dear Mr . Wi l ey [ Of f i ce of Commi ssi oner f or Pat ent s] ,
I have r ecei ved your 2/ 23/ 09 USPTO f i nal r esponse t o my 1/ 31/ 09 l et t er t o Mr . Covey
[ Deput y Gener al Counsel f or Gener al Law at USPTO] who r esponded t o my 1/ 5/ 09 emai l ;
al l ar e bel ow. I amemai l i ng a r epl y whi ch consi st s of t he f ol l owi ng sect i ons:
1. Speci f i c r esponses t o your 2/ 23/ 09 USPTO message [ 20090223103929044. pdf
at t ached]
2. Quest i ons r ai sed by t he USPTO i gnor i ng Bat t el l e s acknowl edged/ admi t t ed pat ent
f r aud and f al se st at ement s
3. Rel evant cl osi ng poi nt s [ e. g. , SEC/ Madof f vi s- - vi s USPTO/ Bat t el l e and
Congr essi onal hear i ngs]
1. Speci f i c r esponses t o your 2/ 23/ 09 USPTO message [ 20090223103929044. pdf ]
As wi t h Mr . Covey, your r esponse i gnor es t he cr i t i cal Bat t el l e deposi t i on t est i mony
acknowl edgi ng f r audul ent pat ent f i l i ng pr act i ce at t he Paci f i c Nor t hwest Nat i onal
Lab. I nst ead, you di d a cur sor y cut & past e f r om( 1) Manual of Pat ent Exami ni ng
Pr ocedur e [ MPEP] ( Regul at i ons) , ( 2) 18 USC 1001 [ Fr aud & Fal se St at ement s] whi ch I
ci t ed, and ( 3) USPTO Gener al I nf or mat i on Page [ ht t p : / / / www .
uspt o. gov/ go/ pac/ doc/ gener al ] .
The f ol l owi ng excer pt s of my 1/ 31/ 09 emai l r ei t er at e t he cent r al , cr i t i cal i ssue
t hat t he USPTO r epeat edl y di sr egar ds:
( i ) Thi s message i s r esponse t o your 1/ 16/ 09 emai l bel ow t hat r ef er r ed my compl ai nt
t o t he USPTO I nvent or s Assi st ance Cent er [ I AC] Cont r ar y t o your emai l , I mnot a
cust omer but a whi st l ebl ower who s pr ovi di ng evi dence [ t est i mony & document s] of
Page 11

Unt i t l ed
Bat t el l e s pr act i ce of evadi ng st at ut or y deadl i nes by wr i t i ng new [ f aked]
i nvent i on r epor t s. . . By r ef er r i ng my compl ai nt t o an or gani zat i on [ I AC] t hat
obvi ousl y doesn t addr ess f r aud, Deput y Di r ect or Dol l s of f i ce i s t ur ni ng a bl i nd
eye and i gnor i ng pr i ma f aci e evi dence of Bat t el l e s pat ent f r aud and f al se
st at ement s [ 18 USC 1001] , al l egat i ons subst ant i at ed by Bat t el l e document s &
t est i mony t o a Feder al j udge.
( i i ) Bat t el l e Test i mony: Wr i t i ng New Repor t s on Ol d I nvent i ons t o Reset Pat ent
Deadl i nes, wi t h 2005 Exampl e] [ Q=Quest i on, A=Bat t el l e Answer ]
somet hi ng new, somet hi ng di f f er ent bet ween what
Mr . Dor ow was doi ng and what was pr evi ousl y l i st ed on t he I nvent i on Repor t ?
A. Ti mef r ames.
t i me const r ai nt s. [ USPTO St at ut or y Bar ] . . .
[ Exampl e/ I nci dent : ]
Q. Wer e you havi ng conver sat i ons wi t h Mr . Dor ow ar ound t hi s t i mef r ame r egar di ng
PDAC [ Sof t war e] ?.
mar ket anal ysi s.
t o?. . .
A. No. [ Fr omr e- at t ached Tr anscr i pt - Bat t el l eMor ganDeposi t i onwi t hExcer pt . pdf ]
You st at e t hat t he USPTO gener al l y t r ust s t hat t he appl i cant ' s st at ement s ar e
t r ue. However , af t er bei ng pr ovi ded wi t h i nf or mat i on showi ng ot her wi se, you and
Mr . Covey si dest ep t he i ssue by i gnor i ng Bat t el l e s candi d t est i mony conf i r mi ng
ongoi ng decept i ve pat ent f i l i ng pr act i ce( s) . You ci t e t he 2005 pat ent f r aud exampl e
and mi schar act er i ze my compl ai nt as a pat ent di sput e despi t e my pr i or emai l s t o t he
cont r ar y. I n so doi ng, you evaded t he cent r al i ssue, i . e. , Bat t el l e s syst emi c
pat ent f r aud pr act i ce( s) at PNNL and possi bl y at ot her l abs t hey manage.
You not e t hat si nce t he USPTO i s not a r egul at or y or j udi ci al agency wi t h
pr osecut or i al aut hor i t y, i t does not pr osecut e peopl e f or f r aud. Yes, t hat s t r ue,
whi ch i s why Dept . of Commer ce and ot her agenci es [ DOE, SEC. . . ] r ef er cr i mi nal
mat t er s [ e. g. , f r aud & f al se st at ement s ( 18 USC 1001) ] t o Dept . of J ust i ce when
wr ongdoi ng i s uncover ed i n agency i nvest i gat i ons. Al t hough not a r egul at or y agency
per se, t he USPTO has sol e st at ut or y r esponsi bi l i t y t o i ssue pat ent s i n accor dance
wi t h i t s many r egul at i ons, some of whi ch you emai l ed t o me. I n sum, t hei r i nabi l i t y
t o pr osecut e doesn t j ust i f y t he USPTO and i t s OI G t ur ni ng a bl i nd eye t o pat ent i ng
f r aud & abuse, especi al l y by Bat t el l e, pr omi nent i n pat ent i ng of Gover nment
r esear ch.
Ci t ed nei t her by you nor Mr . Covey, t he Commer ce Dept . OI G Web si t e st at es t he
f ol l owi ng:
As mandat ed by t he I nspect or Gener al Act of 1978, t he mi ssi on of t he Of f i ce of
I nspect or Gener al i s t o pr omot e
economy, ef f i ci ency, and ef f ect i veness and det ect and pr event wast e, f r aud, abuse,
and mi smanagement i n t he
pr ogr ams and oper at i ons of t he Depar t ment of Commer ce. [ ht t p : / / / www . oi g. doc. gov]
Accor di ngl y, I sent compl ai nt s t o t he DOC- OI G on 10/ 24/ 08 and 1/ 5/ 09. Mr . Covey
r esponded t o my compl ai nt sent J anuar y 05, 2009, vi a emai l t o t he Depar t ment of
Commer ce I nspect or Gener al Hot l i ne.
Ther ef or e, t he Covey and Wi l ey emai l s document t hat t he USPTO and t he Commer ce Dept .
Page 12

Unt i t l ed
Of f i ce of I nspect or Gener al have t aken t he of f i ci al posi t i on t o over l ook
Bat t el l e- PNNL s f r audul ent pat ent i ng pr act i ce( s) t hat s unequi vocal l y conf i r med by
Bat t el l e t est i mony and t hei r numer ous exhi bi t s.
2. Quest i ons r ai sed by t he USPTO i gnor i ng Bat t el l e s acknowl edged/ admi t t ed pat ent
f r aud and f al se st at ement s
Ot her s wi l l now ask quest i ons why USPTO seni or of f i ci al s f l at l y i gnor ed Bat t el l e s
f r audul ent pat ent i ng pr act i ce t hat s cor r obor at ed by t est i mony. Exampl es of such
quest i ons ar e as f ol l ows:
Why i s t he USPTO t ur ni ng a bl i nd eye t o admi t t ed pat ent f i l i ng f r aud by t ax- exempt
Bat t el l e whi ch r uns 5 of t he 10 DOE nat i onal l abs, manages many ot her s [ e. g. , DHS
( Nat i onal Bi odef ense Anal ysi s and Count er measur es Cent er ) and DOD ( For t
Det r i ck( Ant hr ax) ) ] , f i l es f ar mor e pat ent appl i cat i ons t han most , t akes t i t l e t o
i nvent i ons and commer ci al i zes t axpayer - f unded r esear ch, over sees t op- secr et Q
cl ear ance hol der s f i l i ng pat ent s, and r ecei ves bi l l i ons i n Feder al Gov. cont r act s
annual l y?
Why ar e USPTO Deput y Di r ect or Dol l and Pat ent Commi ssi oner Focar i no t ol er at i ng
Bat t el l e s admi t t ed f r audul ent pat ent f i l i ng pr act i ce( s) t hat coul d under mi ne t he
r eput at i on and i nt egr i t y of t he pat ent - exami ni ng pr ocess t hat t hey ve bot h wor ked i n
and managed f or over 30 year s?
Wi l l Bat t el l e be f ur t her embol dened t o vi ol at e USPTO r ul es & l aws once Gar y Locke i s
conf i r med as Commer ce Secr et ar y? Bat t el l e- PNNL was a maj or const i t uent dur i ng hi s
t er ms as WA gover nor .
I s t he USPTO st onewal l i ng a f r aud i nvest i gat i on [ and cr i mi nal r ef er r al t o Dept . of
J ust i ce] t hat coul d j eopar di ze one of i t s best cust omer s, Bat t el l e, wi nni ng t he
upcomi ng r ecompet e/ bi d of PNNL t hat s been managed & oper at ed by Bat t el l e si nce
1965?
Gi ven t he SEC/ Madof f debacl e and ot her f r aud- r el at ed cur r ent event s t hat have
out r aged Congr ess and t he t axpayi ng publ i c, why i s t he USPTO pr ecl udi ng an
i nvest i gat i on of 501( c) 3 t ax- exempt Bat t el l e r egar di ng t hese ser i ous f r aud mat t er s
t hat have omi nous i mpl i cat i ons f or i nvent or s, i nvest or s, smal l and l ar ge busi ness,
and ot her s who, i n good f ai t h, r i ght f ul l y r el y on an unbi ased, l evel - pl ayi ng f i el d
r egar di ng pat ent s and t r ademar ks?
3. Rel evant cl osi ng poi nt s [ e. g. , SEC/ Madof f vi s- - vi s USPTO/ Bat t el l e and
Congr essi onal hear i ngs]
The USPTO s i gnor i ng Bat t el l e s pat ent i ng f r aud i s aki n t o t he SEC s over l ooki ng
det ai l ed & anal yt i cal al l egat i ons agai nst Madof f dat i ng back t o 1999. Madof f was
pr omi nent i n f i nance/ i nvest i ng, e. g. , Chai r man of NASDAQ. Si mi l ar l y, Bat t el l e,
pr eemi nent i n pat ent i ng/ commer ci al i zat i on/ vent ur es of t axpayer - f unded r esear ch,
manages mor e Feder al l abs t han anyone. Gi ven t hei r di smi ssi ve r esponses t o t he
ext ensi ve Bat t el l e document s & t est i mony, i t s qui t e appar ent t hat USPTO seni or
of f i ci al s ar e i gnor i ng l essons l ear ned f r omSEC/ Madof f and wi l l r epeat hi st or y i f
t hey al l ow Bat t el l e s f r audul ent pat ent i ng pr act i ce( s) t o cont i nue.
Ther e s a cr i t i cal di f f er ence bet ween t he SEC/ Madof f and USPTO/ Bat t el l e si t uat i ons.
Unl i ke t he SEC whi ch r ecei ved an i ndi vi dual s al l egat i ons [ Mar kopol os v. Madof f ] ,
t he USPTO was pr ovi ded wi t h of f i ci al Bat t el l e- PNNL deposi t i on t est i mony cl ear l y
acknowl edgi ng Bat t el l e s f r audul ent pat ent i ng pr act i ce( s) . SEC i gnor ed al l egat i ons
whi l e USPTO even i gnor es act ual t est i mony wi t h cor r obor at i ng document s. I n t hat
i mpor t ant r espect , t he USPTO s abj ect r ef usal t o i nvest i gat e/ addr ess t hi s
subst ant i at ed pat ent f r aud/ abuse evi dence [ whi l e nonet hel ess i ssui ng pat ent s t o
Bat t el l e] i s mor e egr egi ous t han t he SEC dr oppi ng t he bal l wi t h Madof f .
Due t o key si mi l ar i t i es bet ween SEC/ Madof f and USPTO/ Bat t el l e, t he f ol l owi ng
Page 13

Unt i t l ed
excer pt s of r ecent Madof f - r el at ed Congr essi onal hear i ngs ar e most r el evant :
Excer pt of Congr ess s out r age at SEC agency abdi cat i ng over si ght :
ht t p : / / / www . yout ube. com/ wat ch?v=FOKSkaQoF_I &f eat ur e=r el at ed
[ Rep. Gar y Acker man ( D- NY) r e: SEC i gnor i ng whi st l ebl ower Mar kopol os r epor t i ng of
Madof f f r aud 10 year s ago. ]
Madof f whi st l ebl ower Mar kopol os t est i f yi ng t o Congr ess voi ci ng concer ns si mi l ar t o
mi ne:
ht t p : / / / www . yout ube. com/ wat ch?v=06vr qMJ d2NQ&f eat ur e=r el at ed
[ Excer pt s: Mr . Madof f was one of most power f ul men on Wal l St r eet . He owned a
pr est i gi ous br oker age f i r m. He and hi s br ot her
hel d numer ous t op- l evel posi t i ons on t he most i nf l uent i al i ndust r y associ at i on
boar ds. Cl ear l y, t he SEC was af r ai d of Mr . Madof f . ]
Thi s chai n of emai l s, wi t h expl i ci t Bat t el l e t est i mony & exhi bi t s, pr ovi des a
document ed audi t t r ai l r epeat edl y showi ng t hat t he USPTO and i t s OI G ar e wai vi ng
pat ent i ng r ul es f or Bat t el l e [ pr omi nent i n i nt el l ect ual pr oper t y commer ci al i zat i on]
whi ch gener at es si gni f i cant pat ent f ee r evenue back t o t he USPTO annual l y.
I t s poi nt l ess t o send a 3r d r esponse di smi ssi ve of Bat t el l e s admi t t ed vi ol at i ons
of USPTO r egul at i ons. Appar ent l y, onl y par t i es ext er nal t o t he pat ent of f i ce wi l l
ul t i mat el y hol d Bat t el l e account abl e and end t hei r ongoi ng f r aud/ abuse.
Si ncer el y,
Phi l i p Pul ver
CCOL I nc.
( 509) 586- 3051
( 509) 528- 9212 cel l
ht t p : / / / www . ccol - i nc. com/ 1/ Pat ent i ngFr audAbuse. ht m[ Pat ent Fr aud Sect i on]
ht t p : / / / www . ccol - i nc. com/ 1 [ Mai n Case Si t e]
PS. As backgr ound f or t hose l at er r eadi ng t hi s emai l chai n, I r eat t ached t he
evi dence document s [ Tr anscr i pt - Bat t el l eMor ganDeposi t i onwi t hExcer pt . pdf &
Fr audFal seSt at ement sToUSPTO. pdf ] .
Fr om: " J ackson, El i sa" <El i sa. J ackson@USPTO. GOV>
To: <pul ver ps@ver i zon. net >
Sent : Monday, Febr uar y 23, 2009 7: 03 AM
Subj ect : Response t o Your E- Mai l of J anuar y 31, 2009
Thi s e- mai l i s bei ng sent t o you on behal f of Davi d Wi l ey. A copy of t he si gned
l et t er i s at t ached. [ 20090223103929044. pdf ]
To: Covey, Wi l l i am
Cc: Deput y Di r ect or Dol l ; Commi ssi oner Focar i no ; hot l i ne@oi g. doc. gov
Sent : Sat ur day, J anuar y 31, 2009 8: 55 PM
Subj ect : Re: J anuar y 05, 2009, Hot l i ne Compl ai nt t o t he Depar t ment of Commer ce
I nspect or Gener al Re: Bat t el l e Pat ent Fr aud
Dear Mr . Covey,
Thi s message i s r esponse t o your 1/ 16/ 09 emai l bel ow t hat r ef er r ed my compl ai nt t o
Page 14

Unt i t l ed
t he USPTO I nvent or s Assi st ance Cent er [ I AC] [ ht t p : / / / www .
uspt o. gov/ web/ of f i ces/ pac/ dapp/ pacmai n. ht ml ] . However , f or t he f ol l owi ng r easons,
r ef er r i ng my compl ai nt [ r e: Bat t el l e f r aud] t o t he I AC i s cl ear l y i nappr opr i at e:
1. I n a 1/ 16/ 09 cal l , t he I AC i t sel f cl ear l y conf i r med t hat ( a) I t does NOT addr ess
f r aud and ot her i ssues i n my compl ai nt , ( b) I AC s pur pose i s t o answer quest i ons and
pr ovi de i nst r uct i ons t o i nvent or s wr i t i ng pat ent appl i cat i ons, and ( c) Regar di ng
f r aud, I shoul d cal l 541- 272- 8800 [ Pat ent Commi ssi oner Focar i no s of f i ce ( copi ed
pr evi ousl y) ] .
2. Cont r ar y t o your emai l , I mnot a cust omer but a whi st l ebl ower who s pr ovi di ng
evi dence [ t est i mony & document s] of Bat t el l e s pr act i ce of evadi ng st at ut or y
deadl i nes by wr i t i ng new [ f aked] i nvent i on r epor t s t hat s i l l ust r at ed by t hei r
2005 r ename [ RDADS] of 2002 sof t war e i nvent i ons.
By r ef er r i ng my compl ai nt t o an or gani zat i on [ I AC] t hat obvi ousl y doesn t addr ess
f r aud, Deput y Di r ect or Dol l s of f i ce i s t ur ni ng a bl i nd eye and i gnor i ng pr i ma f aci e
evi dence of Bat t el l e s pat ent f r aud and f al se st at ement s [ 18 USC 1001] , al l egat i ons
subst ant i at ed by Bat t el l e document s & t est i mony t o a Feder al j udge. [ See at t ached
Fr audFal seSt at ement sToUSPTO. pdf . ] Accor di ngl y, t he f ol l owi ng quest i ons ar e
j ust i f i ed and l i kel y t o be asked by i nvest i gat or s, subcommi t t ees, wat chdog gr oups,
GAO, i nvent or s, bl ogger s, cor por at i ons, uni ver si t i es, and ot her s out si de USPTO:
- Why i s USPTO abdi cat i ng over si ght by l ooki ng t he ot her way and wai vi ng pat ent
r ul es/ l aws f or Bat t el l e? Why t he doubl e st andar d?
- I s such a wai ver occur r i ng because Bat t el l e nat i onal l y pr ovi des si gni f i cant
r evenue [ f ees] t o USPTO t hr ough i t s ext ensi ve pat ent i ng of Gover nment - f unded
r esear ch?
- Di d DOE Sci ence Under secr et ar y & Tech. Tr ansf er Coor di nat or Or bach or ot her DOE
of f i ci al s pr essur e USPTO not t o i nvest i gat e Bat t el l e s admi t t ed/ document ed pat ent i ng
f r aud i n t hi s mat t er ? [ Not e, DOE- Sci ence r ef used t o addr ess t he pat ent f r aud; see
8/ 27/ 08 emai l bel ow. ]
- Why i s USPTO i gnor i ng my evi dence [ 95- page r epor t , Web si t e & t est i mony] agai nst
Bat t el l e j ust as t he SEC pr evi ousl y i gnor ed Mar kopol os 19- page compl ai nt agai nst
pr omi nent f i nanci al advi sor Madof f ? I s i t because Bat t el l e Memor i al I nst i t ut e i s
pr omi nent i n pat ent i ng and commer ci al i zi ng i nt el l ect ual pr oper t y?
Thi s emai l and at t achment s wi l l document t hat t he USPTO was awar e of t est i mony &
document s i mpl i cat i ng Bat t el l e Memor i al I nst i t ut e i n pat ent f i l i ng f r aud at PNNL and
possi bl y at f our ot her DOE nat i onal l abs, at t he DHS Nat i onal Bi odef ense Anal ysi s
and Count er measur es Cent er , et c. To f ur t her show t hat t he USPTO knew of t hi s f r aud,
excer pt s of Bat t el l e t est i mony f r omt he at t ached
Tr anscr i pt - Bat t el l eMor ganDeposi t i onwi t hExcer pt . pdf ar e quot ed bel ow. Bat t el l e' s
swor n st at ement s speak f or t hemsel ves.
[ Wr i t i ng New Repor t s on Ol d I nvent i ons t o Reset Pat ent Deadl i nes, wi t h 2005
Exampl e]
[ Q=Quest i on, A=Bat t el l e Answer ]
somet hi ng new, somet hi ng di f f er ent bet ween what Mr . Dor ow was doi ng and what was
pr evi ousl y l i st ed on t he I nvent i on Repor t ?
A. Ti mef r ames.
t i me const r ai nt s. [ USPTO St at ut or y Bar ] .
. . .
Q. Wer e you havi ng conver sat i ons wi t h Mr . Dor ow ar ound t hi s t i mef r ame r egar di ng
PDAC [ Sof t war e] ?.
mar ket anal ysi s.
t o?. . .
Page 15

Unt i t l ed
Q. So when you say, " New I P number dr i ven f r omt he NEWI R t hat you wr i t e, " I R, i s
t hat I nvent i on Repor t ?
A. Cor r ect .
A. No.
. . .
Q. And i s t hi s t he I R t hat you had asked Mr . Dor ow t o submi t wi t h a new name on i t ?
A. I assume so.
Q. Okay. So t he new name i s Rapi d Dat a Acqui si t i on and Di ssemi nat i on Syst em?
[ RDADS] [ See Pat ent App. ]
A. That appear s t o be t he case.
USPTO r ef usal t o hol d Bat t el l e account abl e f or document ed/ admi t t ed pat ent f r aud
necessi t at es ot her s t o i nvest i gat e and ask why USPTO i s gr ant i ng 501( c) ( 3) Bat t el l e
an exempt i on f r ompat ent r ul es/ l aws, t her eby gr ant i ng t heman unf ai r advant age over
cor por at i ons, uni ver si t i es, ot her DOE/ DOE/ DHS cont r act or s, and i ndi vi dual i nvent or s
t hat submi t pat ent appl i cat i ons i n good f ai t h.
Si ncer el y,
Phi l i p Pul ver
CCOL I nc.
( 509) 586- 3051
( 509) 528- 9212 cel l
ht t p : / / / www . ccol - i nc. com/ 1/ Pat ent i ngFr audAbuse. ht m[ Pat ent Fr aud Sect i on]
ht t p : / / / www . ccol - i nc. com/ 1/ Deposi t i ons. ht m[ Of f i ci al Test i mony Cor r obor at i ng
Bat t el l e Pat ent Fr aud]
ht t p : / / / www . ccol - i nc. com/ 1 [ Mai n Case Si t e]
Fr om: Covey, Wi l l i am
To: pul ver ps@ver i zon. net
Sent : Fr i day, J anuar y 16, 2009 11: 00 AM
Subj ect : J anuar y 05, 2009, Hot l i ne Compl ai nt t o t he Depar t ment of Commer ce I nspect or
Gener al
CCOL I nc.
RE: Your J anuar y 05, 2009, Hot l i ne Compl ai nt t o t he Depar t ment of Commer ce
I nspect or Gener al
Dear Mr . Pul ver :
I amsendi ng t hi s l et t er i n r esponse t o your compl ai nt sent J anuar y 05, 2009, vi a
emai l t o t he Depar t ment of Commer ce I nspect or Gener al Hot l i ne. You copi ed J ohn
Dol l , t he Uni t ed St at es Pat ent and Tr ademar k Of f i ce ( USPTO) Deput y Di r ect or , upon
sendi ng t he compl ai nt . The USPTO t akes ver y ser i ousl y t he concer ns of i t s
cust omer s, such as your sel f , and t he publ i c i n gener al . Accor di ngl y, I am
r espondi ng t o you di r ect l y on behal f of Deput y Di r ect or Dol l and t he USPTO.
I n f ur t her ance of t he USPTO s commi t ment t o ser vi ng our cust omer s, t he USPTO has
est abl i shed The I nvent or s Assi st ance Cent er ( I AC) , whi ch pr ovi des pat ent r el at ed
i nf or mat i on and ser vi ces t o t he publ i c. The I AC i s st af f ed by exper i enced f or mer
pr i mar y and super vi sor y pat ent exami ner s who ar e hi ghl y knowl edgeabl e wi t h r egar d t o
t he pol i ci es and pr ocedur es of t he USPTO.
Page 16

________________________________________

Unt i t l ed
I i nvi t e you t o cont act t he I AC wi t h any concer ns or quest i ons you may have
r egar di ng our pat ent pol i ci es or pr ocedur es. The I AC oper at i ng hour s ar e Monday
t hr ough Fr i day f r om8: 30 AM t o 5: 30 PM EST. You may cont act t he I AC at t he
f ol l owi ng t el ephone number s: 800- 786- 9199 or 571- 272- 1000.
The USPTO i s commi t t ed t o pr ovi di ng i t s cust omer s wi t h t he hi ghest l evel of ser vi ce.
I encour age you t o cont act t he I AC di r ect l y when you have any pat ent r el at ed
quest i ons or concer ns
Si ncer el y,
Wi l l i amR. Covey
Deput y Gener al Counsel f or Gener al Law
Fr om: Phi l i p Pul ver [ mai l t o: pul ver ps@ver i zon. net ]
Sent : Monday, J anuar y 05, 2009 11: 47 PM
To: Hot l i ne, OI G
Cc: t odd. zi nser @oi g. doc. gov; Focar i no, Mar gar et ( Peggy) ; Dol l , J ohn; Cal dwel l ,
Andr ew
Subj ect : Compl ai nt Re- Submi ssi on: Bat t el l e document s & t hei r 2008 deposi t i on
t est i mony conf i r m/ admi t f r audul ent pat ent pr act i ce at PNNL - 2005 i nci dent ci t ed.
OI G at Dept . of Commer ce,
As shown i n t he pr evi ous emai l , I pr ovi ded t he OI G hot l i ne wi t h det ai l ed document s
and candi d t est i mony subst ant i at i ng Bat t el l e' s f r audul ent pat ent pr act i ce at PNNL;
al l t hi s evi dence or i gi nat ed f r omBat t el l e i t sel f and not f r omme. The OI G di d not
r espond t o my compl ai nt of 10/ 24/ 08 [ over 60 days ago] .
Today s emai l i s my 2nd submi ssi on of t hi s compl ai nt t o t he Dept . of Commence OI G.
Bat t el l e s vi ol at i ons of pat ent r ul es and i t s f al se st at ement s [ 18 USC 1001]
war r ant di l i gent at t ent i on by appr opr i at e of f i ci al s. Bat t el l e emai l s, ot her
document s, and t est i mony speak f or t hemsel ves. However , I r e- emphasi ze t he
f ol l owi ng key poi nt s made pr evi ousl y:
My l awsui t agai nst Bat t el l e i s NOT pat ent l i t i gat i on. However , Bat t el l e
seni or commer ci al i zat i on st af f gave t est i mony [ at t ached] cl ear l y acknowl edgi ng: ( 1)
Thei r pr act i ce of r enami ng pr i or i nvent i ons and f i l i ng t hemas " new" t o bypass USPTO
st at ut or y bar s [ r e: use & publ i c di scl osur e] on t he or i gi nal i nvent i on[ s] and ( 2)
Thei r r enami ng 2002 sof t war e i nvent i ons i n 2005 t o cal l t hemnew, r eset t i ng t he
cl ock t o ext end pr evi ousl y mi ssed st at ut or y deadl i nes, and f r audul ent l y f i l i ng a
pat ent appl i cat i on on t he " new" 2005 i nvent i on. See ht t p
: / / / appf t 1. uspt o. gov/ net acgi / nph- Par ser ?Sect 1=PTO2&Sect 2=HI TOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnet aht ml %2F
PTO%2Fsear ch- bool . ht ml &r =1&f =G&l =50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=20070064477&OS=20070064477&RS=
20070064477
The at t ached 96- page Fr audFal seSt at ement sToUSPTO. pdf cont ai ns Bat t el l e
document s [ e. g. , emai l s, 2002 i nvent i on r epor t s & 2005 pat ent appl i cat i on] and 2008
t est i mony conf i r mi ng t hei r pat ent f i l i ng f r aud/ abuse pr act i ces, t he 2005
exampl e/ i nci dent , and f al se st at ement s t o USPTO et al . Thi s document al so i ncl udes
si de- by- si de compar i son of t hei r 2005 pat ent cl ai ms wi t h t he 2002 sof t war e
i nvent i ons.
The onl i ne ver si on of t hi s pat ent i ng- r el at ed i nf or mat i on [ exhi bi t s,
t est i mony & case backgr ound] i s at ht t p : / / / www . ccol - i nc.
com/ 1/ Pat ent i ngFr audAbuse. ht m. Bat t el l e deposi t i on t r anscr i pt s ar e at ht t p : / / / www
. ccol - i nc. com/ 1/ Deposi t i ons. ht m. The si t e homepage wi t h addi t i onal evi dence i s at
ht t p : / / / www . ccol - i nc. com/ 1.
The subst ant i at ed pat ent f r aud/ abuse al l egat i ons ar e hi ghl i ght ed i n my
8/ 24/ 08 emai l t o DOE bel ow. On 8/ 27/ 08, DOE Of f i ce of Sci ence acknowl edged t hese
concer ns but f l at l y r ef used t o t ake any act i on; i t s appar ent t hat DOE wi t hhel d t hi s
i nf or mat i on f r omt he Commer ce Dept . Accor di ngl y, I f or war ded t hi s i nf or mat i on t o
t he OI G at Commer ce; now, seni or USPTO of f i ci al s ar e bei ng copi ed.
Thi s pat ent f i l i ng f r aud/ abuse may be syst emi c pr act i ce at al l f i ve
Page 17

Unt i t l ed
Bat t el l e- managed nat i onal l abs t hat i nvol ve Bat t el l e s act i vel y pat ent i ng and
commer ci al i zi ng t axpayer - f unded i nvent i ons.
Not e, devel oper Kevi n Dor ow i s t he pr i mar y named i nvent or on t he pat ent
appl i cat i on. Bat t el l e document s and t est i mony i mpl i cat e hi mi n maki ng f al se
st at ement s, per j ur y, pat ent f r aud, and vi ol at i ng t he Fal se Cl ai ms Act . See ht t p
: / / / www . ccol - i nc. com/ 1/ Q- Cl ear anceDor ow- RPMP- Fal si f i cat i on. ht m.
I f I do not r ecei ve a subst ant i ve r epl y t o t hi s r e- submi t t ed compl ai nt by 1/ 23/ 09
[ 90 days f r om1st submi ssi on] , i t wi l l conf i r mt hat Dept . of Commer ce OI G i s
i gnor i ng t hese subst ant i at ed al l egat i ons and wai vi ng enf or cement of USPTO pat ent
r ul es & l aws f or Bat t el l e [ 501( c) ( 3) t ax- exempt ] whi ch manages hal f t he count r y s
nat i onal l abs, has uni que pr i vi l eges i n commer ci al i zi ng publ i cl y- f unded r esear ch,
and i s t he l ar gest pr i vat e r esear ch or gani zat i on i n t he US. Bat t el l e f i l es f ar mor e
pat ent s annual l y t han most ot her gover nment , educat i onal or cor por at e/ i ndust r i al
or gani zat i ons. Regar dl ess of t he OI G s deci si on, t hi s emai l and accompanyi ng Web
si t e wi l l ser ve as document ed r ecor d t hat your of f i ce r ecei ved a pr eponder ance of
evi dence subst ant i at i ng Bat t el l e s vi ol at i ons of USPTO r ul es and US Code.
Technol ogy compani es, sci ent i st s, engi neer s, ent r epr eneur s, uni ver si t i es, ot her
cont r act or s, l awmaker s, appr opr i at i on/ over si ght commi t t ees, l i censees of Bat t el l e
pat ent s, and ot her s woul d want t o know t he ext ent of t hi s f r audul ent pat ent i ng
pr act i ce at PNNL, at ot her Bat t el l e- managed l abs [ ORNL, I NL, NREL, BNL & LLNL] , and
at ot her f aci l i t i es Bat t el l e manages [ e. g. , Ft . Dei t r i ck] or owns. They woul d be
j ust i f i abl y concer ned about such a USPTO r ul e wai ver f or Bat t el l e Memor i al I nst i t ut e
whi ch i s pai d bi l l i ons annual l y by DOE, DHS & DOD, and r ecei ves mi l l i ons i n i ncome
[ l i cense r oyal t y/ f ee & vent ur e] f r omi t s pat ent i ng of Gover nment - f unded r esear ch.
As st at ed pr evi ousl y, I wai ve conf i dent i al i t y and i t s okay t o r el ease my name and
any of t he exhi bi t s t o non- OI G per sonnel i n or der t o i nvest i gat e t hi s compl ai nt .
[ Not e, because t he si t e i s cur r ent l y i n a sub- di r ect or y, Googl e sear ches by t he
publ i c won t f i nd i t . ]
I f you have any quest i ons, pl ease cont act me. I l ook f or war d t o your r esponse.
Thank you.
Si ncer el y,
Phi l i p Pul ver
CCOL I nc.
( 509) 586- 3051
( 509) 528- 9212 cel l
ht t p : / / / www . ccol - i nc. com/ 1
PS. On 9/ 29, I r epl i ed t o DOE Of f i ce of Sci ence' s 8/ 27 emai l ; see ht t p : / / / www .
ccol - i nc. com/ 1/ Pul ver ResponseToDOE- - 092908. pdf . A USPTO- r el evant excer pt i s as
f ol l ows:
DOE Technol ogy Tr ansf er Coor di nat or al l ows Bat t el l e s admi t t ed f r audul ent pat ent i ng
pr act i ces t o USPTO.
As DOE Coor di nat or f or Technol ogy Tr ansf er , you i gnor ed PNNL t est i mony conf i r mi ng
t he f ol l owi ng: 1) Bat t el l e s pr act i ce t o evade USPTO f i l i ng r ul es and st at ut or y
bar s, i . e. , wr i t i ng new i nvent i on r epor t s on ol der i nvent i ons, r eset t i ng t he
f i l i ng deadl i ne [ r e: use or publ i c di scl osur e] , and f i l i ng a pat ent appl i cat i on on
t he new i nvent i on. 2) The ongoi ng pat ent f r aud, i . e. , 2005 RDADS new code i s
t he DOE- f unded 2002 MDM i nvent i ons. Your deci si on put s i n quest i on t he i nt egr i t y of
Bat t el l e s pat ent f i l i ng pr ocess. Dept . of Commer ce [ USPTO] may ask why DOE
wi t hhel d t hi s i nf or mat i on and i nvest i gat e how per vasi ve i s t hi s pr act i ce at t he 5
nat i onal l abs and ot her f aci l i t i es managed by Bat t el l e. Compani es l i censi ng pat ent s
Page 18

Unt i t l ed
f r omBat t el l e may be at r i sk because t he pat ent s may l at er be i nval i dat ed i f / when
such f r aud i s det er mi ned.
To: hot l i ne@oi g. doc. gov
Sent : Fr i day, Oct ober 24, 2008 9: 18 PM
Subj ect : Compl ai nt Submi ssi on: Bat t el l e document s & 2008 deposi t i on t est i mony
conf i r mf r audul ent pat ent pr act i ce at PNNL - 2005 i nci dent ci t ed
OI G Hot l i ne at Dept . of Commer ce,
I amf i l i ng a compl ai nt r egar di ng subst ant i at ed al l egat i ons t hat Bat t el l e [ manager
of PNNL ( Paci f i c Nor t hwest Nat i onal Labor at or y) i s vi ol at i ng pat ent f i l i ng
r ul es/ l aws of t he USPTO. Thi s compl ai nt per t ai ns not onl y t o a 2005 i nci dent of
such pat ent i ng f r aud, but al so t o syst emi c pat ent f i l i ng abuse at PNNL and possi bl y
t he nat i onal l abs t hat Bat t el l e manages. As ci t ed bel ow, t he evi dence suppor t i ng
t hese al l egat i ons i ncl udes t est i mony[ admi t t i ng such f r aud/ abuse] , i nvent i on r epor t s,
pat ent appl i cat i on, Bat t el l e emai l s and ot her exhi bi t s. At t ached ar e t he f ol l owi ng
document s descr i pt i vel y t i t l ed: Fr audFal seSt at ement sToUSPTO. pdf [ Mai n Evi dence
Compi l at i on - I ndexed] ; Bat t el l eTest i monyandEmai l s- Pat ent i ngVi ol at i ons. pdf ;
Compl et eTr anscr i pt - Bat t el l esMor ganDeposi t i on. pdf , and
RDADS- Pat ent Appl i cat i on- US2007- 0064477A1. pdf [ ht t p
: / / / appf t 1. uspt o. gov/ net acgi / nph- Par ser ?Sect 1=PTO2&Sect 2=HI TOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnet aht ml %2F
PTO%2Fsear ch- bool . ht ml &r =1&f =G&l =50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=20070064477&OS=20070064477&RS=
20070064477]
Summar y of t he al l egat i ons and r el at ed f act s ar e pr esent ed bel ow. Not e, i n t he
8/ 24/ 08 emai l f ur t her bel ow, I pr ovi ded ext ensi ve document at i on t o seni or DOE
of f i ci al s r egar di ng Bat t el l e s pat ent i ng vi ol at i ons and ot her i ssues; t o expedi t e
t he r evi ew pr ocess, I hi ghl i ght ed t he pat ent - r el at ed mat t er s i n t hat emai l . As
t hei r 8/ 27/ 08 r epl y emai l shows, DOE acknowl edged but r ef used t o t ake act i on on any
of t he i ssues, i ncl udi ng t he pat ent i ng f r aud. Accor di ngl y, I mnow cont act i ng t he
Dept . of Commer ce di r ect l y vi a i t s OI G emai l hot l i ne and pr ovi di ng evi dence
subst ant i at i ng t he pat ent - r el at ed al l egat i ons.
[ Not e: My l awsui t i s NOT a pat ent di sput e; see www . ccol - i nc. com/ 1 f or case
summar y. However , Bat t el l e t est i mony & document s r eveal ed pat ent f r aud/ abuse t hat ' s
now ci t ed i n t hi s compl ai nt t o t he DOC- OI G. ]
Summar y of Al l egat i ons
Bat t el l e- PNNL document s & 2008 deposi t i on t est i mony conf i r mt hat Bat t el l e vi ol at es
pat ent f i l i ng r ul es of US Pat ent & Tr ademar k Of f i ce by r ewr i t i ng and r enami ng pr i or
i nvent i ons t o r eset t he cl ock and evade st at ut or y deadl i nes [ bar s r e: i nvent i on
publ i c di scl osur e and/ or usage] . Thi s evi dence al so conf i r ms t he f ol l owi ng 2005
i nci dent : Af t er DHS Radi at i on Por t al Moni t or i ng Pr oj ect [ RPMP] i mpl ement ed t he 2002
MDM sof t war e i nvent i ons t o r un on Bl ackBer r y handhel d i n 2004, Bat t el l e cal l ed i t
new code [ RDADS] wi t h a new f i l i ng deadl i ne, and submi t t ed a pat ent appl i cat i on on
RDADS i nvent i on i n 2005. I n sum, Bat t el l e evi dence conf i r ms t he f ol l owi ng:
1. Pat ent Fi l i ng Pr act i ce: Bat t el l e wr i t es new i nvent i on r epor t s on pr e- exi st i ng
i nvent i ons when t hey need mor e t i me t o f i l e a pat ent on i nvent i ons t hat t hey i nt end
t o commer ci al i ze but f or whi ch t hey ve al r eady shown publ i cl y and/ or used [ st at ut or y
bar ] . By such r eset t i ng t he cl ock, Bat t el l e ci r cumvent s USPTO st at ut or y f i l i ng
r ul es and mi sr epr esent s t he or i gi nal l y- dat ed i nvent i ons; see at t ached
Bat t el l eTest i monyandEmai l s- Pat ent i ngVi ol at i ons. pdf
2. Exampl e/ I nci dent : I n ear l y 2005, af t er acknowl edgi ng PDAC/ MDM was excl usi vel y
l i censed t o Pul ver , Bat t el l e wr ot e a new r epor t on t he 2002 MDM sof t war e
i nvent i ons af t er RPMP adapt ed/ por t ed MDM t o Bl ackBer r y i n 2004, r enamed t he r epor t
RDADS, r eset st at ut or y pat ent f i l i ng deadl i ne f r om10/ 1/ 03 [ 2002 MDM i nvent i ons]
Page 19

Unt i t l ed
t o 1/ 31/ 06 [ 2005 RDADS new i nvent i on] , f i l ed RDADS pat ent i n Sept . 2005, and
mar ket ed RDADS commer ci al l y. Emai l s chr onol ogi cal l y show t hese event s; see at t ached
Bat t el l eTest i monyandEmai l s- Pat ent i ngVi ol at i ons. pdf . Document s al so conf i r mt hat
PDAC/ MDM was mar ket ed & publ i ci zed i n 2002- 2003 by Bat t el l e [ and mysel f ] , t her eby
i nval i dat i ng t he 1/ 31/ 06 st at ut or y deadl i ne f or t he new RDADS i nvent i on.
Ot her Rel evant Fact s
- As DOE' s 8/ 27/ 08 emai l i ndi cat es, Under secr et ar y f or Sci ence Raymond Or bach [ DOE
Technol ogy Tr ansf er Coor di nat or f or al l nat i onal l abs] acknowl edged t hi s document ed
evi dence of Bat t el l e s pat ent [ and ot her ] f r aud/ abuse but r ef uses t o not onl y
addr ess t he 2005 RDADS f r aud t o USPTO but al so Bat t el l e s ongoi ng pr act i ce of
r enami ng i nvent i ons [ t o r eset st at ut or y cl ock] r eveal ed i n deposi t i on t est i mony of a
seni or commer ci al i zat i on manager at PNNL.
- Bat t el l e s r enami ng pr i or i nvent i ons t o r eset st at ut or y pat ent deadl i nes at PNNL
may be a syst emi c pr act i ce acr oss al l 5 nat i onal l abs managed by Bat t el l e. PNNL was
t he f i r st l ab Bat t el l e managed; wi t hi n t he l ast 10 year s, Bat t el l e now r uns f our
mor e l abs. I t s t hus possi bl e/ l i kel y t hat Bat t el l e i nvokes t hi s pr act i ce at t hese
ot her l abs t hat DOE has awar ded t o t hem.
- The pr i mar y i nvent or on t he 2005 pat ent appl i cat i on i s sci ent i st Kevi n Dor ow [ t op
secur i t y Q cl ear ance hol der ] . Document s and t est i mony of 3 ot her PNNL sci ent i st s
al l conf i r mt hat Dor ow has made f al se decl ar at i ons and f al se t est i mony t o t he
di st r i ct cour t r egar di ng RDADS and Radi at i on Por t al Moni t or i ng Pr oj ect ( RPMP) [ DHS
US Cust oms & Bor der Pr ot ect i on] . Det ai l s and exhi bi t s conf i r mi ng hi s RDADS
mi sr epr esent at i on ar e downl oadabl e at ht t p : / / / www . ccol - i nc.
com/ 1/ Q- Cl ear anceDor ow- RPMP- Fal si f i cat i on. ht m
- Di scover y document s and PNNL t est i mony conf i r mt hat i ndust r i al compani es have
si gned agr eement s wi t h Bat t el l e r egar di ng t he RDADS t echnol ogy.
- Al l of t he i nf or mat i on her ei n i s accessi bl e at ht t p : / / / www . ccol - i nc.
com/ 1/ Bat t el l ePat ent Fr audAbuse. ht m
I wai ve conf i dent i al i t y and i t s okay t o r el ease my name and any/ al l t he ext ensi ve
exhi bi t s t o non- OI G per sonnel i n or der t o i nvest i gat e t hi s compl ai nt . I f you have
any quest i ons/ i ssues or need addi t i onal i nf or mat i on, pl ease l et me know. Thank you.
Si ncer el y,
Phi l i p Pul ver
CCOL I nc.
( 509) 586- 3051
( 509) 528- 9212 cel l
Fr om: St r ei t , Devon <Devon. St r ei t @sci ence. doe. gov>
To: pul ver ps@ver i zon. net
Sent : Wednesday, August 27, 2008 10: 29 AM
Subj ect : Conf i dent i al Updat e t o 5- Year Case: Li t i gat i on & Pat ent Fr aud; Q- Cl ear ance
Vi ol at i ons; Heal t h/ Saf et y I mpl i cat i ons f or Lab St af f ; Compet i ng PNNL & Hanf or d
Cont r act s [ Bi d- Pr ot est ]
Dear Mr . Pul ver :
Thi s emai l i s i n r esponse your emai l dat ed August 24, 2008 sent t o Under Secr et ar y
Or bach whi ch pr ovi ded, as you st at ed, an updat e on Bat t el l e evi dence t o cor r obor at e
t he al l egat i ons i n your OI G compl ai nt s. We acknowl edge your concer ns; however ,
because t he i ssues you r ai sed ar e cur r ent l y bei ng addr essed i n your ongoi ng l awsui t
agai nst Bat t el l e, act i on by t hi s of f i ce i s not war r ant ed out si de t he cont ext of t hat
Page 20

_____________________________________

Unt i t l ed
l i t i gat i on.
Si ncer el y,
Devon St r ei t
L. Devon St r ei t
Associ at e Di r ect or
Of f i ce of Labor at or y Pol i cy & Eval uat i on
Depar t ment of Ener gy Of f i ce of Sci ence
1000 I ndependence Avenue, SW
Washi ngt on, DC 20585
Phone: 202- 586- 9129 Fax: 202- 586- 3119
To: Or bach, Raymond
Cc: Gl enn Podonsky ; Davi d Di l l man ; Fr i edman, Gr eg ; Secr et ar y Bodman ; J ames
Ri spol i ; f r audnet @gao. gov
Sent : Sunday, August 24, 2008 8: 57
Subj ect : Conf i dent i al Updat e t o 5- Year Case: Li t i gat i on & Pat ent Fr aud; Q- Cl ear ance
Vi ol at i ons; Heal t h/ Saf et y I mpl i cat i ons f or Lab St af f ; Compet i ng PNNL & Hanf or d
Cont r act s [ Bi d- Pr ot est ]
Thi semai l & Web si t e i s not cur r ent l y avai l abl e t o or i nt ended f or di ssemi nat i on t o
t he publ i c.
Thi s i nf or mat i on on f r aud and abuse i s bei ng pr ovi ded t o t hose wi t h t he aut hor i t y t o
act i n t he publ i c i nt er est .
Thi s emai l & Web si t e i s f or sol e use of t he i nt ended r eci pi ent ( s) . Any
unaut hor i zed use, di scl osur e or di st r i but i on i s pr ohi bi t ed.
CCOL I nc.
August 24, 2008
Dr . Raymond L. Or bach
Under Secr et ar y f or Sci ence
Of f i ce of Sci ence
U. S. Depar t ment of Ener gy
S- 4 / For r est al Bui l di ng
1000 I ndependence Ave. , S. W.
Dear Under Secr et ar y Or bach:
Thi s emai l wi t h i t s accompanyi ng Web si t e i s a f i ve- year updat e/ cul mi nat i on of t he
pr eponder ance of evi dence t hat has conf i r med t he f ol l owi ng Bat t el l e- PNNL
f r aud/ abuse: 2003 Al l egat i ons [ OI G - Mi susi ng Techni cal Assi st ance Pr ogr am( TAP) ] ,
Q- cl ear ance hol der f r aud, mi sr epr esent at i on/ f al si f i cat i on of Radi at i on Por t al
Moni t or i ng Pr oj ect [ RPMP] , mi sappr opr i at i on [ due t o Use Per mi t ] , and vi ol at i on of
U. S. Code [ Fal se Decl ar at i ons ( 18 USC 1623) , Per j ur y ( 18 USC 1621) , Fal se
St at ement s ( 18 USC 1001) & Fal se Cl ai ms ( 31 USC 3729) ] .
The evi dence- t est i mony si t e [ www . ccol - i nc. com/ 1/ ] consi st s of case
backgr ound/ chr onol ogy, t he 2008 PNNL deposi t i ons, Bat t el l e s own document s
[ 2006- 2008] , DOE l et t er s [ ORO & PNSO] , r el evant GAO r epor t s, l i nks t o US Code
st at ut es, descr i pt i ons & i nvent i on r epor t s of TAP- f unded 2002 MDM sof t war e, RDADS
pat ent appl i cat i on, Bat t el l e commer ci al i zat i on & Use Per mi t r e: MDM, my pr i or emai l s
Page 21

Unt i t l ed
& evi dence t o DOE, cour t f i l i ngs by DOE- f unded counsel Mi l l er , WA Supr eme Cour t and
news ar t i cl es condemni ng Mi l l er s pr i or f i r m[ Bogl e] f or same l i t i gat i on f r aud, and
ot her r el at ed i nf or mat i on.
Thi s det ai l ed emai l [ wi t h l i nks t o t he evi dence si t e] i s or gani zed i n t he f ol l owi ng
par t s:
1. Bat t el l e Sci ent i st Dor ow Mi sr epr esent i ng/ Fal si f yi ng DHS Radi at i on Por t al
Moni t or i ng Pr oj ect [ RPMP] t o Conceal Fr aud [ Vi ol at i on of Fal se Cl ai ms Act
by Wi t hhol di ng DOE- Funded Resear ch f r omSmal l Busi ness TAP Reci pi ent s]
[ I n 2006, Dor ow obt ai ned DOE Q- Cl ear ance f or DHS & DOD cl assi f i ed wor k. ]
2. DOE- Funded Counsel Li t i gat i on Fr aud by Mi sr epr esent i ng RPMP t o Conceal
Evi dence. WA Supr eme Cour t Sanct i oned/ Fi ned Pr i or Fi r mf or Same Tact i cs,
Hi di ng Smoki ng- Gun Evi dence of Dr ug Toxi ci t y t hat Br ai n Damaged 3- Year Ol d.
I mpl i cat i ons f or Heal t h/ Saf et y Rel at ed Lawsui t s at Of f i ce of Sci ence Labs &
Hanf or d.
3. Pat ent Fi l i ng Fr aud t o USPTO. PNNL Test i mony Conf i r ms Bat t el l e Evades St at ut or y
Deadl i nes by Rewr i t i ng Ol d I nvent i on Repor t s & Renami ng as New [ Reset Cl ock] .
4. Pot ent i al I mpl i cat i ons: Bat t el l e Compet i ng PNNL & Hanf or d Cont r act s [ Bi d
Pr ot est s]
5. Cl osi ng Poi nt s: Consequences t o Ot her s i f Bat t el l e Ongoi ng Li t i gat i on Fr aud
Cont i nues,
Whi st l ebl ower s & Ot her s I mpact ed, OI G Abdi cat i ng Over si ght per i t s Pol i cy, GAO
Copi ed
The 2008 deposi t i ons of PNNL st af f [ ht t p : / / / www . ccol - i nc. com/ 1/ Deposi t i ons. ht m]
ar e t he most si gni f i cant new i nf or mat i on. They conf i r mt he al l egat i ons i n t he
l awsui t and t he 2003 OI G compl ai nt [ I 04RS007] , but wi t h one except i on, Kevi n Dor ow.
PNNL deposi t i ons, Bat t el l e document s, Dor ow Lab Recor d Book, MDM sof t war e sour ce
code, hi s t est i mony, pat ent document s, and ot her evi dence i mpl i cat e Q- Cl ear ance
hol der Dor ow i n t he vi ol at i ons ci t ed above and i n Par t 1; t hi s evi dence i s post ed on
t he si t e [ www . ccol - i nc. com/ 1/ ] . Because of t hese vi ol at i ons and gi ven Dor ow s
cur r ent access t o cl assi f i ed i nf or mat i on [ vi a hi s Q] , DOE s Chi ef Heal t h, Saf et y and
Secur i t y Of f i cer , Gl enn Podonsky, has been copi ed on t hi s emai l . As ci t ed i n Par t
1, t he l i st of agenci es pot ent i al l y i mpact ed by Dor ow i s at t ached and i s not on t he
si t e.
Thi s emai l and si t e [ wi t h Bat t el l e document s & t est i mony] wi l l ser ve as not i ce t o
ot her agenci es [ DHS, USPTO, FBI , DOD] , GAO, US At t or ney, medi a, wat chdog gr oups, and
ot her s t hat you wer e wel l i nf or med of Bat t el l e s 5- year mi sconduct t hat i ncl udes t he
f ol l owi ng: RPMP r esear ch mi sr epr esent at i on & per j ur y by Q- cl ear ance hol der , Fal se
Cl ai ms Act vi ol at i on, DOE- f unded counsel f r aud [ di scover y abuse] , vi ol at i ng 48 CFR
970. 5228- 1 [ Li t i gat i on] , t hr eat s/ r et al i at i on/ i nj ur y agai nst my spouse at PNNL, and
ot her mi sconduct used t o conceal cr i mi nal vi ol at i ons and t o pr ot ect Bat t el l e s
cor por at e oppor t uni t i es, e. g. , Use Per mi t [ r oot cause of f r aud i n t hi s case and J C
Laul s] . I f t hi s ongoi ng l i t i gat i on f r aud i s not f i nal l y st opped, many wi l l ask why
t he DOE Under secr et ar y f or Sci ence [ wi t h a $4B budget ] chose t o cont i nue f i nanci ng
i t , especi al l y i n l i ght of Bat t el l e s document s and t est i mony conf i r mi ng t he
al l egat i ons.
A cour t hear i ng wi l l be hel d on Sept ember 23, 2008 i n Ri chl and, WA. [ Not e, hear i ng
was hel d on 11/ 18/ 08] I f DOE- f unded counsel Mi l l er and Q- cl ear ance hol der Dor ow
cont i nue t o f al si f y/ mi sr epr esent DHS Radi at i on Por t al Moni t or i ng Pr oj ect [ RPMP] and
ot her mat er i al f act s, t hen DOE Of f i ce of Sci ence compl i ci t y i n t hi s ongoi ng
l i t i gat i on f r aud wi l l be conf i r med. Set t i ng such a pr ecedent & de- f act o DOE pol i cy
woul d have l ong- t er madver se consequences t o Of f i ce of Sci ence l ab st af f r egar di ng
heal t h, secur i t y, saf et y, whi st l ebl ower , r esear ch i nt egr i t y, and ot her i mpor t ant
mat t er s. As shown i n Par t 2, Hanf or d wor ker s [ uni on & non- uni on] woul d al so be
i mpact ed i f Bat t el l e i s awar ded t he cont r act on 9/ 30/ 08. Accor di ngl y, Assi st ant
Page 22

Unt i t l ed
Secr et ar y f or Envi r onment al Management J ames Ri spol i i s copi ed on t hi s emai l .
The GAO has been copi ed f or t wo ver y cr i t i cal r easons. One, t he OI G [ under Mr .
Fr i edman] cl osed t he case i n 2007 despi t e r equest i ng and acknowl edgi ng ext ensi ve
di scover y evi dence showi ng Bat t el l e s i nt ent t o mi sl ead DOE and a Feder al j udge.
[ OI G t ol d me t o come back af t er my appeal . ] Two, t he f i ve- year evi dence of Bat t el l e
mi sconduct per t ai ns t o t he f ol l owi ng t opi cs i n r ecent GAO r epor t s: DOE cont r act or
l i t i gat i on cost r ei mbur sement ; r e- compet i ng nat i onal l abs; over si ght ; Radi at i on
Por t al Moni t or i ng Pr oj ect [ Por t s & Bor der s] ; and DOE smal l busi ness goal s. Thi s
case goes f ar beyond t he gener al concer n of payi ng l i t i gat i on cost s because DOE i s
f undi ng f r audul ent l i t i gat i on t act i cs pr evi ousl y condemned by t he WA Supr eme Cour t
and a f eder al cour t . See ht t p : / / / www . ccol - i nc. com/ 1/ GAO- Rel at edRepor t s. ht m.
Davi d Di l l man, Chi ef Oper at i ng Of f i cer of t he Downt own Seat t l e Associ at i on, i s
copi ed f or t he f ol l owi ng r easons: 1) He i s a f i r st - hand wi t ness t o Bat t el l e' s
mi sconduct dat i ng back t o mi d- 2002 when Bat t el l e commer ci al i zat i on st af f began t hei r
abuse, Use Per mi t i nt er f er ence wi t h TAP, and mi sappr opr i at i on; 2) Wor ki ng wi t h
DOE- HQ, he obt ai ned t he or i gi nal 3161 f undi ng f or PNNL Techni cal Assi st ance Pr ogr am
[ TAP] . Bat t el l e acknowl edged hi s exper t i se i n economi c devel opment and smal l
busi ness: ht t p : / / / www . pnl . gov/ news/ 1996/ bnw96_28. ht m
Al t hough near l y ever y document ci t ed i s al r eady publ i c i nf or mat i on, my assi mi l at i on
and di scussi on of i t i s not . Dr . Or bach, i n t he i nt er est of ot her par t i es t hat may
be i mpact ed by t he f act s and evi dence pr esent ed her ei n, pl ease have your st af f t r eat
t hi s i nf or mat i on wi t h el evat ed di scr et i on. At t hi s t i me ( pr i or t o 9/ 23/ 08) , I have
no i nt ent i on t o make t hi s si t e wi del y avai l abl e t o t he publ i c. Because t he si t e i s
a sub- di r ect or y, Googl e sear ches won t f i nd i t . The si t e can al so be
passwor d- pr ot ect ed, and wi l l be i f Web r ef er r er l ogs show unaut hor i zed access by
Bat t el l e as happened l ast year af t er my 5/ 11/ 07 emai l bel ow.
I f any r eci pi ent of t hi s emai l has quest i ons, needs mor e i nf or mat i on, want s t he CD
ver si on of t he si t e, or f i nds a br oken l i nk, pl ease l et me know. The det ai l ed
i nf or mat i on now f ol l ows.
1. Bat t el l e Sci ent i st Dor ow Mi sr epr esent i ng/ Fal si f yi ng DHS Radi at i on Por t al
Moni t or i ng Pr oj ect [ RPMP] t o Conceal Fr aud [ Vi ol at i on of Fal se Cl ai ms Act
by Wi t hhol di ng DOE- Funded Resear ch f r omSmal l Busi ness TAP Reci pi ent s]
[ I n 2006, Dor ow obt ai ned DOE Q- Cl ear ance f or DHS & DOD cl assi f i ed wor k. ]
[ Evi dence & Test i mony at ht t p : / / / www . ccol - i nc.
com/ 1/ Q- Cl ear anceDor ow- RPMP- Fal si f i cat i on. ht m]
1a. Summar y
Under oat h, sof t war e devel oper Dor ow i s f al sel y st at i ng t hat ( i ) RPMP
abandoned/ j unked t he 2002- 03 MDM sof t war e f unded by t he Techni cal Assi st ance Pr ogr am
[ TAP] and ( i i ) RPMP i nst ead, i n 2004, f unded devel opment of al l new mobi l e dat a
sof t war e f or r adi at i on por t al i nst al l er s at US Por t s & Bor der s, sof t war e compl et el y
unr el at ed t o smal l busi ness TAP- r eci pi ent Pul ver and hi s excl usi ve l i cense t o MDM
and f ol l ow- on [ der i vat i ve] ver si ons. [ Dor ow devel oped MDM] . He s maki ng t hese swor n
decl ar at i ons & t est i mony t o cl ai mt he 2004 ver si ons ar e i r r el evant , t hus bl ock
di scover y of post - 2003 MDM code and conceal t hat Bat t el l e wi t hhel d TAP- f unded
r esear ch [ sof t war e] when i t del i ver ed a non- wor ki ng MDM ver si on t o Pul ver on
8/ 29/ 03. [ Document s & t est i mony show Bat t el l e was mar ket i ng t hei r MDM ver si on t o
For t une 500 Ecol abs ( 1831 Use Per mi t oppor t uni t y) and nomi nat i ng t hei r MDM ver si on
f or R&D 100 Awar d i n 2003. I n 2008, Bat t el l e s own sof t war e exper t conf i r med t hat
t he 8/ 29/ 03 MDM cr ashed. ]
However , 2008 deposi t i ons of 3 PNNL st af f , Bat t el l e document s [ 2004 sof t war e
scr eens, PNNL- RPMP emai l s, MDM Devel oper [ Dor ow] Lab Recor d Book] , and PNSO- pr ovi ded
t i mecar d r ecor ds r ef ut e Dor ow and conf i r mt hat RPMP i ndeed f unded hi mt o
modi f y/ adapt TAP- f unded MDM t o r un on Bl ackBer r y wi t h enhanced sear chi ng & di al i ng.
Thi s evi dence conf i r ms t hat Dor ow i s mi sr epr esent i ng RPMP- f unded r esear ch and
Page 23

Unt i t l ed
conceal i ng smoki ng- gun evi dence, i . e. , post - 2003 MDM ver si ons t hat Bat t el l e
r enamed RDADS] . He s doi ng so f or t he f ol l owi ng r easons:
1. RDADS woul d pr ovi de f ur t her conf i r mat i on t hat Bat t el l e wi t hhel d
[ pocket ed ] MDM code f r omt he smal l busi nesses f or whomDOE- TAP pai d Bat t el l e t o
devel op MDM, and t hus vi ol at ed t he Fal se Cl ai ms Act [ 31 USC 3729] . [ Ci t ed i n
Congr essi onal Recor d, Bat t el l e pr evi ousl y made Fal se Cl ai ms: ht t p : / / / www .
ccol - i nc. com/ 1/ FCA- Vi ol at i on- UsePer mi t - Dor ow. ht m
2. Ver i f yi ng t hat RPMP- f unded 2004 ver si ons ar e f ol l ow- on t o MDM woul d shut
down any Bat t el l e commer ci al i zat i on [ l i censi ng/ vent ur es] of t he newer ver si ons due
t o Pul ver s excl usi ve l i cense t o MDM & der i vat i ves as Bat t el l e st af f conf i r med t o
DOE and ot her s. [ ht t p : / / / www . ccol - i nc. com/ 1/ Excl usi vi t y- MDM. ht m& ht t p : / / / www .
ccol - i nc. com/ 1/ Commer ci al i zat i on- MDM. ht m]
3. Conf i r mi ng RPMP f unded enhancement s t o 2003 MDM woul d r ef ut e Q- cl ear ance
Dor ow s r epr esent at i ons and i mpl i cat e hi mi n maki ng Fal se Decl ar at i ons [ 18 USC
1623] , Per j ur y [ 18 USC 1621] and Fal se St at ement s [ 18 USC 1001] t o DOE [ SC & OI G]
when cl ai mi ng Pul ver r ecei ved t he act ual Best - Ef f or t s TAP MDM ver si on.
4. The post - 2003 RPMP ver si ons woul d conf i r mt hat t he new code [ now cal l ed
RDADS] i nvent i on i s act ual l y t he MDM i nvent i ons, t her eby i mpl i cat i ng Dor ow i n
f r audul ent l y f i l i ng t he RDADS pat ent t o t he USPTO. [ See Par t 3 bel ow. ]
6/ 30/ 08: Pul ver f i l ed a decl ar at i on wi t h compl et e evi dence [ e. g. , sour ce code,
f undi ng & t i mecar ds, TAP- compl et i on r epor t s, USPTO document s] conf i r mi ng t hat Dor ow
vi ol at ed t he Fal se Cl ai ms Act [ 31 USC 3729] by wi t hhol di ng code f r omt he TAP
r eci pi ent s when he del i ver ed MDM sof t war e t o Pul ver on 8/ 29/ 03. See ht t p : / / / www .
ccol - i nc. com/ 1/ FCA- Vi ol at i on- UsePer mi t - Dor ow. ht m.
7/ 28/ 08: I n hi s r epl y, Q- cl ear ance hol der Dor ow pr ovi ded absol ut el y no evi dence
[ not hi ng] t o r ef ut e t hi s ser i ous al l egat i on t hat he made Fal se Cl ai ms agai nst t he US
Gover nment . I n f act , he even f ur t her i mpl i cat ed hi msel f by st at i ng t he 8/ 29/ 03 MDM
ver si on was unf i ni shed & pr e- Bet a [ unt est ed] qual i t y, whi ch i s cont r adi ct ed by
document s showi ng Bat t el l e mar ket ed t hei r MDM t o For t une 500 s, nomi nat ed i t f or
R&D 100 Awar d, and st at ed MDM was Bet a qual i t y [ t est ed] . He agai n ver i f i ed t wo
ver si ons: 1) An unf i ni shed non- wor ki ng MDM del i ver ed t o me [ TAP r eci pi ent ] and 2)
The wor ki ng Bet a- qual i t y MDM t hat t hey kept f or t hemsel ves and Use Per mi t
oppor t uni t i es.
1b. Dor ow Q- Cl ear ance
1b- 1. As ci t ed above, Bat t el l e document s and PNNL t est i mony consi st ent l y conf i r m
Dor ow i s vi ol at i ng t he f ol l owi ng U. S. Codes: Fal se Decl ar at i ons [ 18 USC 1623] ;
Per j ur y [ 18 USC 1621] ; Fal se St at ement s [ 18 USC 1001] ; Fal se Cl ai ms [ 31 USC
3729] . I r ei t er at e t hat Dor ow, i n r esponse t o my 6/ 30/ 08 swor n decl ar at i ons, di d
not ci t ed any evi dence t o r ef ut e my al l egat i ons t hat he vi ol at ed t he Fal se Cl ai ms
Act ; he mer el y deni ed i t , sayi ng he s of f ended. Mor eover , PNNL 2008 t est i mony and
document s al one cl ear l y show t hat Dor ow, under oat h, cont i nues t o mi sr epr esent t he
Radi at i on Por t al Moni t or i ng Pr oj ect t o t he cour t t o bl ock di scover y of evi dence t hat
woul d i mpl i cat e hi mi n t he vi ol at i ons ci t ed above.
1b- 2. At t he same t i me, Bat t el l e document s show t hat Dor ow obt ai ned hi s t op secr et
Q- cl ear ance f r omDOE i n 2006. Fur t her mor e, t hey ci t e t he f ol l owi ng Gov. agenci es or
l abs t hat i nvol ve cl assi f i ed wor k:
- DHS Ai r Car go Expl osi ves Det ect i on Pi l ot Pr ogr am[ ACEDPP] ORNL, LLNL & PNNL
[ I n hi s deposi t i on, Dor ow st at ed ACEDPP was usi ng RDADS]
- Mat chmaker sof t war e FBI wor k at Quant i co
- RFI D Devel opment f or PMJ - AI T [ DOD]
At t ached i s Dor ow- Q- Cl ear ance- Pr oj ect sI mpact ed. pdf whi ch ci t es excer pt s of hi s 2006
& 2007 r evi ews al so at t ached; t hese t wo document s ar e not on t he si t e.
1b- 3. Due t o t he ext ensi ve evi dence of Dor ow s mul t i - year US Code vi ol at i ons, i n
conj unct i on wi t h hi s cur r ent access t o cl assi f i ed f aci l i t i es and pr oj ect s ci t ed
above [ e. g. , ACEDPP] , t he f ol l owi ng Code of Feder al Regul at i ons i s appl i cabl e:
10 CFR 710 - CRI TERI A AND PROCEDURES FOR DETERMI NI NG ELI GI BI LI TY FOR ACCESS TO
CLASSI FI ED MATTER OR SPECI AL NUCLEAR MATERI AL. The most r el evant subpar t s ar e as
f ol l ows:
Page 24

Unt i t l ed
710. 7 Appl i cat i on of t he cr i t er i a. ( a) The deci si on as t o access aut hor i zat i on i s a
compr ehensi ve, common- sense j udgment , made af t er consi der at i on of al l r el evant
i nf or mat i on, f avor abl e and unf avor abl e, as t o whet her t he gr ant i ng or cont i nuat i on
of access aut hor i zat i on wi l l not endanger t he common def ense and secur i t y and i s
cl ear l y consi st ent wi t h t he nat i onal i nt er est . Any doubt as t o an i ndi vi dual ' s
access aut hor i zat i on el i gi bi l i t y shal l be r esol ved i n f avor of t he nat i onal
secur i t y. Absent any der ogat or y i nf or mat i on, a f avor abl e det er mi nat i on usual l y wi l l
be made as t o access aut hor i zat i on el i gi bi l i t y.
710. 8 Cr i t er i a. Der ogat or y i nf or mat i on shal l i ncl ude, but i s not l i mi t ed t o,
i nf or mat i on t hat t he i ndi vi dual has: . . . ( l ) Engaged i n any unusual conduct or i s
subj ect t o any ci r cumst ances whi ch t end t o show t hat t he i ndi vi dual i s not honest ,
r el i abl e, or t r ust wor t hy; or whi ch f ur ni shes r eason t o bel i eve t hat t he i ndi vi dual
may be subj ect t o pr essur e, coer ci on, expl oi t at i on, or dur ess whi ch may cause t he
i ndi vi dual t o act cont r ar y t o t he best i nt er est s of t he nat i onal secur i t y. Such
conduct or ci r cumst ances i ncl ude, but ar e not l i mi t ed t o, cr i mi nal behavi or . . .
710. 9 Act i on on der ogat or y i nf or mat i on. ( a) I f t he r epor t s of i nvest i gat i on of an
i ndi vi dual or ot her r el i abl e i nf or mat i on t end t o est abl i sh t he val i di t y and
si gni f i cance of one or mor e i t ems i n t he cr i t er i a, or of ot her r el i abl e i nf or mat i on
or f act s whi ch ar e of secur i t y concer n, al t hough out si de t he scope of t he st at ed
cat egor i es, such i nf or mat i on shal l be r egar ded as der ogat or y and cr eat e a quest i on
as t o t he i ndi vi dual ' s access aut hor i zat i on el i gi bi l i t y.
710. 10 Suspensi on of access aut hor i zat i on. ( a) I f i nf or mat i on i s r ecei ved t hat
r ai ses a quest i on concer ni ng an i ndi vi dual ' s cont i nued access aut hor i zat i on
el i gi bi l i t y, t he Local Di r ect or of Secur i t y shal l aut hor i ze act i on( s) , t o be t aken
on an expedi t ed basi s, t o r esol ve t he quest i on pur suant t o 710. 9( b) . I f t he
quest i on as t o t he i ndi vi dual ' s cont i nued access aut hor i zat i on el i gi bi l i t y i s not
r esol ved i n f avor of t he i ndi vi dual . . . t he i ndi vi dual ' s access aut hor i zat i on be
suspended pendi ng t he f i nal det er mi nat i on. . .
1b- 4. Dor ow s ongoi ng mi sconduct r ai ses t he f ol l owi ng val i d quest i ons t hat ot her s
may have r egar di ng how Bat t el l e manages and saf eguar ds access t o cl assi f i ed
i nf or mat i on by i t s Q- cl ear ance hol der s:
I n addi t i on t o mi sr epr esent i ng DHS r esear ch [ RPMP & ACEDPP] under oat h, coul d
Dor ow be pr essur ed by Bat t el l e [ or ot her s] t o mi suse cl assi f i ed i nf or mat i on f or
f i nanci al , car eer or ot her r easons?
Do any of t he Bat t el l e manager s or i nt er nal at t or neys [ e. g. J ames J ackson]
who pr essur ed Dor ow t o make f al se r epr esent at i ons under oat h have Q- cl ear ances
t hemsel ves?
I s such Q- cl ear ance f r aud/ abuse accept abl e pr act i ce at al l Bat t el l e- managed
l abs [ I NL, NREL, BNL, ORNL and possi bl y LLNL] , especi al l y when i t s vent ur e or Use
Per mi t i nt er est s ar e at st ake?
Was Dor ow s obt ai ni ng a Q Cl ear ance Bat t el l e s r ewar d/ i ncent i ve f or maki ng
f al se decl ar at i ons and t est i mony i n or der t o pr ot ect Use Per mi t and ot her
commer ci al / vent ur e i nt er est s? I s a maj or cr i t er i on f or get t i ng a Q- cl ear ance at
PNNL t he sci ent i st s abi l i t y t o br i ng i n pr of i t abl e Use Per mi t busi ness f or Bat t el l e
Cor por at e?
Wi l l DOE admi ni st er pol ygr aph t est s t o Dor ow, gi ven t he pr eponder ance of
evi dence and t est i mony t hat , at t he ver y l east , cr eat es a quest i on as t o hi s access
aut hor i zat i on el i gi bi l i t y ci t ed i n 10 CFR 710?
OR
Wi l l Bat t el l e do anot her sel f - i nvest i gat i on [ r un by manager s wi t h Use
Per mi t compensat i on packages] whi ch wi l l r esul t i n f al se st at ement s and cover - up
t hat occur r ed i n my case and Laul s? [ ht t p : / / / www . ccol - i nc.
com/ 1/ Fal seCl ai msVi ol at i on- - Laul - v- Bat t el l e. ht m]
Because Bat t el l e i s al l owi ng or coachi ng Dor ow t o l i e under oat h t o pr ot ect
cor por at e i nt er est s, ar e t her e ot her exempt i ons f r omQ- cl ear ance pol i cy such as
mi susi ng/ l eaki ng/ t r adi ng cl assi f i ed i nf or mat i on t hat coul d gi ve Bat t el l e compet i t i ve
Page 25

Unt i t l ed
advant ages i n secur i ng commer ci al / vent ur es oppor t uni t i es [ domest i c or f or ei gn] ?
1b- 5. I n t he i nt er est of nat i onal secur i t y, DHS, DOD- Ar my, FBI and ot her s t hat have
pr ovi ded cl assi f i ed i nf or mat i on t o Q- cl ear ance hol der Dor ow shoul d be not i f i ed; t hey
ar e pot ent i al l y at r i sk gi ven hi s mi sconduct t hat s subst ant i at ed by Bat t el l e
document s and t est i mony. They shoul d at l east be shown t he ext ensi ve evi dence t hat
he ( i ) r epeat edl y l i ed under oat h r egar di ng DHS- RPMP and ( i i ) he mi sused t he
Techni cal Assi st ance Pr ogr amand vi ol at ed t he Fal se Cl ai ms Act due t o Use Per mi t
oppor t uni t i es. Not e, 10 CFR 710. 10( c) addr esses not i f i cat i on t o such ot her agenci es
i n t hi s ver y si t uat i on. At t hi s t i me, I wi l l def er t he di sposi t i on of t hi s mat t er
t o Mr . Podonsky who i s copi ed on t hi s emai l .
2. DOE- Funded Counsel Li t i gat i on Fr aud by Mi sr epr esent i ng RPMP t o Conceal
Evi dence. WA Supr eme Cour t Sanct i oned/ Fi ned Pr i or Fi r mf or Same Tact i cs,
Hi di ng Smoki ng- Gun Evi dence of Dr ug Toxi ci t y t hat Br ai n Damaged 3- Year Ol d.
I mpl i cat i ons f or Heal t h/ Saf et y Rel at ed Lawsui t s at Of f i ce of Sci ence Labs &
Hanf or d.
[ Evi dence & Test i mony at ht t p : / / / www . ccol - i nc.
com/ 1/ DOE- FundedCounsel - Mi sr ep- RPMP. ht m]
2a. Summar y & Mot i ve
DOE- f unded counsel Mi l l er i s al so mat er i al l y mi sr epr esent i ng t hat RPMP ( i )
abandoned/ j unked t he 2003 TAP- f unded MDM sof t war e and ( i ) devel oped new & di f f er ent
mobi l e sof t war e i n 2004 [ cal l ed RDADS] t o whi ch Pul ver had no r i ght s. Mi l l er st at ed
t o t he cour t t hat Bat t el l e has devel oped a new sof t war e pr oduct cal l ed RDADS ( Rapi d
Dat a Acqui si t i on and Di ssemi nat i on Syst em) . RDADS was cr eat ed f or and i s bei ng used
i n t he Depar t ment of Homel and Secur i t y s Radi at i on Por t al Moni t or i ng Pr oj ect . I t has
absol ut el y not hi ng t o do wi t h Pl ai nt i f f s [ MDM, Pul ver ] or t hei r l awsui t . [ Exhi bi t 2
at l i nk above. ]
However , Bat t el l e & USPTO evi dence unequi vocal l y r ef ut e Mi l l er . As ci t ed i n Sect i on
1a, 2008 Bat t el l e t est i mony and document s [ f r omBat t el l e, DOE & USPTO] cl ear l y
conf i r mt hat RPMP f unded Dor ow t o adapt / por t MDM t o t he Bl ackBer r y wi t h enhanced
f eat ur es, i . e. , der i vat i ve [ f ol l ow- on] MDM ver si ons. Thi s evi dence conf i r ms t hat
Mi l l er i s mi sr epr esent i ng RPMP- f unded r esear ch t o conceal smoki ng- gun evi dence,
i . e. , post - 2003 MDM code [ RDADS] . Li ke Q- cl ear ance hol der Dor ow, he s f al si f yi ng
RPMP f or t he f ol l owi ng key r easons:
1. RDADS woul d pr ovi de f ur t her conf i r mat i on t hat Bat t el l e wi t hhel d [ pocket ed ]
MDM code f r omt he smal l busi nesses f or whomDOE- TAP pai d Bat t el l e t o devel op MDM,
whi ch vi ol at es t he Fal se Cl ai ms Act [ 31 USC 3729] .
2. Ver i f yi ng t hat post - 2003 ver si ons ar e der i vat i ve t o MDM woul d shut down
Bat t el l e s commer ci al i zat i on/ vent ur e of any f ol l ow- on ver si ons [ e. g. , RDADS] due t o
Pul ver s excl usi ve l i cense t o MDM & der i vat i ves.
3. The post - 2003 code woul d t hus conf i r mMi l l er mat er i al l y mi sr epr esent ed RPMP t o
conceal evi dence, t he same t act i c [ di scover y abuse] f or whi ch hi s pr i or f i r mwas
condemned by st at e and f eder al cour t s; see Par t 2b.
4. Exami ni ng t he post - 2003 new code [ RDADS] woul d show i t s based on t he 2002
MDM i nvent i ons, t her eby i mpl i cat i ng Bat t el l e i n f r audul ent l y f i l i ng t he RDADS pat ent
t o t he USPTO. [ See Par t 3. ]
2b. Mi l l er s Pr i or Fi r mSanct i oned/ Fi ned by WA Supr eme Cour t f or Di scover y Abuse
Li t i gat i on Fr aud Condemned f or Wi t hhol di ng Smoki ng- Gun Dr ug Toxi ci t y
Evi dence
[ Par t 2c shows r el evancy & pot ent i al i mpact t o Of f i ce of Sci ence l ab st af f . ]
Del ber t Mi l l er was managi ng seni or par t ner i n t he l i t i gat i on gr oup at now- def unct
Bogl e & Gat es l aw f i r mwhi ch engaged i n t he same l i t i gat i on abuses t o conceal
evi dence t hat he s now usi ng i n Pul ver s case by bl at ant l y mi sr epr esent i ng RPMP [ DHS
Cust oms & Bor der Pr ot ect i on] and ot her commer ci al i zat i on mat t er s.
I n one of t he most not or i ous l i t i gat i on f r aud cases, t he WA Supr eme Cour t
unani mousl y sanct i oned Bogl e $325K f or f l agr ant di scover y abuse i n t he Fi sons
Page 26

Unt i t l ed
per sonal i nj ur y case because t hey wi t hhel d smoki ng- gun document s on a t oxi c dr ug
[ t heophyl l i ne] t hat per manent l y br ai n damaged a 3- year ol d gi r l . The f ol l owi ng
excer pt s of ar t i cl es on Bogl e & Gat es di scover y abuses speak f or t hemsel ves:
ht t p : / / / seat t l epi . nwsour ce. com/ ar chi ves/ 1994/ 9401300070. asp
BOGLE & GATES AGREES TO PAY SANCTI ON FOR MI SCONDUCT I N SUI T
Bogl e & Gat es, one of Seat t l e' s t hr ee l ar gest l aw f i r ms, and a New Yor k dr ug
company agr eed
yest er day t o pay $325, 000 f or wi t hhol di ng " smoki ng gun" document s i n a l awsui t
i nvol vi ng a
3- year - ol d gi r l l ef t br ai n- damaged by an ast hma medi cat i on.
The case, whi ch pr oduced a l andmar k deci si on by t he Washi ngt on St at e Supr eme Cour t ,
has
dr awn nat i onal at t ent i on as br eaki ng new gr ound i n t he f i el d of l awyer et hi csBogl e
acknowl edged
t hat i t advi sed i t s cl i ent , t he New Yor k dr ug maker Fi sons Cor p. , t o wi t hhol d
document s t hat
i ndi cat ed t he phar maceut i cal company was concer ned wi t h t he t oxi ci t y of t he
medi cat i on.
The sanct i ons ar e t he l ar gest ever i mposed i n Washi ngt on f or at t or ney mi sconduct and
among t he hi ghest ever i mposed i n t he Uni t ed St at es, l egal exper t s sai d.
ht t p : / / / www . l aw. com/ j sp/ ar t i cl e. j sp?i d=1015973958083
THE MORAL COMPASS: Cal cul at ed Mal f easance. The ongoi ng abuse of di scover y r equi r es
st r onger , sur er sanct i ons.
Less t han 2 year s af t er Fi sons opi ni on, t hei r l i t i gat or s wer e i n t r oubl e agai n.
Thi s t i me Bogl e & Gat es
r epr esent ed Subar u of Amer i ca on char ges t hat t he dr i ver ' s seat backs i n Subar u' s
J ust y coul d col l apse
backwar ds when hi t f r omt he r ear , pot ent i al l y causi ng gr ave i nj ur y. I n t he vi ew of
f eder al J udge Rober t Br yan,
Bogl e obf uscat ed, st onewal l ed, and gave answer s t hat wer e j ust pl ai n wr ong. I n one
r equest , pl ai nt i f f s had
asked f or Nat i onal Hi ghway Tr af f i c Saf et y Admi ni st r at i on r ecor ds t hat showed t he
col l apse of dr i ver ' s seat s
f r oma r ear - i mpact f or ce of 30 mi l es per hour . Bogl e' s r esponse was t hat t he
r equest was " vague, conf usi ng
and uni nt el l i gi bl eSpeci f i cal l y, 30 mi l es per hour i s a vel oci t y, not a f or ce, and
due t o t hi s conf usi on of
t echni cal t er ms, no meani ngf ul r esponse can be gi ven. "
J udge Br yan cal l ed t hi s " l awyer hokum, " and f or ced Bogl e t o pay t he ot her si de' s
at t or neys' f ees.
Mor e nat i onal ar t i cl es on Bogl e s l i t i gat i on abuses ar e at ht t p : / / / www . ccol - i nc.
com/ 1/ Ar t i cl es- Bogl eGat es. ht m.
The WA Supr eme Cour t Fi sons deci si on i s downl oadabl e f r omCor nel l Law School :
ht t p
: / / / ww3. l awschool . cor nel l . edu/ f acul t y- pages/ wendel / Law%20Gover ni ng%20Lawyer s_f i l es/ f
i sons. pdf
The ext ensi ve evi dence [ i ncl . 2008 PNNL t est i mony] conf i r ms t hat Mi l l er i s usi ng
t hese same Bogl e di scover y abuse t act i cs by mi sr epr esent i ng DHS- RPMP [ US Cust oms &
Bor der s Pr ot ect i on] t o wi t hhol d smoki ng gun evi dence t hat woul d i mpl i cat e Bat t el l e
i n vi ol at i ng t he f ol l owi ng st at ut es: Fal se St at ement s [ 18 USC 1001] , Per j ur y [ 18
USC 1621] , Subor nat i on of Per j ur y [ 18 USC 1622] , Fal se Decl ar at i ons [ 18 USC
1623] , and Fal se Cl ai ms [ 31 USC 3729] .
The at t ached ORO l et t er conf i r ms t hat Of f i ce of Sci ence i s f i nanci ng Bat t el l e and
Mi l l er s l i t i gat i on f r aud, t act i cs f or whi ch hi s pr i or f i r mwas condemned by cour t s
and l egal communi t y as among t he most egr egi ous di scover y abuse i n US hi st or y.
Fi nanci ng hi s f al si f i cat i on of Feder al l y- f unded r esear ch [ RPMP] i s mi sappr opr i at i on
Page 27

Unt i t l ed
of DOE f unds and vi ol at es t he l i t i gat i on i n good f ai t h pr ovi si on i n 48 CFR
970. 5228- 1 [ ht t p : / / / www . ccol - i nc. com/ 1/ 48CFR970- 5228- 1. pdf ] . Appr opr i at i ons
commi t t ees and GAO woul d be concer ned t hat t axpayer s ar e f undi ng Mi l l er s f al se
r epr esent at i ons t hat ar e conceal i ng f r aud, secur i t y br eaches [ Q- cl ear ance] , and
cr i mi nal vi ol at i ons by t he t ax- exempt char i t abl e t r ust t hat manages hal f t he
nat i onal l abs and possi bl y t he Hanf or d si t e on 10/ 1/ 08.
For year s, Congr ess and wat chdog gr oups have been concer ned/ out r aged t hat DOE
r ei mbur ses cont r act or s def ense l i t i gat i on cost s, e. g. , ht t p : / / / www .
gao. gov/ new. i t ems/ d04148r . pdf . I n my case, Bat t el l e and Mi l l er s conduct goes one
gi ant st ep f ur t her by f or ci ng t axpayer s t o f und r esear ch f al si f i cat i on [ RPMP] ,
secur i t y cl ear ance br each, hi di ng commer ci al i zat i on vent ur es, and ot her l i t i gat i on
f r aud t o wr ongf ul l y conceal smoki ng- gun evi dence t hat woul d i mpl i cat e t hemi n
vi ol at i ng st at ut es ci t ed above and mi susi ng t he smal l busi ness Techni cal Assi st ance
Pr ogr amf or Use Per mi t oppor t uni t i es. Fi sons and Subar u f i nanced t hei r l i t i gat i on
f r aud, not t he t axpayi ng publ i c. I f DOE Of f i ce of Sci ence, af t er r ecei vi ng al l
ext ensi ve Bat t el l e t est i mony and document s conf i r mi ng t hi s f r aud, cont i nues t o al l ow
501( c) 3 Bat t el l e t o soak t axpayer s f or t hi s ongoi ng l i t i gat i on f r aud, Congr ess, GAO,
wat chdog gr oups and ot her s wi l l have j ust i f i abl e concer ns.
2c. Of f i ce of Sci ence, by f undi ng l i t i gat i on f r aud i n Pul ver Case, wi l l set t he
st age f or Bat t el l e t o use Fi sons- l i ke t act i cs i n saf et y/ heal t h- r el at ed
l awsui t s.
Whi l e my case deal t wi t h commer ci al / busi ness l i t i gat i on, GAO r epor t s [ GAO- 04- 148R]
t hat most l awsui t s agai nst DOE cont r act or s per t ai n t o r adi at i on and/ or t oxi c
exposur e, per sonal i nj ur y, and wr ongf ul di schar ge. DOE s aut hor i zi ng per sonal
i nj ur y def ense l awyer Fi sons t act i cs i n my case t o conceal cr i t i cal l y r el evant
evi dence i s most r el evant t o st af f at Of f i ce of Sci ence l abs t hat ent ai l HAZMAT,
r adi at i on, machi ner y, hi gh- t emper at ur e appar at us, and ot her pot ent i al wor k hazar ds.
Thi s set s a pot ent i al l y danger ous pr ecedent . Wi t h my case, Bat t el l e now knows t hese
ar e al l owabl e t act i cs t owar d anyone sui ng t hemat t he f i ve l abs i t manages and at
Hanf or d i f DOE awar ds t hemt he cont r act on 9/ 30/ 08. I n summar y, l i t i gat i on f r aud
[ condemned by WA Supr eme & f eder al cour t s] used t o conceal dr ug t oxi ci t y war ni ngs
[ Fi sons] and r ear - i mpact cr ash i nj ur y dat a [ Subar u] i s appar ent l y appr oved pr ocedur e
at Of f i ce of Sci ence l abs and pot ent i al l y soon at Hanf or d.
I l l ust r at i ng t he possi bl e i mpact of such t act i cs coul d be a scenar i o i n whi ch a
st af f member sues Bat t el l e f or per sonal i nj ur y due a mal f unct i oni ng appar at us
i nvol vi ng r adi at i on and/ or HAZMAT. Dur i ng di scover y, Bat t el l e woul d obj ect t o
r el easi ng r el evant dat a [ e. g. , mai nt enance r ecor ds, usage l ogs, mf r . war ni ngs,
saf et y i nf r act i ons, bul l et i ns, def ect i ve par t or mat er i al not i ces, r ecal l not i ces,
acci dent hi st or y, wi t ness account s] ; t hey woul d obj ect t o such r equest s bei ng
over l y br oad, undul y bur densome, har assi ng, and not r easonabl y cal cul at ed t o l ead
t o t he di scover y of admi ssi bl e evi dence i n t he same way Mi l l er s pr i or f i r mdi d t o
t he par ent s of J enni f er Pol l ack [ per manent l y br ai n damaged by Fi sons dr ug] [ Ref :
ht t p : / / / www . ccol - i nc. com/ 1/ WA- Supr emeCour t - Fi sons. pdf - Page 9] Mi l l er had
near l y i dent i cal r esponses i n my case, but went even f ur t her by mi sr epr esent i ng RPMP
as i r r el evant and conceal i ng i t ; f or exampl e, when I r equest ed SBMS pr ocedur es [ at
PNNL s suggest i on] , Mi l l er cl ai med t hi s r equest was har assment . As my case shows,
i f unhel pf ul evi dence was pr oduced, Bat t el l e wi l l di r ect / coach/ subor n sci ent i st s
t o make f al se/ mi sl eadi ng decl ar at i ons and per j ur ed t est i mony t o neut r al i ze t he
evi dence, and soak t axpayer s i n t he pr ocess. Such t act i cs woul d f i nanci al l y dr ai n
t he i nj ur ed wor ker and l i kel y cause hi m/ her t o dr op t he l awsui t ; Mi l l er and Bat t el l e
know t hi s. The adver se i mpl i cat i ons f or Of f i ce of Sci ence l ab st af f and Hanf or d
wor ker s ar e sel f - evi dent .
An act ual exampl e suggest i ng t hat Bat t el l e woul d i nvoke such t act i cs i n
heal t h/ saf et y- r el at ed l awsui t s i s t hei r conduct i n an ORNL whi st l ebl ower case.
Seven year s ago, ORNL heal t h physi ci st J anet West br ook voi ced concer ns of Bat t el l e s
qui nt upl i ng r adi at i on dose exposur e al ar ml evel s [ r em/ hour ] and havi ng t echni ci ans
[ not engi neer s] conduct r adi at i on saf et y r evi ews; bot h wer e i mpl ement ed t o i ncr ease
pr of i t . Bat t el l e r esponded by i gnor i ng t hese heal t h i ssues, downgr adi ng her
Page 28

Unt i t l ed
per f or mance r at i ng, and t er mi nat i ng her . DOE Of f i ce of Hear i ngs & Appeal s r ul ed
t hat Bat t el l e had engaged i n mani pul at i on of t he syst emt o r each a pr edet er mi ned
r esul t ( t er mi nat i on) and used t he cr i t er i on t r ansf er abi l i t y of ski l l s i n a
di st or t ed manner . . . an af t er t hought , one desi gned t o downgr ade West br ook and t ar get
her f or t er mi nat i on. See ht t p : / / / www . oha. doe. gov/ cases/ whi st l e/ vba0059. ht mf or
OHA Di r ect or Br eznay s deci si on r epudi at i ng Bat t el l e s r et al i at i on t act i cs agai nst
West br ook. Cur r ent l y, Bat t el l e- ORNL has dose exposur e al ar ml evel s 2t i mes t he
aver age of al l ot her nat i onal l abs.
The West br ook case, i n conj unct i on wi t h DOE f undi ng RPMP and ot her f al si f i cat i on i n
my case, undoubt edl y conf i r ms t hat Bat t el l e & DOE wi l l vi ol at e 48 CFR 970. 5228- 1 and
use Fi sons- l i ke l i t i gat i on f r aud t o wi t hhol d smoki ng- gun evi dence r el evant t o cause
of i nj ur y, i l l ness, cancer , wr ongf ul deat h or ot her damage i ncur r ed someone [ or
t hei r est at e] sui ng Bat t el l e at Of f i ce of Sci ence l abs. Thi s ef f ect i vel y el i mi nat es
Bat t el l e s f i nanci al and l egal r i sk of not onl y vi ol at i ng ci vi l or cr i mi nal st at ut es
but al so i gnor i ng/ r el axi ng st af f saf et y/ secur i t y r egul at i ons, vi ol at i ng DEAR, and
under mi ni ng r ecent l y enact ed whi st l ebl ower l aws; t hi s coul d f ur t her i ncent Bat t el l e
t o r el ax st af f heal t h/ saf et y/ secur i t y pol i ci es t o r educe over head cost s.
[ One f i nal f oot not e i s a har bi nger of t hi ngs t o come i f Bat t el l e keeps PNNL and wi ns
Hanf or d cont r act . One day af t er I f i l ed an 8/ 31/ 07 decl ar at i on t hat Bat t el l e
mi sr epr esent ed t he RPMP t o t he cour t , i t s seni or management [ Chi ef Resear ch Of f i cer
Doug Ray wi t h Use Per mi t compensat i on] t hr ew my wi f e Shar on Pul ver out of her j ob.
For t he next f ew mont hs Bat t el l e made her t i n cup f or f undi ng, ur gi ng her t o t ake
a posi t i on r equi r i ng l i f t i ng heavy equi pment whi ch r esul t ed i n her bei ng i nj ur ed.
Wi t hi n t wo weeks and r eal i zi ng she woul d l ose heal t h i nsur ance, Bat t el l e t er mi nat ed
her when she had an open i nj ur y cl ai m[ L&I ] . Ar e you awar e t hat Doug Ray shel ved a
DOE- r equi r ed i nvest i gat i on of t he Apr i l 2005 phone t hr eat s agai nst her at PNNL,
shor t l y af t er I f i l ed t he l awsui t ? These i nci dent s f ur t her how t hi s case i s ver y
ger mane t o heal t h/ saf et y/ secur i t y/ whi st l ebl ower i ssues at Bat t el l e- managed
f aci l i t i es t hat may i ncl ude Hanf or d. ]
2d. Quest i ons Regar di ng DOE- Funded Li t i gat i on Fr aud
Was Bat t el l e i nst r uct ed t o r et ai n an at t or ney wi t h a hi st or y of l i t i gat i on
f r aud, i . e. , di scover y abuse vi a mi sr epr esent at i ons t o conceal smoki ng- gun evi dence?
Was t he det er mi nat i on made t hat Fi sons- l i ke t act i cs wer e necessar y f or Bat t el l e
t o escape account abi l i t y/ pr osecut i on i n my case?
Was Bat t el l e t ol d t o r epeat edl y subor n per j ur y, pr ot r act l i t i gat i on at
t axpayer expense, and have me go away t her eby l et t i ng t hemget away wi t h
f r aud/ abuse agai nst t he Gover nment and my smal l busi ness?
I s t he pur pose of t he ongoi ng DOE- f unded per j ur y t o have t hi s case ul t i mat el y
appeal ed, whi ch woul d occur wel l af t er any r e- bi d or qui et r enewal wher eby Bat t el l e
r et ai ns PNNL wi t hout cont r over sy or bi d pr ot est ? [ I n Mar ch 2007, acknowl edgi ng t he
per j ur y, OI G t ol d me t o come back af t er my appeal . ]
Why woul d i ndust r y, i ndi vi dual s, and uni ver si t i es r i sk wor ki ng wi t h Bat t el l e
af t er Of f i ce of Sci ence f unded nat i onal l y r epudi at ed Fi sons t act i cs t o cover up
Bat t el l e f r aud, f al se cl ai ms and pl agi ar i smi n my l awsui t ?
Do you r eal i ze t he i mpact of maki ng Mi l l er / Bat t el l e/ Fi sons t act i cs st andar d
pr act i ce at Of f i ce of Sci ence l abs, especi al l y on whi st l ebl ower s and st af f sui ng f or
heal t h, i nj ur y and wr ongf ul deat h?
Have you consi der ed adver se ef f ect s on saf et y/ secur i t y at DOE l abs by f undi ng
pr oduct i nj ur y def ense l awyer s who f al si f y r esear ch t o bl ock di scover y pr oduct i on of
i nj ur y, r adi at i on exposur e, equi pment mai nt enance l ogs, HAZMAT, or ot her necessar y
dat a needed by st af f sui ng t o r ecover damages due t o Bat t el l e s negl i gent or
t or t uous conduct ?
Page 29

Unt i t l ed
3. Pat ent Fi l i ng Fr aud t o USPTO. PNNL Test i mony Conf i r ms Bat t el l e Evades
St at ut or y
Deadl i nes by Rewr i t i ng Ol d I nvent i on Repor t s & Renami ng as New [ Reset Cl ock]
[ Det ai l s & Evi dence at ht t p : / / / www . ccol - i nc.
com/ 1/ Bat t el l ePat ent Fr audAbuse. ht m]
Bat t el l e exhi bi t s and 2008 deposi t i on t est i mony by a seni or commer ci al i zat i on
manager conf i r mt hat Bat t el l e vi ol at es pat ent f i l i ng r ul es of t he US Pat ent &
Tr ademar k Of f i ce. Test i mony, Bat t el l e exhi bi t s and t he RDADS pat ent appl i cat i on
conf i r mt he f ol l owi ng:
1. Bat t el l e pr act i ce i s t o wr i t e new i nvent i on r epor t s on pr i or [ ol der ]
i nvent i ons when t hey want t o pat ent t hembut have r un out of t i me. By r eset t i ng
t he cl ock, Bat t el l e i s ci r cumvent i ng/ vi ol at i ng st at ut or y bar r ul es of t he USPTO and
mi sr epr esent i ng t he or i gi nal l y- dat ed i nvent i ons.
2. I n 2005, Bat t el l e wr ot e a new i nvent i on r epor t on t he or i gi nal TAP- f unded
2002 MDM i nvent i ons, r enamed i t RDADS and r eset [ ci r cumvent ed] t he USPTO St at ut or y
Bar f r om10/ 1/ 03 [ or i gi nal ] t o 1/ 31/ 06, and f i l ed a pat ent on t he new code i n
Sept . 2005. [ Not e, t he 2003 MDM code was r ef i nement of t he 2002 i nvent i ons; Bat t el l e
coi ned PDAC as al i as t o MDM i n August 2002. ]
Nat i onwi de, Bat t el l e f i l es f ar mor e pat ent s t han most ot her gover nment , educat i onal
or i ndust r i al or gani zat i ons. USPTO woul d l i kel y want t o know t he ext ent of t hi s
f r audul ent pr act i ce at PNNL, at ot her Of f i ce of Sci ence Labs, and ot her f aci l i t i es
t hat Bat t el l e manages or owns [ e. g. , Ft . Dei t r i ck] .
Because of your cr i t i cal r ol e as DOE Coor di nat or f or Technol ogy Tr ansf er and
Commer ci al i zat i on, I pr ovi ded you wi t h Bat t el l e document s, pat ent appl i cat i on, and
sur pr i si ngl y candi d Bat t el l e- PNNL t est i mony conf i r mi ng t he above abusi ve pr act i ces
and ci t i ng RDADS new code f r omTAP- f unded MDM [ PDAC] as an exampl e of such pat ent
f i l i ng f r aud.
I f I don t soon hear f r omanyone on t hi s emai l r egar di ng t hi s pat ent f r aud t hat
Bat t el l e t est i mony conf i r ms i s syst emi c at PNNL, I wi l l cont act t he Dept . of
Commer ce and USPTO di r ect l y. The i nt egr i t y of Bat t el l e s pat ent pr ocess i s i n
quest i on; t hey ar e vi ol at i ng USPTO r ul es. [ ht t p : / / / www .
uspt o. gov/ web/ of f i ces/ pac/ mpep/ document s/ appxr _10_23. ht m]
4. Pot ent i al I mpl i cat i ons: Bat t el l e Compet i ng PNNL & Hanf or d Cont r act s [ Bi d
Pr ot est s]
A DOE deci si on t o cont i nue f i nanci ng Bat t el l e s l i t i gat i on f r aud and cover - up of
t hei r f i ve- year mi sconduct woul d l i kel y t r i gger a bi d pr ot est or Congr essi onal / GAO
i nvest i gat i on i f Bat t el l e wi ns PNNL or keeps i t vi a r enewal . Many wi l l ask why DOE
knowi ngl y f unded Bat t el l e s cover - up of t he f ol l owi ng: DEAR & CFR vi ol at i ons; abuse
of t echni cal assi st ance pr ogr am; har assment / t hr eat s of whi st l ebl ower spouse; and,
evi dence of t hei r vi ol at i ng 18 USC1001 [ Fal se St at ement s] , 18 USC 1623 [ Fal se
Decl ar at i ons] , 18 USC 1621 [ Per j ur y] and 31 USC 3729 [ Fal se Cl ai ms] . They wi l l
have gr eat er concer ns i f Bat t el l e keeps i t s uni que & l ucr at i ve Use Per mi t whi ch was
mot i ve f or t he f r aud/ abuse/ per j ur y and cr i mi nal vi ol at i ons i n my case and t he
wel l - document ed Laul Fal se Cl ai ms case. [ ht t p : / / / www . ccol - i nc.
com/ 1/ Fal seCl ai msVi ol at i on- - Laul - v- Bat t el l e. ht m]
Losi ng bi dder s, who spent mi l l i ons t o compet e, may concl ude t hat DOE sol i ci t ed t he
PNNL bi d under f al se pr et enses t hat t her e was a l evel - pl ayi ng f i el d, when i n r eal t y
i t was a pr e- det er mi ned r esul t t hat Bat t el l e woul d kept t he l ab f or decades t o come.
I n sum, i t woul d st r ongl y suggest t hat DOE i s r ebuf f i ng t he i nt ent of Congr ess:
obj ect i ve compet i t i on of nat i onal l abs. See r el at ed GAO r epor t at ht t p : / / / www .
gao. gov/ new. i t ems/ d03932t . pdf .
For exampl e, LA- based AECOM Gover nment Sol ut i ons, GAO and ot her s woul d be di smayed
t hat DOE- Sci ence awar ded Bat t el l e t he PNNL cont r act af t er f i nanci ng cover - up of
Page 30

Unt i t l ed
f r aud/ abuse by usi ng t he f ol l owi ng t act i cs: f al si f yi ng DHS- RPMP r esear ch; f al se
decl ar at i ons & per j ur y by Q- cl ear ance hol der wor ki ng on ai r car go expl osi ve,
mi l i t ar y, FBI and ot her cl assi f i ed pr oj ect s; t hr owi ng my wi f e out of her j ob one day
af t er my decl ar at i on t hat Bat t el l e mi sr epr esent ed RPMP; admi t t ed pat ent f r aud; and
DOE- f unded counsel l i t i gat i on t act i cs pr evi ousl y condemned by WA Supr eme and f eder al
cour t s [ Fi sons & Subar u] as among t he most egr egi ous di scover y t act i cs ever .
I f t her e s even t he per cept i on t hat DOE and i t s I nspect or Gener al ar e wai vi ng
enf or cement of st at ut es [ CFR, DEAR, US Code] and f i nanci ng l i t i gat i on f r aud t o
pr ot ect Bat t el l e s cor por at e i nt er est s, t hen t he obj ect i vi t y of t he PNNL r e- compet e
wi l l be quest i oned by compet i ng bi dder s [ and Repr esent at i ves] , Congr essi onal
over si ght and appr opr i at i ons, wat chdog gr oups, sci ence communi t y, medi a [ e. g. ,
Nat ur e] and t he GAO. DOE s unpr ecedent ed cancel i ng of t he PNNL r e- bi d on t he same
day I deposed Bat t el l e s Associ at e Lab Di r ect or Mi ke Schwenk r egar di ng Use Per mi t
mi sconduct woul d f eed t hat per cept i on.
Fi nal l y, t hi s case coul d i mpact publ i c r eact i on t o Bat t el l e s wi nni ng t he Hanf or d
cont r act . As ci t ed her ei n, Bat t el l e s conduct i n my case per t ai ns t o t he f ol l owi ng
i ssues: Secur i t y [ Q- cl ear ances] ; Li t i gat i on Fr aud [ Fi sons] i n whi st l ebl ower and
per sonal i nj ur y cases; and, Ret al i at i on/ t hr eat s t owar d whi st l ebl ower r el at i ves. I f
Bat t el l e wi ns t he Hanf or d cont r act , st af f [ uni on & non- uni on] coul d wi t ness si mi l ar
mi sconduct and t hen i ncur DOE- f unded r et al i at i on and cover - up i f t hey r epor t
f r aud/ abuse agai nst Bat t el l e cor por at e. Occur r i ng bot h at Hanf or d, Laul s case and
mi ne al r eady est abl i sh a pat t er n t hat t hi s wi l l happen. Bat t el l e s document ed
[ OHA( Br eznay) ] r et al i at i on agai nst heal t h physi ci st J anet West br ook [ r e: r adi at i on
dose exposur e] i s a t hi r d exampl e of Bat t el l e s t r eat ment t owar d t hose voi ci ng
concer ns t hat i mpact cor por at e pr of i t . I n i t s r ol e of managi ng Hanf or d, Bat t el l e
may t r ai n ot her cont r act or s t o use Fi sons t act i cs t o war d of f l awsui t s f r omi nj ur ed
or si ckened wor ker s, many whomar e exposed t o t oxi c and hi gh- l evel r adi at i on on a
dai l y basi s. Enough sai d. The i mpl i cat i ons ar e cl ear .
5. Cl osi ng Poi nt s, Consequences t o Ot her s i f Bat t el l e Ongoi ng Li t i gat i on Fr aud
Cont i nues,
Whi st l ebl ower s & Ot her s I mpact ed, OI G Abdi cat i ng Over si ght per i t s Pol i cy,
GAO Copi ed
Under secr et ar y Or bach, as st at ed above, t hi s det ai l ed emai l and Web si t e [ ht t p
: / / / www . ccol - i nc. com/ 1/ ] i s a f i ve- year cul mi nat i on of evi dence conf i r mi ng
Bat t el l e s f r aud/ abuse, Q- cl ear ance hol der mi suse and vi ol at i on of U. S. Code [ Fal se
Decl ar at i ons [ 18 USC 1623] , Per j ur y [ 18 USC 1621] , Fal se St at ement s [ 18 USC
1001] , Fal se Cl ai ms [ 31 USC 3729] . The evi dence subst ant i at i ng t hese vi ol at i ons
i s al l f r omBat t el l e s own document s, 2008 PNNL sci ent i st deposi t i ons, cour t f i l i ngs
by DOE- f unded counsel Del ber t Mi l l er , and DOE l et t er s [ ORO & PNSO] . Al l of t hi s
evi dence subst ant i at i ng t he vi ol at i ons i s on t he si t e.
I n cont ext of cur r ent event s, Mar t ha St ewar t , Scoot er Li bby [ VP Chi ef of St af f ] and
US Senat or Ted St evens wer e each i ndi ct ed f or vi ol at i ng 18 USC 1001 on a mi nor
f r act i on of evi dence i n t hi s case showi ng Bat t el l e s mul t i pl e U. S. C. vi ol at i ons. I n
cont r ast wi t h Bat t el l e, at t ached ORO l et t er conf i r ms t hat DOE i s f undi ng t hei r
l i t i gat i on despi t e t he pr eponder ance of evi dence pr ovi ded t o DOE si nce 2003. I s
t ax- exempt Bat t el l e i mmune f r ompr osecut i on because of a doubl e- st andar d? Bi dder s
on t he PNNL and Hanf or d cont r act s, and ot her s pot ent i al l y i mpact ed, woul d l i ke t o
know.
To dat e, wel l over $200K [ t axpayer s] has been squander ed t o cover - up Bat t el l e s Use
Per mi t mot i vat ed f r aud/ abuse. My case shows a syst emi c cor por at e conf l i ct of
i nt er est pr evi ousl y exhi bi t ed i n t he Laul Fal se Cl ai ms case t hat cost t axpayer s over
$1M and f or whi ch J ohn Layt on [ pr i or I G] r ecommended cr i mi nal sanct i ons agai nst
Bat t el l e f or t hef t , conspi r acy and f al se st at ement . The ext ensi ve evi dence
conf i r ms t hat Bat t el l e i s a r epeat of f ender of Use Per mi t f r aud/ abuse. However ,
af t er r equest i ng/ r ecei vi ng/ acknowl edgi ng di scover y evi dence conf i r mi ng t he i nt ent
t o mi sl ead on t he par t Bat t el l e [ ht t p : / / / www . ccol - i nc. com/ 1/ DocsToOI G. ht m] , t he
Page 31

Unt i t l ed
OI G cl osed my case i n 2007, sai d t o come back af t er my appeal , st at i ng t hat OI G has
a hands- of f l i t i gat i on pol i cy.
Mr . Fr i edman s pol i cy t o excl ude l i t i gat i on f r omOI G pur vi ew has t hus gi ven Bat t el l e
car t e- bl anche t o engage i n f al se decl ar at i ons & per j ur y by sci ent i st s [ i nc.
Q- cl ear ance hol der s] , r esear ch f al si f i cat i on; Fi sons- l i ke di scover y abuse,
obst r uct i on of j ust i ce, r et al i at i on agai nst pl ai nt i f f s spouses, and ot her
l i t i gat i on f r aud. Thi s pol i cy i gnor es many mi l l i ons t hat DOE spends year l y on
cont r act or l i t i gat i on; see ht t p : / / / www . gao. gov/ new. i t ems/ d04148r . pdf . Laul s
case bei ng f eat ur ed on NBC s Fl eeci ng of Amer i ca and pl aced i n Congr essi onal Recor d
i l l ust r at es ongoi ng concer n of Bat t el l e et al . mi susi ng DOE- f unded l i t i gat i on
i ndemni f i cat i on pol i cy. Not e, Bi l l Madi a ci t ed t hi s pol i cy as a t hr eat t o
whi st l ebl ower s af t er Bat t el l e set t l ed wi t h Laul and t he J ust i ce Dept . f or Fal se
Cl ai ms vi ol at i ons. See ht t p : / / / www . ccol - i nc.
com/ 1/ Laul / Tr i - Ci t yHer al d- - Madi a- Laul - - 010497. pdf & ht t p : / / / www . ccol - i nc.
com/ 1/ Fal seCl ai msVi ol at i on- - Laul - v- Bat t el l e. ht m. The OI G, by addr essi ng and
cur t ai l i ng such embol dened abuse coul d r et ur n si gni f i cant f unds t o DOE.
Ther ef or e, t he GAO [ Fr audnet @gao. gov] i s bei ng copi ed because t he OI G has
r el i nqui shed over si ght of t hi s DOE- f unded l i t i gat i on wast e, abuse, and f r aud [ e. g. ,
per j ur y by Q- cl ear ance hol der ] t hat s happeni ng now, i n r eal - t i me. The met er i s
r unni ng f or t axpayer s.
Congr essi onal appr opr i at i ons & over si ght commi t t ees wi l l want t o know i f DOE
[ t axpayer s] i nt ends t o cont i nue f i nanci ng Bat t el l e s l i t i gat i on f r aud [ out si de
counsel & Q- cl ear ance hol der Dor ow] t hat s occur r i ng at t he expense of nat i onal
secur i t y, whi st l ebl ower r i ght s [ 629 EPA- 2005] , i nt egr i t y of r esear ch, and
t axpayer s. The key consequences of Of f i ce of Sci ence choosi ng t o st i l l f und t hi s
f r aud wi l l be as f ol l ows:
Embol dened by Dor ow s mi sconduct , Bat t el l e may coach ot her Q- cl ear ance
hol der s t o mi suse/ l eak cl assi f i ed i nf or mat i on t o gai n compet i t i ve advant age wi nni ng
commer ci al cont r act s or cl osi ng vent ur e deal s [ Use Per mi t ] at home or abr oad
i ncl udi ng Chi na or I ndi a wher e i t r ecent l y opened of f i ces. 10 CFR 710 and r el at ed
pr ocedur es wi l l be sel ect i vel y enf or ced.
Fi sons- l i ke l i t i gat i on t act i cs, condemned by st at e & f eder al cour t s, wi l l be
pol i cy at Of f i ce of Sci ence l abs and t he whol e Hanf or d si t e i f Bat t el l e wi ns t he
pendi ng cont r act . These t act i cs wi l l be used agai nst t hose sui ng f or r adi at i on,
t oxi c exposur e, per sonal i nj ur y, and/ or wr ongf ul di schar ge. Real i zi ng t hey can
i nvoke such DOE- f unded t act i cs Bat t el l e may r el ax heal t h/ saf et y pr ocedur es t o
i ncr ease pr of i t . Hence, many t housands of l ab empl oyees wi l l be at gr eat er r i sk.
Bat t el l e wi l l have de- f act o l i cense, at t axpayer expense, t o coach i t s l ab
sci ent i st s t o engage i n r esear ch mi sr epr esent at i on, f al se st at ement s & decl ar at i ons,
per j ur y, obst r uct i on of j ust i ce, r et al i at i on, host i l e wor k envi r onment , and ot her
abuses t o conceal mi sconduct and pr ot ect cor por at e/ vent ur e/ UsePer mi t i nt er est s.
Phone t hr eat s and ot her i nt i mi dat i on of whi st l ebl ower s spouses i s now
accept abl e at Of f i ce of Sci ence l abs [ For exampl e, Bat t el l e s Chi ef Resear ch Of f i cer
Doug Ray bl ocked i nvest i gat i on of PNNL phone t hr eat s agai nst my wi f e when my l awsui t
was f i l ed. ]
DOE di r ect i ves f or st af f t o r epor t f r aud/ abuse/ wast e wi l l have been i ssued
under f al se pr et enses. I nst ead of pr ot ect i ng/ assi st i ng t hose comi ng f or war d, DOE
wi l l f i nance r et al i at i on agai nst t hem. Especi al l y at r i sk i s st af f r epor t i ng
cor por at e- mot i vat ed f r aud at any of t he f i ve Bat t el l e- r un l abs.
Busi nesses & uni ver si t i es wor ki ng wi t h Of f i ce of Sci ence l abs wi l l f ace
gr eat er r i sk of Bat t el l e s pr edat or y commer ci al i zat i on/ vent ur e pr act i ces
[ mi sappr opr i at i on, mi sr epr esent at i on] because DOE- f unded Fi sons l i t i gat i on f r aud
wi l l ef f ect i vel y shi el d Bat t el l e f r omaccount abi l i t y.
Page 32

Unt i t l ed
Pat ent f r aud wi l l be al l owabl e pr act i ce at Of f i ce of Sci ence l abs. Bat t el l e
can cont i nue mi sr epr esent i ng or i gi nal i nvent i ons by r ewr i t i ng & r enami ng t hemt o
r eset t he cl ock and bypass st at ut or y bar USPTO r ul es.
Bi d pr ot est s and GAO i nvest i gat i ons wi l l occur i f Bat t el l e wi ns/ keeps PNNL or
wi ns t he pendi ng Hanf or d cont r act on 9/ 30/ 08. Losi ng bi dder s wi l l per cei ve t hat
Bat t el l e s keepi ng PNNL was a pr e- det er mi ned r esul t because DOE f i nanced t hi s
cover - up t hat per t ai ned t o secur i t y, r esear ch i nt egr i t y, t r eat ment of st af f and
ot her r el evant i ssues.
The cr i t i cal pr ovi si on [ r i ght t o j ur y t r i al ] i n r ecent whi st l ebl ower l aws
t hat has over whel mi ng bi - par t i san suppor t i n Congr ess wi l l be sever el y under mi ned.
[ E. g. , 629 i n t he Ener gy Pol i cy Act ] Bat t el l e woul d r epeat edl y subor n per j ur y [ at
t axpayer expense] t o f i nanci al l y dr ai n whi st l ebl ower s/ pl ai nt i f f s and wi n by def aul t .
Such bl at ant shr eddi ng of t hese pr ot ect i ons by t he manager of f i ve nat i onal l abs
wi l l concer n/ anger many.
Bat t el l e s f r aud and abuse i n t hi s case has cont i nued unabat ed f or f i ve year s. As i n
Laul , t axpayer s ar e i ncur r i ng escal at i ng cost s i n my l awsui t . Bat t el l e s l i t i gat i on
f r aud by out si de counsel and Q- cl ear ance hol der Dor ow i s occur r i ng i n r eal - t i me and
vi ol at i ng t he f ol l owi ng US Code: 48 CFR 970. 5228- 1 [ Li t i gat i on] , 10 CFR 710 [ Access
t o Cl assi f i ed Mat er i al ] , 18 USC1623 [ Fal se Decl ar at i ons] , 18 USC1621[ Per j ur y] , and
[ 18 USC 1622] [ Subor nat i on of per j ur y] .
On Sept ember 23, 2008 [ i n Ri chl and, WA] , cour t hear i ng wi l l be hel d on t hi s case.
I f DOE- f unded counsel and Q- cl ear ance hol der Dor ow cont i nue t o f al si f y/ mi sr epr esent
DHS RPMP and ot her mat er i al mat t er s, t hen DOE- Sci ence compl i ci t y i n t hi s r eal - t i me
l i t i gat i on f r aud [ e. g. , Dor ow per j ur y] wi l l be conf i r med. As di scussed above,
set t i ng such a pr ecedent woul d have l ong- t er mi mpl i cat i ons adver sel y i mpact i ng
Of f i ce of Sci ence l ab st af f r egar di ng heal t h, secur i t y, saf et y and ot her mat er i al
mat t er s. Hanf or d wor ker s [ uni on & non- uni on] woul d al so be af f ect ed i f Bat t el l e i s
awar ded t he cont r act on 9/ 30/ 08; t hi s coul d be ver y pr obl emat i c gi ven ver y hazar dous
wor ki ng condi t i ons t hat have been basi s f or l awsui t s i nvol vi ng heal t h af f l i ct i ons.
As you r e awar e, such a deci si on t o cont i nue t he f r aud and pr ot ect Bat t el l e s
cor por at e [ Use Per mi t ] i nt er est s, woul d cont r adi ct pr i or DOE publ i c st at ement s. I n
Oct . 2007, DOE acknowl edged PNNL Use Per mi t conf l i ct of i nt er est : I n or der t o
ensur e t hat [ PNNL] l abor at or y r esour ces ar e dedi cat ed t o t he publ i c benef i t and
gover nment al pur poses t he Per mi t won t be i n t he new PNNL cont r act . [ ht t p : / / / www .
ener gy. gov/ news/ 5663. ht m] And, i n your publ i c opposi t i on t o t he Use Per mi t you
st at ed no ot her ar r angement l i ke t hi s exi st s at any ot her DOE nat i onal l abor at or y
because a use per mi t cr eat es at l east t wo si gni f i cant pr obl ems. Fi r st , i t per mi t s a
pr i vat e ent i t y t o use gover nment f aci l i t i es t o compet e agai nst t he pr i vat e sect or .
ht t p : / / / www . t r i - ci t yher al d. com/ 964/ st or y/ 55319. ht ml
Dr . Or bach, t hi s case pr ovi des you wi t h an unpr ecedent ed oppor t uni t y t o ef f ect i vel y
addr ess Bat t el l e s decades- l ong conf l i ct of i nt er est due t o speci al pr i vi l eges t hat
t hey ve mi sused agai nst J C Laul , me and ot her s.
I f anyone on t hi s emai l needs mor e i nf or mat i on or want s t he CD ver si on of t he si t e,
pl ease l et me know. A Wor d ver si on of t hi s emai l i s al so avai l abl e.
Si ncer el y,
Phi l i p Pul ver
CCOL I nc.
( 509) 586- 3051
( 509) 528- 9212 cel l
Page 33

Unt i t l ed
At t achment s
Cc: Secr et ar y Bodman ; Fr i edman, Gr eg ; J ef f Sal mon
Sent : Fr i day, May 11, 2007 13: 58
Subj ect : CONFI DENTI AL - Updat e - Evi dence Bat t el l e- PNNL Vi ol at ed t he Fal se Cl ai ms
Act
Thi s conf i dent i al onl i ne communi cat i on i s f or Gover nment Use Onl y. Per DOE Or der
221. 11, t hi s i nf or mat i on
on f r aud and abuse i s bei ng pr ovi ded t o t hose who have t he aut hor i t y t o act i n t he
publ i c i nt er est .
Thi s i nf or mat i on i s not openl y avai l abl e and i s not i nt ended f or di ssemi nat i on t o
t he publ i c.
CCOL I nc.
1177 J adwi n Avenue
Ri chl and, WA 99352
May 11, 2007
Per DOE Or der 221. 11, I amsendi ng t hi s suppl ement al updat e t o my det ai l ed Apr i l
emai l bel ow. Fur t her exami nat i on of t he RDADS pat ent appl i cat i on and di scover y
document s r eveal s t hat Bat t el l e act ual l y wi t hhel d [ ski mmed] TAP- f unded sof t war e
devel opment [ f unct i onal i t y] when t hey del i ver ed t he Mobi l e Dat a Manager sof t war e t o
me on August 29, 2003. Thi s f unct i onal i t y per t ai ned t o
dr i l l - down- t hr u- cat egor y- l evel s t hat s necessar y & cr i t i cal f or handhel d/ mobi l e
and onl i ne cat al ogs. Exhi bi t s al so show Bat t el l e was concur r ent l y pur sui ng pr i vat e
[ 1831] commer ci al busi ness wi t h Ecol abs [ $3. 8 bi l . r ev. ] t o l i cense MDM as a
handhel d cat al og [ sal es aut omat i on] sol ut i on f or use by i t s wor l dwi de sal es f or ce.
I n summar y, Bat t el l e pocket ed DOE- f unded f unct i onal i t y and depr i ved i t f r omt he
Gover nment s i nt ended t echni cal assi st ance pr ogr am[ TAP] r eci pi ent s. As di scussed
bel ow, t hese act i ons vi ol at ed t he Fal se Cl ai ms Act and conf i r mt he cr i t i cal
al l egat i on [ sabot age] i n OI G compl ai nt I 04RS007 [ Al l eged I r r egul ar i t i es i n
Admi ni st er i ng t he Techni cal Assi st ance Pr ogr am] . Of f i ce of Sci ence di r ect l y f unded
t hi s TAP devel opment wor k on MDM.
Summar y poi nt s, suppor t i ng evi dence, and obser vat i ons/ concer ns ar e pr esent ed bel ow.
Al l evi dence subst ant i at i ng t hese ser i ous al l egat i ons i s f r omBat t el l e s own
document s.
Summar y Poi nt s
Bat t el l e [ Dor ow et al ] r emoved t he TAP- f unded cat egor y dr i l l down [ and ot her ]
f unct i onal i t y f r omt he MDM sof t war e and del i ver ed a non- wor ki ng MDM ver si on t o
Pul ver on 8- 29- 03. Thei r expl i ci t Aug. 1, 2003 TAP pr oj ect r epor t conf i r ms t hat t he
cat al og f unct i onal i t y was al r eady devel oped f or MDM. However , t he 8- 29- 03 MDM
sour ce code shows t hat t hi s f unct i onal i t y was r emoved and mi ssi ng f r omt he
Page 34

Unt i t l ed
sof t war e s mai n cont r ol panel , r ender i ng t he TAP- del i ver ed code dysf unct i onal ; t he
sof t war e was i noper abl e. See ht t p : / / / www . mobi l edat amanager .
com/ OI G/ 1A- Gr aphi cs. ht m#Dr i l l down and ot her evi dence i n t he next sect i on. [ Not e,
Pul ver pr ovi ded Bat t el l e wi t h sampl e cat al og dat a set s [ f or cat egor y dr i l l down]
dur i ng t he 2002 - 2003 MDM TAP devel opment ; hi s onl i ne cat al og cl i ent s wer e
i nt er est ed i n handhel d cat al ogs. ]
Bat t el l e kept t he f unct i onal i t y i n t hei r MDM ver si on t o pur sue Ecol abs [ et al ]
and pr event Pul ver f r ombei ng a f ut ur e compet i t or t o t hei r hi ghl y pr of i t abl e 1831
cor por at e busi ness. The RDADS pat ent appl i cat i on cl ear l y conf i r ms t hey kept t hi s
cr i t i cal TAP- f unded and commer ci al l y val uabl e f unct i onal i t y f or t hemsel ves. 2003- 04
document s show Bat t el l e pr omot ed/ r epr esent ed MDM/ PDAC as havi ng handhel d cat al og
f unct i onal i t y. [ Not e: I n 2004 st at ement s t o OI G & SC, Vi nce Br ant on,
Bat t el l e- PNNL' s Manager of I nt el l ect ual Pr oper t y Legal Ser vi ces af f i r med Pul ver s
excl usi ve r i ght s t o MDM [ and der i vat i ves] and war ned Bat t el l e st af f NOT t o
mar ket / demo MDM/ PDAC t o non- Gover nment pr ospect s; see ht t p : / / / www .
mobi l edat amanager . com/ OI G/ I nt r o- Ti mel i ne. ht m#Br ant on. Bat t el l e management i gnor ed
t hi s l egal obl i gat i on, and i nst ead hi r ed a DOE- f unded at t or ney who commi t t ed want on
di scover y abuse and had sci ent i st s make f al se decl ar at i ons t o conceal Bat t el l e s
i l l egal RDADS pr i vat e/ 1831/ commer ci al pur sui t s. ]
Bat t el l e vi ol at ed t he Fal se Cl ai ms Act [ 31 USC 3729] . They r ecei ved Gover nment
[ Of f i ce of Sci ence] payment f or r esear ch t hat t hey cl ai med was pr ovi ded t o t he
t echni cal assi st ance r eci pi ent s t hr ough Pul ver . Thei r wi t hhol di ng TAP- f unded wor k
and del i ver i ng non- wor ki ng dysf unct i onal / ski mmed sof t war e [ whi l e mar ket i ng t hei r
MDM wor ki ng ver si on] pr ove Bat t el l e s cl ai ms f or payment wer e f al se. [ See PNNL
t i mecar d, SC f undi ng, 8- 01- 03 TAP r epor t , l abor at or y r ecor d book and sof t war e
scr eens i n t he next sect i on. ] 31 USC 3729 t ext i s at ht t p : / / / www .
l aw. cor nel l . edu/ uscode/ 31/ usc_sec_31_00003729- - - - 000- . ht ml
Thei r wi t hhol di ng/ ski mmi ng DOE- f unded wor k and sabot agi ng t he TAP- del i ver ed MDM
pr oves t hat Bat t el l e agai n mi sl ed [ 18 USC 1001] DOE when i t t ol d SC & OI G i n 2004
t hat best ef f or t s wer e del i ver ed. Bat t el l e s 2006 admi ssi on of pur sui ng pr i vat e
PDAC/ MDM busi ness and di scover y evi dence f ur t her pr ove t hey kept t he best ef f or t s
ver si on f or t hei r cor por at e oppor t uni t i es. I n 2003, Spanner [ TAP manager at PNNL]
i mpr oper l y f unded Bat t el l e st af f t o engage i n MDM l i censi ng di scussi ons r e: Ecol abs,
a cl ear MDM l i cense vi ol at i on and 1831 conf l i ct of i nt er est wi t h t he DOE- f unded TAP
wor k.
Af t er r emovi ng cr i t i cal TAP- f unded f unct i onal i t y, del i ver i ng a cr i ppl ed/ sabot aged
non- wor ki ng MDM ver si on t o Pul ver , and keepi ng t hei r MDM ver si on [ a. k. a. PDAC,
RDADS] , Bat t el l e mi sl ed t he di st r i ct cour t i n J ul y 2006 by audaci ousl y decl ar i ng
t hat Pul ver s l i t t l e MDM was so f unct i onal l y i nf er i or , t hus unr el at ed t o RDADS,
and t hat di scover y on RDADS shoul d be deni ed. Bat t el l e t hen demanded and r ecei ved
sanct i ons [ $17K] f or hi s f i l i ng a mot i on t o compel t hemt o del i ver t he pat ent
appl i cat i on and ot her RDADS document s. The r eveal i ng pat ent appl i cat i on now f ur t her
pr oves Bat t el l e mi sappr opr i at ed/ f al si f i ed DOE r esear ch, subor ned per j ur y, and
used/ mani pul at ed t he cour t as means f or de f act o ext or t i on [ agai nst Pul ver ] t o
conceal t hei r f al se cl ai ms agai nst t he Feder al Gover nment and t hei r commer ci al
mi sappr opr i at i on of DOE- f unded MDM t echnol ogy. See ht t p : / / / www . mobi l edat amanager .
com/ OI G/ I ndex- Pat ent Sect i on. ht mand ht t p : / / / www . mobi l edat amanager .
com/ OI G/ Fal seSt at ement sToTheCour t . ht m.
Suppor t i ng Document at i on/ Evi dence
Fundi ng di r ect l y f r omOf f i ce of Sci ence: ht t p : / / / www . mobi l edat amanager .
com/ OI G/ GES- 00227( 011904- Of f i ceOf Sci enceWP) . pdf
DOE- HQ appr oval of TAP wor k: ht t p : / / / www . mobi l edat amanager .
com/ OI G/ GES- 00252( 071702- DOE_HQ- Appr ovesJ ES) . pdf
RDADS pat ent appl i cat i on and MDM scr eens showi ng f unct i onal i t y mi ssi ng f r om8- 29- 03
MDM: ht t p : / / / www . mobi l edat amanager . com/ OI G/ 1A- Gr aphi cs. ht m#Dr i l l down
Page 35

Unt i t l ed
Sci ent i st Dor ow s and ot her Bat t el l e document s:
August 1, 2003 TAP r epor t expl i ci t l y st at i ng handhel d cat al og f unct i onal i t y
[ cat egor y dr i l l down] had al r eady been devel oped f or MDM: ht t p : / / / www .
mobi l edat amanager . com/ OI G/ GES- 00202( 080103- TAPr epor t s- MDM- Dr i l l downDone) . pdf
Excer pt : dr i l l - down capabi l i t y f or mul t i pl e l evel s based on cat egor i es def i ned i n
t he ext r act i on pl anThe codi ng r equi r ed t o suppor t a dr i l l - down mechani smon bot h
t he admi ni st r at i ve appl i cat i on ser ver component and t he handhel d appl i cat i on was
compl et ed. Thi s i ncl uded modi f i cat i ons and addi t i ons t o t he web pages of t he
admi ni st r at i ve appl i cat i on ser ver component [ cont r ol panel ] t o suppor t def i ni ng t he
f i el ds t o be used as t he dr i l l - down cat egor i es
2003 exhi bi t s of Bat t el l e [ Dor ow, Goodwi n, et al ] 1831 ( cor por at e) busi ness pur sui t s
t hat show conf l i ct of i nt er est wi t h TAP- f unded MDM and mot i ve t o ski mOf f i ce of
Sci ence f unded r esear ch f r omt he sof t war e del i ver ed t o t he r eci pi ent of t he
t echni cal assi st ance: ht t p : / / / www . mobi l edat amanager .
com/ OI G/ Ecol abs- 2003- Handhel dCat al ogOppor t uni t y. ht m
Dor ow l abor at or y not ebook showi ng cat al og dr i l l down f unct i onal i t y i n MDM pr i or t o
8- 29- 03 del i ver y t o Pul ver : ht t p : / / / www . mobi l edat amanager .
com/ OI G/ Dor owLabRecor dBook- Excer pt s. ht m
Sour ce Code of TAP- del i ver ed MDM on 8- 29- 03 showi ng r emoved of f unct i onal i t y: ht t p
: / / / www . mobi l edat amanager . com/ OI G/ Sour ceCode- MDM- 082903. zi p [ I dent i f yFi el ds. j ava
- - > cat al og dr i l l down mi ssi ng f r omcont r ol panel ]
Obser vat i ons and Concer ns
The t wo mai n al l egat i ons i n OI G Compl ai nt I 04RS007 compl ai nt wer e 1)
sabot age/ cr i ppl i ng of t he MDM sof t war e and 2) Bat t el l e s pl agi ar i zi ng & compet i ng
agai nst Pul ver wi t h t he wor ki ng/ f unct i onal MDM/ PDAC ver si on. Thi s l at est evi dence
of t hei r wi t hhol di ng TAP- f unded code f r omt he 8- 29- 03 TAP- del i ver ed MDM ver si on
conf i r ms t he f i r st . Bat t el l e s di scover y evi dence and t hei r 10- 26- 06 admi ssi on t o
t he cour t conf i r mt he second mai n al l egat i on.
Bat t el l e f i nanci al l y damaged t he gover nment . By wi t hhol di ng t he cr i t i cal MDM
cat al og and ot her TAP f unct i onal i t y f r omt he non- wor ki ng 8- 29- 03 TAP ver si on
del i ver ed t o Pul ver , Bat t el l e pr event ed hi mand hi s t eamf r omsel l i ng MDM and
gener at i ng r oyal t i es t o DOE- PNNL. Pul ver and Bat t el l e had si gned a r oyal t y- bear i ng
l i cense f or t he TAP- f unded MDM . Bat t el l e suppr essed t hi s mat er i al f act f r omSC &
OI G i n 2004; Pul ver was al so i nf or med t hat t he l ocal si t e of f i ce woul d t hwar t any
f ut ur e Fal se Cl ai ms Act cl ai mby t est i f yi ng t o a US at t or ney t hat Bat t el l e di dn t
f i nanci al l y damage t he gover nment because no r oyal t i es wer e at st ake.
The pr eponder ance of evi dence [ e. g. , Ecol abs] shows Bat t el l e s mot i ve f or i t s f r aud
& abuse was t hei r 1831 Use Per mi t [ t o 1830 M&O PNNL cont r act ] , whi ch i s a
r ar e/ uni que pr i vi l ege t hat l et s Bat t el l e use Gover nment f aci l i t i es t o conduct
pr i vat e/ cor por at e busi ness. My case shows t hat DOE s conf l i ct - of - i nt er est di r ect i ve
on Non- I nt er f er ence wi t h DOE- f unded wor k was wi l l f ul l y i gnor ed by Bat t el l e
management , i ncl udi ng an Associ at e Lab Di r ect or who was i nvol ved i n t he
f r aud/ mi sappr opr i at i on as di scover y document s show.
Thi s l at est updat e f ur t her shows t he f ol l owi ng compel l i ng commonal i t y bet ween my
case and J C Laul :
- Vi ol at i on of t he Fal se Cl ai ms Act dr i ven by 1831 cor por at e/ commer ci al
i nt er est s.
- Fal se st at ement s t o cover - up and mi sl ead DOE and OI G [ 18 USC 1001]
- Mi sr epr esent i ng sci ent i f i c dat a t o mi sl ead di st r i ct cour t . [ Laul - - chemi st r y,
Pul ver - - sof t war e engi neer i ng]
- Bl at ant r et al i at i on [ I n my case, t hi s i ncl uded uni nvest i gat ed phone t hr eat s
agai nst my wi f e at PNNL. ]
- Expl oi t i ng t axpayer - f unded l i t i gat i on r ei mbur sement t o chur n t he pr ocess t o
escape account abi l i t y
[ For mor e det ai l s, see my Mar ch 8, 2007 l et t er t o House Over si ght and Gover nment
Page 36

Unt i t l ed
Ref or mCommi t t ee bel ow. J C can be r eached at LANL. ]
Thi s updat e r egar di ng Bat t el l e s vi ol at i on of t he Fal se Cl ai ms Act i s ver y
si gni f i cant . Evi dence f r om2003- 2007 now pr oves Bat t el l e wi t hhel d/ ski mmed
DOE- f unded r esear ch f r omt he t echni cal assi st ance r eci pi ent s t o whomt hey wer e
st at ut or i l y and cont r act ual l y obl i gat ed t o pr ovi de. As t he OI G sai d i n 2003,
Congr ess di dn t appr opr i at e f unds f or Bat t el l e t o use t he t echni cal assi st ance
pr ogr amas means t o t ake advant age of smal l busi ness and compet e agai nst t hem. The
Ener gy Pol i cy Act [ 1001 r e: annual DOE r epor t s] shows Congr ess r emai ns ver y
concer ned about such abuses.
As i ndi cat ed by i t s document s, Bat t el l e i s never t hel ess pr oceedi ng ahead wi t h i t s
decept i on [ t o DOE, OI G, di st r i ct cour t , pat ent of f i ce, f i r ms t hat si gned RDADS NDAs]
t o escape account abi l i t y f or document ed vi ol at i ons agai nst t he US Gover nment and
smal l busi nesses.
I n t hi s suppl ement t o t he Apr i l l et t er , I pr ovi ded addi t i onal and mat er i al evi dence
f or DOE t o di l i gent l y addr ess Bat t el l e s f r aud, abuse and f al se st at ement s i n OI G
cases t hat began i n 2003. I t wi l l ser ve not i ce t o ot her gover nment or gani zat i ons
t hat may choose t o i nvest i gat e al l egat i ons of Fal se Cl ai ms Act vi ol at i ons and any
ot her i nf or mat i on pr ovi ded her ei n. Mor e det ai l on t hi s updat ed i nf or mat i on i s at
t he mai n si t e [ ht t p : / / / www . mobi l edat amanager . com/ OI G/ ] .
Si ncer el y,
Phi l i p Pul ver
CCOL I nc.
( 509) 946- 1110
( 509) 946- 2411
Cc: Secr et ar y Bodman ; Fr i edman, Gr eg ; J ef f Sal mon
Sent : Wednesday, Apr i l 25, 2007 4: 25 PM
Subj ect : CONFI DENTI AL - Updat e and Del i ver y of Evi dence of Fr aud, Abuse & Fal se
St at ement s Per DOE Or der 221. 11
Thi s conf i dent i al onl i ne communi cat i on i s f or Gover nment Use Onl y. Per DOE Or der
221. 11, t hi s i nf or mat i on
on f r aud and abuse i s bei ng pr ovi ded t o t hose who have t he aut hor i t y t o act i n t he
publ i c i nt er est .
Thi s i nf or mat i on i s not openl y avai l abl e and i s not i nt ended f or di ssemi nat i on t o
t he publ i c.
CCOL I nc.
Apr i l 25, 2007
Page 37

Unt i t l ed
Per DOE Or der 221. 11, I amsendi ng t hi s emai l t o pr ovi de DOE wi t h an updat e on
Bat t el l e evi dence i ncl udi ng t hei r admi ssi ons/ acknowl edgment s t hat cor r obor at e t he
al l egat i ons i n my OI G compl ai nt s [ 2003 - 2007] . These al l egat i ons i ncl ude
Bat t el l e' s f al se st at ement s t o mi sl ead DOE- SC and OI G, pl agi ar i sm, mi sr epr esent at i on
of f unded r esear ch, di scover y abuse and mi sr epr esent at i ons by DOE- f unded Bat t el l e
out si de counsel , mi sappr opr i at i on, and ot her s ci t ed i n t hi s emai l or at t he evi dence
si t e r ef er enced bel ow. Not e, al l t he evi dence subst ant i at i ng t he al l egat i ons i s
f r omBat t el l e s own document s.
Thi s l et t er wi l l al so ser ve not i ce t o any ot her gover nment body ( Congr ess, GAO, DOJ ,
et c. ) t hat I have pr ovi ded al l necessar y evi dence t o t he Of f i ce of Sci ence
bef or ehand and have gi ven DOE t he oppor t uni t y t o pr oper l y addr ess Bat t el l e s
cont i nued f r aud, abuse, and f al se st at ement s t o t he gover nment . Thi s emai l and al l
cont ent at t he evi dence si t e wi l l be copi ed t o CD and sent by cer t i f i ed mai l t o your
of f i ce by May 1, 2007.
Thi s emai l consi st s of t he f ol l owi ng t hr ee par t s:
1. Evi dence and Ot her Document s Re: Al l egat i ons
2. Emphasi s On Cer t ai n I ssues/ Al l egat i ons
3. Cl osi ng Summar y Poi nt s
1. Evi dence and Ot her Document s Re: Al l egat i ons
Based on t he evi dence r el eased i n 2006, Bat t el l e s st at ement s t o t he cour t , and t he
OI G s r equest f or Bat t el l e di scover y document s, an al l egat i ons- wi t h- exhi bi t s Web
si t e was devel oped i n l at e 2006; not e, t he si t e i s conf i gur ed t o make i t unr eachabl e
by sear ch engi nes [ e. g. , Googl e] . The si t e mat er i al has been si nce updat ed wi t h new
evi dence, i ncl udi ng Bat t el l e s RDADS sof t war e pat ent appl i cat i on [ r el eased 3- 22- 07]
t hat cl ear l y conf i r ms my OI G al l egat i ons [ e. g. , f al se st at ement s, pl agi ar i sm,
mi sappr opr i at i on] . Thi s onl i ne mat er i al i ncl udes t he act ual Bat t el l e document s
cor r obor at i ng t he al l egat i ons; r el evant excer pt s ar e ci t ed t o expedi t e r evi ew. The
i nf or mat i on can be f ound at t he f ol l owi ng l ocat i ons:
1A. ht t p : / / / www . mobi l edat amanager . com/ OI G/ i s a compr ehensi ve si t e det ai l i ng
t he al l egat i ons wi t h suppor t i ng evi dence of Bat t el l e- PNNL f r aud, abuse, and f al se
st at ement s t o SC & OI G. The si t e was devel oped i n r esponse t o t he OI G November 2006
r equest s f or di scover y document s showi ng Bat t el l e' s i nt ent t o mi sl ead. I t i ncl udes
t he f ol l owi ng t opi cs: Backgr ound & t i mel i ne [ 2001- 2007] ; Pul ver det ai l ed emai l s t o
DOE & OI G; Bat t el l e f al se st at ement s t o DOE & OI G [ 18 USC 1001] ; Conceal i ng
cor por at e/ 1831 pur sui t s; RDADS new code mi sappr opr i at i on; Mi sr epr esent i ng DHS US
Cust oms & Bor der Pr ot ect i on Radi at i on Por t al Moni t or i ng Pr oj ect [ RPMP] r esear ch t o
conceal f r aud; Fal se st at ement s/ decl ar at i ons & mat er i al suppr essi ons t o di st r i ct
cour t .
1B. ht t p : / / / www . mobi l edat amanager . com/ Pat ent / pr esent s new evi dence di scover ed
i n FY07 t hat mat er i al l y subst ant i at es al l egat i ons i n t he si t e above. I t consi st s of
t he f ol l owi ng sub- sect i ons: RDADS pat ent appl i cat i on [ r el eased 3- 22- 07] wi t h
gr aphi cs and det ai l ed t ext showi ng pl agi ar i sm/ mi sappr opr i at i on of MDM sof t war e;
Named i nvent or on pat ent r epeat edl y st at i ng RDADS i s new name f or PDAC/ MDM;
Bat t el l e s 10- 26- 06 admi ssi on of pur sui ng pr i vat e busi ness f or PDAC/ MDM t her eby
i mpl i cat i ng i t sel f i n maki ng f al se st at ement s t o SC & OI G i n 2004; Ti mecar ds showi ng
t hat Bat t el l e mi sr epr esent ed US Cust oms & Bor der Pr ot ect i on RPMP wor k. The pat ent
appl i cat i on and ot her new evi dence consi st ent l y conf i r mt hat Bat t el l e has been
mi sl eadi ng DOE, OI G and t he cour t .
Page 38

Unt i t l ed
1C. ht t p : / / / www . mobi l edat amanager . com/ OI G/ 022607- I ssues- Summar y- OI G. doc
summar i zes t he f ol l owi ng i ssues i n t he OI G compl ai nt s i ncl udi ng f r aud, abuse, f al se
st at ement s, and damages t o t he gover nment :
I 04RS007: Al l eged I r r egul ar i t i es i n Admi ni st er i ng t he Techni cal Assi st ance
Pr ogr am
I 05RR039: Sabot age & Mi sr epr esent at i on of Pal mFon
P07HL035- 1: Submi ssi on of f r audul ent copyr i ght document s and i nvent i on r epor t s
t o DOE.
P07HL035- 2: Fal se st at ement s by out si de counsel and t wo Bat t el l e sci ent i st s.
[ Al l DOE- f unded]
P07HL035- 3: Del i ber at e sabot age and mani pul at i on by Bat t el l e of t he DOE- f unded
MDM sof t war e.
P07HL035- 4: Mat er i al mi sr epr esent at i ons t o OI G and Sci ence.
P07HL035- 5: Mi sr epr esent at i on of DOE t echnol ogy per t ai ni ng t o l i censi ng
DOE- f unded t echnol ogy.
P07HL035- 6: Bat t el l e s f al se st at ement s t o mi sl ead t he cour t t o i mpose
f i nanci al sanct i ons on Pul ver
P07HL035- 7: DOE- Sci ence f undi ng Bat t el l e s l i t i gat i on cost s t o def end wi l l f ul
mi sconduct
1D. ht t p : / / / www . mobi l edat amanager .
com/ OI G/ 030807- Let t er ToCommi t t eeOnOver si ght . ht mi s an i ni t i al l et t er t o t he House
Commi t t ee on Over si ght and Gover nment Ref or msent on Mar ch 8t h. I t di scussed how my
OI G cases and abuses by Bat t el l e out si de counsel , i f l ef t unaddr essed by DOE,
under mi ne t he i nt ent of Congr ess t o pr ot ect whi st l ebl ower s vi a t he Whi st l ebl ower
Enhancement Act of 2007 and t he 2005 Ener gy Pol i cy Act [ 629: seeki ng r el i ef
under t hi s par agr aph, such per son may br i ng an act i on at l aw or equi t y f or de novo
r evi ew i n t he appr opr i at e di st r i ct cour t of t he Uni t ed St at es] . Ci t ed ar e GAO
r epor t s and Chai r man Waxman s 2003 l et t er t o t he Ener gy Secr et ar y i ndi cat i ng concer n
over how DOE pr act i ces [ t hat subsi di ze cont r act or s engagi ng i n wi l l f ul mi sconduct or
i l l egal act i vi t y] wi l l encour age wr ongdoi ng cont r act or s t o needl essl y pr ot r act
l awsui t s at si gni f i cant t axpayer and whi st l ebl ower expense. The r el evant J C Laul
f r aud case i s ci t ed because ( 1) I t was a pr i or i nst ance of Bat t el l e- PNNL maki ng
f al se st at ement s t hat t he OI G conf i r med, ( 2) Bat t el l e i ssued a bl unt publ i c war ni ng
t o f ut ur e whi st l ebl ower s, and ( 3) An i n- dept h ar t i cl e on Bat t el l e- PNNL' s conduct
t owar d DOE, t axpayer s and Laul was pl aced i n t he Congr essi onal Recor d by Rep. Davi d
Skaggs.
Per t he Commi t t ee s Febr uar y r equest , I made r ecommendat i ons t o hel p pr event
Bat t el l e et al . f r ommi susi ng t axpayer f unds i n or der t o conceal f r aud, abuse
whi st l ebl ower s, and escape account abi l i t y. I pr omi sed t o keep t he Commi t t ee post ed.
Two mat er i al event s have occur r ed si nce t he Mar ch 8t h l et t er : 1. The Pat ent and
Tr ademar k Of f i ce r el eased t he RDADS pat ent appl i cat i on whi ch f ur t her conf i r ms t he
al l egat i ons. 2. The OI G, af t er r equest i ng and r ecei vi ng di scover y evi dence of
Bat t el l e s " i nt ent t o mi sl ead, summar i l y cl osed t he case. However , pr i or t o
sendi ng an updat e t o t he Commi t t ee chai r man, I amsendi ng t hi s l et t er wi t h t he
ext ensi ve evi dence [ Bat t el l e document s] t o you and Secr et ar y Bodman; al t hough Mr .
Fr i edman cl osed t he case, I ' mcopyi ng hi mas a cour t esy.
2. Emphasi s on Cer t ai n I ssues/ Al l egat i ons
Wi t hi n t he ext ensi ve i nf or mat i on pr ovi ded at t he l i nks above, t her e ar e some i ssues
t hat war r ant emphasi s due t o t hei r i mpact on DOE, over si ght , t axpayer s, ot her s doi ng
busi ness wi t h Bat t el l e- managed l abs, t he cour t , and f ut ur e whi st l ebl ower pr ot ect i on.
These i ssues ar e as f ol l ows:
2A. Bat t el l e r epeat edl y mi sl ed Sci ence and OI G t o conceal t hei r f r aud and abuse;
ext ensi ve exhi bi t s ar e at ht t p : / / / www . mobi l edat amanager .
com/ OI G/ Fal seSt at ement st oSci ence&OI G. ht m For exampl e, emai l s f r omt wo PNNL st af f
pr ove t hat Bat t el l e made f al se st at ement s t o DOE when t hey deni ed any wr ongf ul
compet i ng/ mi sappr opr i at i ng. Mar k Goodwi n [ l at er pr omot ed t o a di r ect or ] , who
pl agi ar i zed and i nt er f er ed wi t h t he t echni cal assi st ance MDM sof t war e pr oj ect i n
Page 39

Unt i t l ed
2002, was goal ed on 1831 [ pr i vat e] busi ness vol ume; he wi l l f ul l y vi ol at ed t he MDM
l i cense agr eement , mar ket ed t he MDM sof t war e under Bat t el l e s PDAC al i as and mi sl ed
a maj or cor por at i on[ s] . Kevi n Dor ow [ MDM devel oper / i nvent or ] , t wo weeks af t er
del i ver i ng non- wor ki ng sof t war e i n 2003, st at ed he woul d demo t he wor ki ng MDM
ver si on t o my pr ospect s onl y i f Bat t el l e t hought i t woul d l ead t o t he mor e
pr of i t abl e 1831 busi ness.
2B. Bat t el l e s out si de counsel engaged i n di scover y abuse [ mi sr epr esent at i on] and
PNNL sci ent i st s made f al se/ i naccur at e swor n decl ar at i ons t o t he cour t i n or der t o
conceal Bat t el l e s mi sappr opr i at i on/ pl agi ar i sm[ e. g. , RDADS new code scheme] .
They st at ed t hat RDADS had absol ut el y not hi ng t o do wi t h Pul ver [ and MDM sof t war e]
and t hey bl at ant l y mi sr epr esent ed r esear ch f unded by DHS US Cust oms & Bor der
Pr ot ect i on RPMP; see exhi bi t s at ht t p : / / / www . mobi l edat amanager .
com/ Pat ent / 7- Bat t el l eMi sl edTheCour t . ht m. Usi ng t he sci ent i st s decl ar at i ons,
Bat t el l e successf ul l y mi sl ed t he cour t .
Bat t el l e t hen demanded sanct i ons agai nst me and r ecei ved t hem[ $17, 043] on 10/ 13/ 06.
I n ear l y November , t hey t hr eat ened t o seek cont empt sanct i ons f or mor e money; al l
t he whi l e, t hey wer e decei vi ng t he cour t as t he RDADS pat ent appl i cat i on now so
cl ear l y pr oves. As I wr ot e t o Mr . Fr i edman, Bat t el l e l at er cashed my check and t hus
consummat ed t hei r i nt ent t o mi sl ead t he cour t and commi t t ed de- f act o ext or t i on as
t he f ol l owi ng l i nks i ndi cat e:
ht t p : / / / www . mobi l edat amanager . com/ OI G/ Mi sl eadi ngCour t - Def act oExt or t i on. ht m
ht t p : / / / www . mobi l edat amanager . com/ OI G/ 113006- CCOLt oMi l l er - - Let t er &Check. pdf
ht t p : / / / www . mobi l edat amanager . com/ OI G/ 111006- Cont empt Thr eat . pdf
Det ai l s on out si de counsel s di scover y abuse ar e at ht t p : / / / www .
mobi l edat amanager . com/ OI G/ Di scover yAbuse. doc; as not ed, hi s pr i or l aw f i r m
[ empl oyer ] was sanct i oned a r ecor d $325, 000 f or want on di scover y abuse.
Not e, af t er i gnor i ng my ext ensi ve evi dence i n 2004, t he PNSO [ si t e of f i ce]
aut hor i zed Bat t el l e t o r et ai n out si de counsel i n J une 2005 t o f i ght my l awsui t : ht t p
: / / / www . mobi l edat amanager . com/ OI G/ RM- 00002. pdf
2C. The OI G cl osed t he case on Mar ch 22, 2007, t he same day t hat t he r eveal i ng
RDADS pat ent was r el eased. I n November , t he OI G speci f i cal l y r equest ed and r ecei ved
di scover y evi dence [ Bat t el l e document s] t hat i ndi cat ed t he i nt ent t o mi sl ead on t he
par t of Bat t el l e. The OI G s 11- 24- 06 emai l t o me and document s t hat I t hen sent t o
t hemar e as f ol l ows: ht t p : / / / www . mobi l edat amanager .
com/ OI G/ 112406- Emai l - OI G- Pul ver - Bat t el l eMi sl ead. ht m & ht t p : / / / www .
mobi l edat amanager . com/ OI G/ 112706- P07HL035Summar yToOI G. ht m
Af t er speci f i cal l y r equest i ng, r ecei vi ng and acknowl edgi ng t he ext ensi ve
di scover y[ l awsui t ] evi dence t hat cor r obor at ed Bat t el l e' s i nt ent t o mi sl ead and t he
ot her al l egat i ons, t he OI G cl osed t he case and appar ent l y chose not t o hol d Bat t el l e
account abl e f or i t s f r aud, abuse, and f al se st at ement s t o DOE. My det ai l ed
r esponse/ concer n t o t hei r deci si on i s at ht t p : / / / www . mobi l edat amanager .
com/ OI G/ 041007- Emai l - ReOI G- Cl osi ngCase. ht m. [ Excer pt : I n sum, al t hough t he Bat t el l e
evi dence and admi ssi ons have val i dat ed my al l egat i ons, t he OI G i s nonet hel ess
al l owi ng Bat t el l e s mi sconduct [ e. g. di scover y abuse & f al se decl ar at i ons] t o
cont i nue at DOE expense [ al l owabl e cost ] . Unf or t unat el y, my 3- year case shows t hat
r epor t i ng f r aud al l egat i ons [ per DOE Or der 221. 1] agai nst a maj or DOE cont r act or t o
t he OI G i s ef f ect i vel y poi nt l ess and f r aught wi t h si gni f i cant r i sk t o t hose comi ng
f or war d. ]
3. Cl osi ng Summar y Poi nt s
3A. The 2007 evi dence [ RDADS pat ent appl i cat i on & PNNL t i mecar d r ecor ds] show t hat
Bat t el l e mat er i al l y mi sl ed t he cour t t o conceal t hei r mi sappr opr i at i on of t he MDM
sof t war e t hat was devel oped/ f unded under t he t echni cal assi st ance pr ogr am[ TAP] i n
2002 and enhanced i n 2003 under TAP. The pat ent appl i cat i on s vi sual evi dence [ ht t p
: / / / www . mobi l edat amanager . com/ Pat ent / 1A- Gr aphi cs. ht m] al one r eveal s t hei r
pl agi ar i sm; i t expl ai ns why Bat t el l e had t o mi sl ead t he cour t and conceal t hi s
smoki ng gun evi dence. The RDADS pat ent appl i cat i on f ur t her under scor es t hei r
f r audul ent t act i cs t o decei ve t he cour t i nt o i mposi ng a $17K sanct i on f or my
pr essi ng t o obt ai n t he appl i cat i on and ot her RDADS document s; i t pr oves Bat t el l e
Page 40

Unt i t l ed
knowi ngl y mi sl ed and used t he cour t as a vehi cl e f or ext or t i on. As I st at ed t o t he
Commi t t ee, t hi s abusi ve conduct of usi ng/ subor ni ng nat i onal l ab sci ent i st s and
out si de counsel t o mi sl ead cour t s [ and ext or t pl ai nt i f f s] under mi nes t he most
cr i t i cal pr ot ect i on of any whi st l ebl ower , i . e. , havi ng t hei r day i n cour t .
3B. Bat t el l e and out si de counsel , t hr ough f al se decl ar at i ons and r epr esent at i ons,
successf ul l y decei ved t he cour t . Thei r act i ons have t hus t ai nt ed t he case; even t he
OI G acknowl edges t he case i s t ai nt ed because t hey t ol d me on 3- 22- 07 t o come back t o
t hemaf t er t he appeal . As st at ed i n my 2- 27- 07 emai l t o t he OI G, Unt i l
Under secr et ar y Or bach, t he Secr et ar y or t he OI G i nt er venes, Bat t el l e s
t axpayer - f unded decept i on t o DOE and t he cour t wi l l cont i nue unabat edAs ment i oned
pr evi ousl y, unl ess Bat t el l e r edr esses i t s wi l l f ul mi sr epr esent at i ons t o t he cour t ,
t he case i s t ai nt ed and coul d t hus r esul t i n an appeal on gr ounds of di scover y abuse
by t hei r DOE- f unded at t or ney. I f Sci ence doesn t hol d Bat t el l e account abl e f or
mi sconduct t hat s now over whel mi ngl y pr oven by t hei r own document s, Bat t el l e wi l l
have a de- f act o l i cense t o def r aud/ abuse DOE, t he cour t s, t he t axpayer , and t hose
smal l busi nesses or uni ver si t i es wor ki ng wi t h any of t he f i ve nat i onal l abs t hat
Bat t el l e manages. Not e, Bat t el l e' s conduct i n t he Laul case f or ced an appeal t o
t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t whi ch J C won [ new t r i al ] .
3C. The pr eponder ance of evi dence and admi ssi ons r eveal t hat Bat t el l e s conduct has
vi ol at ed, per t ai ns t o, and/ or under mi nes t he f ol l owi ng r egul at i ons, di r ect i ves, l aws
or pol i ci es:
Whi st l ebl ower Pr ot ect i on Enhancement Act of 2007 - ht t p
: / / / over si ght . house. gov/ st or y. asp?I D=1172 and ht t p : / / / www .
govt r ack. us/ congr ess/ bi l l . xpd?bi l l =h110- 985
Ener gy Pol i cy Act of 2005 - ht t p : / / / www . ener gy. gov/ about / EPAct . ht m
629 [ Whi st l ebl ower Pr ot ect i on]
1001 [ I mpr oved Technol ogy Tr ansf er Of Ener gy Technol ogi es. ]
18 USC 1001 - Fr aud And Fal se St at ement s - ht t p
: / / / f r webgat e. access. gpo. gov/ cgi - bi n/ get doc. cgi ?dbname=br owse_usc&doci d=Ci t e: +18USC1
001
DOE Or der 221. 11 [ Repor t i ng Fr aud, Wast e, and Abuse] - ht t p : / / / www .
di r ect i ves. doe. gov/ pdf s/ doe/ doet ext / newor d/ 221/ n22111. ht ml
DOE Pol i cy on Resear ch Mi sconduct - ht t p : / / / www .
epa. gov/ EPA- I MPACT/ 2005/ J une/ Day- 28/ i 12645. ht m
DOE CFR Ti t l e 48 Par t 970. 5227- 2 [ Commer ci al i zat i on & Asser t i ng Copyr i ght ] - ht t p
: / / / www . mobi l edat amanager . com/ OI G/ CFR48- 970- - SW- Copyr i ght - Commer ci al i zat i on. ht m
GAO Repor t on DOE Rei mbur sement of Li t i gat i on Cost s - ht t p : / / / www .
gao. gov/ new. i t ems/ d04148r . pdf
Bat t el l e i nt er nal SBMS Pol i cy on Pl agi ar i sm- ht t p : / / / www . mobi l edat amanager .
com/ OI G/ P20620. pdf
Bat t el l e- PNNL 1831 Non- I nt er f er ence Pol i cy - ht t p : / / / www . mobi l edat amanager .
com/ OI G/ DOE- Bat t el l e- NonI nt er f er ence- 1831. ht m
Pat ent Rul es on Mi sconduct 10. 23 - ht t p : / / / www .
uspt o. gov/ web/ of f i ces/ pac/ mpep/ document s/ appxr _10_23. ht m
By way of t hi s l et t er , I have pr ovi ded subst ant i al and suf f i ci ent evi dence f or t he
DOE Of f i ce of Sci ence t o di l i gent l y addr ess Bat t el l e s f r aud, abuse and f al se
st at ement s t o t he gover nment i n OI G cases t hat began near l y f our year s ago. I t wi l l
ser ve not i ce [ of pr ovi di ng such] t o ot her gover nment or gani zat i ons ( Congr ess, GAO,
DOJ . . . ) t hat may choose t o i nvest i gat e t he al l egat i ons, t he pr eponder ance of
Page 41

Unt i t l ed
evi dence, and/ or Bat t el l e s st at ement s/ decl ar at i ons/ admi ssi ons t o t he cour t .
Si ncer el y,
Phi l i p Pul ver
CCOL I nc.
( 509) 946- 1110
( 509) 946- 2411
Page 42

Transcript of 1-10-08 Deposition Testimony of Gary Morgan [Battelle Commercialization Manager]
Excerpts: Battelle Admitted Patent Filing Fraud [See details at www.PatentFraud.org]
Morgan Testimony Confirms Battelle Practice of Circumventing Patent Filing Rules/Bars
Actual Incident Cited: Renaming 2002 PDAC Inventions to RDADS in 2005
To bypass statutory patent deadlines, Battelle files new reports on old inventions.
They obtained new "timeframes" on 2002 PDAC/MDM inventions by writing a new
invention report [IR] and filing RDADS patent in Sept. 2005. [Renaming: PDAC RDADS]
Excerpt #GBM-p34 Battelle practice is to rewrite older invention reports to have a
new "timeframe [extension] to file a patent application.
34
5 Q. So in order to justify a new Invention Report, there
6 would have had to be something new, something
7 different between what Mr. Dorow was doing and what
8 was previously listed on the Invention Report?
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?
35
1 A. That's correct.
Excerpt #GBM-p31 On 2/22/05, Battelle was changing the PDAC name to something more
meaningful in the market; however, the PDAC invention itself had not changed.
31
19 Q. So Exhibit 115, is this an e-mail from yourself to
20 Kevin Dorow?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Were you having conversations with Mr. Dorow around
23 this timeframe regarding PDAC?...
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.

Excerpts of 1-10-08 Deposition of Gary Morgan [Battelle Commercialization Manager] Re: Patent Filing Fraud
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.
Excerpt #GBM-p35 RDADS [new code] patent application caused Battelle to cancel
external/public publication of the cleared PDAC [MDM] white paper in order to preserve
RDADS patent rights.
35
3 (PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT NO. 116)
38
17 Q. Okay. So at the top of page 2 you say, "We'll only
18 have one year from your public exposure to patent in
19 the US, and we lose our foreign rights the minute you
20 go public - it's your call."
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. Is that what you and I were talking about a minute ago
23 with the timing of --?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. So your concern was that if this IR was taken public,
39
1 that maybe you would potentially lose some patent
2 rights?
3 A. Uh-huh.
4 Q. So then going to the front page, I'd take you up to
5 the top e-mail. And this is an e-mail from yourself
6 to Mr. Dorow, it looks like. Is that correct?
7 A. The top?
8 Q. Yeah, the top e-mail.
10 Q. So you're suggesting that the publication of the -- Is
11 it the publication of the White Paper be delayed?
12 A. It says the ERICA clearance of PDAC document, which I
13 believe before we established as being that White
14 Paper.
15 Q. PDAC White Paper. So you're saying don't put the PDAC
16 White Paper even up on the website?
18 Q. Okay. And the reason for that is so that you can have
19 time to file a patent application?
20 A. That would be correct, yes.

Excerpt #GBM-p37 RDADS was new name for the PDAC[MDM] invention report [IR].
Outside Firms were interested in commercializing [licensing] PDAC.
37
1 Q. So you were having communications with somebody from
2 outside Battelle about them being interested in PDAC?
3 A. People being interested in the general capability of
4 mobile data communications...
10 Q. Okay. And so when Mr. Dorow says he submitted an IDR
11 on the e-IDR system, what does that mean?
12 A. Well, that must be at about the timeframe where the
13 lab introduced an electronic IR submittal system to
14 replace the paper IRs, and they titled it, the system,
15 e-IDR.
16 Q. Okay. So he submitted his report via an electronic
17 system?
18 A. That's correct. That's what he's telling us. And the
19 electronic system has a tracking number, which is not
20 the IR number, but is just a tracking number that the
21 system assigns to it, so that the inventor can keep
22 track of the fact that he filed it.
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.
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.
Excerpt #GBM-p56 A strong private/commercial market with large potential
drove Battelle's decision to patent PDAC/RDADS software invention.
56
7 Q. We're still talking about this market study.
8 I think you indicated earlier that the result of
9 the market study was that there was a wide array of
10 potential users for this technology. Is that correct?
11 A. There was a positive and broad marketplace, a large
12 potential marketplace, or I wouldn't have made the
13 decision to patent.
14 Q. And I think before you indicated that some of the
15 interest was from government entities and some of it
16 was from private business.
17 A. Certainly.

Excerpt #GBM-p19 Morgan confirms his 1/26/05 email statement that Pulver had exclusive license
to the 3 components that comprised the PDAC[MDM] software; Battelle could only license 2 of the
3 parts to other companies. [Note, the very next day, Morgan tells developers to call PDAC [MDM]
new code. In February 2005, a NEW invention report titled RDADS was written; the RDADS
patent application was filed September 2005 and published in March 2007. See emails below.]
[Note: MDM = Mobile Data Manager Software. Battelle renamed MDM to PDAC in 2002.]
19
22 Q. What's been marked as Exhibit 110, is that an e-mail [Note: Exhibit 110 is attached on next page.]
23 from yourself to Mr. Shoemaker?
24 A. Yes, it is.
25 Q. So you must have been having some communications with
20
1 Mr. Shoemaker around this time, the January 26, 2005
2 time period. Is that correct?
3 A. My recollection is only what I can see in front of me
4 on that paper.
5 Q. I guess I'd ask, Exhibit 109, which we just looked at,
6 which is this flyer that was submitted to you, that
7 was done on January 25th, 2005. So this e-mail,
8 Exhibit 110, looks like it would be the next day.
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. But you don't recall any conversations with
11 Mr. Shoemaker going on around that time?
12 This mentions Mobile Data Components. Is that
13 familiar to you?
14 A. I believe that I'm referring to the agreement where we
15 had a license that we could only license two of the
16 three parts of that piece of software. And I was
17 cautioning Mr. Shoemaker that if he was talking to
18 anybody, that he should not violate that agreement.
C)
From:
Morgan, Gary B
Sent: Wednesday, January 26,20057:39 AM
To: Shoemaker, Steven V
Subject: Mobile data components
Steve, If you are talking about the same MDe pieces of code that were licensed to Pulver, then we'ra still under the
agreement with him that we can only license any 2 of the 3 parts of this three part set.
Thanks, Gary
Gary B, Morgan, Battelle, Pacific Northwest National Lab,
Commercialization Manager, 509-375-2373 or 509-521-5980 cell
GBM-00022
Page 1 of 1
1
i '
.J
> From: Morgan, Gary B
> Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 1:41 PM
> To: Shoemaker, Steven V; Dorow, Kevin E
> Subject: RE: PDAC white paper
>
> Why don't you guy's file a new IR and tell me that this is all "new
> code"..... .
>
> Gary B. Morgan
> Commercialization Manager
> Information, Electronics and Security Technologies
> Battelle, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
> 3230 Q Avenue, NSB Rm 2421
> Richland, WA 99352
> Phone: 509-375-2373 Fax:
> 509-375-2345 Cell: 509-521-5980
> Email: gary.morgan@pnl.gov
>
>
>
> From: Shoemaker, Steven V
> Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 1:40 PM
> To: Dorow, Kevin E; Morgan, Gary B; Marr, C Thomas Jr; Flynn, Don F;
> Robinson, R Eric
> Subject: PDAC white paper
>
>
> All
> The PDAc white paper has been thru clearance , so here is the new
> version with the document number.
>
> File: PDACWhitePaper PNNL-SA-44024.doc
>
> Thanks
> Steve Shoemaker
>
KED-00926
Page 2 of2
2
".,m:
Morgan, Gary B
..nt: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 10:58 AM
To: Dorow, Kevin E
Cc: Darling, Kristine K
Subject: WP for IR on "wireless data handling"
Importance: High
New name - totally different please
New IP number driven from the NEW IR that you write - use WP# F05040 for a few hours to write the IR
Thanks
Cjary 'B. Morgan
Commercialization Manager
Information, Electronics and Security Technologies
Battelle, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
3230 Q Avenue, NSB Rm 2421
Richland, WA 99352
Phone: 509-375-2373 Fax: 509-375-2345 Cell: 509-521-5980
Email: gary.morgan@pnl.gov
1
KED-00045
Page 1 of 1
Messar
e
Page 1of4
From: Morgan, Gary B
Sent: Monday, February 28,20059:54 AM
To: Dorow, Kevin E; Darling, Kristine K
Subject: RE: Erica clearance of PDAC document
Need to know the IP that's involved Kevin.
(jarytB. Morgan
Commercialization Manager
Information, Electronics and Security Technologies
Battelle, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
3230 Q Avenue, NSB Rm 2421
Richland, WA 99352
Phone: 509-375-2373 Fax: 509-375-2345 Cell: 509-521-5980
Email :_gQIY,JIIQ[g?B@illlllQ'y'
From: Dorow, Kevin E
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 9:44 AM
To: Darling, Kristine K
Cc: Morgan, Gary B
Subject: RE: Erica clearance of PDAC document
Kristine,
I just submitted the IDR on the e-IDR system--the tracking number is 1052 and the title is Rapid Data Accquistion
and Dissemination System.
Let me know if you need any other information.
Kevin
Kevin Dorow
SeniorResearch Scientist,Inj()rmalion Sciences& Engineering
Pacdie l\orlhwestNational Laboratory operatedhy Battelle for the l.:.S. Depmtmcnt ofEnergy
(50'l) 375-2517

From: Darling, Kristine K
Sent: Wednesday, February 23,2005 10:18 AM
To: Dorow, Kevin E
7/2112005
KED-00047
Page 1of4

Page 1 Page 3
1 I N D E X
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
2 PULVER, CATALOGES ONLINE, INC. Vs. BATTELLE MEMORIAL
INSTITUTE
PHILIP PULVER and CATALOGS ) 3 Cause No. CV-05-5028-RHW
ONLINE, INC., a Washington ) January 10, 2007
corporation, ) 4
5 )
6 T E S T I M O N Y
)
Plaintiff(s), )
7 GARY MORGAN PAGE NO.
vs. ) NO. CV-05-5028-RHW 8 Examination by Mr. Bailey 5 - 56
) 9
10 BATTELLE MEMORIAL INSTITUTE,)
E X H I B I T S
d/b/a Pacific Northwest )
a non-profit corporation )
11
No. 102 License Agreement between Battelle and
Northwest National )
Laboratory and/or Pacific )
12 Mobile Data Methods, Inc.,
Laboratory, ) MLS-00003, Pages 17-31 of 202 13
) 13
No. 103 10/24-27/05 e-mails, VAB 00017,
14 pages 1-4 of 5
DEPOSITION UPON ORAL EXAMINATION OF
Defendant(s). )
15 No. 104 Interview Notes - Mark Goodwin, 1/15/04,
GARY MORGAN GRL-00007, Pages 1-16 of 16
16
No. 105 Lab Notes, Avoiding plagiarism: Giving
17 ` credit where credit is due, P20620
January 10, 2008 18 No. 106 3/22/07 US Patent Application Publication 42
Richland, Washington 19 No. 107 Battelle's Agreement for DOE-Funded 4
Technical Assistance, KED-01369, Pages 1-2
20 of 3, GES-00372, Page 1 of 1
21 THE FOLLOWING WERE MARKED DURING GARY MORGAN'S DEPOSITION:
TAKEN AT THE INSTANCE OF THE PLAINTIFFS 22 No. 108 12/22/03 and 1/20/04 e-mails, WRF-00024,
Page 1 of 6 12
23
No. 109 1/25/05 e-mail with Information Release
REPORTED BY: 24 Form, GBM-00023, Pages 1-3 of 3 16
DORENE BOYLE 25
Page 2 Page 4
1 APPEARANCES: 1 No. 110 1/26/05 e-mail to Shoemaker from Morgan,
2 FOR THE PLAINTIFF(S):
GBM-00022, Page 1 of 1 19
3 MR. TIMOTHY J. CARLSON
2
MR. ROGER W. BAILEY
No. 111 1/27/05 e-mail from Shoemaker Re Pocket
4 Carlson, Boyd & Bailey
Attorneys at Law
3 Data Access Components, PNNL-SA-44024,
5 230 South Second Street SVS-00112, pages 1-5 of 5 20
Yakima, Washington 98901 4
6
No. 112 e-mails 1/27/05 thru 1/28/05 to Dorow,
FOR THE DEFENDANT(S):
5 from Thurman, KED-00926, Pages 1-2 of 2 23
7
6 No. 113 2/1/05 e-mails, GBM-00032, Page 1 of 2 29
MR. DELBERT D. MILLER
7 No. 114 1/25/05 and 2/13/05 e-mails, GBM-00037,
8 Rohde & Van Kampen
Attorneys at Law
Page 1 of 6 30
9 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4050 8
Seattle, Washington 98154-1000
No. 115 2/22/05 e-mail, KED-00045, Page 1 of 1 31
10
9
MR. JIM JACKSON
No. 116 1/25/05 thru 1/28/05 e-mails, KED-00049,
11 Manager, Legal Department
10 Pages 1-5 of 5 35
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
12 902 Battelle Boulevard
11 No. 117 3/11/05 e-mail, KED-00062 Page 1 of 1 44
Richland, Washington 99352 12
13
13
ALSO PRESENT:
14
14
15
MR. PHILIP PULVER
16
15
16
17
17 18
18 19
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
24 24
25 25
1 (Pages 1 to 4)
COURT REPORTING SERVICE (509)457-6741 (800)317-6741
SOUTH SECOND STREET, 413 LARSON BLDG., YAKIMA, WA

Page 5 Page 7
1 BE IT REMEMBERED that on Thursday, January 10, 1 A. They designed computer systems to solve problems for
2 2008 commencing at 1:00 p.m., at Battelle Memorial 2 various government clients.
3 Institute, 902 Battelle Boulevard, Richland, Washington, 3 Q. So how long were you a Technical Group Manager, then?
4 the deposition of GARY MORGAN was taken before Dorene 4 A. I don't recall exact timeframes in that.
5 Boyle, Court Reporter and Notary Public. 5 Q. Do you recall what your next position was after that?
6 The following proceedings took place: 6 A. I believe the next position after that was to do
7 7 commercial business for the Applied Physics Center.
8 GARY MORGAN, being first duly sworn to tell 8 Q. Commercial business, okay. What was involved in that
9 the truth, the whole truth and 9 job?
10 nothing but the truth, 10 A. Trying to bring in business from commercial clients
11 testified as follows: 11 that would make use of the lab's capabilities.
12 12 Q. So you would take technology that was owned by the lab
13 EXAMINATION 13 and try and market it to various businesses?
14 BY MR. BAILEY: 14 A. Uh-huh. Yes.
15 Q. Hi, Mr. Morgan, my name is Roger Bailey, and I 15 Q. What did you do after that position? What was your
16 represent the plaintiff, Mr. Pulver. 16 next position with Battelle?
17 Could you state your full name for the record. 17 A. After that, I took an off-site loan executive
18 A. Gary B. Morgan. 18 position.
19 Q. Where do you reside? 19 Q. In other words, Battelle was involved in some sort of
20 A. 312 Columbia Center Boulevard, Kennewick, Washington. 20 venture and you were asked to manage it in some way?
21 Q. What's your current employment status? What's your 21 A. That's correct.
22 position? 22 Q. What business was that?
23 A. I'm a member of staff. Senior Program Manager. 23 A. It was a business in doing -- trying to develop and
24 Q. And how long have you worked in that capacity? 24 market an acoustic holographic imaging technology.
25 A. Three years. 25 Q. Okay. And then how long did that position last?
Page 6 Page 8
1 Q. How long have you been with Battelle here in Richland? 1 A. Approximately two and a half years.
2 A. Since 1991. 2 Q. Okay. And then when you came back from that, did you
3 Q. And when you came on in 1991, what were you doing for 3 come into your current position?
4 them? 4 A. No.
5 A. I was a member of staff in the Computer Sciences 5 Q. What was next? What position was next after that?
6 Department. 6 A. When I came back?
7 Q. And what did you do? I mean, what are your job duties 7 Q. Yes.
8 as a member of the staff in the Computer Sciences 8 A. I took a job as commercialization manager for the
9 Department? 9 National Security Directorate.
10 MR. MILLER: In '91? 10 Q. Now, what were your duties in that job?
11 MR. BAILEY: In '91. 11 A. To again develop business with commercial companies
12 A. In '91? 12 using capabilities in intellectual property that the
13 Q. Yes. 13 laboratory and Battelle owned, but intellectual.
14 A. I was in charge of a lab initiative for about six 14 Q. What is the National Security Directorate, is that a
15 months. 15 branch of Battelle?
16 Q. Okay. So you were in that job only six months? 16 A. That's a major division of the laboratory.
17 A. Uh-huh. 17 Q. But in commercializing these things, you were working
18 Q. Then what job did you have after that? 18 with private business rather than within the
19 A. Then I was Technical Group Manager. 19 government?
20 Q. And what were your job responsibilities in that 20 A. That's correct. My major focus would be.
21 position? 21 Q. Okay. After doing what, what was your next position
22 A. To manage a technical group of computer scientists. I 22 with Battelle?
23 was line manager. 23 A. I did that job up until three years ago. The job --
24 Q. And what were the computer scientists doing? What 24 So that's what I did up until three years ago.
25 were you managing? What did they do? 25 Q. And then you came into your current position, which
2 (Pages 5 to 8)

Page 9 Page 11
1 you said is a Senior Program Manager? 1 developing something with these technologies?
2 A. Uh-huh. 2 A. Correct.
3 Q. What's the difference between what you're doing now 3 Q. And then you kind of try and put that together?
4 and your commercialization work for the NSD? 4 A. Correct.
5 A. I don't have any involvement in licensing or 5 MR. MILLER: Could we get a timeframe on
6 intellectual property protection in my current job. 6 these questions. Is that as of the time that he
7 Q. What do you do in your current job? 7 was --
8 A. I have about ten different activities. 8 MR. BAILEY: I'm just talking in general. I
9 Q. Okay. What are the primary ones? 9 think what he said is his job as a commercialization
10 A. Helping our laboratory initiatives accelerate their 10 manager for NSD, is really what I was talking about.
11 performance, in terms of doing basic research, would 11 MR. MILLER: So it's not currently. It was
12 be one major activity. 12 at that time.
13 Q. So did you come over to your current position in the 13 MR. BAILEY: Right. For right now, yes,
14 beginning of 2004, roughly, or was it --? 14 that's what I want to talk about. The 2004 timeframe.
15 A. It was about -- It would have been midyear 2006. 15 Q. So did I understand correctly your testimony that you
16 Q. Midyear 2006, okay. In which one of these capacities, 16 never did any commercialization work with PDAC?
17 which one of these jobs that we talked about, did you 17 A. I don't recall that I did.
18 come into contact with Mr. Pulver? 18 Q. Did you ever have any communications with a guy named
19 A. Well, I first came in contact with Mr. Pulver back in 19 Ty Daniels at Onyx Corporation?
20 my first job because we were in the same building 20 A. Yes.
21 together. 21 Q. Do you remember the general timeframe of when you
22 Q. Okay. When did you come into contact with Mr. Pulver 22 talked to Mr. Daniels?
23 regarding the software we've been referring to as 23 A. I don't remember. If you have some records, I could
24 Mobile Data Manager? I'm going to call it MDM. 24 refresh my memory, but I don't recall the dates.
25 A. I did not come into contact with Mr. Pulver relative 25 (PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT NO. 108
Page 10 Page 12
1 to MDM. 1 MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION).
2 Q. What about Pocket Data Access Components, PDAC? 2 Q. Go ahead and tell me when you've had a chance to look
3 A. Neither. 3 at that.
4 Q. You didn't ever have any contact with Mr. Pulver 4 A. Okay.
5 regarding that? 5 Q. What has been referred to here as Exhibit 108, is this
6 A. That's correct, I did not. 6 an e-mail that you sent to Mr. Akers and Mr. Dorow?
7 Q. What was your involvement with PDAC at the lab? 7 A. That's correct.
8 A. None. 8 Q. In it you refer to a conversation with Ty Daniels.
9 Q. You had no involvement at all? Didn't ever deal with 9 But I take it from the tone and sort of the context of
10 PDAC? 10 it that you must have had previous communications with
11 A. That's correct. 11 Mr. Daniels. Is that correct?
12 Q. Okay. Just as a commercialization manager, sort of 12 A. I don't recall how the content with Mr. Daniels
13 walk me through the process of what you do. I mean, 13 occurred or whether it was prior to this or not,
14 when you get an invention, you get an Invention Report 14 but --
15 and you see that there's new technology or do you 15 Q. It --
16 just -- You know, how do you go about marketing the 16 A. Okay.
17 stuff? 17 Q. It says you talked again to Ty Daniels. So I assume
18 A. We have a process called fairness opportunity in which 18 that means you talked to him previously.
19 we advertise the technology broadly and openly. We 19 A. Right.
20 also have a website of available technologies that 20 Q. Do you recall what Ty Daniels and Onyx were -- why did
21 most of the technologies, if they have protection in 21 they get in contact with you?
22 terms of copyright or patent, then they are publicly 22 A. As I recall, he was inquiring about trying to license
23 announced both for fairness opportunity and they're 23 the technology that was licensed to Mr. Pulver.
24 put on the website as available. 24 Q. Which technology was that that was licensed to
25 Q. So then people contact you if they're interested in 25 Mr. Pulver?
3 (Pages 9 to 12)

Page 13 Page 15
1 A. I don't recall the name of it. 1 agreement or a later agreement that there was some
2 Q. You say in your e-mail Mobile Data Methods. What's 2 negotiated agreement that there were three parts to
3 that? 3 the software somehow, and that we could do one or two
4 A. I don't know. 4 of the parts or something, but we couldn't do all
5 Q. Have you ever seen the licensing agreement between 5 three of the parts. It was very confusing.
6 Mr. Pulver and Battelle? 6 Q. So your understanding from your communications with
7 A. I have seen that. I saw that later on in the process. 7 legal or whoever else you communicated with were that
8 Q. If I showed it to you right now, would that perhaps 8 you could license two of the parts, but not all three
9 refresh your recollection as to what software was 9 of them?
10 licensed to Mr. Pulver? 10 A. I don't recall the details of that agreement right
11 A. You can show it to me. It won't really help me know 11 now.
12 the exact intellectual property or anything. 12 Q. I mean, when were you talking to at Battelle? I mean,
13 Q. Well, okay. I think we've marked this as Exhibit 102. 13 who was giving you your understanding? Somebody was
14 I'm going to go ahead and show this to you. 14 telling you this.
15 I'd draw your attention to Appendix A and 15 A. Well, obviously Meg Soldat was one of the people. And
16 Appendix B and see if -- Well, you're welcome to 16 I believe my direct supervisor at the time was Bill
17 review the whole thing. 17 Farris, and I believe we had a discussion, and he
18 MR. MILLER: So what's the question? 18 briefed me on the agreement.
19 MR. BAILEY: My question was would it 19 Q. Who is Meg Soldat?
20 refresh his recollection, and he said that he thought 20 A. She's our licensing.
21 it wouldn't. 21 Q. Is she an attorney?
22 MR. MILLER: Okay. So what's the next 22 A. She's a licensing agent that works for Vince Branton.
23 question? 23 Q. Did you ever have any conversations with Vince about
24 MR. BAILEY: I'm letting him review it. 24 this issue?
25 A. (Reviewing document). 25 A. I believe this was before Vince. I don't know. I
Page 14 Page 16
1 Q. So does looking at that agreement refresh your 1 don't remember what date Vince was employed, but I
2 recollection as to what software was licensed to 2 believe this occurred before Vince.
3 Mr. Pulver? 3 Q. Well, we just deposed Vince. I can tell you that he
4 A. Not really, because I'm not familiar with the 4 was at least here in October of 2003. So that would
5 software. I recognize the agreement, that there was 5 have been at least a couple of months before this
6 some prior software that was licensed to -- And the 6 e-mail was sent.
7 name here, Mobile Data Methods, is the name of the 7 But you don't recall any conversations with Vince
8 company. 8 Branton regarding this?
9 Q. So as commercialization manager, do you need to know, 9 A. I do not recall, no.
10 you know, what the various technologies are that are 10 Q. Okay. This is dated January 20, 2004. Did you have
11 available to -- licensed to people? 11 think further communications with Ty Daniels after
12 A. We try to. I had 1,100 pieces of intellectual 12 this e-mail was sent?
13 property in my portfolio. 13 A. I don't recall.
14 Q. Sure. So you never had any efforts to commercialize 14 Q. Do you recall any circumstances where you licensed
15 MDM, the software known as MDM? 15 anything to Onyx Corporation?
16 A. No, I did not. 16 A. We did not. To my knowledge, we did not.
17 Q. Mr. Daniels, then, he wasn't interested in licensing 17 Q. Okay.
18 MDM? 18 (PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT NO. 109
19 A. I don't recall what Mr. Daniels' question was, but it 19 MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION).
20 related to that technology. And in the discussions 20 A. (Reviewing document).
21 back and forth with my management and the IP services, 21 Q. This Exhibit 109, is this an e-mail from yourself to
22 IP legal department, they indicated to me that we were 22 Mr. Dorow and Mr. Shoemaker?
23 under a current license with Mr. Pulver, and so that 23 A. Yes.
24 was my response. 24 Q. What is ERICA? That's E-R-I-C-A, all caps.
25 And it was some -- I don't know if it was in that 25 A. It's an information clearance process that PNNL uses.
4 (Pages 13 to 16)

Page 17 Page 19
1 Q. For what? This refers to something called Pocket Data 1 Q. Okay. So somebody wants to take the information
2 Access Components, which appears to be a piece of 2 public. That sounds a lot like they're trying to do
3 software. Is that correct? 3 what you've sort of told me is your job, which is to
4 A. It's a Java application. According to the abstract, 4 try and promote the software and sell it or license
5 it's a Java application. 5 it. But you wouldn't have been involved in this?
6 Q. Okay. So take me through the process of how do you 6 MR. MILLER: Well, I'm going to object to
7 get ERICA clearance for something like this, like 7 the form of that question.
8 PDAC. 8 Q. You wouldn't be involved in marketing PDAC?
9 A. The clearance that the particular staff member is 9 A. I was not involved in marketing PDAC.
10 applying for is a brochure or a flyer that he has 10 Q. Okay. And you don't know who was?
11 prepared and wants to use publicly. 11 A. I do not know.
12 Q. Would this be like a White Paper, what's referred to 12 MR. MILLER: If anyone.
13 as a White Paper? 13 MR. BAILEY: Excuse me?
14 A. It could be any kind of a -- It could be a very nice 14 MR. MILLER: If anyone.
15 slick sheet flyer, it could be slideshows, it could be 15 MR. BAILEY: If you'd like.
16 a piece of paper, it could be a website. 16 MR. MILLER: I'd object to the form of the
17 Q. So it's some piece of paper that somebody from 17 question as assuming that someone was.
18 Battelle wants to go public with and use it for some 18 MR. BAILEY: It doesn't assume that at all.
19 purpose? 19 He just said he didn't know if anyone was.
20 A. That's correct. 20 (PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT NO. 110
21 Q. And so when that happens, then it has to go through an 21 MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION).
22 ERICA review? 22 Q. What's been marked as Exhibit 110, is that an e-mail
23 A. That's correct. 23 from yourself to Mr. Shoemaker?
24 Q. I see that you're listed here as Commercialization 24 A. Yes, it is.
25 Manager Reviewer on page 3 of this document. When you 25 Q. So you must have been having some communications with
Page 18 Page 20
1 get a request -- When you got this PDAC flyer here, 1 Mr. Shoemaker around this time, the January 26, 2005
2 what did you do to review it? 2 time period. Is that correct?
3 A. I read that. 3 A. My recollection is only what I can see in front of me
4 Q. Just read this portion here on page 2? 4 on that paper.
5 A. Sure. That's all I get. 5 Q. I guess I'd ask, Exhibit 109, which we just looked at,
6 Q. Okay. And from that, what determination are you 6 which is this flyer that was submitted to you, that
7 supposed to make? 7 was done on January 25th, 2005. So this e-mail,
8 A. The only determination I'm supposed to make is whether 8 Exhibit 110, looks like it would be the next day.
9 or not the information should be held back because 9 A. Correct.
10 we're processing patent or, you know, some 10 Q. But you don't recall any conversations with
11 intellectual property rights that we don't want made 11 Mr. Shoemaker going on around that time?
12 public because we haven't filed patent or something 12 This mentions Mobile Data Components. Is that
13 like that. That's what my part of the responsibility 13 familiar to you?
14 is. 14 A. I believe that I'm referring to the agreement where we
15 Q. I see. So in this case, who was wanting to take this 15 had a license that we could only license two of the
16 public? 16 three parts of that piece of software. And I was
17 A. I don't know. 17 cautioning Mr. Shoemaker that if he was talking to
18 Q. If you go about halfway down that second page there 18 anybody, that he should not violate that agreement.
19 that you're looking at it says IR Submitter, Steven v. 19 Q. Is it a fair inference, then, that Mr. Shoemaker was
20 Shoemaker. What's the IR Submitter? 20 probably the one who was seeking approval of this?
21 A. Invention Report. 21 A. Well, I don't know.
22 Q. But that doesn't necessarily mean that Mr. Shoemaker 22 Q. Okay.
23 was the one who wanted to use the information? 23 (PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT NO. 111
24 A. That's correct. That's the reason I hesitated and 24 MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION).
25 said I don't know. 25 A. (Reviewing document).
5 (Pages 17 to 20)

Page 21 Page 23
1 Q. What was Mr. Shoemaker's capacity with the company at 1 Q. I'm going to ask you to look at page 2, which actually
2 this point in time, do you know? 2 seems to be the start of this e-mail chain. And at
3 A. A member of technical staff in the Computer Sciences 3 the top of page 2, is that an e-mail from yourself to
4 Department. 4 Mr. Shoemaker and Mr. Dorow?
5 Q. Would it have been unusual for him to actually be 5 A. That's correct.
6 doing the marketing of the product in that capacity? 6 Q. And what is that e-mail regarding?
7 A. No. 7 A. PDAC White Paper is the subject on it.
8 Q. That would be something he would do? 8 Q. Now, I thought you didn't have any involvement with
9 A. Yeah. 9 PDAC.
10 Q. This document that's attached to the e-mail, which is 10 MR. MILLER: You misstated his testimony.
11 Exhibit 111, do you recognize it? 11 MR. BAILEY: I'm just asking.
12 A. This White Paper? 12 MR. MILLER: He said he didn't commercialize
13 Q. Sure, yeah. 13 it.
14 A. Is that the document you're referring to? 14 Q. Did you have any involvement with PDAC? What was your
15 Q. Yes, that's the document I'm referring to. 15 involvement?
16 A. And what was the question? 16 A. My involvement with PDAC was to understand our license
17 Q. Do you recognize it? 17 obligations so that I could give guidance to the staff
18 MR. MILLER: Has he ever seen it before? 18 as to what they could do and what they couldn't do.
19 MR. BAILEY: Sure. 19 And I came in late on that, after the license was
20 Q. Is it familiar to you? Have you ever seen it? 20 done. Prior management had taken care of all of that.
21 A. You know, I would assume that I saw it, based on the 21 So that was my involvement.
22 cover sheet, but I don't have a recollection of it. 22 Q. So were other people at Battelle trying to
23 Q. What is a White Paper? What's the purpose of it? 23 commercialize PDAC, to your knowledge?
24 A. The purposes of White Paper at PNNL are very broad. 24 A. I have no knowledge of that.
25 They are a means of communicating PNNL capabilities or 25 Q. So you don't recall what Mr. Shoemaker was doing at
Page 22 Page 24
1 staff capabilities to various potential clients to 1 this point in time?
2 generate interest in their work. 2 A. I do not.
3 Q. This White Paper, would it have been the thing that 3 Q. What is the meaning of your suggestion that they file
4 they were seeking to get ERICA clearance for? Or 4 a new IR and tell you that this is, quote, "new code"?
5 could it have been? 5 A. I had been over in the hallway of the computer
6 Would it be out of the ordinary for somebody to 6 sciences building and Mr. Dorow had stopped me in the
7 seek ERICA approval to distribute a White Paper? 7 hallway and pulled me into his office to show me a new
8 A. No. The procedure would be, if they wanted to send a 8 set of code that he had written for handling
9 White Paper to a government client to generate work, 9 communications on mobile devices, and he pulled me in
10 they would ask for ERICA approval to send the White 10 his office and showed me the code. I mean, he didn't
11 Paper out. 11 show me the code. He showed me the capability that he
12 Q. That's for government work, you said. 12 had developed.
13 A. That's correct. 13 And my first question to him was, Is that new or
14 Q. What about nongovernment work? 14 is that mobile data, you know? And he assured me that
15 A. It depends. 15 he had written it all as new code on a new project,
16 Q. It could still be that they would seek ERICA approval 16 government funded project. I don't remember the name
17 to distribute a White Paper for nongovernment work? 17 of the project.
18 A. Could be. 18 And so it looked interesting to me from a
19 Q. Let me make sure I understand your testimony, then. 19 commercial marketing perspective, and what I was
20 At this point in time, which is January 27, 2005, 20 starting here was the normal process of having them
21 you don't have any involvement in marketing or 21 file an Invention Report and documenting that it was
22 commercializing PDAC? 22 new code in fact and not some derivative.
23 A. No. 23 Q. So Mr. Dorow told you in this meeting that it was all
24 (PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT NO. 112 24 new code, it didn't have any --
25 MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION). 25 A. That's correct.
6 (Pages 21 to 24)

Page 25 Page 27
1 Q. Okay. Nothing was copied from previous -- 1 new software, the new product.
2 A. That's correct. Because I emphasized that verbally 2 Q. But your understanding is the new product was totally
3 and I was reemphasizing it in the e-mail. 3 separate from anything that related to Pulver.
4 Q. So you would be surprised to learn, then, that some of 4 A. That's correct. So we would have freedom to operate.
5 the code -- If some of the code from Mobile Data 5 Q. So other than these e-mails that we're looking at here
6 Manager actually showed up in PDAC, that would be a 6 and your meeting with Kevin Dorow in the hallway or
7 surprise to you? 7 wherever he pulled you into, was there other
8 A. That's correct. 8 communications you were having with anybody at
9 Q. Did Mr. Dorow tell you what project this new code had 9 Battelle related to Mr. Pulver's license agreement?
10 been developed for? 10 A. Well, as I stated previously, I was having discussions
11 A. He did at the time, but I don't recall the name of the 11 with IP legal and my management about the prior
12 project. 12 agreement, so that I understood what our freedom to
13 Q. Was it the RPMP project? Are you familiar with that? 13 operate was and was not.
14 A. Yes, but I don't remember. 14 Q. But that was in 2004, correct?
15 Q. You don't recall if that was -- 15 A. Well, it may have been --
16 A. I just don't recall. 16 Q. Ongoing?
17 MR. BAILEY: RPMP is Radiation -- 17 A. It may have been ongoing, yeah.
18 MR. PULVER: Portal Monitoring Project. 18 Q. So when you said "Pulver is toast", you meant that you
19 MR. CARLSON: Let the witness answer. 19 didn't have to worry about any of Pulver's rights
20 MR. BAILEY: Sorry. It wasn't a question. 20 under the licensing agreement?
21 I was telling the court reporter. 21 A. Yeah, because it would be a totally separate, new
22 Q. Then on page 1 of this same e-mail, down at the 22 capability that we would have to commercialize.
23 bottom, it appears that Mr. Dorow responded to your 23 Q. So at this point in time, I mean, were people
24 e-mail by saying, "Actually, that is already in the 24 concerned about Pulver? I mean, was there a concern
25 works since we have added/changed substantial 25 that was generally voiced by people?
Page 26 Page 28
1 functionality." 1 A. No.
2 A. Right. 2 Q. I'm just wondering why you would tell Mr. Dorow that,
3 Q. What did that mean to you? 3 We don't have to worry about Pulver, if there wasn't a
4 A. That means to me that he was already in the process of 4 concern about him?
5 filing the Invention Report, which goes to IP legal. 5 A. I was just referring to the licensing agreement, I
6 Q. So the Invention Report would have been on PDAC? Is 6 believe.
7 that the way you interpreted that? 7 Q. So at the top of this e-mail you'll see what appears
8 A. I don't know if the name PDAC is unique to that set of 8 to be a mail from Dave Thurman to Kevin Dorow. Who's
9 code or not, you know. I just don't know that. 9 David Thurman?
10 Q. When he says he's "added/changed substantial 10 A. He's a member of staff.
11 functionality," added or changed from what, do you 11 Q. I don't understand his response: "Hope no one ever
12 know? 12 subpoena's GM's e-mail records." GM, is that you?
13 A. I don't know. 13 A. I assume so.
14 Q. Was he talking about MDM? 14 Q. Why do you suppose he -- Why is he worried about
15 A. I don't know. 15 somebody subpoenaing your e-mail records?
16 Q. Okay. So then proceeding up the page to the next 16 MR. MILLER: Objection, lack of foundation.
17 e-mail, which appears to be a response from you to 17 Q. Can you speculate on it?
18 Kevin Dorow, do you see that? 18 A. I don't know.
19 A. Yes. 19 MR. MILLER: I object. The question is
20 Q. So what is the phrase "Pulver is toast"? I mean, what 20 asking for speculation. It's an improper question.
21 does that have to do with -- I haven't seen any 21 MR. BAILEY: You can ask him to speculate
22 mention of Pulver anywhere in here. Now all of the 22 about it all you want.
23 sudden he's toast. What does that mean? 23 MR. MILLER: Speculation is not admissible.
24 A. My recollection would be that I was interested in 24 MR. BAILEY: This is a deposition, Del. It
25 seeing if we had an opening for commercializing the 25 doesn't have to be admissible.
7 (Pages 25 to 28)

Page 29 Page 31
1 MR. MILLER: Don't speculate. Tell him what 1 website.
2 you know. 2 Q. Was she suggesting that the PDAC White Paper that
3 You can't force a witness to speculate. 3 we've looked at be posted on there somehow?
4 Q. Is it your understanding that this new code that 4 A. She was. But she wouldn't post the White Paper as per
5 Mr. Dorow has written for this project is totally 5 se. She would use the White Paper as, you know,
6 separate from the MDM code? 6 background information.
7 A. Yes. 7 Q. She developed something that she puts on the website
8 (PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT NO. 113 8 based on that?
9 MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION). 9 A. Correct.
10 MR. BAILEY: Just for the record, Exhibit 10 Q. Okay. Do you know why she wanted to know about
11 113 is Bates numbered GBM-00032. 11 linking the paper to a preexisting page?
12 Q. So on Exhibit 113, the top half of the page, is that 12 A. I had organized our available technology web page in
13 an e-mail from Mr. Shoemaker to you and others? 13 sections of related technologies, and so she was just
14 A. Yes. 14 asking where this fit.
15 Q. Were you having conversations with Mr. Shoemaker 15 Q. Okay.
16 around February 1st regarding the commercialization of 16 MR. BAILEY: This is going to be 115.
17 this new code that was created by Mr. Dorow, PDAC? 17 (PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT NO. 115
18 A. No. Steve Shoemaker was simply informing me that he 18 MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION).
19 had had conversations with this company. 19 Q. So Exhibit 115, is this an e-mail from yourself to
20 Q. You never had any conversations with Omni? 20 Kevin Dorow?
21 A. No. 21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Or Meier's? 22 Q. Were you having conversations with Mr. Dorow around
23 A. No. 23 this timeframe regarding PDAC?
24 Q. So when Shoemaker says, "Let me know what we need to 24 A. I don't recall, but I would assume so, based on the
25 do to give Omni and Meier's access to this IP," what 25 fact that we were interested in pursuing forward if we
Page 30 Page 32
1 did you tell him?
1 could get IP clearance to do that.
2 A. I don't recall. There's probably something in the
2 Q. To get IP clearance for what?
3 record, but I don't recall what it was.
3 A. For his new code.
4 Q. It says, "Kevin is creating a new IR since the whole
4 Q. So does that mean you were trying to get it patented
5 system has been updated." What whole system is he
5 or something?
6 talking about there?
6 A. We later decided to try and get a patent on it, after
7 A. Don't know.
7 we did a fairly in-depth market analysis.
8 Q. You don't know if he's talking about PDAC itself being
8 Q. So when you say, "New name - totally different
9 updated?
9 please," what does that refer to?
10 A. A person would have to look at the actual Invention
10 A. It refers to trying to get a name that means something
11 Report, and then underneath that you would have to
11 in the marketplace.
12 look at what they meant by the term system.
12 Q. So you were trying to get the name changed from PDAC
13 Q. But you don't know?
13 because you didn't feel that was --
14 A. I don't know.
14 A. That didn't mean anything to anybody.
15 (PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT NO. 114
15 Q. So when you say, "New IP number driven from the new IR
16 MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION).
16 that you write," IR, is that Invention Report?
17 Q. Okay. This has been marked as 114 and it's an e-mail.
17 A. Correct.
18 Who is Rae S. Weil?
18 Q. But it sounds like you were just changing the name; it
19 A. She was -- She's no longer with PNNL. She was
19 doesn't sound like the invention had changed. Is that
20 marketing communications person.
20 inaccurate?
21 Q. Do you know what she's referring to in this e-mail
21 A. No. He was still in the process of filing, I believe.
22 when she says, "Where do we list this on the website?"
22 I would assume that's what I'm talking about there.
23 A. Yes.
23 Q. Okay.
24 Q. What is she referring to?
24 A. Otherwise we'd have the IR number.
25 A. She was referring to the available technologies
25 Q. Was there an IR number for PDAC?
8 (Pages 29 to 32)

Page 33 Page 35
1 A. I don't know. 1 A. That's correct.
2 Q. But if there wasn't an IR number for PDAC, what would 2 Q. Okay.
3 have been the policy on generating a new Invention 3 (PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT NO. 116
4 Report? Would there have to have been some major 4 MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION).
5 change to the program in order to justify a new 5 A. Okay.
6 Invention Report? 6 Q. So if you turn to page 4 of this exhibit, which is
7 A. Change -- I don't understand the question. 7 116, do you recognize the bottom half of that as the
8 Q. Well, you've got an Invention Report for PDAC, and 8 same e-mail we were just talking about on Exhibit 114?
9 Mr. Dorow has invented that. Now you're telling him 9 A. Correct.
10 do a new Invention Report. 10 Q. So this is an e-mail trail that appears to generate
11 A. I don't know that that's true. I believe he was still 11 from there. I'm going to talk about the top half of
12 in the process of doing an Invention Report for this 12 page 4, which appears to be an e-mail from yourself to
13 new code, and I was giving him some guidance here that 13 Rae Weil; is that correct?
14 the name sucked and that he needed to get it done. 14 A. Uh-huh.
15 They tend to not get these things done. 15 Q. You say in here that, "It's new IP and have several
16 Q. So you think there was an Invention Report on PDAC 16 interests coming around." Are you referring to PDAC
17 until --? 17 when you say "it's new IP"?
18 A. That's my recollection. 18 A. I don't know, based on the subject matter there. But
19 Q. Okay. 19 many times you do an e-mail, you know, an old subject,
20 A. The records might show me wrong on that recollection. 20 so I don't know. I mean, the names of PDAC, RDAC, all
21 I don't know. 21 those names is total -- it's a -- it's just a -- it's
22 Q. Well, okay. Let's delve into that. 22 mud sliding down the hill. I don't know.
23 Let's say you were wrong about it, and I can't 23 Q. What do you mean by that? You mean it's all the same
24 tell you whether you were or not, but what would have 24 thing?
25 justified -- If you just wanted to change the name of 25 A. I don't recognize them in terms of distinct phases or
Page 34 Page 36
1 something, would you do a new Invention Report? 1 anything. I don't recall what those names mean.
2 A. No. 2 Q. So are you suggesting that to you, I mean, that PDAC
3 Q. Just change the name at that point? 3 and RDADS were just part of a continuum, I mean, one
4 A. Right. 4 came as part of another?
5 Q. So in order to justify a new Invention Report, there 5 A. No, I'm not suggesting they're part of a continuum, in
6 would have had to be something new, something 6 terms of the code. I'm just suggesting that names --
7 different between what Mr. Dorow was doing and what 7 that those names tend to be used in continuum and they
8 was previously listed on the Invention Report? 8 may be referring to different pieces of code at
9 A. Most probably that would be the reason for doing a new 9 different parts of time incorrectly.
10 Invention Report, although there could be other 10 Q. Well, if we look down at the bottom of page 4, the
11 reasons, too. 11 e-mail from Rae Weil, where she was asking about the
12 Q. Okay. What, for instance? I mean, can you think of 12 PDAC clearance, knowing that that's the context, that
13 any? 13 e-mail is dated February 13th and your e-mail is dated
14 A. Timeframes. 14 February 14th, do you think you were talking about
15 Q. What sort of timeframes? I don't understand why a 15 PDAC at that point?
16 change in time would justify a new Invention Report. 16 A. I don't know. I don't know whether the White Paper
17 A. The timing on how long we have to process the patent 17 was the same code as we had later that we were trying
18 application. 18 to produce patent on, was the same code. I don't know
19 Q. So you only have so long after -- What event triggers 19 that.
20 you only having so much time to patent it? Releasing 20 Q. When you say you have several interests coming around,
21 it to the public or what? 21 who did you have in mind there?
22 A. I'm not sure, but there are time constraints. 22 A. I don't know. We must have had inquiries.
23 Q. So sometimes you might do a new Invention Report 23 Q. Were those inquiries to you or to Mr. Shoemaker or
24 because you need a new timeframe to run to get a 24 someone else?
25 patent? 25 A. Probably all of the above.
9 (Pages 33 to 36)

Page 37 Page 39
1 Q. So you were having communications with somebody from 1 that maybe you would potentially lose some patent
2 outside Battelle about them being interested in PDAC? 2 rights?
3 A. People being interested in the general capability of 3 A. Uh-huh.
4 mobile data communications. 4 Q. So then going to the front page, I'd take you up to
5 Q. Okay. I'm now on page 3 of this document, on the top 5 the top e-mail. And this is an e-mail from yourself
6 half of it, an e-mail which is from Kevin Dorow to 6 to Mr. Dorow, it looks like. Is that correct?
7 Kristine K. Darling, which was copied to you. Who is 7 A. The top?
8 Kristine Darling? 8 Q. Yeah, the top e-mail.
9 A. She was my administrative assistant at that time. 9 A. That's correct.
10 Q. Okay. And so when Mr. Dorow says he submitted an IDR 10 Q. So you're suggesting that the publication of the -- Is
11 on the e-IDR system, what does that mean? 11 it the publication of the White Paper be delayed?
12 A. Well, that must be at about the timeframe where the 12 A. It says the ERICA clearance of PDAC document, which I
13 lab introduced an electronic IR submittal system to 13 believe before we established as being that White
14 replace the paper IRs, and they titled it, the system, 14 Paper.
15 e-IDR. 15 Q. PDAC White Paper. So you're saying don't put the PDAC
16 Q. Okay. So he submitted his report via an electronic 16 White Paper even up on the website?
17 system? 17 A. That's correct.
18 A. That's correct. That's what he's telling us. And the 18 Q. Okay. And the reason for that is so that you can have
19 electronic system has a tracking number, which is not 19 time to file a patent application?
20 the IR number, but is just a tracking number that the 20 A. That would be correct, yes.
21 system assigns to it, so that the inventor can keep 21 Q. Okay. So after you wrote this e-mail to Mr. Dorow and
22 track of the fact that he filed it. 22 at least suggested that the publication be delayed,
23 Q. And is this the IR that you had asked Mr. Dorow to 23 what role did you have in moving the thing forward to
24 submit with a new name on it? 24 get the patent applied for?
25 A. I assume so. 25 A. None.
Page 38 Page 40
1 Q. Okay. So the new name is Rapid Data Acquisition and 1 Q. Okay. How would that have occurred, to your
2 Dissemination System? 2 knowledge?
3 A. That appears to be the case. 3 A. It goes into IP legal and they assign an IP agent or
4 Q. Is that commonly known as RDADS? Are you familiar 4 lawyer to it and it gets in their cue and they begin
5 with that terminology? 5 working with the inventor to define the claims and
6 A. No. 6 file the patent.
7 Q. You've never heard of RDADS? 7 My responsibility is to make a business decision
8 A. Well, I don't remember the acronyms. I stated before 8 as to whether or not I'm willing to spend the money
9 I had 1,100 pieces of intellectual property. 9 for a patent and spend the money to do market research
10 Q. Now I'm on page 2, down at the bottom, and you appear 10 and spend the money to market it.
11 to be responding to Mr. Dorow's e-mail about Rapid 11 Q. And did you make the determination that it was worth
12 Data Acquisition and Dissemination System and his 12 doing that in this case?
13 filing that IR. Are you saying you don't know what 13 A. I did.
14 the IP is that's involved with this new IR? 14 Q. What information did you base that decision on?
15 A. That's correct. I'm trying to clarify. You see, I'm 15 A. We did a market study, I believe, and it looked as
16 obviously confused about naming at that point. 16 though there was a good market for this.
17 Q. Okay. So at the top of page 2 you say, "We'll only 17 Q. Do you know when the market study was done?
18 have one year from your public exposure to patent in 18 A. I don't recall.
19 the US, and we lose our foreign rights the minute you 19 Q. So in your study that you did, was the question
20 go public - it's your call." 20 whether it could be commercialized to private business
21 A. Correct. 21 or whether it could be commercialized to the
22 Q. Is that what you and I were talking about a minute ago 22 government or both?
23 with the timing of --? 23 A. No, that's not the question in either case of a market
24 A. Yes. 24 study.
25 Q. So your concern was that if this IR was taken public, 25 Q. Okay. What does the market study tell you?
10 (Pages 37 to 40)

Page 41 Page 43
1 A. The market study tells you whether or not, with the 1 application had been filed.
2 features and capabilities that our people have 2 A. No, I was not.
3 described, there is a market for it generally. 3 Q. You were not.
4 Q. There's generally a market. Somebody wants to use it? 4 A. No, I was not.
5 A. Right. And who is that somebody. You know, how big 5 Q. How do you know when you can start, you know, trying
6 is the market, blah, blah, blah. 6 to market this thing, if they don't tell you when the
7 Q. And do you recall what the answer of that question 7 patent is filed?
8 was? Who the market was for this particular product? 8 A. That's a very good question.
9 A. My recollection is that the market was broad. 9 Q. So after you gave the go ahead to spend some money to
10 Q. Both private enterprises and government perhaps? 10 patent this thing, what was your next involvement with
11 A. That's correct. 11 this software?
12 Q. Okay. So you made your recommendation to the IP 12 A. I had none. I believe that I was probably out of the
13 legal. Maybe I'm putting words in your mouth. 13 loop of commercialization manager by the time this was
14 Do you make the recommendation to IP legal; do 14 filed.
15 you tell them you're willing to spend the money on 15 Q. Oh, because that was filed in 2007?
16 this? 16 A. Or shortly thereafter. I wasn't notified that it was
17 A. I authorized them to go ahead with patent using the 17 file, so I probably --.
18 money that I had authority to use. 18 Q. I'm going to hand 106 back to you. There's a place on
19 Q. Okay. So then are you kept in the loop as to what the 19 there where it says it was filed September 20, 2005.
20 status of the patent is by IP legal? 20 A. Oh, yeah, okay.
21 A. I am, but the wheels of patenting turn very slowly. 21 Q. I'm not sure what that other date is.
22 Q. Okay. So once the patent application has been 22 A. That's when it was published.
23 submitted, then is it your understanding that at that 23 Q. Okay.
24 point Battelle has protected itself, its rights; now 24 A. Yeah, so it was filed 9-20. I should have known that,
25 it can go out and begin marketing or commercializing 25 but I don't recall that. I didn't know.
Page 42 Page 44
1 the product? 1 Q. So you didn't know, then, that you could begin, you
2 A. Once the patent is filed, did you say? 2 know, commercializing that product. And then is it
3 Q. Yes. 3 your testimony that shortly thereafter you moved into
4 A. Yes. 4 your new job?
5 Q. Do you know when the patent on the PDAC was filed? 5 A. Yes.
6 A. To my knowledge -- No, I do not know. 6 Q. And in the capacity of your new job, you wouldn't have
7 Q. Did you ever see the patent application? 7 had anything to do with PDAC or RDADS?
8 A. No, I never did. 8 A. I wouldn't have had anything to do with the marketing
9 Q. So you didn't have any knowledge of what claims were 9 of the intellectual property or the patenting.
10 being made in the patent? 10 Q. Okay, thank you. That's what I meant.
11 A. That's correct. 11 So are you aware of any commercialization
12 Q. I'm going to hand you what's been marked as Exhibit 12 attempts that related to PDAC or RDADS?
13 106. That was something we talked to Mr. Branton 13 A. I'm not aware of any.
14 about earlier this morning. 14 Q. Okay. In your new position, do you have any
15 A. Is this the patent? 15 involvement with RDADS in any way?
16 Q. That's my question to you. Is that the patent 16 A. No. I have not to date.
17 application? 17 MR. BAILEY: Let me take a little bit of a
18 A. I don't know. I would have to go back through the 18 break.
19 files and try and track the IR number to this patent 19 (A SHORT RECESS WAS HAD).
20 number, and I have no way of doing that. 20 (PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT NO. 117
21 Q. Is the IR number referred to on that patent 21 MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION).
22 application? 22 A. Okay.
23 A. No, they don't, you know, because that's an internal 23 Q. Okay. What's been marked as Exhibit 117, is this an
24 number and this is a U.S. Patent. 24 e-mail that you sent to Mr. Dorow and other people?
25 Q. At some point you were told that the patent 25 A. Yes, it is.
11 (Pages 41 to 44)

Page 45 Page 47
1 Q. It refers to a meeting held March 9, 2005, in regards
1 publicized and it's a very large project. And that's
2 to, quote, "the subject IR". Is the IR that you're
2 about all I know.
3 referring to here the Invention Report we've been
3 Q. Okay. You don't have any knowledge about whether PDAC
4 talking about that Mr. Dorow submitted sometime in
4 or RDADS is involved with the RPMP project?
5 early 2005?
5 A. I do not.
6 MR. MILLER: Excuse me. Where do you find
6 Q. Okay. Do you know how much revenue Battelle has
7 the reference to March 9?
7 received from PDAC or RDADS?
8 MR. BAILEY: That's in bold in the second
8 A. I do not.
9 paragraph.
9 Q. Who would be the right person to ask about that, do
10 A. The subject is reference to IR 14714-E.
10 you know?
11 Q. Which is the IR that we've been discussing?
11 A. The technology commercialization department.
12 A. I don't know that because up until this point we
12 Q. So if you had been still in your previous job, you
13 haven't had a number.
13 would have probably known the answer to that question?
14 Q. The name of the subject is Rapid Data Acquisition and
14 A. Correct.
15 Dissemination System.
15 Q. Were you involved in any way with an internal
16 A. Correct.
16 investigation that was conducted by the Office of
17 Q. So that's RDADS.
17 Inspector General related to Mr. Pulver's licensing
18 A. Correct.
18 rights?
19 Q. So you don't know whether or not that's the Invention
19 A. No.
20 Report that you told Mr. Dorow to file on this?
20 Q. We spoke with Mr. Branton a little earlier about the
21 A. Well, there was a previous communication where we
21 perception, at least his perception, that Mr. Pulver
22 talked about RDADS. I would assume that's the same
22 was difficult to work with. That was something that
23 thing that he's referring to here.
23 he'd heard from a number of people at Battelle. Did
24 Q. Okay. So who was at this meeting on March 9th? Do
24 you have any of those kind of conversations with
25 you know what kind of meeting that was?
25 anybody or heard those kind of conversations?
Page 46 Page 48
1 A. Yeah. It's a standard commercialization office IR 1 A. No.
2 review meeting in which all of the commercialization 2 Q. So in your experience, Mr. Pulver was not difficult to
3 managers meet together with management and make 3 work with?
4 decisions on whether or not we're going to go forward 4 A. I didn't work with Mr. Pulver in any -- once he left
5 with particular, you know, patenting action, which 5 the laboratory. Never have worked with Mr. Pulver.
6 begins to cost money. 6 Q. I don't necessarily want to limit my question to just
7 Q. So it says here that "IP is actively being marketed - 7 something related to the licensing agreement. I mean,
8 but only under NDA." 8 you said you had at least contact with Mr. Pulver from
9 A. Correct. 9 pretty much the time you got there in 1991, didn't
10 Q. What does that mean? 10 you?
11 A. That means only under nondisclosure agreement, so that 11 MR. MILLER: He said he first met him at
12 we don't violate our patent rights. 12 that time.
13 Q. I see. So who was it being actively marketed to? 13 MR. BAILEY: Right.
14 A. Don't know. 14 MR. MILLER: I don't know how much contact.
15 Q. That wasn't something you were involved with? 15 A. He lived down the hallway from me and we shared coffee
16 A. I don't know. I don't remember. 16 once in a while.
17 Q. Do you have any familiarity with the Radiation Portal 17 MR. PULVER: '93.
18 Monitoring Project? 18 A. Yeah. I don't remember whether Mr. Pulver left the
19 A. RPMP. 19 building before or after I left the building. I don't
20 Q. RPMP. 20 remember when that was even.
21 MR. MILLER: It's a yes or no question. 21 Q. But you never worked with him directly?
22 A. Do I have what? 22 A. Not directly.
23 Q. Do you have any familiarity with the project? 23 Q. So, to your knowledge, Mr. Phil Pulver was not
24 A. Very, very vaguely. I mean, everybody at the lab 24 difficult to work with, as far as you know?
25 knows about the RPMP project because it's well 25 A. I didn't really work with him directly, so I don't
12 (Pages 45 to 48)

Page 49 Page 51
1 know. 1 MR. BAILEY: I'm not referring to an
2 Q. But you didn't hear anything that he was difficult to 2 exhibit. I'm talking about the marketing study that
3 work with? 3 was done by the commercialization department to
4 A. No. 4 determine whether mobile data technology was
5 Q. Okay. 5 marketable.
6 (AN OFF-THE-RECORD 6 MR. MILLER: I'm just trying to remember
7 DISCUSSION WAS HAD). 7 when that testimony popped up, during what exhibit, if
8 Q. I'm going to take you -- just skip around here with 8 you've got a timeframe.
9 you. 9 MR. BAILEY: (Reviewing documents).
10 We talked a little bit about there was a 10 MR. MILLER: It doesn't matter. Go ahead.
11 marketing study done at some point by your department, 11 Q. The question was just when was the study done?
12 which came to the conclusion that there was commercial 12 A. It would have been done just prior to my authorization
13 interest in PDAC. Do you recall that? 13 to patent because I would not have produced -- it
14 A. No. There was commercial interest in the capabilities 14 provided my business basis for the business decision
15 that Kevin Dorow was describing to me. 15 to spend money on it. So sometime before that.
16 Q. The mobile data technologies. 16 Q. So probably sometime in early 2005?
17 A. In general. 17 A. I don't know, you know.
18 Q. Not specifically PDAC. 18 Q. I'm looking at Exhibit 116 where you say, "Yes, I'd
19 A. That's correct. 19 agree you can delay the publication until we file a
20 Q. Okay. Was that ever published? I mean, was that a 20 patent." So it looks like at that time you agreed
21 study that was published? 21 that a patent was going to be filed. Is that right?
22 A. Oh, no, huh-uh. 22 A. No.
23 Q. There's nothing in writing about it. 23 Q. That wasn't --
24 A. Oh, there may be something in writing internally. 24 A. I had in my mind that I would like to file a patent if
25 Q. Sorry. I don't mean published to the world. I mean 25 it was deemed approved by the committee.
Page 50 Page 52
1 it was a written report. 1 Q. Oh, I see. So we've got to look at Exhibit 117, which
2 A. I believe it was written report. I don't recall for 2 is where the committee approved, okay. So that was
3 sure. 3 March 11th. So you believe the study would have been
4 Q. Okay. 4 done before March 11th?
5 A. But generally they would provide me with a written 5 A. Correct. So it may or may not have been done, you
6 report, okay? 6 know, in the February timeframe.
7 Q. Okay. So if there was a written report, where would 7 Q. Sure. Well, the question is, okay, you did a study,
8 that be located? I mean, would it be in -- What file 8 but how did you define what the study was going to
9 would it be in? 9 cover? I mean, for instance, did somebody give them
10 A. I don't know. 10 the PDAC White Paper and say, Here's what this
11 Q. Did the commercialization office have a file? I mean, 11 technology is, and so go do a study based on that?
12 how did it organize its files? Would it be by 12 A. No. I usually set up a request that the competitive
13 Invention Report or would they have a file for PDAC? 13 intelligence people go have a meeting with the
14 A. Yes. But whether or not the market analysis would be 14 inventors, and they have an iterative process whereby
15 in that file is anybody's guess. 15 they extract important features that the inventors
16 Q. Sure. 16 believe are really valuable to the marketplace. And
17 MR. PULVER: Can we take a two-minute break? 17 then they go back and do market, you know,
18 MR. BAILEY: I guess, yes. 18 intelligence searches based on those. And based on
19 (A SHORT RECESS WAS HAD). 19 what they find, they will go back and have subsequent
20 MR. BAILEY: Back on the record. 20 meetings with the inventors. And that process could
21 Q. I'm going to keep talking about this marketing study 21 take some time, depending on what they find.
22 that was done. 22 Q. You said that was competitive intelligence; is that
23 Approximately what timeframe was that study done? 23 what you said?
24 MR. MILLER: Are you referring to an 24 A. Competitive intelligence people, yes.
25 exhibit? 25 Q. So the competitive intelligence people would have gone
13 (Pages 49 to 52)

Page 53 Page 55
1 to talk to Mr. Dorow and Mr. Shoemaker probably? 1 I think that's what I said.
2 A. Probably Mr. Dorow for sure. 2 Q. What other technologies was Battelle working on at
3 Q. Mr. Dorow. And, to your knowledge, was Mr. Dorow 3 that time that were related to mobile data
4 working on any other mobile data technologies other 4 transmission or technology?
5 than what we've talked about, PDAC? 5 A. None to my knowledge, but at any point in time I don't
6 A. I have no idea what he's working on. 6 have knowledge of all the technologies that Battelle
7 Q. So when the competitive intelligence people go talk 7 is working on.
8 Mr. Dorow and they find out what he views the 8 Q. But you were the one who commissioned the study.
9 essential elements of this technology to be, then do 9 A. That study, yes.
10 they create a study? I mean, how do they then go out 10 Q. So doesn't it follow that -- I mean, if there were
11 and find out who's interested in this? 11 other projects that were similar that Battelle was
12 A. They have multiple data bases that they search. Like 12 working on, wouldn't those have been studied at the
13 I said, they do multiple in-depth reviews. You know, 13 same time?
14 they will find -- It's not unlike doing a patent 14 A. No. They were going outside in the market to do a
15 search. You find some data, and then you go back and 15 marketplace study outside.
16 bet it against whether or not that's pertinent data, 16 Q. Right. Right. But you're not aware of any other
17 and then you iterate and do some more of it. 17 mobile data projects that were going on around that
18 Q. So what sort of documents are generated? 18 same time?
19 A. Well, they usually do a report then to me. 19 A. I'm not aware of any.
20 Q. Okay. So somebody then from competitive intelligence 20 Q. When you do a market study, do you have to relate that
21 did a report to you on what their conclusions were? 21 market study to a particular Invention Report or a
22 A. Correct. 22 particular piece of IP?
23 MR. MILLER: Well, usually, he said. 23 A. You don't have to. We generally, you know, have
24 A. Usually I said. 24 the -- I have the competitive intelligence people meet
25 Q. In this case, do you recall such a report? 25 with the inventor of a particular piece of IP and
Page 54 Page 56
1 A. I don't recall for sure, but usually they do. We 1 understand from their perspective what to search for.
2 might have just had a meeting about it, too, but I 2 Q. Okay.
3 don't know. I don't recall. 3 MR. PULVER: Can we talk for a second?
4 Q. Do you know who from competitive intelligence was 4 (AN OFF-THE-RECORD
5 working on this project? 5 DISCUSSION WAS HAD).
6 A. No. 6 MR. BAILEY: Back on the record.
7 Q. How could we find that out? 7 Q. We're still talking about this market study.
8 A. It's been so long ago, I don't know. So many changes. 8 I think you indicated earlier that the result of
9 Q. So you don't know how we could figure out who was 9 the market study was that there was a wide array of
10 involved? 10 potential users for this technology. Is that correct?
11 A. I don't know. 11 A. There was a positive and broad marketplace, a large
12 Q. You did indicate that the study was related to mobile 12 potential marketplace, or I wouldn't have made the
13 data technologies broadly, not any particular 13 decision to patent.
14 technology. That's the part I'm having trouble 14 Q. And I think before you indicated that some of the
15 understanding. Let me rephrase that. 15 interest was from government entities and some of it
16 You don't really recall what the competitive 16 was from private business.
17 intelligence people said exactly, but you recall that 17 A. Certainly.
18 it was related to mobile data technology. Is that 18 Q. What sort of industries did they conclude, you know,
19 right? 19 private industries, business enterprises, that this
20 A. No. 20 technology would be useful to?
21 Q. Okay. 21 A. I don't recall that they tried to even break it down
22 A. I believe what I said was that they go out and do a 22 by industries. I don't recall.
23 market search on a broad area of the market around 23 Q. How did they break it down?
24 mobile data technologies and what's in the marketplace 24 A. I don't know. It's been a long time. I don't
25 and what's being needed. That's what I meant to say. 25 remember the contents of the study.
14 (Pages 53 to 56)

Page 57 Page 59
1
2
3
4
MR. BAILEY: Okay. I don't think I have any
more questions.
MR. MILLER: Okay. No questions.
1
2
3
C E R T I F I C A T E
STATE OF WASHINGTON)
) ss.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
(DEPOSITION CONCLUDED AT
3:01 P.M.)
(SIGNATURE RESERVED.)
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
COUNTY OF YAKIMA )
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that I, Dorene Boyle, Notary
Public in and for the State of Washington residing at
Yakima, reported the within and foregoing deposition; said
deposition being taken before me as a Notary Public on the
date herein set forth; that the deponent was first by me
duly sworn; that said examination was taken by me in
shorthand and thereafter under my supervision transcribed,
and that same is a full, true and correct record of the
13 13 testimony of said deponent, including all questions,
14
14 answers and objections, if any, of counsel.
15
15
16
16 Further certify that I am not a relative or
17
18
19
20
21
22
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
employee or attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor
am I financially interested in the outcome of the cause.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand
and affixed my official seal this day of ,
2007.
23
24
25
24
25
CERT/LIC NO. 2521
Notary Public in and for the State
of Washington, residing at Yakima
Page 58
1 CERTIFICATE OF SIGNATURE
2
3
Deposition of GARY MORGAN
January 10, 2007
PULVER vs. BATTELLE
4 US Eastern District Court Cause No. CV-05-5028-RHW
5
6
Page Line Suggested Changes
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
I have read the original or a copy of the
above-described transcript and my answers contained therein
24
are correct with the above-noted changes.
25 SIGNATURE OF DEPONENT DATE OF SIGNATURE
15 (Pages 57 to 59)
<!:ongress oftI,el ~ l t i t i l etates
IDasl,illgimt,lJ(!L 20515
January 26,2012
TheHonorable David Kappes
Director
UnitedStates PatentandTrademarkOffice
Mail StopCongressionalRelations
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria,VA 22313-1450
DearMr.Kappas:
TheUnited States PatentandTrademarkOffice(PTO)will soonselecta newsatelliteofficefor its
operations. We stronglyurge youtoconsiderlocatingone oflhoscofficesin Ohio. The PTO is looking
fora locationwilh: world-renowned universities; ahighl y-skilled workforce; numerouspatentfilers;
reasonablecostofliving; andacultureofinnovation. Ohiocandeliveroneachofthesccriteriaand is a
natural fit for theexpanded PTOoperations. Furthennore,Ohio'sworld-classtransit infrastructure
ensuresthat Americanscan access Columbuswitheasc.
Asthe birthplaceofthe Wright Brot hersandThomasEdison,Ohiohasa longandstoriedhistoryof
innovation. Globalcompaniessuchas Procter& Gamble,Goodyear, HondaofAmerica,and First Solar
todaycall Ohiohomeand have longinvested in commercializingnewtechnology in thestate. Ohioalso
boastsan impressive lineupofworld-classresearch institutionssuchastheClevelandClinic,TheOhio
State University, the Directorateoflhe U.S. AirForceResearch Laboratory,CaseWestern Reserve
University,NASAGlenn ResearchCenter.and Battelle Memorial Institute.
TheColumbus Region isan ideal location forasatellite PTOoffice. Columbus is home toa wide-array
ofhi gh-level researchprojectsand is home toaworkforce where forty-percent ofthe populationholdsan
advanced degreeandover 140,000 individualsareenrolledascollegestudents.
Ohioofferstheadvantagesofalargestate- world class universities, brilliant laborpool,and innovators-
coupled with Midwestem valueandworkethic. We supporttheenclosedproposal,and urgeyouto
stronglyconsidertheColumbusRegionfor U.S. Patent andTrademarkOffice.
Sincerely,
J?P(;,fJa:;/;R;h.-
RobPortman
United StatesSenate United SlatesSenate
SteveStivers PatrickJ.Tiberi
MemberofCongress MemberofCongress

Pulver V Battelle Case

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Pulver V Battelle Case

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Unt i t l ed

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi