Back to
Emails-to-Officials List
|
|
|
|
|
|
9/23/10: DOE Inspector General Refuses to Even Investigate Complaint
re:
Battelle’s Admitted Patenting Fraud [With
patent-fraud-related 2008-10 Emails
to/from US Patent & Trademark Office [USPTO] at Dept. of Commerce] -----
Original Message ----- From: Philip
Pulver To: Madden, Ray
Cc: Friedman,
Greg [DOE-IG] ; Steven Koonin [Science] ; Secretary
Chu ; Commerce
Secretary Locke ; David.Kappos@USPTO.GOV Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 3:55
PM Subject: Greg Friedman's Closing/Rejecting
the DOE-OIG Complaint Submission Re: Battelle-PNNL Admitted Patent Filing
Fraud -- PNNL Testimony & Documents
Confirm Practice of Invention Misrepresentations/Fraud to the USPTO [e.g., False Statements (18 USC
§1001)] Attachments: Transcript-DeposTestimony-Morgan-BattellePatentFraud.pdf
; P-BattelleMisrepresentationsToUSPTO.pdf
-----
Original Message ----- From: Madden,
Ray To: 'Philip
Pulver' Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 10:20 AM Subject: RE: OIG Complaint Submission: Battelle-PNNL Admitted
Patent Filing Fraud -- PNNL Testimony & Documents Confirm Patenting Misrepresentations/Fraud
Practice to the USPTO [e.g., False Statements (18 USC §1001)] Phil: Good afternoon and greetings! Thank you for your Hotline call this morning, followed by your
e-mail. I will incorporate this information into your complaint, P10HL597. If
I should have any other questions, I will contact you. I hope you will enjoy a good afternoon and weekend. Ray -----
Original Message ----- From: Philip
Pulver To: Madden, Ray
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 8:37 AM Subject:
Re: OIG
Complaint Submission: Battelle-PNNL Admitted Patent Filing Fraud -- PNNL
Testimony & Documents Confirm Patenting
Misrepresentations/Fraud Practice to the USPTO [e.g., False Statements
(18 USC §1001)] Ray, See my answers that immediately follow your questions
below. Thanks. Phil -----
Original Message ----- From: Madden,
Ray To: 'Philip
Pulver' Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 1:03 PM Subject: RE: OIG Complaint Submission: Battelle-PNNL Admitted
Patent Filing Fraud -- PNNL Testimony & Documents Confirm Patenting
Misrepresentations/Fraud Practice to the USPTO [e.g., False Statements
(18 USC §1001)] Phil: Good afternoon and greetings! Thank you for your two calls to the IG Hotline today, followed
by your e-mail. I will incorporate this information into your complaint, IG
Hotline Predication Number P10HL597. Please provide me with an e-mail response to the following two
questions: 1.
When did you file your initial complaint with the USPTO
and what was the outcome? The initial complaint was filed on 10/24/08 [see
below]. USPTO responded on 1/16/09 [below] by avoiding/dropping
the whole fraud matter and recommending I visit the online Inventors
Assistance Center (IAC) for general questions. And despite my
subsequent emails to them, there's been no response. 2.
Why are you reporting this matter to the DOE IG when the
matter/issue may be under the jurisdiction of the USPTO? Battelle's
admitted patent filing fraud is occurring on the premises of DOE
facilities, PNNL which is the first lab Battelle operated prior to the other four 4 DOE
labs it now manages; hence, there's sufficient probable cause for
concern that this patent filing fraud practice is systemic at these 4
labs as well. Battelle makes millions from patenting of DOE-funded inventions;
while admitting patent filing fraud, Battelle is likely
illegally "skimming" royalties away from DOE. Dept. of Commerce
[overseeing USPTO] has done nothing to address this; moreover, Dept. of
Commerce has rewarded Battelle by naming it to the National Advisory Council on Innovation &
Entrepreneurship. Clearly, Secretary Locke and USPTO
Director Kappos are overlooking Battelle's fraud just as the SEC
overlooked Madoff's. Hence, if the DOE-IG
passes on investigating this admitted patent fraud by Battelle, it
will continue unabated at across any or all five Battelle-managed
national labs. Finally, keep in mind that Issue 2 [below] is an actual
2005 incident of such fraud; it pertains to the MDM software developed
for my business under the DOE Technical Assistance Program in 2002-03 and
thus is a continuation of
Battelle's fraud cited in I04RS007.
Thank you for your additional insight. I can just see my
management asking me these questions. If I should have any further questions
after I thoroughly review this information, I will contact you. I hope you will enjoy a good afternoon. Ray -----
Original Message ----- From: Philip
Pulver To: Madden, Ray
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 11:47
AM Subject: OIG Complaint Submission: Battelle-PNNL Admitted Patent
Filing Fraud -- PNNL Testimony & Documents Confirm Patenting
Misrepresentations/Fraud Practice to the USPTO [e.g., False Statements
(18 USC §1001)] Attachments: Transcript-DeposTestimony-Morgan-BattellePatentFraud.pdf ; P-BattelleMisrepresentationsToUSPTO.pdf Ray, I am filing a complaint to the DOE Office of Inspector
General. The issues of the allegations are as follows: Issue 1 -- Practice of Patent
Filing Misrepresentation to USPTO: In sworn testimony [Also attached], Battelle-PNNL openly admits
to fraudulently evading
statutory USPTO
patent deadlines
by writing “new” invention reports [with new names] on pre-existing inventions when it needs new “timeframes” [extensions] to file a patent on those inventions they plan to commercialize but
for which prior patent filing deadlines [statutory bars] have expired due to Battelle’s using or disclosing the invention
publicly. By such “resetting the
clock”, Battelle circumvents statutory patent filing rules, thereby
misrepresenting the originally-dated invention(s) to the USPTO when applying
for a patent on the “new” invention; such false statements to the
USPTO violate 18 USC §1001 [False
Statements] and its patent Rules
[§10.23 Misconduct]. Note, because PNNL
is Battelle’s first national lab managed, it’s most
likely that such systemic patent fraud practice is occurring at the other
Battelle-run national labs [ORNL, BNL, INL & NREL]. The public, including inventors and others who legitimately file patent
applications, has a right to know that DOE Office of Science is granting Battelle
an illegal exemption from patent rules [and unfair advantage] in applying for
patents on taxpayer and privately-funded inventions. Issue 2 -- 2005 Incident/Example
of 1: In the testimony cited in Issue 1, Battelle acknowledged an example of such
patent fraud, i.e., 2005 renaming the MDM [Mobile
Data Manager] developed for Pulver’s small business via funding from
DOE’s Technical Assistance Program in 2002-03. Namely, after acknowledging that the
2004-05 follow-on MDM software versions were exclusively licensed to Pulver,
Battelle wrote a “NEW” invention report on the 2002 MDM software
inventions [after DHS Radiation Portal Monitor Project
adapted MDM to BlackBerry], renamed the
“NEW” invention to “RDADS”, “reset” the statutory patent filing bar/deadline from 10/1/03 [2002 MDM inventions] to 1/31/06 [2005 “NEW” invention], marketed RDADS under NDAs, filed RDADS patent application in Sept.
2005, and later invested in RDADS/RFID commercialization. Battelle’s own documents confirm that
MDM was marketed/publicized/demoed in 2003, thereby invalidating the
“new” reset 1/31/06 deadline/bar. Click on the “new code” section for details on this
documented patent fraud incident. See also the evidence site [www.ccol-inc.com/PvB] that has extensive supporting Battelle documentation and deposition
testimony transcripts.
Battelle’s patent-related fraud is detailed in this write-up
[click to download]: P-BattelleMisrepresentationsToUSPTO.pdf [Also attached] The emails below provide further
background. Note, the USPTO never
responded to my emails or the cited evidence including Battelle’s
admitting to patent filing fraud. Because Battelle manages half the US
national labs, DOE's investigating and stopping such ongoing
admitted systemic patent fraud of DOE-funded research is clearly in the
public interest; Battelle earns many millions of its patenting each year. Ray, if you need more information,
it's available on request. Thanks. Sincerely,
Philip Pulver CCOL Inc. -----
Original Message ----- From: Philip Pulver
To: Richard
Cronin Cc: Steven Koonin ; Friedman,
Greg [DOE-IG] Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 10:28 PM Subject: Further Justification for DOE-ORO to Release the Trade
Secret Patent-Related Pages Re: 2008-09 Emails Citing Battelle-PNNL Testimony
& Documents
Confirming Patenting Misrepresentations/Fraud Practice(s) to USPTO [e.g.,
False Statements (18 USC §1001)] Attachment: Transcript-DeposTestimony-Morgan-BattellePatentFraud.pdf Richard
Cronin [DOE-OHA], Per my 8/17/10 email to you, I'm forwarding this 1/29/10
email to the USPTO that also pertains to Battelle's admitted patent
fraud practice
[e.g., evading filing deadlines/bars] and example/incident;
see attached transcript and P-BattelleMisrepresentationsToUSPTO.pdf.
That email cites implications of USPTO [and DOE] exempting
Battelle [managing 5 national labs] from patent rules and laws; citations from the SEC Inspector General show that
the Commerce [USPTO] and Energy Depts. are overlooking
Battelle's fraud in the same way the SEC ignored evidence
implicating prominent Madoff who [like Battelle] served on advisory committees.
As stated below, "In key respects, USPTO’s refusal to
address this substantiated patent fraud/abuse [while still issuing patents to
Battelle] is more egregious than SEC/Madoff" and gives "credence to
recent concerns by Congress and businesses that Commerce Secretary Locke and
the USPTO [Kappos
(IBM) & Berejka (Microsoft)] are proposing patent
reforms favoring ‘technology behemoths’ to the determinant of smaller
businesses:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29002.html". The Commerce Dept. never responded to my 1/29/10 email that cited evidence of Battelle's admitted patent fraud; instead, it named Battelle to the National Advisory Council on Innovation & Entrepreneurship [see 8/17/10 email]. As I stated then, "The absence of any meaningful reply will confirm that the USPTO stands by its current official position of ignoring the evidence [documents & testimony], overlooking billion-dollar Battelle’s ongoing misrepresentations to the USPTO, granting Battelle exemption from USPTO Rules and Laws, and thus tainting the objectivity [level-playing field] of the patent process which adversely impacts entrepreneurs, small businesses, universities and others." DOE releasing the trade secret and patent-related documents would provide compelling evidence for the public, the administration, Congress/GAO and others to address/rectify/halt the fraud and illegal/unfair waiver of patent rules/laws that USPTO & DOE have granted Battelle to the detriment/disadvantage of other inventors and contrary to the President's declared support for small business in the worst economy since the 1930’s. Note: The
scientist [Dorow] implicated in Battelle’s 2005 patent fraud/misrepresentation [18 USC 1001 & Patent Rules §10.23 Misconduct] is a top-secret Q clearance holder who continues accessing DHS air cargo explosives research and other
classified material. Thus, there is probable
cause to conclude that the still withheld/concealed patent-related material
in Pulver’s file at Oak Ridge further implicates Dorow in false
statements, fraud & perjury which concerns not
only the taxpaying public [re: national security…] and law enforcement
but also the FBI, DOD, DOE, DHS and other agencies divulging
counter-terrorism and other classified information to him. [This
Battelle breach of safeguarding classified information (10 CFR §710) is cited in my 1/13/10 letter to Secretary Chu.] Richard, in addition to my evidence-based July FOIA appeal and other 2010 emails demonstrating that it is in the public interest to release all the still-withheld documents, the above situation that's tainting the patenting process further justifies DOE releasing the 180 trade secret and patent-related pages that Oak Ridge concealed from its 7/1/10 FOIA response, thus violating DOE-OHA Order TFA-0362 [“Under Department of Energy (DOE) regulations, a document exempt from disclosure under the FOIA shall nonetheless be released to the public whenever the DOE determines that disclosure is not contrary to federal law and in the public interest. 10 C.F.R. § 1004.”] and forfeiting its right to still withhold those pages. OR’s refusal to even list/describe the 180 pages raises reasonable suspicion that DOE-Science is hiding illegal and criminal activity by Battelle that runs/monopolizes five Office of Science labs and will soon bid PNNL; this further shows that releasing the other 106 pages [withheld per litigation FOIA exemption] with the 180 pages is in the public interest regarding integrity of the US patent process and safeguarding classified information at five national labs [PNNL, ORNL...] and regarding other matters cited in the extensive emails and at the evidence site. Sincerely,
Philip
Pulver Evidence
site: www.ccol-inc.com/PvB -----
Original Message ----- From: Philip
Pulver Cc: Margaret.Focarino@USPTO.GOV ; David.Kappos@USPTO.GOV
; Commerce Secretary
Locke ; TZinser@OIG.DOC.GOV
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 12:58 PM Subject: Update to USPTO & Request RE: 2008-2009 Emails Citing
Battelle-PNNL Testimony & Documents Confirming Battelle's Patenting
Misrepresentations/Fraud Practice(s) to USPTO [e.g., False Statements (18 USC
§1001)] Attachment: P-BattelleMisrepresentationsToUSPTO.pdf Information on Battelle's misrepresentations and false
statements [18 USC 1001] to the United States Patent & Trademark Office is being provided to those with the authority & obligation to act in the public interest. Evidence Site is at www.ccol-inc.com/PvB. CCOL Inc. 2415
South Garfield St. Kennewick,
WA 99337 (509) 586-3051 January
29, 2010 Mr.
Robert Stoll Commissioner for
Patents United States Patent and Trademark Office U.S. Dept. of Commerce 600 Dulany Street Alexandria, VA 22314 Dear
Patent Commissioner Stoll, I’m a small business entrepreneur who is providing evidence of Battelle
patenting misrepresentations [False Statements 18 USC §1001] that was repeatedly sent to
the USPTO since 2008, but which was
ignored. These
violations against the USPTO were uncovered during 2008 depositions at the
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory [PNNL]; Battelle is being sued for misusing
PNNL’s Technical Assistance Program [TAP] by withholding/pocketing research [Mobile Data Manager
[MDM] software] that
DOE specifically paid Battelle to develop for my small business; details are
at the evidence site. My lawsuit is NOT a
patent dispute. However, in deposition testimony, Battelle acknowledged [admitted] its violations of USPTO
rules/laws: (1) Practice
of Patent Filing Misrepresentation to USPTO: Battelle writes “new” invention reports on pre-existing
inventions when it needs new “timeframes” [extensions] to file a patent on inventions they intend to
commercialize but for which they
have shown publicly or used [statutory bar] By resetting the clock, Battelle
circumvents USPTO statutory filing rules and misrepresents the
originally-dated invention(s). (2) 2005 Incident/Example
[“new code” scheme]: After
acknowledging that MDM follow-on versions were exclusively licensed to
Pulver’s small business, Battelle wrote a
“NEW” invention report on 2002 MDM software inventions [after DHS Radiation Portal Monitor Project adapted MDM to BlackBerry], renamed “NEW” invention to
“RDADS”, reset statutory
filing bar/deadline from 10/1/03 [2002 MDM inventions] to 1/31/06 [2005 “NEW” invention], marketed RDADS under NDAs, filed RDADS patent
application in Sept. 2005, and later invested in RDADS/RFID commercialization. Note, MDM was marketed/publicized/demoed in 2003,
thereby invalidating the 1/31/06 bar.
Previously
sent to USPTO, the attached P-BattelleMisrepresentationsToUSPTO.pdf includes Battelle emails, 2002 MDM
invention reports, RDADS 2005 patent application, and 2008
PNNL testimony substantiating the violations.
The following excerpts from the PDF and the MisrepresentationToUSPTO section clearly
implicate Battelle: Battelle Testimony: Writing “New” Reports on Old
Inventions to Reset Patent Deadlines, with 2005 Example [Q=Question, A=Battelle Answer] “Q. So in order to justify a new Invention Report, there
would have had to be something new, something different between... what Mr. Dorow
was doing and what was previously listed on the Invention Report? A. Most probably
that would be the reason for doing a new Invention Report, although there could be other
reasons, too. Q. Okay. What, for instance? I mean, can you think of any? A. Timeframes. Q. What sort of
timeframes?
I don't understand why a change in time would justify a new Invention
Report. A. The timing on how
long we have to process the patent application...there are time
constraints. [USPTO Statutory Bar]... Example/Incident: Q. Were you having conversations with Mr. Dorow
around this timeframe regarding PDAC [Software]? A. We later decided
to try and get a patent on it, after we did a fairly in-depth market
analysis.” Q. So when you say, "New name
- totally different please," what does that refer to?... A. It refers to trying
to get a name that means something in the marketplace... Q. But it sounds like you were just changing the name; it
doesn't sound like the invention had changed.
Is that inaccurate? A. No.“
[Note,
the 2009 Tri-City Herald news article also references
Battelle’s patent-related misrepresentations.] 2009 emails below confirm that the USPTO and Commerce Dept.
Inspector General [Zinser] have taken the official position of ignoring prima facie evidence/admissions of Battelle’s
patenting misrepresentations [False Statements] that’s occurring
at PNNL and possibly/likely at other labs [ORNL, INL,
BNL...]. Since then, John Doll has retired; there are
new officials in leadership roles at USPTO and Commerce including you, David
Kappos, and Secretary Locke. Accordingly, I request
that the USPTO again review the evidence of Battelle’s
misrepresentations to the patent office and confirm that the USPTO either: (1) Affirms its official [current] position of exempting Battelle from USPTO rules/laws [e.g., statutory
bars, false statements] and
continues granting Battelle unfair advantage over others who
accurately/truthfully represent inventions to the patent office. OR (2) Rescinds Battelle’s
exemption, will conduct investigation [or DOJ referral], holds Battelle
accountable for violations/fraud against the USPTO,
and takes measures preventing this patenting fraud/abuse at ALL labs they
manage [PNNL,
ORNL...] Concerns/Questions
Re: Battelle Being Exempted from USPTO Rules & Laws [Note:
Prior cited concerns and issues are enumerated in the 2008 & 2009 emails below.] • This patenting fraud/abuse may be systemic practice at half the US national labs where Battelle
patents & commercializes DOE-funded inventions. USPTO’s
continuing to grant such an exemption to Battelle materially taints the
objectivity of the patenting process and will outrage entrepreneurs,
corporations, and others adversely impacted by the double-standard favoring
Battelle, which is among the most prolific patent filers in the US, generates significant fee revenue for budget-strapped USPTO, earns millions on
patenting & commercializing taxpayer-funded research, receives billions in federal contracts annually, and
manages other sites [e.g., DHS National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures
Center at Fort Detrick]. Is the USPTO
overlooking these violations to ensure that Battelle [a major revenue
source]
wins the upcoming bid(s) of PNNL and ORNL [Oak Ridge]? •
For decades, Battelle’s prominence/expertise in patenting and
technology commercialization [e.g., R&D 100] has been well known by the USPTO and by Secretary Locke
for whom Battelle-PNNL was a key constituent during his terms as WA governor.
Similarly, undisputed was Madoff’s
stature on Wall Street and with
the SEC, which helped him escape accountability for many years until he
confessed. The 2009 SEC Inspector General Report, citing
Madoff’s prominence/reputation at the SEC, clearly shows parallels
between SEC/Madoff & USPTO/Battelle situations. It further explains why USPTO senior officials
are similarly overlooking Battelle’s admitted patenting misrepresentations/fraud, as the following
excerpts illustrate: http://www.sec.gov/news/studies/2009/oig-509.pdf
- IG Investigation of
Failure of the SEC to Uncover Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi Scheme “The OIG
investigation also found the
Enforcement staff was skeptical
about Markopolos’ complaint
because Madoff did not fit the “profile” of a Ponzi scheme operator, with the branch chief...noting...“an inherent bias towards sort of people who are seen as reputable members of society.” [Pg. 36] “Examiners...aware of Bernard Madoff’s
stature in the securities industry...Madoff’s firm “was very prominent”...served on various industry committees, was a well respected individual...SEC
examiners used an NASD manual with Bernard Madoff’s
name in it...stated...because of [his] reputation... may not have been any thought to look into Madoff’s operation any
further.” [Pg. 50] “examiners recalled OCIE
[Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations]
telling them Madoff was a powerful
and well-connected individual... interpreted the statement to raise a concern for them about
pushing Madoff too hard...supervisors at the SEC appear to have been reluctant to push issues
against influential people” [Pg. 199] After
Madoff confessed, Lamore [Examiner] reflected in an e-mail with...Enforcement Assistant Regional Director, about why they were unable to uncover the
fraud...acknowledged that at the senior levels of the SEC, the hesitancy
towards rocking the boat may be
even more pronounced with respect to someone
like Bernie Madoff, who’s a well-known
person in industry... easier to be more aggressive when you are examining
a “penny-stock firm” rather than, for instance, Goldman
Sachs...“very difficult”...“to tell Bernie Madoff that
he’s a liar.”” [Pg. 387] •
If the USPTO continues
allowing Battelle to act as a ‘Madoff’ of the patenting & intellectual property community, then inventors,
Congress and others need to know that USPTO has granted Battelle [501(c)3] unfair advantage over small
businesses, universities and others who abide by the patent Rules and Laws. It would also give credence to recent concerns
by Congress and businesses that Commerce Secretary Locke and USPTO [Kappos (IBM) & Berejka (Microsoft)] are proposing patent reforms favoring ‘technology
behemoths’ to the determinant of smaller businesses: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29002.html [In key respects, USPTO’s refusal to
address this substantiated patent fraud/abuse [while still issuing patents to
Battelle] is more egregious than SEC/Madoff.] •
The current situation raises many questions;
many are in emails below, but I also cite some here. Is Battelle now further
emboldened to violate USPTO rules/laws now that Gary Locke is Commerce
Secretary? Battelle-PNNL was a key constituent
when he was WA governor. Will Battelle
rely on this relationship to shield them from oversight & enforcement in the
same way that Madoff’s interactions/reputation with SEC officials
enabled him to defraud investors after SEC rebuffed credible whistleblower
complaints for a decade? Is Battelle
using its dominance/monopoly at the national labs [with substantial
patenting]
to bully the USPTO and/or DOE to overlook its admitted fraudulent patent
practices at PNNL or elsewhere? If so,
is Battelle violating anti-trust laws? Note:
Additional concerns, implications and questions are in the 2008-2009 emails
below. If you need more information or have questions, please let me
know. The absence of any meaningful
reply will confirm that the USPTO stands by its current official position of
ignoring the evidence [documents & testimony], overlooking billion-dollar
Battelle’s ongoing misrepresentations to the USPTO, granting Battelle
exemption from USPTO Rules and Laws, and thus tainting the objectivity [level-playing field] of the patent
process which adversely impacts entrepreneurs, small businesses, universities
and others. I look
forward to hearing from you. Thank
you. Sincerely, Philip C. Pulver (509) 528-9212 cell http://www.ccol-inc.com/PvB [Evidence
Site - Main Page] http://www.ccol-inc.com/PvB/MisrepresentationToUSPTO.htm [Dorow False Statements to Patent Office - Battelle Commercialization admits evading USPTO Statutory Bars] http://www.ccol-inc.com/PvB/Emails-NewCode-2005.htm
[Dorow Suddenly Calling MDM-on-BlackBerry “new code” to Defraud
Licensee [“Pulver is Toast”] and Mislead USPTO] http://www.ccol-inc.com/PvB/Declaration-PulverAwards-CrtDoc221.pdf [Pulver Background &
Entrepreneurial Awards from Battelle] http://www.ccol-inc.com/PvB/Depositions.htm
[Battelle-PNNL Scientist Testimony Showing Dorow's Perjury & False
Declarations, and False Statments to USPTO]
http://www.ccol-inc.com/PvB/Documents.htm [Summary
Detailed Outlines by Topic with Pop-Open Exhibits]
-----
Original Message ----- From: Philip
Pulver Cc: W.
Covey [USPTO.gov] ; john.doll@uspto.gov ; M.
Focarino [USPTO.gov] ; TZinser@OIG.DOC.GOV ; hotline@oig.doc.gov
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 10:34 PM Subject: Response to 2/23/09 USPTO
Email Responding to Pulver's 1/31/09 Email Re: Testimony & Documents
Confirming Battelle Patent Fraud Practice(s) Attachments: Transcript-BattelleMorganDeposition-withExcerpt.pdf
; 20090223103929044.pdf
; FraudFalseStatementsToUSPTO.pdf Dear
Mr. Wiley [Office of Commissioner for Patents], I have
received your 2/23/09 USPTO final response to my 1/31/09 letter to Mr.
Covey [Deputy General
Counsel for General Law at USPTO] who
responded to my 1/5/09 email; all are below.
I am emailing a reply which consists of the following sections: 1.
Specific responses to your 2/23/09 USPTO message [20090223103929044.pdf attached] 2.
Questions raised by the USPTO ignoring Battelle’s
acknowledged/admitted patent fraud and false statements 3.
Relevant closing points [e.g., SEC/Madoff vis-à-vis USPTO/Battelle and
Congressional hearings] 1. Specific responses to your 2/23/09 USPTO message [20090223103929044.pdf]
As with Mr. Covey, your response ignores the critical Battelle
deposition testimony acknowledging fraudulent patent filing practice at the Pacific Northwest National Lab. Instead, you
did a cursory cut & paste from (1) Manual
of Patent Examining Procedure [MPEP] (Regulations), (2) 18 USC §1001 [Fraud
& False Statements] which I cited, and (3) USPTO
General Information Page [http://www.uspto.gov/go/pac/doc/general].
The
following excerpts of my 1/31/09 email reiterate the central, critical issue that the USPTO repeatedly disregards: (i) “This message is response to your
1/16/09 email below that referred my complaint to the USPTO Inventors Assistance
Center [IAC] Contrary to your email, I’m
not a customer but a whistleblower who’s
providing evidence [testimony & documents] of Battelle’s practice of evading
statutory deadlines by writing “new” [faked] invention reports... By referring my complaint to an organization [IAC] that
obviously doesn’t address fraud, Deputy Director Doll’s office is
turning a blind eye and ignoring prima facie evidence of Battelle’s patent fraud and false statements [18 USC
§1001], allegations substantiated by Battelle documents &
testimony to a Federal judge.” (ii) [Writing “New” Reports
on Old Inventions to Reset Patent Deadlines, with 2005 Example] [Q=Question, A=Battelle
Answer] “Q. So in order to justify a new Invention Report, there would have had to be something new, something different between what Mr. Dorow was doing and what was previously listed on the
Invention Report? A. Most probably that would be the reason for doing a new
Invention Report, although there could be other reasons, too. Q. Okay. What, for
instance? I mean, can you think of
any? A. Timeframes. Q.
What sort of timeframes? I don't understand why a change in time would justify a new Invention
Report. A.
The timing on how long we have to process the
patent application...there are time
constraints. [USPTO Statutory Bar]... [Example/Incident: ] Q. Were you having conversations with Mr. Dorow around this
timeframe regarding PDAC [Software]?. A. We later decided to try and get a patent on it, after we
did a fairly in-depth market analysis.” Q.
So when you say, "New name
- totally different please," what
does that refer to?... A. It refers to trying to get a name that means something in
the marketplace... Q. But it sounds like you were just changing the name; it doesn't sound
like the invention had changed. Is
that inaccurate? A. No. “ [From re-attached Transcript-BattelleMorganDeposition-withExcerpt.pdf ]” You state that “the USPTO
generally trusts that the applicant's statements are true”. However, after being provided with
information showing otherwise, you and Mr. Covey sidestep
the issue by ignoring Battelle’s candid testimony confirming ongoing
deceptive patent filing practice(s). You cite the 2005 patent fraud
example and mischaracterize my complaint as a patent dispute despite my prior
emails to the contrary. In so doing, you
evaded the central issue, i.e., Battelle’s systemic patent fraud
practice(s) at PNNL and possibly at other labs they manage. You note
that “since the USPTO is not a regulatory or judicial agency with
prosecutorial authority, it does not prosecute people for fraud”. Yes,
that’s true, which is why Dept. of Commerce and other agencies [DOE,
SEC...] refer criminal matters [e.g., fraud &
false statements (18 USC §1001)] to Dept. of Justice when wrongdoing is uncovered in agency
investigations. Although not a
regulatory agency per se, the USPTO has sole statutory responsibility to
issue patents in accordance with its many regulations, some of which you
emailed to me. In sum, their inability
to prosecute doesn’t justify the USPTO and its OIG turning a blind eye
to patenting fraud & abuse, especially by Battelle,
prominent in patenting of Government research. Cited neither by you nor Mr. Covey, the Commerce Dept. OIG Web site states the following: “As mandated by the Inspector General Act of 1978, the mission of the Office of
Inspector General is to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness and detect and prevent waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement
in the programs and operations of the Department of
Commerce.” [http://www.oig.doc.gov] Accordingly, I sent complaints to
the DOC-OIG on 10/24/08 and 1/5/09.
Mr. Covey responded to my “complaint sent January 05, 2009, via email to the Department of Commerce Inspector General Hotline”. Therefore, the Covey and Wiley emails
document that the USPTO and the Commerce Dept. Office of Inspector General
have taken the official position to overlook Battelle-PNNL’s fraudulent patenting
practice(s) that’s unequivocally confirmed by Battelle testimony and
their numerous exhibits. 2. Questions raised by the USPTO ignoring
Battelle’s acknowledged/admitted patent fraud and false statements Others will now ask questions why USPTO senior officials flatly
ignored Battelle’s fraudulent patenting practice that’s
corroborated by testimony. Examples of such questions are as follows: Why is the USPTO turning a blind eye to
admitted patent filing fraud by tax-exempt Battelle which runs 5 of the 10
DOE national labs, manages many others [e.g., DHS (National
Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center) and DOD (Fort
Detrick(Anthrax))], files far more patent applications than most, takes title to
inventions and commercializes taxpayer-funded research, oversees top-secret Q clearance holders filing patents, and receives billions in
Federal Gov. contracts annually? Why are USPTO Deputy Director Doll and Patent
Commissioner Focarino tolerating Battelle’s admitted fraudulent patent
filing practice(s) that could undermine the reputation and integrity
of the patent-examining process that they’ve both worked in and managed
for over 30 years? Will Battelle be further emboldened to violate
USPTO rules & laws once Gary Locke
is confirmed as Commerce Secretary? Battelle-PNNL was a major constituent during
his terms as WA governor. Is the USPTO stonewalling a fraud investigation
[and criminal referral to Dept. of Justice] that could jeopardize one of its
“best customers”, Battelle, winning the upcoming recompete/bid
of PNNL that’s been managed & operated by Battelle since 1965? Given the SEC/Madoff debacle and other fraud-related
current events that have outraged Congress and the taxpaying public, why is
the USPTO precluding an investigation of 501(c)3
tax-exempt Battelle regarding these serious fraud matters that have ominous
implications for inventors, investors, small and large
business, and others who, in good faith, rightfully rely on an unbiased, level-playing field regarding patents and trademarks? 3. Relevant closing points [e.g., SEC/Madoff vis-à-vis
USPTO/Battelle and Congressional hearings] The USPTO’s ignoring Battelle’s patenting fraud is
akin to the SEC’s overlooking detailed & analytical allegations against Madoff dating
back to 1999. Madoff was prominent in finance/investing,
e.g., Chairman of NASDAQ. Similarly,
Battelle, preeminent in patenting/commercialization/ventures of
taxpayer-funded research, manages more Federal labs than anyone. Given
their dismissive responses to extensive Battelle documents & testimony, it’s quite apparent that USPTO
senior officials are ignoring lessons learned from SEC/Madoff and will repeat
history if they allow Battelle’s fraudulent patenting practice(s) to
continue. There’s a critical difference between the SEC/Madoff and
USPTO/Battelle situations. Unlike the SEC which received
an individual’s allegations
[“Markopolos v.
Madoff”], the USPTO was provided with official Battelle-PNNL deposition testimony
clearly acknowledging Battelle’s fraudulent patenting
practice(s). SEC ignored
allegations while USPTO even ignores actual testimony with corroborating
documents. In that important
respect, the USPTO’s abject refusal to investigate/address this
substantiated patent fraud/abuse evidence [while nonetheless
issuing patents to Battelle] is more egregious than the SEC dropping the ball with
Madoff. Due to
key similarities between SEC/Madoff and
USPTO/Battelle, these excerpts of recent Madoff-related
Congressional hearings are most relevant: Excerpt of Congress’s outrage at SEC agency abdicating oversight: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOKSkaQoF_I&feature=related
[Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) re: SEC ignoring whistleblower
Markopolos’ reporting of Madoff fraud 10 years ago.] Madoff whistleblower Markopolos testifying to Congress
voicing concerns similar to mine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06vrqMJd2NQ&feature=related [Excerpts: “Mr. Madoff was one of most powerful men on Wall Street. He owned a prestigious brokerage firm. He and his brother held numerous top-level positions on the most influential
industry association boards. Clearly,
the SEC was afraid of Mr. Madoff.”] This chain of emails, with explicit Battelle testimony & exhibits, provides
a documented audit trail repeatedly showing that the USPTO and its OIG are waiving patenting rules for Battelle
[prominent in intellectual property commercialization] which generates
significant patent fee revenue back to the USPTO annually. It’s
pointless to send a 3rd response dismissive of Battelle’s
admitted violations of USPTO regulations.
Apparently, only parties external to the patent
office will ultimately hold Battelle accountable and end their ongoing
fraud/abuse.
Sincerely,
Philip Pulver http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/PatentingFraudAbuse.htm [Patent Fraud Section] http://www.ccol-inc.com/1 [Main Case Site] PS. As background for those later reading this
email chain, I reattached the evidence documents [Transcript-BattelleMorganDeposition-withExcerpt.pdf & FraudFalseStatementsToUSPTO.pdf]. -----
Original Message ----- From:
"Jackson, Elisa" <Elisa.Jackson@USPTO.GOV> To: <pulverps@verizon.net> Sent:
Monday, February 23, 2009 7:03 AM Subject:
Response to Your E-Mail of January 31, 2009 This
e-mail is being sent to you on behalf of David Wiley. A copy of the
signed letter is attached. [20090223103929044.pdf]
-----
Original Message ----- From: Philip
Pulver To: Covey,
William Cc: Deputy Director
Doll ; Commissioner Focarino ; hotline@oig.doc.gov
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2009 8:55
PM Subject:
Re: January 05, 2009, Hotline Complaint to
the Department of Commerce Inspector General Re: Battelle Patent Fraud Attachments: Transcript-BattelleMorganDeposition-withExcerpt.pdf
; FraudFalseStatementsToUSPTO.pdf Dear Mr. Covey, This message is response to your 1/16/09 email below that
referred my complaint to the USPTO Inventors
Assistance Center [IAC] [http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/pacmain.html].
However,
for the following reasons, referring my complaint [re: Battelle fraud] to the IAC is
clearly inappropriate: 1. In a 1/16/09 call, the IAC itself clearly
confirmed that (a) It does NOT address fraud and
other issues in my complaint, (b) IAC’s purpose is to answer questions and provide instructions to
inventors writing patent applications, and (c) Regarding fraud, I should call
541-272-8800, Patent Commissioner Focarino’s office (copied
previously). 2.
Contrary to your email, I’m not a customer but a whistleblower
who’s providing evidence [testimony & documents] of Battelle’s practice
of evading statutory deadlines by writing
“new” [faked] invention reports that’s illustrated by their
2005 rename [RDADS] of 2002 software
inventions. By
referring my complaint to an organization [IAC] that obviously doesn’t
address fraud, Deputy Director Doll’s office is turning a blind eye and ignoring prima facie evidence of
Battelle’s patent fraud and false statements [18 USC §1001], allegations
substantiated by Battelle documents & testimony to a Federal judge. [See attached FraudFalseStatementsToUSPTO.pdf.] Accordingly, the following
questions are justified and likely to be asked by investigators,
subcommittees, watchdog groups, GAO, inventors, bloggers, corporations,
universities, and others outside USPTO: - Why is USPTO abdicating oversight by looking the other way and waiving
patent rules/laws for Battelle?
Why the double standard? - Is such a waiver occurring because Battelle nationally
provides significant revenue [fees] to USPTO through its extensive patenting of
Government-funded research? - Did DOE Science Undersecretary & Tech. Transfer Coordinator Orbach or other
DOE officials pressure USPTO not to investigate Battelle’s
admitted/documented patenting fraud in this matter? [Note, DOE-Science refused to address the
patent fraud; see 8/27/08 email below.] - Why is USPTO ignoring my evidence [95-page report, Web site &
testimony] against Battelle just as SEC
previously ignored Markopolos’ 19-page complaint against prominent financial advisor Madoff? Is it because Battelle Memorial Institute is prominent in patenting & commercializing intellectual property? This email and attachments will document that the USPTO
was aware of testimony & documents implicating Battelle
Memorial Institute in patent filing fraud at PNNL and possibly at four other
DOE national labs, at the DHS National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures
Center, etc. To further show that the USPTO knew of this fraud, excerpts of
Battelle testimony from attached Transcript-BattelleMorganDeposition-withExcerpt.pdf are quoted below. Battelle's
sworn statements speak for themselves: [Writing “New” Reports on Old Inventions to
Reset Patent Deadlines, with 2005 Example] [Q=Question, A=Battelle
Answer] Q. So in order to justify a new Invention Report, there would have had
to be something new, something
different between what Mr. Dorow was doing and what was previously listed on
the Invention Report? A. Most probably that would be the reason for doing a new
Invention Report, although there could be other reasons, too. Q. Okay. What, for
instance? I mean, can you think of
any? A. Timeframes. Q.
What sort of timeframes? I don't
understand why a change in time would justify a new Invention Report. A.
The timing
on how long we have to process the patent application...there are
time constraints. [USPTO Statutory Bar]. [Example/Incident: ] Q. Were you having conversations with Mr. Dorow around this
timeframe regarding PDAC [Software]?. A. We later decided to try and get a patent on it, after we
did a fairly in-depth market analysis. Q.
So when you say, "New name - totally different please," what does that refer to?... A. It refers to trying to get a name that means something in
the marketplace... Q. So when you say, "New IP number driven from the NEW IR that you write," IR, is that
Invention Report? A. Correct. Q. But it sounds like you were just changing the name; it doesn't sound like the invention
had changed. Is that inaccurate? A. No.
... Q. And is this the IR that you had asked Mr. Dorow to submit
with a new
name on it? A. I assume so. Q. Okay. So the new name
is Rapid Data Acquisition and Dissemination System? [RDADS] [See Patent App.] A. That appears to
be the case. USPTO
refusal to hold Battelle accountable for documented/admitted patent fraud
necessitates others to investigate and ask why USPTO is granting 501(c)(3)
Battelle an exemption from patent rules/laws, thereby granting them an unfair
advantage over corporations, universities, other DOE/DOE/DHS contractors, and individual
inventors that submit patent applications in good faith. Sincerely,
Philip Pulver http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/PatentingFraudAbuse.htm [Patent Fraud Section] http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/Depositions.htm [Official Testimony Corroborating Battelle Patent
Fraud] http://www.ccol-inc.com/1 [Main Case Site] -----
Original Message ----- From: Covey, William Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 11:00 AM Subject:
January 05, 2009, Hotline Complaint to the
Department of Commerce Inspector General CCOL Inc. 2415 RE: Your January 05, 2009,
Hotline Complaint to the Department of Commerce Inspector General Dear Mr. Pulver: I am sending this letter in response to your complaint sent January 05, 2009, via email to the Department of Commerce Inspector General Hotline. You copied John Doll, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Deputy Director, upon sending the complaint. The USPTO takes very seriously the concerns of its customers, such as yourself, and the public in general. Accordingly, I am responding to you directly on behalf of Deputy Director Doll and the USPTO. In furtherance of the USPTO’s commitment to serving our customers, the USPTO has established The Inventors Assistance Center (IAC), which provides patent related information and services to the public. The IAC is staffed by experienced former primary and supervisory patent examiners who are highly knowledgeable with regard to the policies and procedures of the USPTO. I invite you to contact the IAC with any concerns or questions you may have regarding our patent policies or procedures. The IAC operating hours are Monday through Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:30 PM EST. You may contact the IAC at the following telephone numbers: 800-786-9199 or 571-272-1000. The USPTO is committed to providing its customers with the highest level of service. I encourage you to contact the IAC directly when you have any patent related questions or concerns Sincerely, William R. Covey Deputy General Counsel for General Law -----
Original Message ----- From: Philip
Pulver Cc: todd.zinser@oig.doc.gov
; Commissioner Focarino ; Deputy Director
Doll ; andrew.caldwell@uspto.gov Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 8:46 PM Subject:
Complaint Re-Submission: Battelle
documents & their 2008 deposition testimony confirm/admit
fraudulent patent practice at PNNL - 2005 incident cited. Attachments:
FraudFalseStatementsToUSPTO.pdf ; Transcript-BattelleMorganDeposition-withExcerpt.pdf
OIG at
Dept. of Commerce, As shown
in the previous email, I provided the OIG hotline with detailed documents and
candid testimony substantiating Battelle's fraudulent patent practice at
PNNL; all this evidence originated from Battelle itself and not from
me. The OIG did not respond to my complaint
of 10/24/08 [over 60 days ago]. Today’s email is my 2nd submission of this complaint to
the Dept. of Commence OIG. Battelle’s violations of patent rules and its false
statements [18 USC
§1001] warrant diligent
attention by appropriate officials. Battelle emails, other documents,
and testimony speak for themselves. However,
I re-emphasize the following key points made previously: · My lawsuit against Battelle is NOT
patent litigation. However, Battelle senior
commercialization staff gave testimony [attached] clearly
acknowledging: (1) Their
practice of renaming prior inventions and filing
them as "new" to bypass USPTO
statutory bars [re:
use & public disclosure] on the original invention[s] and (2) Their renaming
2002 software inventions in 2005 to call
them “new”, “resetting the clock” to extend
previously missed statutory deadlines, and fraudulently filing a patent
application on the "new" 2005 invention. See http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=20070064477&OS=20070064477&RS=20070064477 · The attached 96-page FraudFalseStatementsToUSPTO.pdf contains Battelle documents [e.g., emails, 2002 invention
reports & 2005 patent application] and 2008 testimony confirming their patent filing fraud/abuse practices, 2005
example/incident and false statements to USPTO et
al. This document also includes side-by-side comparison of their
2005 patent claims with the 2002 software inventions. · The online
version of this patenting-related information [exhibits, testimony &
case background] is at http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/PatentingFraudAbuse.htm. Battelle deposition
transcripts are at http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/Depositions.htm. Site homepage with
additional evidence is http://www.ccol-inc.com/1. · The substantiated patent
fraud/abuse allegations are highlighted in
my 8/24/08 email to DOE below. On 8/27/08, DOE
Office of Science acknowledged these concerns but flatly refused to take any
action; it’s apparent that DOE withheld this information from
the Commerce Dept. Accordingly, I forwarded this information to the OIG
at Commerce; now, senior USPTO officials are being copied. · This patent filing fraud/abuse may
be systemic practice at all five Battelle-managed
national labs that involve
Battelle’s actively patenting and commercializing taxpayer-funded
inventions. · Note, developer Kevin Dorow is the
primary named inventor on the patent application.
Battelle documents and testimony implicate him
in making false statements, perjury, patent fraud, and violating the False
Claims Act. See http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/Q-ClearanceDorow-RPMP-Falsification.htm. If I do not receive a substantive reply to this re-submitted
complaint by 1/23/09 [90 days from 1st submission], it will confirm that Dept. of Commerce OIG
is ignoring these substantiated allegations and waiving enforcement of USPTO
patent rules & laws for Battelle [501(c)(3) tax-exempt] which manages half
the country’s national labs, has unique privileges in commercializing
publicly-funded research, and is the largest private research organization in
the US.
Battelle
files far more patents annually than most other government, educational or
corporate/industrial organizations. Regardless of the OIG’s decision, this
email and accompanying Web site will serve as documented record that your
office received a preponderance of evidence substantiating Battelle’s
violations of USPTO rules and US Code. Technology
companies, scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs, universities, other
contractors, lawmakers, appropriation/oversight committees, licensees of
Battelle patents, and others would want to know the
extent of this fraudulent patenting practice at PNNL, at other
Battelle-managed labs [ORNL, INL, NREL, BNL & LLNL], and at other
facilities Battelle manages [e.g., Ft. Detrick] or owns. They would be justifiably concerned about such a
USPTO rule waiver for Battelle Memorial Institute which is paid billions
annually by DOE, DHS & DOD, and receives millions in income
[license royalty/fee & venture] from its patenting of
Government-funded research. As stated previously, I waive confidentiality and it’s okay to release my name and any of the exhibits to non-OIG personnel in order to investigate this complaint. [Note, because the site is currently in a sub-directory, Google searches by the public won’t find it.]
If you
have any questions, please contact me. I look forward to your
response. Thank you. Sincerely, Philip
Pulver
PS. On 9/29, I replied to DOE Office of Science's 8/27
email; see http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/PulverResponseToDOE--092908.pdf. A USPTO-relevant excerpt is as follows: “DOE Technology Transfer
Coordinator allows Battelle’s admitted fraudulent patenting practices
to USPTO. As DOE Coordinator for Technology Transfer,
you ignored PNNL testimony confirming the following: 1) Battelle’s
practice to evade USPTO filing rules and statutory bars, i.e., writing
“new” invention reports on older inventions, resetting the filing deadline [re: use or
public disclosure], and filing a patent application on the “new”
invention. 2) The ongoing patent
fraud, i.e., 2005 RDADS “new code” is the DOE-funded 2002 MDM
inventions. Your decision puts in question the integrity
of Battelle’s patent filing process. Dept. of Commerce [USPTO]
may ask why DOE withheld this information and investigate
how pervasive is this practice at the 5 national labs and other facilities
managed by Battelle. Companies licensing patents from Battelle
may be at risk because the patents may later be invalidated if/when such
fraud is determined.” -----
Original Message ----- From: Philip
Pulver Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 9:18 PM Subject: Complaint
Submission: Battelle documents & 2008 deposition testimony confirm
fraudulent patent practice at PNNL - 2005 incident cited Attachments: FraudFalseStatementsToUSPTO.pdf ; BattelleTestimonyandEmails-PatentingViolations.pdf
; Transcript-BattellesMorganDeposition.pdf ; RDADS-PatentApplication-US2007-0064477A1.pdf OIG Hotline
at Dept. of Commerce, I am
filing a complaint regarding substantiated allegations that Battelle [manager
of PNNL (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory) is violating patent filing
rules/laws of the USPTO. This complaint pertains not only to a 2005
incident of such patenting fraud, but also to systemic patent filing abuse at PNNL and possibly
the national labs that Battelle manages. As cited below, the evidence supporting these
allegations includes testimony[admitting such fraud/abuse], invention reports, patent application, Battelle
emails and other exhibits. Attached are the following documents
descriptively titled: FraudFalseStatementsToUSPTO.pdf [Main Evidence Compilation -
Indexed]; BattelleTestimonyandEmails-PatentingViolations.pdf;
Transcript-BattellesMorganDeposition.pdf; and RDADS-PatentApplication-US2007-0064477A1.pdf
Summary
of the allegations and related facts are presented below. Note, in the
8/24/08 email further below, I provided extensive documentation to senior DOE
officials regarding Battelle’s patenting violations and other issues;
to expedite the review process, I highlighted the patent-related matters in that email. As
their 8/27/08 reply email shows, DOE acknowledged but refused to take action
on any of the issues, including the patenting fraud. Accordingly,
I’m now contacting the Dept. of Commerce directly via its OIG email
hotline and providing evidence substantiating the patent-related
allegations. [Note: My
lawsuit is NOT a patent dispute; see http://www.ccol-inc.com/1 for case summary. However, Battelle testimony
&
documents revealed patent fraud/abuse that's now cited in
this complaint to the DOC-OIG.]
Summary of Allegations Battelle-PNNL documents & 2008 deposition
testimony confirm that Battelle violates patent filing rules of US Patent & Trademark Office by
rewriting and renaming prior inventions to “reset the clock” and
evade statutory deadlines [bars re: invention public disclosure and/or
usage]. This evidence also confirms the following 2005 incident:
After DHS Radiation Portal Monitoring Project [RPMP] implemented the 2002 MDM
software inventions to run on BlackBerry handheld in 2004, Battelle called it “new code” [RDADS] with a new
filing deadline, and submitted a patent application on RDADS invention in
2005. In sum, Battelle evidence confirms the following: 1. Patent Filing Practice: Battelle writes
“new” invention reports on pre-existing inventions when they need
more time to file a patent on inventions that they intend to commercialize but
for which they’ve already shown publicly and/or used [statutory
bar]. By such “resetting the clock”, Battelle circumvents
USPTO statutory filing rules and misrepresents the originally-dated inventions;
see attached BattelleTestimonyandEmails-PatentingViolations.pdf 2. Example/Incident: In early 2005, after
acknowledging PDAC/MDM was exclusively licensed to Pulver, Battelle wrote a
“new” report on the 2002 MDM software inventions after RPMP
adapted/ported MDM to BlackBerry in 2004, renamed the report
“RDADS”, reset statutory patent filing deadline from 10/1/03 [2002 MDM inventions]
to 1/31/06 [2005 RDADS
“new” invention], filed RDADS patent in Sept. 2005, and marketed RDADS
commercially. Emails chronologically show these events; see attached BattelleTestimonyandEmails-PatentingViolations.pdf. Documents also
confirm MDM/PDAC was marketed & publicized in 2002-2003 by Battelle [and myself], thereby invalidating
the 1/31/06 statutory deadline for
the “new” RDADS invention. Other Relevant Facts -
As DOE's 8/27/08 email indicates, Undersecretary for Science Raymond
Orbach [DOE Technology Transfer Coordinator for all national labs]
acknowledged this documented evidence of Battelle’s patent [and other]
fraud/abuse but refuses to not only address the 2005 RDADS fraud to USPTO but
also Battelle’s ongoing practice of renaming inventions [to reset
statutory clock] revealed in deposition testimony of a senior
commercialization manager at PNNL. -
Battelle’s renaming prior inventions to reset statutory patent
deadlines at PNNL may be a systemic practice across all 5 national
labs managed by Battelle. PNNL was the first lab Battelle managed;
within the last 10 years, Battelle now runs four more labs. It’s
thus possible/likely that Battelle invokes this practice at these other
labs that DOE has awarded to them. - The
primary inventor on the 2005 patent application is scientist Kevin Dorow [top
security Q clearance holder]. Documents and testimony of 3 other PNNL
scientists all confirm that Dorow has made false declarations and false
testimony to the district court regarding RDADS and Radiation Portal
Monitoring Project (RPMP)[DHS – US Customs & Border Protection]. Details and exhibits
confirming his RDADS misrepresentation are downloadable at http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/Q-ClearanceDorow-RPMP-Falsification.htm
-
Discovery documents and PNNL testimony confirm that industrial companies have
signed agreements with Battelle regarding the RDADS technology. - All of
the information herein is accessible at http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/BattellePatentFraudAbuse.htm
I waive
confidentiality and it’s okay to release my name and any/all the
extensive exhibits to non-OIG personnel in order to investigate this complaint.
If you
have any questions/issues or need additional information, please let me
know. Thank you. Sincerely, Philip
Pulver -----
Original Message ----- From: Streit, Devon
<Devon.Streit@science.doe.gov> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 10:29
AM Subject: Confidential Update to 5-Year
Case: Litigation & Patent Fraud; Q-Clearance Violations; Health/Safety
Implications for Lab Staff; Competing PNNL & Hanford Contracts
[Bid-Protest] Dear Mr. Pulver: This email is in response your email dated August
24, 2008 sent to Under Secretary Orbach which provided, as you stated, an
update on Battelle evidence to corroborate the allegations in your OIG
complaints. We acknowledge your concerns; however, because the issues you
raised are currently being addressed in your ongoing lawsuit against
Battelle, action by this office is not warranted outside the context of that
litigation. Sincerely,
Devon
Streit _____________________________________ L. Devon Streit
-----
Original Message ----- From: Philip Pulver To: Orbach, Raymond Cc: Glenn Podonsky ; David Dillman ; Friedman, Greg ; Secretary Bodman ; James Rispoli ; fraudnet@gao.gov
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2008 8:57 Subject: Confidential Update
to 5-Year Case: Litigation & Patent Fraud; Q-Clearance Violations; Health/Safety
Implications for Lab Staff; Competing
PNNL & Hanford Contracts
[Bid-Protest] Attachments: CongressionalRecord-Laul-BattelleFraud-RepDavidSkaggs.pdf
; Dorow-Q-Clearance-ProjectsImpacted.pdf
This email & Web site is not
currently available to or intended for dissemination to the public. This information on
fraud and abuse is being provided to those with the authority to act in the
public interest. This email & Web site is for
sole use of the intended recipient(s).
Any unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. CCOL Inc. 2415 South Garfield Kennewick, WA 99337 August 24, 2008 Dr. Raymond L. Orbach Office of Science U.S. Department of
Energy Dear Under Secretary Orbach: This email with its accompanying Web site is a five-year
update/culmination of the preponderance of evidence that has confirmed
the following Battelle-PNNL fraud/abuse:
2003 Allegations [OIG - Misusing Technical Assistance Program (TAP)], Q-clearance holder
fraud misrepresentation
[falsification] of Radiation Portal Monitoring Project [RPMP], misappropriation [due
to Use Permit], and violation of U.S. Code [False Declarations (18
USC §1623), Perjury (18 USC §1621), False Statements (18 USC §1001) and False
Claims (31 USC §3729)]. The evidence-testimony site [www.ccol-inc.com/1] consists of case
background/chronology, the 2008 PNNL depositions, Battelle’s own
documents [2006-2008], DOE letters [ORO & PNSO], relevant GAO reports, links to US Code
statutes, descriptions & invention reports of TAP-funded 2002 MDM software, RDADS patent application, Battelle
commercialization & Use Permit re: MDM, my prior emails & evidence to DOE,
court filings by DOE-funded counsel Miller, WA Supreme Court and news
articles condemning Miller’s prior firm [Bogle] for same
litigation fraud, and other related information. This detailed email [with links to the evidence site] is
organized in the following parts: 1. Battelle Scientist Dorow
Misrepresenting/Falsifying DHS
Radiation Portal Monitoring Project [RPMP] to Conceal Fraud [Violation of False Claims Act
by Withholding DOE-Funded Research from Small Business TAP Recipients]
[In 2006, Dorow obtained DOE Q-Clearance for DHS & DOD classified
work.] 2. DOE-Funded
Counsel Litigation Fraud by Misrepresenting RPMP to Conceal
Evidence. WA Supreme Court Sanctioned/Fined Prior Firm for Same
Tactics, Hiding Smoking-Gun Evidence of Drug Toxicity that Brain Damaged 3-Year Old.
Implications for Health/Safety Related Lawsuits at Office of Science Labs
& Hanford. 3. Patent
Filing Fraud to USPTO.
PNNL Testimony Confirms Battelle Evades Statutory Deadlines by Rewriting Old Invention Reports & Renaming as
“New” [Reset Clock]. 4. Potential Implications: Battelle Competing PNNL & Hanford Contracts [Bid Protests] 5. Closing
Points: Consequences to Others if Battelle Ongoing Litigation Fraud
Continues, Whistleblowers & Others Impacted, OIG
Abdicating Oversight per its Policy, GAO Copied The 2008 depositions of PNNL staff [http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/Depositions.htm] are the most
significant new information. They confirm allegations in the lawsuit and the
2003 OIG complaint [I04RS007], but with one exception, Kevin Dorow. PNNL depositions, Battelle documents, Dorow
Lab Record Book, MDM software source code, his testimony, patent documents,
and other evidence implicate Q-Clearance holder Dorow in the violations cited
above and in Part 1; this evidence is posted on the site . Because of these violations and given
Dorow’s current access to classified information [via his Q],
DOE’s Chief Health, Safety and Security Officer, Glenn Podonsky, has
been copied on this email. As cited in
Part 1, the list of agencies potentially impacted by Dorow is attached and is
not on the site. This email and site [with Battelle documents & testimony] will serve as notice
to other agencies [DHS, USPTO, FBI, DOD], GAO, US Attorney, media, watchdog
groups, and others that you were well informed of Battelle’s 5-year
misconduct that includes the following: RPMP research misrepresentation
& perjury by
Q-clearance holder, False Claims Act violation, DOE-funded counsel fraud
[discovery abuse], violating 48 CFR 970.5228-1 [Litigation],
threats/retaliation/injury against my spouse at PNNL, and other misconduct
used to conceal criminal violations and to protect Battelle’s corporate
opportunities, e.g., Use Permit [root cause of fraud in this case and JC
Laul’s]. If this ongoing
litigation fraud is not finally stopped, many will ask why the DOE
Undersecretary for Science [with a $4B budget] chose to continue financing
it, especially in light of Battelle’s documents and testimony
confirming the allegations. A court hearing will
be held on September 23, 2008 in Richland, WA. If DOE-funded counsel Miller and
Q-clearance holder Dorow continue to falsify/misrepresent DHS Radiation
Portal Monitoring Project [RPMP] and other material facts, then DOE Office of
Science complicity in this ongoing litigation fraud will be confirmed. [Note:
Hearing was delayed & held on 11/18/08] Setting such a
precedent & de-facto DOE policy
would have long-term adverse consequences to Office of Science lab staff
regarding health, security, safety, whistleblower, research integrity, and
other important matters. As shown in Part 2,
Hanford workers [union & non-union] would also be impacted if Battelle is awarded
the contract on 9/30/08. Accordingly, Assistant Secretary for
Environmental Management James Rispoli is copied on this email. The GAO has been copied for two very critical reasons. One, the OIG [under Mr. Friedman] closed
the case in 2007 despite requesting and acknowledging extensive discovery
evidence showing Battelle’s “intent to mislead” DOE and a
Federal judge. [OIG told me to come back after my appeal.] Two, the
five-year evidence of Battelle misconduct pertains to the following topics in
recent GAO reports: DOE contractor
litigation cost reimbursement; re-competing national labs; oversight;
Radiation Portal Monitoring Project [Ports & Borders]; and DOE small business goals. This case goes far beyond the general
concern of paying litigation costs because DOE is funding fraudulent
litigation tactics previously condemned by the WA Supreme Court and a federal
court. See http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/GAO-RelatedReports.htm. David Dillman, Chief Operating Officer of the Downtown
Seattle Association, is copied for the following reasons: 1) He is
a first-hand witness to Battelle's misconduct dating back to mid-2002 when
Battelle commercialization staff began their abuse, Use Permit interference
with TAP, and misappropriation; 2) Working with DOE-HQ, he obtained
the original 3161 funding for PNNL Technical Assistance Program [TAP].
Battelle acknowledged his expertise in economic development and small
business: http://www.pnl.gov/news/1996/bnw96_28.htm Although nearly every document cited is already public
information, my assimilation and discussion of it is not. Dr. Orbach, in the interest of other
parties that may be impacted by the facts and evidence presented herein,
please have your staff treat this information with elevated discretion. At this time (before 9/23/08), I have no intention
to make this site widely available to the public. Because the site is a sub-directory, Google
searches won’t find it. The site
can also be password-protected, and will be if Web referrer logs show
unauthorized access by Battelle as happened last year after my 5/11/07 email
below. If any recipient of this email has questions, needs more
information, wants the CD version of the site, or finds a broken link,
please let me know. The detailed information now follows. 1. Battelle Scientist Dorow
Misrepresenting/Falsifying DHS Radiation Portal Monitoring Project [RPMP] to Conceal Fraud
[Violation of False Claims Act by Withholding DOE-Funded Research from
Small Business TAP Recipients] [In 2006, Dorow obtained DOE Q-Clearance
for DHS & DOD classified work.] [Evidence & Testimony at http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/Q-ClearanceDorow-RPMP-Falsification.htm] 1a. Summary Under oath, software developer Dorow is falsely stating that (i)
RPMP abandoned/junked the 2002-03 MDM software funded by the Technical
Assistance Program [TAP] and (ii) RPMP instead, in 2004, funded development
of all “new” mobile data software for radiation portal installers
at US Ports & Borders, software
completely unrelated to small business TAP-recipient Pulver and his exclusive
license to MDM and follow-on [derivative] versions. [Dorow developed
MDM]. He’s making these sworn
declarations & testimony to claim the 2004 versions are irrelevant, thus block
discovery of post-2003 MDM code and conceal that Battelle withheld TAP-funded
research [software] when it delivered a non-working MDM version to Pulver on
8/29/03. [Documents & testimony show
Battelle was marketing their MDM version to Fortune 500 Ecolabs (1831 Use Permit
opportunity) and nominating “their” MDM version for R&D 100 Award in 2003. In 2008, Battelle’s own software
expert confirmed that the 8/29/03 MDM crashed.] However, 2008 depositions of 3 PNNL staff,
Battelle documents [2004 software screens, PNNL-RPMP emails, MDM Developer
[Dorow Lab Record Book], and PNSO-provided timecard records refute Dorow and
confirm RPMP indeed funded him to modify/adapt TAP-funded MDM to run on
BlackBerry with enhanced searching & dialing.
This evidence confirms Dorow is misrepresenting RPMP-funded research
and concealing “smoking-gun” evidence, i.e., post-2003 MDM
versions that Battelle renamed RDADS.
He’s doing so for these reasons: 1.
RDADS
would provide further confirmation that Battelle withheld
[“pocketed’] MDM code from the small businesses for whom DOE-TAP
paid Battelle to develop MDM, and thus violated the False Claims Act
[31 USC §3729]. [Cited in Congressional
Record, Battelle previously made False Claims: http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/FCA-Violation-UsePermit-Dorow.htm 2. Verifying that RPMP-funded 2004 versions
are follow-on to MDM would shut down any Battelle commercialization
[licensing/ventures] of the newer versions due to Pulver’s exclusive
license to MDM & derivatives as Battelle staff confirmed to DOE and others. [http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/Exclusivity-MDM.htm
& http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/Commercialization-MDM.htm]
3. Confirming RPMP funded
enhancements to 2003 MDM would refute Q-clearance Dorow’s
representations and implicate him in making False Declarations [18 USC
§1623], Perjury [18 USC §1621] and False Statements [18 USC §1001] to DOE [SC
& OIG] when claiming
Pulver received the actual Best-Efforts TAP MDM version. 4. The post-2003 RPMP
versions would confirm that the “new code” [now called RDADS]
invention is actually the MDM inventions, thereby implicating Dorow in
fraudulently filing the RDADS patent to the USPTO. [See Part 3 below.] 6/30/08: Pulver filed a declaration with complete evidence [e.g., source code, funding & timecards, TAP-completion reports, USPTO
documents] confirming that Dorow violated the False Claims Act [31 USC §3729]
by withholding code from the TAP recipients when he delivered MDM software to
Pulver on 8/29/03. See http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/FCA-Violation-UsePermit-Dorow.htm. 7/28/08: In his reply, Q-clearance holder Dorow provided
absolutely no evidence [nothing] to refute this serious allegation
that he made False Claims against the US Government. In fact, he even further implicated himself
by stating the 8/29/03 MDM version was unfinished & pre-Beta [untested] quality, which is
contradicted by documents showing
Battelle marketed “their” MDM to Fortune 500’s, nominated
it for R&D 100 Award, and
stated MDM was Beta quality [tested]. He again verified two versions:
1) An unfinished non-working MDM delivered to me [TAP recipient] and 2) The
working Beta-quality MDM that they kept for themselves and Use Permit
opportunities. 1b. Dorow
Q-Clearance 1b-1. As cited above, Battelle documents and PNNL
testimony consistently confirm is violating the following U.S. Codes: False Declarations [18 USC §1623]; Perjury
[18 USC §1621]; False Statements [18 USC §1001]; False Claims [31 USC
§3729]. I reiterate that Dorow, in
response to my 6/30/08 sworn declarations, did not cite any evidence to
refute my allegations that he violated the False Claims Act; he merely denied
it, saying he’s offended.
Moreover, PNNL 2008 testimony and documents alone clearly show that
Dorow, under oath, continues to misrepresent the Radiation Portal Monitoring
Project to the court to block discovery of evidence that would implicate him
in the violations cited above. 1b-2. At the same time,
Battelle documents show that Dorow obtained his top secret Q-clearance from
DOE in 2006. Furthermore, they cite the following Gov.
agencies or labs that involve classified work: - DHS Air Cargo Explosives
Detection Pilot Program [ACEDPP]
– ORNL, LLNL & PNNL [In his deposition, Dorow stated ACEDPP
was using RDADS]
- Matchmaker software FBI work at Quantico - RFID
Development for PMJ-AIT [DOD] Attached is Dorow-Q-Clearance-ProjectsImpacted.pdf
which cites excerpts of his 2006 & 2007 reviews also attached; these two
documents are not on the site. [2009 Update: See http://www.ccol-inc.com/PvB/Dorow-Q-Clearance-ProjectsCited.pdf')
] 1b-3. Due to the extensive evidence of
Dorow’s multi-year US Code violations, in conjunction with his current
access to classified facilities and projects cited above [e.g., ACEDPP], the
following Code of Federal Regulations is applicable: 10
CFR 710 - CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR
ACCESS TO CLASSIFIED MATTER OR SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL. The most relevant subparts are as follows: §710.7 Application of the criteria. (a) The decision as to
access authorization is a comprehensive, common-sense judgment, made after
consideration of all relevant information, favorable and unfavorable, as to
whether the granting or continuation of access authorization will not
endanger the common defense and security and is clearly consistent with the
national interest. Any doubt as to an
individual's access authorization eligibility shall be resolved in favor of
the national security. Absent any derogatory information, a favorable
determination usually will be made as to access authorization eligibility. §710.8 Criteria. Derogatory information shall include, but is not
limited to, information that the individual has:...(l) Engaged in any unusual conduct or is subject to any
circumstances which tend to show that the individual is not honest, reliable,
or trustworthy; or which furnishes reason to believe that the individual
may be subject to pressure, coercion,
exploitation, or
duress which may cause the individual to act contrary to the best interests
of the national security. Such conduct
or circumstances include, but are not limited to, criminal behavior... §710.9 Action on derogatory information. (a) If the reports
of investigation of an individual or other reliable information tend to establish the validity and significance of
one or more items in the criteria, or of other reliable information or facts which are of security concern,
although outside the scope of the stated categories, such information shall be regarded as derogatory and
create a question as to the individual's access authorization eligibility. §710.10 Suspension of access authorization. (a) If information
is received that raises a question concerning an individual's continued
access authorization eligibility, the Local Director of Security shall
authorize action(s), to be taken on an expedited basis, to resolve the
question pursuant to §710.9(b). If the question as to the individual's
continued access authorization eligibility is not resolved in favor of the
individual...the individual's access
authorization be suspended pending the
final determination 1b-4. Dorow’s ongoing misconduct
raises the following valid questions that others may have regarding how
Battelle manages and safeguards access to classified information by its
Q-clearance holders: · In addition to misrepresenting DHS research
[RPMP & ACEDPP] under oath,
could Dorow be pressured by Battelle [or others] to misuse classified
information for financial, career or other reasons? · Do any of the
Battelle managers or internal attorneys [e.g. James Jackson] who pressured
Dorow to make false representations under oath have Q-clearances themselves? · Is such Q-clearance
fraud/abuse acceptable practice at all Battelle-managed labs [INL, NREL, BNL, ORNL and possibly LLNL], especially when its
venture or Use Permit interests are at stake? · Was Dorow’s
obtaining a Q Clearance Battelle’s reward/incentive for making false
declarations and testimony in order to protect Use Permit and other
commercial/venture interests? Is a
major criterion for getting a Q-clearance at PNNL the scientist’s ability
to bring in profitable Use Permit business for Battelle Corporate? · Will DOE administer
polygraph tests to Dorow, given the preponderance of evidence and testimony
that, at the very least, creates a question as to his access authorization eligibility
cited in 10 CFR 710? OR · Will Battelle do
another “self-investigation” [run by managers with Use Permit
compensation packages] which will result in false statements and cover-up
that occurred in my case and Laul’s? [http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/FalseClaimsViolation--Laul-v-Battelle.htm] · Because Battelle is allowing
or coaching Dorow to lie under oath to protect corporate interests, are there
other “exemptions” from Q-clearance policy such as
misusing/leaking/trading classified information that could give Battelle
competitive advantages in securing commercial/ventures opportunities
[domestic or foreign]? 1b-5. In the interest of
national security, DHS, DOD-Army, FBI and others that have provided
classified information to Q-clearance holder Dorow should be notified; they
are potentially at risk given his misconduct that’s substantiated by
Battelle documents and testimony. They should at least
be shown the extensive evidence that he (i) repeatedly lied under oath
regarding DHS-RPMP and (ii) he misused the Technical Assistance Program and
violated the False Claims Act due to Use Permit opportunities. Note, 10
CFR 710.10(c) addresses notification to such other agencies in this very
situation. At this time, I will defer
disposition of this matter to Mr. Podonsky who is copied on this email. 2. DOE-Funded Counsel Litigation Fraud by
Misrepresenting RPMP to Conceal Evidence.
WA Supreme Court Sanctioned/Fined Prior Firm for Same Tactics, Hiding Smoking-Gun Evidence of Drug
Toxicity that Brain Damaged 3-Year Old. Implications for Health/Safety Related
Lawsuits at Office of Science Labs & Hanford. [Evidence
&
Testimony at http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/DOE-FundedCounsel-Misrep-RPMP.htm] 2a. Summary & Motive DOE-funded counsel Miller is also materially misrepresenting
that RPMP (i) abandoned/junked the 2003 TAP-funded MDM software and (i)
developed new & different mobile software in 2004 [called RDADS] to which Pulver had no
rights. Miller stated to the court that “Battelle has developed a new software
product called RDADS (Rapid Data Acquisition and Dissemination System). RDADS was created for and is being used in
the Department of Homeland Security’s Radiation Portal Monitoring
Project. It has absolutely nothing to do
with Plaintiffs [MDM,
Pulver] or their lawsuit.” [Exh. 2 link above.] However, Battelle & USPTO evidence
unequivocally refute Miller. As cited in Section 1a, 2008 Battelle
testimony and documents [from Battelle, DOE & USPTO] clearly confirm that RPMP funded Dorow
to adapt/port MDM to the BlackBerry with enhanced features, i.e., derivative
[follow-on] MDM versions. This
evidence confirms that Miller is misrepresenting RPMP-funded research to
conceal “smoking-gun” evidence, i.e., post-2003 MDM code
[RDADS]. Like Q-clearance holder
Dorow, he’s falsifying RPMP for the following key reasons: 1. RDADS would provide
further confirmation that Battelle withheld [“pocketed’]
MDM code from the small businesses for whom DOE-TAP paid Battelle to develop
MDM, which violates the False Claims Act [31 USC §3729]. 2. Verifying that post-2003 versions are
derivative to MDM would shut down Battelle’s commercialization/venture
of any follow-on versions [e.g., RDADS] due to Pulver’s exclusive
license to MDM & derivatives. 3. The post-2003 code
would thus confirm Miller materially misrepresented RPMP to conceal evidence,
the same tactic [discovery abuse] for which his prior firm was condemned by state
and federal courts; see Part 2b. 4. Examining the post-2003
“new code” [RDADS] would show it’s based on the 2002 MDM
inventions, thereby implicating Battelle in fraudulently filing the RDADS
patent to the USPTO. [See Part 3.] 2b. Miller’s
Prior Firm Sanctioned/Fined by WA Supreme Court for Discovery Abuse Litigation Fraud Condemned for
Withholding “Smoking-Gun” Drug Toxicity Evidence [Part 2c shows relevancy & potential impact to
Office of Science lab staff.] Delbert Miller was managing senior partner in the litigation
group at now-defunct Bogle & Gates law firm which engaged in the same litigation
abuses to conceal evidence that he’s now using in Pulver’s case
by blatantly misrepresenting RPMP [DHS Customs & Border Protection] and other
commercialization matters. In one of the most notorious litigation fraud
cases, the WA Supreme Court unanimously sanctioned Bogle $325K for flagrant
discovery abuse in the Fisons personal injury case because they withheld smoking-gun documents on a toxic drug
[theophylline] that permanently brain damaged a 3-year old girl. The following excerpts of articles on Bogle & Gates discovery
abuses speak for themselves: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/archives/1994/9401300070.asp BOGLE & GATES AGREES TO PAY
SANCTION FOR MISCONDUCT IN SUIT “Bogle & Gates, one of Seattle's three largest law firms,
and a New York drug company agreed yesterday to pay
$325,000 for withholding "smoking gun" documents in
a lawsuit involving a 3-year-old girl left brain-damaged by an asthma
medication. The case, which produced a landmark decision
by the Washington State Supreme Court, has drawn national attention as breaking new
ground in the field of lawyer ethics…Bogle acknowledged that it advised its client, the New York
drug maker Fisons Corp., to withhold documents that indicated the pharmaceutical company was
concerned with the toxicity of the medication. The sanctions are the largest ever imposed in Washington for attorney
misconduct and among the highest ever imposed in the United States, legal experts
said.” http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=900005514051 THE MORAL COMPASS: Calculated Malfeasance. The
ongoing abuse of discovery requires stronger, surer sanctions. “Less than 2 years after Fisons
opinion, their litigators were in trouble again. This time Bogle & Gates represented Subaru of America on
charges that the driver's seatbacks in Subaru's Justy could collapse backwards when hit from the rear,
potentially causing grave injury. In the view of federal Judge Robert Bryan, Bogle obfuscated, stonewalled,
and gave answers that were just plain wrong. In
one request, plaintiffs had asked for National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration records that showed the collapse of driver's seats from a rear-impact force of 30
miles per hour. Bogle's response was
that the request was "vague, confusing and
unintelligible…Specifically, 30 miles per hour is a velocity, not a
force, and due to this confusion of technical terms, no meaningful response
can be given." Judge Bryan called this
"lawyer hokum," and forced Bogle to pay the other side's attorneys'
fees.” More national articles on Bogle’s litigation abuses are at http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/Articles-BogleGates.htm. The WA Supreme Court Fisons decision is downloadable from
Cornell Law School: http://ww3.lawschool.cornell.edu/faculty-pages/wendel/Law%20Governing%20Lawyers_files/fisons.pdf The extensive evidence [incl. 2008 PNNL testimony] confirms that
Miller is using these same Bogle discovery abuse tactics by misrepresenting
DHS-RPMP [US Customs & Borders Protection] to withhold smoking gun evidence that would
implicate Battelle in violating the following statutes: False Statements [18 USC §1001], Perjury [18 USC §1621], Subornation of
Perjury
[18 USC §1622], False Declarations [18 USC §1623], and False Claims [31 USC §3729]. The attached ORO letter confirms that Office of Science is
financing Battelle and Miller’s litigation fraud, tactics for which his
prior firm was condemned by courts and legal community as among the most
egregious discovery abuse in US history.
Financing his falsification of Federally-funded research [RPMP] is
misappropriation of DOE funds and violates the “litigation in good
faith” provision in 48 CFR 970.5228-1 [http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/48CFR970-5228-1.pdf]. Appropriations
committees and GAO would be concerned that taxpayers are funding
Miller’s false representations that are concealing fraud, security
breaches [Q-clearance], and criminal violations by the tax-exempt charitable
trust that manages half the national labs and possibly the Hanford site on
10/1/08. For years, Congress and watchdog
groups have been concerned/outraged that DOE reimburses contractors’
defense litigation costs, e.g., http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04148r.pdf. In my case,
Battelle and Miller’s conduct goes one giant step further by forcing
taxpayers to fund research falsification [RPMP], security clearance breach,
hiding commercialization ventures, and other litigation fraud to wrongfully conceal smoking-gun evidence that would implicate them in violating
statutes cited above and misusing the small business Technical Assistance
Program for Use Permit opportunities. Fisons and Subaru financed their litigation
fraud, not the taxpaying public. If
DOE Office of Science, after receiving all extensive Battelle testimony and
documents confirming this fraud, continues to allow 501(c)3 Battelle to soak taxpayers for this ongoing litigation fraud, Congress,
GAO, watchdog groups and others will have justifiable concerns. 2c. Office of
Science, by funding litigation fraud in Pulver case, will set the stage for Battelle to use Fisons-like
tactics in safety/health-related lawsuits. While my case dealt with commercial/business litigation, GAO
reports [GAO-04-148R] that most lawsuits against DOE contractors pertain to
“radiation and/or toxic exposure, personal injury, and wrongful
discharge.” DOE’s authorizing “personal injury defense lawyer”
Fisons tactics in my case to conceal critically relevant evidence is most
relevant to staff at Office of Science labs that entail HAZMAT, radiation,
machinery, high-temperature apparatus, and other potential work hazards. This
sets a potentially dangerous precedent.
With
my case, Battelle now knows these are allowable tactics toward anyone suing
them at the five labs it manages and at Hanford if DOE awards them the
contract on 9/30/08. In summary,
litigation fraud [condemned by WA Supreme & federal courts] used to conceal drug
toxicity warnings [Fisons] and rear-impact crash injury data [Subaru] is
apparently approved procedure at Office of Science labs and potentially soon
at Hanford. Illustrating the possible impact of such tactics could be a
scenario in which a staff member sues Battelle for personal injury due a
malfunctioning apparatus involving radiation and/or HAZMAT. During discovery, Battelle would object to
releasing relevant data [e.g., maintenance records, usage logs, mfr.
warnings, safety infractions, bulletins, defective part or material notices,
recall notices, accident history, witness accounts]; they would object to
such requests being “overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing, and
not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence” in the same way Miller’s prior firm did to the parents
of Jennifer Pollack [permanently brain damaged by Fisons drug] [Ref: http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/WA-SupremeCourt-Fisons.pdf
- See Page 9] Miller had nearly
identical responses in my case, but went even further by misrepresenting RPMP
as irrelevant and concealing it; for example, when I requested SBMS
procedures [at PNNL’s suggestion], Miller claimed this request was
harassment. As my case shows, if
“unhelpful” evidence was produced, Battelle will
direct/coach/suborn scientists to make false/misleading declarations and
perjured testimony to “neutralize” the evidence, and soak
taxpayers in the process. Such tactics
would financially drain the injured worker and likely cause him/her to drop
the lawsuit; Miller and Battelle know this. The adverse implications for Office of Science
lab staff and Hanford workers are self-evident. An actual example suggesting that Battelle would invoke such
tactics in health/safety-related lawsuits is their conduct in an ORNL
whistleblower case. Seven years ago, ORNL
health physicist Janet Westbrook voiced concerns of Battelle’s
quintupling radiation dose exposure alarm levels [rem/hour] and having
technicians [not engineers] conduct radiation safety reviews; both were
implemented to increase profit.
Battelle responded by ignoring these health issues, downgrading her
performance rating, and terminating her.
DOE Office of Hearings & Appeals ruled that Battelle had engaged in
“manipulation of the system to reach a predetermined result”
(termination) and “used the criterion “transferability of
skills” in a distorted manner...an afterthought, one designed to
downgrade Westbrook and target her for termination.” See http://www.oha.doe.gov/cases/whistle/vba0059.htm for OHA Director Breznay’s decision repudiating
Battelle’s retaliation tactics against Westbrook. Currently, Battelle-ORNL has dose exposure
alarm levels 2½ times the average of all other national labs. The Westbrook case, in conjunction with DOE funding RPMP and
other falsification in my case, undoubtedly confirms that Battelle & DOE will violate 48 CFR 970.5228-1 and use Fisons-like
litigation fraud to withhold smoking-gun evidence relevant to cause of injury,
illness, cancer, wrongful death or other damage incurred someone [or their
estate] suing Battelle at Office of Science labs. This effectively
eliminates Battelle’s financial and legal risk of not only violating
civil or criminal statutes but also ignoring/relaxing staff safety/security
regulations, violating DEAR, and undermining recently enacted whistleblower
laws; this could further incent Battelle to relax staff
health/safety/security policies to reduce overhead costs. [One final footnote is a harbinger of things to come if Battelle
keeps PNNL and wins Hanford contract.
One day after I filed an 8/31/07 declaration that Battelle
misrepresented the RPMP to the court, its senior management [Chief Research Officer
Doug Ray with Use Permit compensation] threw my wife Sharon Pulver out of her
job. For the next few months Battelle
made her “tin cup” for funding, urging her to take a position
requiring lifting heavy equipment which resulted in her being injured. Within two weeks and realizing she would
lose health insurance, Battelle terminated her when she had an open injury
claim [L&I]. Are you aware that Doug Ray shelved a
DOE-required investigation of the April 2005 phone threats against her at
PNNL, shortly after I filed the lawsuit?
These incidents further how this case is very germane to
health/safety/security/whistleblower issues at Battelle-managed facilities
that may include Hanford.] 2d. Questions
Regarding DOE-Funded Litigation Fraud · Was Battelle instructed to retain an attorney
with a history of litigation fraud, i.e., discovery abuse via
misrepresentations to conceal smoking-gun evidence? Was the determination made that Fisons
tactics were “necessary” for Battelle to escape
accountability/prosecution in my case?
· Was Battelle told to
repeatedly suborn perjury, protract litigation at taxpayer expense, and have
me “go away” thereby letting them get away with fraud/abuse
against the Government and my small business? · Is the purpose of the ongoing
DOE-funded perjury to have this case ultimately appealed, which would occur
well after any re-bid or quiet renewal whereby Battelle retains PNNL without
controversy or bid protest? [In March
2007, acknowledging the perjury, OIG told me to come back after my appeal.] · Why would industry, individuals, and universities risk working
with Battelle after Office of Science funded nationally repudiated Fisons
tactics to cover up Battelle fraud, false claims and plagiarism in my
lawsuit? · Do you realize the impact of making Miller/Battelle/Fisons
tactics standard practice at Office of Science labs, especially on
whistleblowers and staff suing for health, injury and wrongful death? · Have you considered
adverse effects on safety/security at DOE labs by funding product injury
defense lawyers who falsify research to block discovery production of injury,
radiation exposure, equipment maintenance logs, HAZMAT, or other necessary
data needed by staff suing to recover damages due to Battelle’s negligent
or tortuous conduct? 3. Patent Filing Fraud to USPTO. PNNL Testimony Confirms Battelle Evades
Statutory Deadlines by Rewriting Old Invention
Reports & Renaming as “New” [Reset Clock] [Details & Evidence at http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/BattellePatentFraudAbuse.htm] Battelle exhibits and 2008 deposition
testimony by a senior commercialization manager confirm that Battelle
violates patent filing rules of the US Patent & Trademark Office. Testimony,
Battelle exhibits and the RDADS patent application confirm the following: 1. Battelle practice is to write “new” invention reports on prior
[older] inventions when they want to patent them but have run out of
time. By “resetting the
clock”, Battelle is circumventing/violating statutory bar rules of the
USPTO and misrepresenting the originally-dated inventions. 2. In 2005, Battelle wrote a “new” invention report on the
original TAP-funded 2002 MDM inventions, renamed it RDADS and reset
[circumvented] the USPTO Statutory Bar from 10/1/03 [original] to 1/31/06,
and filed a patent on the “new code” in Sept. 2005. [Note, the
2003 MDM code was refinement of the 2002 inventions; Battelle coined
“PDAC” as alias to MDM in August 2002.] Nationwide, Battelle files far more patents than most other
government, educational or industrial organizations. USPTO would likely want
to know the extent of this fraudulent practice at Office of Science Labs and
other facilities that Battelle manages or owns [e.g., Ft. Detrick]. Because of your critical role as DOE Coordinator for Technology
Transfer and Commercialization, I provided you with Battelle documents,
patent application, and surprisingly candid Battelle-PNNL testimony
confirming the above abusive practices and citing RDADS “new
code” from TAP-funded MDM [PDAC] as an example of such patent filing
fraud. If I don’t soon hear from anyone on this email regarding
this patent fraud that Battelle testimony confirms is systemic at PNNL, I
will contact the Dept. of Commerce and USPTO directly. The integrity of
Battelle’s patent process is in question; they are violating USPTO
rules. [http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxr_10_23.htm] 4. Potential[Likely] Implications:
Battelle Competing PNNL & Hanford Contracts [Bid Protests] A DOE decision to continue financing Battelle’s litigation
fraud and cover-up of their five-year misconduct would likely trigger a bid
protest or Congressional/GAO investigation if Battelle wins PNNL or keeps it
via renewal. Many will ask why DOE
knowingly funded Battelle’s cover-up of the following: DEAR & CFR violations; abuse of technical assistance
program; harassment/threats of whistleblower spouse; and, evidence of their
violating 18 USC§1001 [False Statements], 18 USC §1623 [False Declarations],
18 USC §1621 [Perjury] and 31 USC §3729 [False Claims]. They will have
greater concerns if Battelle keeps its unique & lucrative Use Permit which was motive for the
fraud/abuse/perjury and criminal violations in my case and the
well-documented Laul False Claims case. [http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/FalseClaimsViolation--Laul-v-Battelle.htm] Losing bidders, who spent millions to compete, may conclude that
DOE solicited the PNNL bid under false pretenses that there was a
level-playing field, when in realty it was a pre-determined result that
Battelle would keep the lab for decades to come. In sum, it would strongly suggest that DOE
is rebuffing the intent of Congress: Objective competition of national
labs. See related GAO report at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03932t.pdf. For example, LA-based AECOM Government Solutions, GAO and
others would be dismayed that DOE-Science awarded Battelle the PNNL contract
after financing cover-up of fraud/abuse by using the following tactics: falsifying DHS-RPMP research; false
declarations & perjury by Q-clearance holder working on air cargo explosive,
military, FBI and other classified projects; throwing my wife out of her job
one day after my declaration that Battelle misrepresented RPMP; admitted
patent fraud; and DOE-funded counsel litigation tactics previously condemned
by WA Supreme and federal courts [Fisons & Subaru] as among the most egregious discovery
tactics ever. If there’s even the perception that DOE and its Inspector
General are waiving enforcement of statutes [CFR, DEAR, US Code] and
financing litigation fraud to protect Battelle’s corporate interests,
then the objectivity of the PNNL re-compete will be questioned by competing
bidders [and Representatives], Congressional oversight and appropriations,
watchdog groups, science community, media [e.g., Nature] and the GAO.
DOE’s unprecedented canceling of the PNNL re-bid on the same day
I deposed Battelle’s Associate Lab Director Mike Schwenk regarding Use
Permit misconduct would feed that perception. Finally, this case could impact public reaction to
Battelle’s winning the Hanford contract. As cited herein, Battelle’s conduct
in my case pertains to the following issues: Security [Q-clearances]; Litigation
Fraud [Fisons] in whistleblower and personal injury cases; and,
Retaliation/threats toward whistleblower relatives. If Battelle wins the Hanford contract,
staff [union & non-union] could witness similar misconduct and then incur
DOE-funded retaliation and cover-up if they report fraud/abuse against
Battelle corporate. Occurring both at
Hanford, Laul’s case and mine already establish a pattern that this
will happen. Battelle’s
documented [OHA(Breznay)] retaliation against health physicist Janet
Westbrook [re: radiation dose exposure] is a third example of
Battelle’s treatment toward those voicing concerns that impact
corporate profit. In its role of
managing Hanford, Battelle may train other contractors to use Fisons tactics
to ward off lawsuits from injured or sickened workers, many whom are exposed
to toxic and high-level radiation on a daily basis. The implications are
clear. 5. Closing Points, Consequences to Others if
Battelle Ongoing Litigation Fraud Continues, Whistleblowers & Others Impacted,
OIG Abdicating Oversight per its Policy, GAO Copied Undersecretary Orbach, as stated above, this
detailed email and Web site [http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/] is a five-year culmination
of evidence confirming Battelle’s fraud/abuse, Q-clearance holder
misuse and violation of U.S. Code [False Declarations [18 USC §1623], Perjury
[18 USC §1621], False Statements [18 USC §1001], False Claims [31 USC §3729]. The evidence substantiating these violations
is all from Battelle’s own documents, 2008 PNNL scientist
depositions, court filings by DOE-funded counsel Delbert Miller, and DOE
letters [ORO & PNSO]. All of this
evidence substantiating the violations is on the site. In context of current events, Martha Stewart, Scooter Libby [VP
Chief of Staff] and US Senator Ted Stevens were each indicted for violating
18 USC §1001 on a minor fraction of evidence in this case showing
Battelle’s multiple U.S.C.
violations. In contrast with Battelle, attached ORO letter confirms that DOE
is funding their litigation despite the preponderance of evidence provided to
DOE since 2003. Is tax-exempt Battelle
immune from prosecution because of a double-standard? Bidders on the PNNL and Hanford contracts,
and others potentially impacted, would like to know. To date, well over $200K [taxpayers] has been squandered to
cover-up Battelle’s Use Permit motivated fraud/abuse. My case shows a systemic corporate conflict
of interest previously exhibited in the Laul False Claims case that cost
taxpayers over $1M and for which John Layton [prior IG] recommended criminal
sanctions against Battelle for “theft,
conspiracy and false statement”.
The extensive evidence confirms that Battelle is a repeat offender
of Use Permit fraud/abuse. However, after
requesting/receiving/acknowledging discovery evidence confirming the
“intent to mislead on the part Battelle” [http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/DocsToOIG.htm], the OIG closed my
case in 2007, said to come back after my appeal, stating that OIG has a
hands-off litigation policy. Mr. Friedman’s policy to exclude litigation from OIG
purview has thus given Battelle carte-blanche to engage in false declarations
& perjury by scientists
[inc. Q-clearance holders], research falsification; Fisons-like discovery
abuse, obstruction of justice, retaliation against plaintiffs’ spouses,
and other litigation fraud. This policy ignores many millions DOE spends
yearly on contractor litigation; see http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04148r.pdf. Laul’s case being featured on
NBC’s Fleecing of America and
placed in Congressional Record
illustrates ongoing concern of Battelle et al. misusing DOE-funded litigation
indemnification policy. Note, Bill
Madia cited this policy as a threat to whistleblowers after Battelle settled
with Laul and the Justice Dept. for False Claims violations. See http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/Laul/Tri-CityHerald--Madia-Laul--010497.pdf
& http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/FalseClaimsViolation--Laul-v-Battelle.htm. The OIG, by
addressing and curtailing such emboldened abuse could return significant
funds to DOE. Therefore, the GAO [Fraudnet@gao.gov] is being copied
because the OIG has relinquished oversight of this DOE-funded litigation
waste, abuse, and fraud [e.g., perjury by Q-clearance holder] that’s
happening now, in real-time.
The meter is running for taxpayers. Congressional appropriations & oversight committees
will want to know if DOE [taxpayers] intends to continue financing
Battelle’s litigation fraud [outside counsel & Q-clearance holder
Dorow] that’s occurring at the expense of national security, whistleblower
rights [§629
EPA-2005],
integrity of research, and taxpayers.
The key consequences of Office of Science choosing to still fund this fraud will be as
follows: · Emboldened by
Dorow’s misconduct, Battelle may coach other Q-clearance holders to misuse/leak
classified information to gain competitive advantage winning commercial
contracts or closing venture deals [Use Permit] at home or abroad including
China or India where it recently opened offices. 10 CFR 710 and related
procedures will be selectively enforced. · Fisons-like litigation
tactics, condemned by state & federal courts, will be policy at Office of Science labs and
the whole Hanford site if Battelle wins the pending contract. These tactics will be used against those
suing for radiation,
toxic exposure, personal injury, and/or wrongful discharge. Realizing they can
invoke such DOE-funded tactics Battelle may relax health/safety procedures to
increase profit. Hence, many thousands of lab employees will be at greater
risk. · Battelle will have
de-facto license, at taxpayer expense, to “coach” its lab scientists to
engage in research misrepresentation, false statements & declarations, perjury,
obstruction of justice, retaliation, hostile work environment, and other
abuses to conceal misconduct and protect corporate/venture/UsePermit
interests. · Phone threats and
other intimidation of whistleblower’s spouses is now acceptable at
Office of Science labs [For example, Battelle’s Chief Research Officer
Doug Ray blocked investigation of PNNL phone threats against my wife when my
lawsuit was filed.] · DOE directives for
staff to report fraud/abuse/waste will have been issued under false
pretenses. Instead of protecting/assisting those
coming forward, DOE will finance retaliation against them. Especially at risk are staff reporting
corporate-motivated fraud at any of 5 Battelle-run labs. · Businesses & universities working
with Office of Science labs will face greater risk of Battelle’s
predatory commercialization/venture practices [misappropriation,
misrepresentation] because DOE-funded Fisons litigation fraud will
effectively shield Battelle from accountability. · Patent fraud will be allowable practice at Office
of Science labs. Battelle can continue
misrepresenting original inventions by rewriting & renaming them to “reset the clock”
and bypass statutory bar USPTO rules. · Bid protests and
GAO investigations will occur if Battelle wins/keeps PNNL or wins the pending Hanford contract on 9/30/08. Losing bidders will perceive that
Battelle’s keeping PNNL was a pre-determined result because DOE
financed this cover-up that pertained to security, research integrity,
treatment of staff and other relevant issues. · The critical provision [right to jury trial] in recent whistleblower
laws having overwhelming bi-partisan support in Congress will be severely
undermined. [e.g., §629 in 2005 Energy Policy Act] Battelle would
repeatedly suborn perjury [at taxpayer expense] to financially drain
whistleblower plaintiffs and win by default. Such blatant shredding of these protections
by the manager of five national labs will concern/anger many. Battelle’s fraud and abuse in this case
has continued unabated for five years. As in
Laul, taxpayers are incurring escalating costs in my lawsuit. Battelle’s litigation fraud by
outside counsel and Q-clearance holder Dorow is occurring in real-time and violating
the following US Code: 48 CFR
970.5228-1 [Litigation], 10 CFR 710 [Access to Classified Material], 18
USC§1623 [False Declarations], 18 USC §1621[Perjury], and [18 USC §1622]
[Subornation of perjury]. On September 23, 2008 [in Richland, WA], court hearing will be held on
this case. If DOE-funded counsel and
Q-clearance holder Dorow continue to falsify/misrepresent DHS RPMP and other
material matters, then DOE-Science complicity in this real-time litigation
fraud [e.g., Dorow perjury] will be confirmed. [Note:
Hearing was delayed & held on 11/18/08] As discussed above, setting such a precedent
would have long-term implications adversely impacting Office of Science lab
staff regarding health, security, safety and other material matters. Hanford workers [union & non-union] would also
be affected if Battelle is awarded the contract on 9/30/08; this could be
very problematic given very hazardous working conditions that have
been basis for lawsuits involving health afflictions. As you’re aware, such a decision to
continue the fraud and protect Battelle’s corporate [Use Permit]
interests, would contradict prior DOE public statements. In Oct. 2007, DOE acknowledged PNNL Use
Permit conflict of interest: “In order to ensure that [PNNL] laboratory resources are
dedicated to the public benefit and governmental purposes” the Permit
won’t be in the new PNNL contract. [http://www.energy.gov/news/5663.htm] And, in your public opposition to the Use
Permit you stated “no other arrangement like this exists at any other
DOE national laboratory because a use permit creates at least two significant
problems. First, it permits a private entity to use government facilities to
compete against the private sector.” 11/12/07 Tri City Herald Article [Orbach on
Permit] Dr. Orbach, this case provides you with an unprecedented
opportunity to effectively address Battelle’s decades-long conflict of
interest due to special privileges that they’ve misused against JC
Laul, me and others. If anyone needs more information or wants the CD version of the
site, please let me know. A Word
version of this email is available. Sincerely,
Philip Pulver Attachments
-----
Original Message ----- From: Philip Pulver
To: Orbach,
Raymond Cc: Secretary
Bodman ; Friedman, Greg ; Jeff Salmon Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 13:58 Subject: CONFIDENTIAL - Update
- Evidence Battelle-PNNL Violated the False Claims Act This
confidential online communication is for Government Use Only. Per DOE
Order 221.11, this information on fraud and abuse is being provided to those who have the
authority to act in the public interest. This information is not openly available and is not intended for dissemination to the public. CCOL Inc. 1177 Jadwin Avenue Richland, WA 99352 May 11, 2007 Dr. Raymond L. Orbach Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy Dear
Under Secretary Orbach: Per DOE Order 221.11, I am sending this supplemental
update to my detailed April email below.
Further examination of the RDADS patent application and discovery
documents reveals that Battelle actually withheld [“skimmed”]
TAP-funded software development [functionality] when they delivered the
Mobile Data Manager software to me on August 29, 2003. This functionality pertained to
“drill-down-thru-category-levels” that’s necessary and
critical for handheld/mobile and online catalogs. Exhibits also show Battelle was
concurrently pursuing private [1831] commercial business with Ecolabs [$3.8
bil. rev.] to license MDM as a handheld catalog [sales automation] solution
for use by its worldwide sales force. In summary, Battelle
“pocketed” DOE-funded functionality and deprived it from the
Government’s intended technical assistance program [TAP]
recipients. As
discussed below, these actions violated the False Claims Act and confirm the
critical allegation [sabotage] in OIG complaint I04RS007 [“Alleged
Irregularities in Administering the Technical Assistance
Program”]. Office of Science directly funded this TAP
development work on MDM. Summary points, supporting evidence, and
observations/concerns are presented below.
All evidence substantiating these serious
allegations is from Battelle’s own documents. Summary Points
▪ Battelle [Dorow et al.] removed the TAP-funded category drilldown
[and other] functionality from the MDM software and delivered a
non-working MDM version to Pulver on 8-29-03.
Their explicit Aug. 1, 2003 TAP project report confirms that the
catalog functionality was already developed for MDM. However, the 8-29-03
MDM source code shows that this functionality was removed and
missing from the software’s main control panel, rendering the TAP-delivered code dysfunctional; the
software was inoperable. See http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/OIG/1A-Graphics.htm#Drilldown
and other evidence in the next section. [Note, Pulver provided Battelle with sample
catalog data sets [for category drilldown] during the 2002-03 MDM
TAP development; his online catalog clients were interested in handheld
catalogs.] ▪ Battelle kept the functionality in “their” MDM
version to pursue Ecolabs [et al] and prevent Pulver from being a future
competitor to their highly profitable 1831 corporate business. The RDADS patent application clearly
confirms they kept this critical TAP-funded and commercially valuable
functionality for themselves. 2003-04
documents show Battelle promoted/represented MDM/PDAC as having handheld
catalog functionality. [Note: In 2004 statements to OIG & SC, Vince Branton,
Battelle-PNNL's Manager of Intellectual Property Legal
Services affirmed Pulver’s exclusive rights to MDM [and derivatives]
and warned Battelle
staff NOT to market/demo MDM/PDAC to non-Government prospects; see http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/OIG/Intro-Timeline.htm#Branton. Battelle management ignored this legal obligation,
and instead hired a DOE-funded attorney who committed wanton discovery abuse
and had scientists make false declarations to conceal Battelle’s
illegal RDADS private/1831/commercial pursuits.] ▪ Battelle violated the False Claims Act [31 USC §3729]. They received Government [Office of
Science] payment for research that they claimed was provided to the technical
assistance recipients through Pulver.
Their withholding TAP-funded work and delivering non-working
dysfunctional/skimmed software [while marketing “their” MDM
working version] prove Battelle’s claims for payment were false. [See
PNNL timecard, SC funding, 8-01-03 TAP report, laboratory record book and
software screens in the next section.] 31 USC
§3729 text is at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/31/usc_sec_31_00003729----000-.html
▪ Their
withholding/skimming DOE-funded work and sabotaging the TAP-delivered MDM
proves that Battelle again misled [18 USC §1001] DOE
when it told SC & OIG in 2004 that “best efforts” were
delivered.
Battelle’s 2006 admission of pursuing private PDAC/MDM business and
discovery evidence further prove they kept the “best
efforts” version for their corporate opportunities. In 2003, Spanner [TAP manager at PNNL]
improperly funded Battelle staff to engage in MDM licensing discussions re:
Ecolabs, a clear MDM license violation and 1831 conflict of interest
with the DOE-funded TAP work. ▪ After removing critical TAP-funded functionality, delivering a crippled/sabotaged non-working MDM version to Pulver, and keeping “their” MDM version [a.k.a. PDAC, RDADS], Battelle misled the district court in July 2006 by audaciously declaring that Pulver’s “little” MDM was so functionally inferior, thus unrelated to RDADS, and that discovery on RDADS should be denied. Battelle then demanded and received sanctions [$17K] for his filing a motion to compel them to deliver the patent application and other RDADS documents. The revealing patent application now further proves Battelle misappropriated/falsified DOE research, suborned perjury, and used/manipulated the court as means for “de facto extortion” [against Pulver] to conceal their false claims against the Federal Government and their commercial misappropriation of DOE-funded MDM technology. See http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/OIG/Index-PatentSection.htm and http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/OIG/FalseStatementsToTheCourt.htm. Supporting Documentation/Evidence
Funding directly from Office of Science: http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/OIG/GES-00227(011904-OfficeOfScienceWP).pdf
DOE-HQ approval of TAP work: http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/OIG/GES-00252(071702-DOE_HQ-ApprovesJES).pdf RDADS patent application vis-à-vis MDM screens showing [catalog drilldown] functionality missing from 8-29-03 MDM: http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/OIG/1A-Graphics.htm#Drilldown Scientist Dorow’s and other
Battelle documents: August 1, 2003 TAP report explicitly stating
handheld catalog functionality [“category drilldown”] had already been
developed for MDM: http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/OIG/GES-00202(080103-TAPreports-MDM-DrilldownDone).pdf Excerpt: “drill-down
capability for multiple levels based on categories defined in the extraction plan…The coding required
to support a “drill-down” mechanism on both the administrative
application server component and the handheld application was completed. This included modifications and additions
to the web pages of the administrative application server component [control panel] to support defining the fields to be used as the
“drill-down” categories” 2003 exhibits of Battelle [Dorow, Goodwin, et al] 1831
(corporate) business pursuits that show conflict of interest with TAP-funded
MDM and motive to skim Office of Science funded research from the software
delivered to the recipient of the technical assistance: http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/OIG/Ecolabs-2003-HandheldCatalogOpportunity.htm
Dorow laboratory notebook showing catalog
drilldown functionality in MDM prior to 8-29-03 delivery to Pulver: http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/OIG/DorowLabRecordBook-Excerpts.htm
Source Code of TAP-delivered MDM on 8-29-03 showing
removed of functionality: http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/OIG/SourceCode-MDM-082903.zip [IdentifyFields.java
--> catalog drilldown missing from control panel] Observations and Concerns
The two main allegations in OIG
Complaint I04RS007 complaint were 1) sabotage/crippling of the MDM
software and 2) Battelle’s plagiarizing & competing against Pulver with the working/functional
MDM/PDAC version. This latest evidence
of their withholding TAP-funded code from the 8-29-03 TAP-delivered MDM version
confirms the first. Battelle’s
discovery evidence and their 10-26-06 admission to the court confirm the
second main allegation. Battelle financially damaged the government. By withholding the critical MDM catalog and other TAP functionality from the non-working 8-29-03 TAP version delivered to Pulver, Battelle prevented him and his team from selling MDM and generating royalties to DOE-PNNL. Pulver and Battelle had signed a royalty-bearing license for the TAP-funded MDM . Battelle suppressed this material fact from SC & OIG in 2004; Pulver was also informed that the local site office would thwart any future False Claims Act claim by testifying to a US attorney that Battelle didn’t financially damage the government because no royalties were at stake. The preponderance of evidence [e.g., Ecolabs] shows
Battelle’s motive for its fraud & abuse was their 1831
Use Permit [to 1830 M&O PNNL contract], which is a rare/unique privilege that lets Battelle use
Government facilities to conduct private/corporate business. My case shows that DOE’s
conflict-of-interest directive on Non-Interference with DOE-funded work was
willfully ignored by Battelle management, including an Associate Lab Director
who was involved in the fraud/misappropriation as discovery documents show. This latest update further shows the following
compelling commonality between my case and JC Laul: - Violation
of the False Claims Act driven by 1831 corporate/commercial interests. - False statements
to cover-up and mislead DOE and OIG
[18 USC §1001] -
Misrepresenting scientific data to mislead district court.
[Laul--chemistry, Pulver--software
engineering] - Blatant
retaliation [In my case, this included uninvestigated phone threats against
my wife at PNNL.] - Exploiting
taxpayer-funded litigation reimbursement to “churn the process”
to escape accountability [For details, see my March 8, 2007 letter to House
Oversight and Government Reform Committee below. JC can be reached
at LANL.] This update regarding Battelle’s violation of the
False Claims Act is very
significant. Evidence from 2003-2007
now proves Battelle withheld/skimmed DOE-funded research from the technical
assistance recipients to whom they were statutorily and contractually
obligated to provide. As the OIG
said in 2003, Congress didn’t appropriate funds for Battelle to use
the technical assistance program as means to take advantage
of small business and compete against them. The Energy Policy
Act [§1001 re: annual DOE reports] shows Congress remains very concerned
about such abuses. As indicated by its documents, Battelle is
nevertheless proceeding ahead with its deception [to DOE, OIG, district
court, patent office, firms that signed RDADS NDAs] to escape accountability
for documented violations against the US Government and small
businesses. In this supplement to the April letter, I provided additional and material evidence for DOE to diligently address Battelle’s fraud, abuse and false statements in OIG cases that began in 2003. It will serve notice to other government organizations that may choose to investigate allegations of False Claims Act violations and any other information provided herein. More detail on this updated information is at the main site: http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/OIG/.
Sincerely,
Philip Pulver (509)
946-2411 -----
Original Message ----- From: Philip Pulver
To: Orbach,
Raymond Cc: Secretary
Bodman ; Friedman, Greg ; Jeff Salmon Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 4:25 PM Subject: CONFIDENTIAL - Update
and Delivery of Evidence of Fraud, Abuse & False Statements Per DOE Order 221.11 This
confidential online communication is for Government Use Only. Per
DOE Order
221.11, this information on fraud and abuse is being provided to those who have
the authority to act in the public interest. This information is not openly available and is not intended for
dissemination to the public. CCOL Inc. 1177 Jadwin Avenue Richland, WA 99352 April 25, 2007 Dr. Raymond L. Orbach Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy Dear
Under Secretary Orbach: Per DOE Order 221.11, I am sending this email to provide
DOE with an update on Battelle evidence including their admissions or
acknowledgments that corroborate the allegations in my OIG complaints
[2003 - 2007]. These allegations
include Battelle's false statements to mislead DOE-SC and OIG,
plagiarism, misrepresentation of funded research, discovery abuse and
misrepresentations by DOE-funded Battelle outside counsel, misappropriation,
and others cited in this email or at the evidence site referenced below.
Note,
all the evidence substantiating the allegations is from Battelle’s own
documents. This letter will also serve notice to any other government body
(Congress, GAO, DOJ, etc.) that I have provided all necessary evidence
to the Office of Science beforehand and have given DOE the opportunity to
properly address Battelle’s continued fraud, abuse, and false
statements to the government. This email and all content at
evidence site will be copied to CD and sent by certified mail
to your office by May 1, 2007. This email consists of the following three parts: 1. Evidence and Other Documents Re:
Allegations 2. Emphasis on Certain Issues/Allegations 1. Evidence and Other Documents Re:
Allegations Based on the evidence released in 2006,
Battelle’s statements to the court, and the OIG’s request for
Battelle discovery documents, an allegations-with-exhibits Web site was
developed in late 2006; note, the site is configured to make it
unreachable by search engines [e.g., Google].
The site material has been since updated with new evidence, including
Battelle’s RDADS software patent application [released 3-22-07] that
clearly confirms my OIG allegations [e.g., false statements, plagiarism,
misappropriation]. This online material includes the actual Battelle
documents corroborating the allegations; relevant excerpts are cited to
expedite review. The information can
be found at the following locations: 1A. http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/OIG/ is a comprehensive site detailing the allegations with supporting evidence of Battelle-PNNL fraud, abuse, and false statements to SC & OIG. The site was developed in response to the OIG November 2006 requests for discovery documents showing Battelle's intent to mislead. It includes the following topics: Background & timeline [2001- 2007]; Pulver detailed emails to DOE & OIG; Battelle false statements to DOE & OIG [18 USC §1001]; Concealing corporate/1831 pursuits; RDADS “new code” misappropriation; Misrepresenting DHS US Customs & Border Protection Radiation Portal Monitoring Project [RPMP] research to conceal fraud; False statements/declarations & material suppressions to district court. 1B. http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/Patent/
presents new evidence discovered in FY07 that
materially substantiates allegations in the site above. It consists of the following sub-sections: RDADS patent application [released 3-22-07]
with graphics and detailed text showing plagiarism/misappropriation of MDM
software; Named inventor on patent repeatedly stating RDADS is new name for
PDAC/MDM; Battelle’s 10-26-06 admission of pursuing private business
for PDAC/MDM thereby implicating itself in making false statements to SC & OIG in
2004; Timecards showing that Battelle misrepresented US
Customs & Border Protection RPMP work. The patent application and other new
evidence consistently confirm that Battelle has been misleading DOE, OIG
and the court. 1C.
http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/OIG/022607-Issues-Summary-OIG.doc
summarizes the following issues in the OIG complaints including fraud, abuse, false
statements, and damages to the government: I04RS007:
Alleged Irregularities in Administering the Technical Assistance
Program
I05RR039: Sabotage & Misrepresentation of PalmFon P07HL035-1: Submission of fraudulent copyright
documents and invention reports to DOE. P07HL035-2: False statements by outside counsel and two
Battelle scientists. [All DOE-funded] P07HL035-3: Deliberate sabotage and manipulation by
Battelle of the DOE-funded MDM software. P07HL035-4: Material misrepresentations to OIG and
Science. P07HL035-5: Misrepresentation of DOE technology
pertaining to licensing DOE-funded technology. P07HL035-6: Battelle’s false statements to
mislead the court to impose financial sanctions on Pulver P07HL035-7: DOE-Science funding Battelle’s
litigation costs to defend willful misconduct 1D. http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/OIG/030807-LetterToCommitteeOnOversight.htm
is an initial letter to the House Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform sent on March 8th. It discussed how my OIG cases and abuses by
Battelle outside counsel, if left unaddressed by DOE, undermine the intent of
Congress to protect whistleblowers via the Whistleblower
Enhancement Act of 2007 and the 2005 Energy Policy Act [§629: “… seeking
relief under this paragraph, such person may bring an action at law or equity
for de novo review in the appropriate district court of the United
States”]. Cited are GAO reports
and Chairman Waxman’s 2003 letter to the Energy Secretary indicating concern
over how DOE practices [that subsidize contractors engaging in willful
misconduct or illegal activity] will encourage wrongdoing contractors to
needlessly protract lawsuits at significant taxpayer and whistleblower
expense. The relevant JC Laul fraud
case is cited because (1) It was a prior instance of Battelle-PNNL making
false statements that the OIG confirmed, (2) Battelle issued
a blunt public warning to future whistleblowers, and (3) An in-depth
article on Battelle-PNNL's conduct toward DOE, taxpayers
and Laul was placed in the Congressional
Record by Rep. David Skaggs. Per the Committee’s February request, I
made recommendations to help prevent Battelle et al. from misusing taxpayer
funds in order to conceal fraud, abuse whistleblowers, and escape
accountability. I promised to keep the Committee posted. Two
material events have occurred since the March 8th letter: 1. The
Patent and Trademark Office released the RDADS patent application which
further confirms the allegations. 2. The OIG, after requesting
and receiving discovery evidence of Battelle’s "intent to
mislead”, summarily closed the case. However, prior to
sending an update to the Committee chairman, I am sending this letter with
the extensive evidence [Battelle documents] to you and Secretary Bodman;
although Mr. Friedman closed the case, I'm copying him as a courtesy. 2. Emphasis on Certain Issues/Allegations Within
extensive information provided at the links above, there are some issues that
warrant emphasis due to their impact on DOE, oversight, taxpayers, others
doing business with Battelle-managed labs, the court, and future
whistleblower protection. The issues are as follows: 2A.
Battelle repeatedly
misled Science and OIG to conceal their
fraud and abuse; extensive exhibits are at http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/OIG/FalseStatementstoScience&OIG.htm For example,
emails from two PNNL staff prove that Battelle made false statements to DOE
when they denied any wrongful competing/misappropriating. Mark Goodwin [later promoted to a
director], who plagiarized and interfered with the technical assistance MDM
software project in 2002, was goaled on 1831 [private] business volume; he
willfully violated the MDM license agreement, marketed the MDM software under
Battelle’s PDAC alias and misled a major corporation[s]. Kevin Dorow [MDM developer/inventor], two
weeks after delivering non-working software in 2003, stated he would demo the
working MDM version to my prospects only if Battelle thought it would lead to
the more profitable 1831 business. 2B.
Battelle’s outside counsel engaged in discovery
abuse [misrepresentation] and PNNL scientists made false/inaccurate sworn
declarations to the court in order to conceal Battelle’s
misappropriation/plagiarism [e.g., RDADS “new code” scheme]. They stated that RDADS had
“absolutely nothing to do with” Pulver [and MDM software] and
they blatantly misrepresented research funded by DHS
US Customs & Border Protection
RPMP; see exhibits at http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/Patent/7-BattelleMisledTheCourt.htm. Using the
scientists’ declarations, Battelle successfully misled the court. Battelle then demanded sanctions against me and received
them [$17,043] on 10/13/06. In early
November, they
threatened to seek contempt sanctions for more money; all the while, they
were deceiving the court as the RDADS patent application now so clearly
proves. As I wrote to Mr.
Friedman, Battelle later cashed my check and thus consummated their intent to
mislead the court and committed de-facto extortion as the
following links indicate: http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/OIG/MisleadingCourt-DefactoExtortion.htm http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/OIG/113006-CCOLtoMiller--Letter&Check.pdf
http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/OIG/111006-ContemptThreat.pdf Details on outside counsel’s discovery abuse are at http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/OIG/DiscoveryAbuse.doc; as
noted, his prior law firm [employer] was sanctioned a record $325,000 for
wanton discovery abuse.
The OIG’s 11-24-06 email to me and documents I sent back to them [11-27-06] are follows: http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/OIG/DocsToOIG.htm After specifically requesting, receiving and
acknowledging the extensive discovery[lawsuit] evidence that
corroborated Battelle's intent to mislead and the other allegations, the OIG
closed the case and apparently chose not to hold Battelle accountable
for its fraud, abuse, and false statements to DOE. My detailed response/concern to their
decision is at http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/OIG/041007-Email-ReOIG-ClosingCase.htm. [Excerpt: “In sum, although
the Battelle evidence and admissions have validated my allegations, the OIG
is nonetheless allowing Battelle’s misconduct [e.g. discovery abuse & false declarations] to continue at
DOE expense [allowable cost].
Unfortunately, my 3½-year case shows that reporting fraud allegations [per DOE
Order 221.1] against
a major DOE contractor to the OIG is effectively pointless and fraught with
significant risk to those coming forward.] 3. Closing Summary Points 3A. The 2007 evidence [RDADS patent application & PNNL timecard records] show that
Battelle materially misled the court to conceal their misappropriation of the
MDM software that was developed/funded under the technical assistance program
[TAP] in 2002 and enhanced in 2003 under TAP. The patent application’s visual
evidence [http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/Patent/1A-Graphics.htm] alone reveals their plagiarism; it explains why
Battelle “had” to mislead the court and conceal this smoking gun
evidence. The
RDADS patent application further underscores their fraudulent tactics to
deceive the court into imposing a $17K sanction for my pressing to obtain
the application and other RDADS documents; it proves Battelle
knowingly misled and used the court as a vehicle for extortion. As I stated to the Committee, this abusive
conduct of using/suborning national lab scientists and outside counsel to
mislead courts [and extort plaintiffs] undermines the most critical protection
of any whistleblower, i.e., having their day in court. 3B. Battelle and outside counsel,
through false declarations and representations, successfully
deceived the court. Their actions have
thus tainted the case; even the OIG acknowledges the case is tainted because
they told me on 3-22-07 to come back to them after the appeal. As stated in my 2-27-07 email to the OIG,
“Until Undersecretary Orbach, the Secretary or the OIG
intervenes, Battelle’s taxpayer-funded deception to DOE and the court
will continue unabated…As mentioned previously, unless Battelle
redresses its willful misrepresentations to the court, the case is tainted
and could thus result in an appeal on grounds of discovery abuse by their
DOE-funded attorney. If Science
doesn’t hold Battelle accountable for misconduct that’s now
overwhelmingly proven by their own documents, Battelle will have a de-facto
license to defraud/abuse DOE, the courts, the taxpayer, and those small
businesses or universities working with any of the five national labs that
Battelle manages.” Note,
Battelle's conduct in the Laul case forced an appeal to the Ninth Circuit
which JC won [new trial]. 3C. The preponderance of
evidence and admissions reveal that Battelle’s conduct has violated,
pertains to, and/or undermines the following regulations, directives, laws or
policies: Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2007 - http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1172 & http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-985 Energy Policy Act of 2005 - http://www.energy.gov/about/EPAct.htm §
629 [Whistleblower Protection] § 1001 [Improved Technology Transfer Of Energy
Technologies.] 18 USC § 1001 - Fraud And False Statements - http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+18USC1001
DOE Order 221.11 [Reporting Fraud, Waste, and
Abuse] - https://www.directives.doe.gov/pdfs/doe/doetext/neword/221/n22111.html
DOE Policy on Research Misconduct - http://www.epa.gov/EPA-IMPACT/2005/June/Day-28/i12645.htm
DOE 48 CFR Part 970.5227-2 [Commercialization & Copyright] - http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/OIG/CFR48-970----SW-Copyright-Commercialization.htm
GAO Report on DOE Reimbursement of Litigation Costs - http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04148r.pdf Battelle internal SBMS Policy on Plagiarism - http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/OIG/P20620.pdf
Battelle-PNNL 1831 Non-Interference Policy - http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/OIG/DOE-Battelle-NonInterference-1831.htm
Patent Rules on Misconduct §10.23 - http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxr_10_23.htm By way of
this letter, I have provided substantial and sufficient evidence for the DOE
Office of Science to diligently address Battelle’s fraud, abuse and
false statements to the government in OIG cases that began nearly four years
ago. It will serve notice [of providing such] to other
government organizations (Congress, GAO, DOJ...) that may choose to
investigate the allegations, the preponderance of evidence, and/or
Battelle’s statements/declarations/admissions to the court. Sincerely,
Philip Pulver (509)
946-2411 |
|
|
|
