|
Perjury Summary Page |
Battelle [Top-Secret Clearance Scientist & DOE-Funded Counsel] Misled Court Perjury: Falsely Denied Battelle Investment
in Commercial Venture RDADS/RFID Software [“TagCONNECT”] Battelle misled court by concealing its funding
“TagCONNECT” investment project to commercialize RDADS software. Evidence confirms RDADS is the latest name for
RPMP-funded versions of 2003 MDM exclusively licensed to Pulver. TagCONNECT [RDADS w/ RFID] technology is the same as Hi-G-Tek
that received $15.5 M from Battelle Ventures [2006-07]
Click here for 1st
set of perjured statements. Background In court filings, PNNL
scientist Dorow & DOE-funded
counsel Miller represented that Battelle did not fund the [“TagCONNECT” (Exh. 4-1)] investment
proposal to develop and commercialize a version of the RDADS software adapted
and combined to work with RFID wireless technology.
Just
as it’s misrepresenting DHS RPMP [Radiation
Portal Monitor Project] research to withhold evidence, Battelle is also
falsely denying [concealing] RDADS commercialization to claim
RDADS is “irrelevant” to Pulver’s exclusive license to MDM software and
follow-on versions [e.g., RDADS] and thus RDADS documents should not be
produced, i.e. blocked from examination. Excerpts of filings [Exh. 4-2] showing
Battelle representations of RDADS commercialization [shown false by Battelle
documents released in 2008] are as follows: Crt. Doc. #95 [9/8/06 Memo Opposing Plaintiffs’ Motion For
Reconsideration of Order Denying Motion to Compel] [Miller] “Plaintiff asserts that documents...GBM-00007 “demonstrate ongoing private commercial business by
Defendant Battelle involving RDADS”...assertion
was the subject of an exchange of correspondence following the August 10
hearing…The response given to Mr. Ivey [Pulver’s
attorney] prior to the filing of the present Motion for
Reconsideration will also serve as a response to the present motion regarding
RDADS: ”Whether or not some commercial use of RDADS
will occur in the future, Mr. Dorow’s testimony that there are no
private commercialization efforts being considered...is not contradicted
by document GBM-00007 which is an IR&D proposal made in 2005 for FY2006 which was rejected. (Emphasis
supplied.)”” [Note:
IR&D is independent R&D, Battelle corporate investment funding.] Crt. Doc. #71 [7/28/06 Memo in Opposition to
Plaintiffs’ 2006 Motion to Compel Production of Documents] [Dorow] “During the past four
years since the License Agreement was entered into in 2002, 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 or their lawsuit…“All the uses
of RDADS have been by and for the Government, and no commercialization efforts are currently
being considered.” Crt. Doc. #72 [Dorow
7/28/06 Declaration Re: RDADS and Contacts with Third Parties] [Dorow] “A
second Gov. use of RDADS is being initiated to assist the DHS in the
screening of air cargo being shipped on commercial airlines. This is a collaboration with Oak Ridge National
Laboratory...No private commercialization efforts are currently being considered for the RDADS
software.” Battelle
evidence cited below shows these above representations [denying RDADS commercialization] are false. Documents Confirming Falsity of Battelle’s Representations
& Declarations to the Court In 2006 rulings that
relied upon Battelle’s representations cited above, the court allowed
Battelle to block/conceal all other RDADS-related documents unless evidence was produced showing that
Battelle commercialized RDADS. [Note:
In May 2006, Battelle began sending Pulver documents on ‘RDADS’ because their emails
showed it was a new name for MDM; but in
June 2006, Miller suddenly blocked RDADS claiming it was irrelevant to MDM
and later denied TagCONNECT investment.] In Feb. 2008 [19
months later], Battelle produced a
smoking-gun document [Exh. 4-3 (Dorow’s 2006 performance review,
signed May 2006 by 2 levels of management)] confirms
Battelle did invest in TagCONNECT
project to commercialize RDADS via RFID.
This excerpt shows Battelle’ Dorow concealed RDADS commercialization
project from the court: “TagCONNECT…Author/Principal
investigator of a successful proposal to create a new RFID middleware system… rewarded
$50K of IR&D funding”. Battelle withheld this document
until after Dorow’s deposition, thereby ensuring that he [top-secret
(Q) clearance holder] wasn’t questioned on Battelle’s concealing
the TagCONNECT RDADS commercialization project that, per court ruling
cited above, would have required Battelle to produce RDADS
documents. With this
outright lie to conceal RDADS commercialization, Battelle then had the court
assess attorney’s fees against Pulver after the judge denied his motion to
compel Battelle to produce additional RDADS documents, which include all
post-2003 RPMP versions of the PDAC/MDM software that (i) Battelle renamed “RDADS” [Exh. 4-5] and (ii) Would
further confirm that Battelle withheld DOE-funded work from the government’s intended
recipient Pulver, who told the court this violates the False Claims Act. Press and Other Documents Showing Motive for Battelle to Conceal RDADS Commercialization Investment Research reveals
Battelle consummated a $10 million venture capital investment with its
licensee Hi-G-Tek
[RFID mobile data tech. provider] in Sept. 2006, just months after the
TagCONNECT investment. In Dec. 2007,
Battelle Ventures infused another $5.5
million. For details, see press
releases [Exh. 4-4A] which include explicit
descriptions confirming that Hi-G-Tek technology is identical/similar to TagCONNECT. Exh. 4-4B has diagrams of Hi-G-Tek’s mobile RFID product with an example application
[cargo] showing clear commonality with the technology
in TagCONNECT commercialization RFID project that Battelle documents show was
funded. Battelle granted Pulver
an exclusive worldwide license to market, sell and develop follow-on
[derivative] versions of the MDM software in the commercial/private
sector; DOE’s small business Technical
Assistance Program [TAP] funded Battelle to develop MDM per Pulver’s
specifications. In
Exh. 4-6, Battelle’s lead intellectual
property attorney confirmed his exclusivity to DOE’s Inspector General in
2004: “He [Pulver] has worldwide, derivative
rights. If Battelle makes a derivative
product, Battelle has no rights to it.” Derivative [follow-on]
products include the 2004-05 MDM/PDAC versions [Exh. 4-5] that Battelle admits
are RDADS. Thus, Pulver’s
license would be violated if Battelle commercialized the RDADS versions
resulting from TagCONNECT investment, e.g., licensing & embedding
RDADS/RFID version into Hi-G-Tek products. With Battelle Ventures’ 2006 $10 million
investment was/is at stake, Battelle had motive to conceal TagCONNECT from
Pulver and court. Summary [Click to download PDF
version of Complete
Set of Exhibits] Battelle evidence and filings to
court confirm the following: (1) Battelle
materially misled the court by representing that the TagCONNECT proposal had been rejected when in
fact Battelle invested in the project to adapt/enhance and commercialize
RDADS for RFID applications; (2) The
architecture diagram and descriptions in the TagCONNECT/RDADS proposal
describe the same technology and use applications [Hi-G-Tek]
for which Battelle Ventures made a $15.5M
investment; (3) Battelle’s lead intellectual property
attorney affirmed Pulver’s exclusive license to MDM derivative versions] to
DOE Offices of Science & Inspector General.
|
Perjury Summary Page