Case Timeline [2001 - 2012]
Snapshot of Key Events
● 2001 – Battelle-PNNL solicited small business owner Pulver to commercialize/market PalmFon [software enabling users to download data to Palm handhelds]. Battelle gave demos and made explicit representations to Pulver that PalmFon had functionality needed by handheld users. Based on this, Pulver began to commercialize PalmFon; his market research validated its market potential. The September 11, 2001 attacks further confirmed the criticality of mobile data software technology, including the need for two-way communication [data download and upload] as opposed to the limited one-way [download only] capability of PalmFon and all other mobile device software at that time.
● January - March 2002 – In January, Battelle delivered non-functional PalmFon software to Pulver; in March, their scientist Dorow confirmed this who told Pulver to abandon the non-fixable PalmFon. [Battelle later admitted to the court that PalmFon only worked with Battelle-PNNL’s phonebook, making it useless to anyone outside the lab!] In March, Pulver utilized the DOE-funded Technical Assistance Program [TAP] that paid Battelle-PNNL to develop the new Mobile Data Manager [MDM] software [based on Pulver’s specifications] with critical and innovative commercially-valuable features including 2-way communication [upload/download] between mobile users and desktop computers/servers.
● June - October 2002 – In June, the core functioning MDM was finished; the MDM invention reports were written in September and DOE chief counsel granted permission for Battelle to copyright MDM in October. That summer, Battelle became aware of the growing commercial interest in MDM and began interfering with & harassing Pulver’s marketing partners, stalling the MDM licensing process, and delaying the next phase, i.e., enhancing MDM to meet commercially-critical market requirements. In August 2002, they renamed MDM to “PDAC” [Pocket Data Access Components]; documents show Battelle commercially market MDM under PDAC, nominating it for an R&D 100 award in 2003.
● September 2002 – Battelle pressures MDM team [small businesses] to commit in writing to paying for future Use-Permit  private and lucrative [high profit margin] contracts with Battelle in exchange for Battelle commercialization letting the DOE/TAP MDM project [they stalled] to resume. Pulver and his team rejected this blatant quid-pro-quo that violates kickback rules of Federal Acquisition Regulations [FAR].
● December 2002 – Battelle granted Pulver’s company an exclusive worldwide license to market, sell and develop derivative [follow-on] enhanced versions of the MDM software in all commercial fields of use. Per policy, the US Government [DOE, DHS...] retained the right to use and develop derivative versions, but NOT to commercialize them. Battelle demoed a working MDM product to Pulver at PNNL during the meeting to finalize an MDM specification for the 2003 enhancements to MDM.
● January - August 2003 – Based on specifications approved by Pulver and using TAP funding [pooled by 5 other small businesses], Battelle Scientist Dorow undertook the 2003 MDM enhancement phase of adding functionality [with testing] needed for Pulver’s MDM sales team to commercially market MDM to users in many industries. Discovery later confirmed they plagiarized Pulver’s MDM documents, and marketed MDM [under the “PDAC” and later “RDADS” aliases] in competition with him starting in spring 2003, e.g., Fortune 500 Ecolabs [cited below].
[In 2006, Battelle admits to the court that it demoed a working & functional MDM to Pulver in May 2003, the month Battelle commercialization wrote “send Pulver to Iraq!-One way of course...MOAB” email and 3 months before it delivered the non-working crashing MDM version to him ]
● August 29, 2003 – Battelle delivers a non-working MDM software version to small business TAP recipient Pulver. Discovery documents & PNNL testimony confirmed that Battelle was meanwhile [spring-fall 2003] marketing the working & functional version to Ecolabs regarding a sales & consulting [Use-Permit] and licensing opportunity pertaining to deploying a handheld mobile catalog for its worldwide sales force.
[In 2008 deposition testimony, Battelle’s own software expert also confirmed the MDM software version delivered to Pulver didn’t work and actually crashed. In his July 2008 declaration, Dorow admitted that the 8/29/03 version had “problems” running and was untested. For detailed evidence [documents & testimony] regarding Pulver’s receiving a non-working version, see the Documents section.
● Sept. 2003 - Early 2004 – After Battelle MDM developer Dorow admitted, on 9/10/03, to delivering a non-working “embarrassment” MDM version and marketing the “working” MDM version(s) for their commercial interests, Pulver filed a complaint with DOE’s Office of Inspector General [OIG]. In their January 2004 response to OIG, Battelle’s lead IP attorney Branton affirmed Pulver’s exclusive license rights to the three-part MDM/PDAC software and directed that staff [e.g., Dorow] not to market it commercially.
● 2004 - 2005 – Meanwhile, the Dept. of Homeland Security [US Customs & Border Protection] Radiation Portal Monitor Project [RPMP] funded Battelle to enhance the MDM/PDAC software to run on Blackberry handhelds [for installers of radiation monitors at ports & borders] which increased its commercial potential. This is repeatedly confirmed by Battelle documents & testimony cited in the Derivative section.
[Note, in a 6/28/10 document to the court, Battelle confirmed MDM was ported to BlackBerry and licensed [commercialized] in 2004!]
● January - February 2005 – After Battelle’s Morgan confirmed Pulver had exclusivity to follow-on [derivative] versions [e.g., MDM/PDAC-on-Blackberry], Battelle, the very next day, embarked on its “new code…new name” tactic to evade Pulver’s exclusive license and misappropriate PDAC/MDM software. Namely, it suddenly called PDAC/MDM “new code”, wrote a “NEW” invention report renamed RDADS. Documents show Battelle was commercially marketing RDADS under non-disclosure agreements. [Details on RDADS are below.] These excerpts of Morgan’s explicit 1/27/05 email chain clearly reveal Battelle’s intentions that they carried out [as shown by extensive evidence including testimony]:
“Why don’t you guy’s file a new IR and tell me that this is all “new code”…Gary Morgan“
”Cool we’ll process as new copyright and new IP - so Pulver is toast…Morgan”
”Had to share this with you—you’ve got to love the IP guys…Kevin“ [IP=Intellectual Property]
”Nice. Hope no one ever subpoenas GM email records…Thurman“
● May 2005 – Pulver served Battelle with a Federal lawsuit. Causes of action included breach of MDM license and TAP agreements, fraud, misrepresentation, and other unfair business practices. The main breach of contract claim was not dismissed as the Court clearly stated: “Plaintiff has proffered evidence that, if believed by a jury, could support a finding that Defendant breached this contract.” [CD #253 1/29/09]
● September 2005 – Battelle files a patent application on “new” invention RDADS; the USPTO published the patent application in 2007. Note, Battelle concealed the 2002 MDM inventions from the patent office, failing to name them as prior art to RDADS. As evidence below confirms, Battelle didn’t cite MDM because the MDM and RDADS inventions are the very same thing. See patent fraud section for details.
● Spring 2006 – Battelle began producing discovery documents that confirmed allegations in the OIG complaints and lawsuit. For example, documents show Battelle was showcasing the working MDM/PDAC version for corporate pursuits [Ecolabs] before & after delivering the non-working version to Pulver on 8/29/03. [Battelle later admitted that MDM worked 3 months before delivery to Pulver.] In response to Pulver’s request to produce documents on software named MDM, PDAC or other alias, Battelle [with legal dept. approval] produced some “RDADS” documents confirming that RDADS was another name for PDAC/MDM. See Derivative section for evidence.
● Summer 2006 – In response to Pulver’s request to obtain additional RDADS documents, Battelle suddenly denied RDADS had anything to do with MDM or this lawsuit. As the evidence shows, Battelle’s DOE-funded counsel Miller and top-secret Q clearance holder Dorow began making materially inaccurate representations and submitting materially false declarations to the court regarding RDADS, MDM, RPMP and other matters. Specifically, they represented to the court that RPMP rejected/abandoned the TAP-DOE-funded MDM and instead funded “new”, “different” and separate software [RDADS] that’s irrelevant to the case and therefore all further RDADS versions must be blocked from discovery, i.e., concealed from Pulver. Evidence unequivocally refutes Battelle, showing that RPMP funded development of follow-on versions of MDM/PDAC. [RDADS was the “new code” in the January 2005 email cited above.] Details on Battelle’s RPMP and other misrepresentation are in the following sections: Derivative, Evidence [Condensed Documents] and Patenting. [See also Evidence Presented to Court.]
Note: Battelle DOE-funded counsel’s sudden refusal turn over RDADS documents [after PNNL confirmed RDADS is MDM/PDAC & voluntarily produced them] resulted in major litigation battles [re: discovery/evidence] at significant expense to taxpayers and to whistleblower/plaintiff Pulver.
● October 2006 – Battelle admitted to the court that it used Pulver’s MDM documents to pursue private/commercial PDAC/MDM business.
● January 2007 – DOE’s site office [PNSO] released time sheets of Kevin Dorow [MDM/PDAC/RDADS software architect & inventor] that revealed he depleted his funded hours for DHS-RPMP enhancements to PDAC/MDM on 1/26/05. The next day [1/27/05], Battelle hatched the “call it ‘new code’” tactic; a few weeks later Dorow wrote a “NEW” invention report, and renamed PDAC/MDM software to “RDADS.”
● March 2007 – The Patent & Trademark Office published Battelle’s RDADS Patent Application. Patent diagrams, screens & invention text confirm that (1) “RDADS” is a new name for PDAC/MDM and (2) Battelle scientist and Miller misled the court when it represented RDADS as new software funded by DHS having “absolutely nothing to do with” Pulver and MDM, (3) Battelle withheld TAP-funded functionality [e.g., drilldown search] from the non-working MDM version delivered to Pulver on 8/29/03, and thus violated the False Claims Act and committed patent fraud. This supporting evidence is in the Derivative section.
● January - February 2008 – Depositions by Battelle staff [Gary Morgan, Steven Shoemaker and Dr. Ian Gorton (software expert)] confirmed that the RDADS software is a follow-on version [derivative] to the 2003 TAP-funded MDM software exclusively licensed to Pulver. In February, Battelle produced 2004 screens of PDAC [aka RDADS] that are identical to Mobile Data Manager. This 2008 testimony & exhibits further confirm that Kevin Dorow [top-secret (Q) clearance holder] has repeatedly misrepresented RPMP; screen shots, his lab official record book, DOE-RPMP time records, and testimony of three PNNL scientists [including Battelle’s declared expert Gorton] all confirm Dorow made material misrepresentations [declarations & testimony] to the court regarding DHS-RPMP research. [Documents confirmed that the DHS Air Cargo Explosives Detection Pilot Program [ACEDPP] also enhanced/adopted the software, thereby showing the viability of MDM/PDAC/RDADS].
● 6/30/08 – Pulver filed a Declaration with evidence [source code, DOE & RPMP timecards, TAP-completion reports, USPTO documents] confirming that Dorow withheld federally-funded code from the 8/29/03 MDM version that Battelle delivered to Pulver, the TAP recipient for whom the federal government paid Battelle to develop; Pulver told the court that such withholding was a false claim against the government, i.e., violation of the False Claims Act [31 USC §3729]. Pulver’s declaration opposed Battelle’s motion to dismiss MDM claims. On 1/29/09, the court denied Battelle’s motion to dismiss the MDM/TAP breach of contract, the most critical one in the lawsuit having the same allegations as Pulver’s 2003 complaint to DOE’s Inspector General, misusing PNNL’s Technical Assistance Program [withholding DOE-funded software].
● 7/28/08 – In his Reply to Pulver’s declaration, Dorow provided absolutely no evidence to refute this serious allegation that he made False Claims against the government by withholding DOE-funded software from small business TAP-recipient Pulver. Dorow further verified that Battelle withheld the DOE-funded best efforts software by stating the 8/29/03 MDM version was unfinished & untested “pre-Beta” quality, which is contrasted by Battelle documents showing they marketed ‘their’ MDM/PDAC version(s) to Fortune 500 firms, nominated for R&D 100 Award [R&D Magazine], and stated MDM was Beta-tested [high quality]. Dorow finally confirmed there are two sets of 2003 MDM versions:
(1) The unfinished non-working MDM delivered to Pulver [TAP recipient] and (2) The working, functional Beta-quality MDM they kept for Battelle corporate/venture opportunities. As cited above, RPMP funded Battelle to enhance/adapt the working 2003 MDM version to BlackBerry etc. in 2004; in deposition, Dorow testified that subsequent PDAC versions were developed to work with RFID devices [e.g., sensors].
● January 2009 – Q-clearance holder Dorow’s inability to refute Pulver’s evidence of Battelle’s withholding MDM Best Efforts, resulted in the court denying Battelle’s Motion to dismiss MDM claims, stating in part: “Plaintiff has proffered evidence that, if believed by a jury, could support a finding that Defendant breached this contract...Plaintiff claims that the version was inferior to a workable version Defendant previously demonstrated for him. Plaintiff also claims that Mr. Dorow intentionally withheld the workable version and essentially attempted to extort money from Plaintiff for its delivery. Defendant agrees that the 8/29/2003 version needed work...Resolving this factual dispute requires a determination of credibility and, therefore, summary judgment is inappropriate.” [Pages 14-15] Judge Whaley affirmed (1) Pulver’s exclusive rights to the three MDM components, (2) Battelle continued to develop PDAC after 12/31/03.
● March 2009 – DOE documents obtained via FOIA confirm that Battelle’s litigation has already cost DOE/Taxpayers $750,000 through the end of 2008. When the case goes to trial, Battelle’s cost to taxpayers for defending its misconduct will exceed $1M. This cost figure does not include all the technical staff scientists’ time spent on this case.
● July 2010 – After Pulver stated to the court in July 2010 that Battelle made material misrepresentations that have corrupted discovery for the upcoming Sept. 2010 trial, the judge dismissed case, enabling him to seek 9th Circuit Court review/remedy to address Battelle’s withholding evidence implicating them in defrauding Pulver and the patent office as well as violating the False Claims Act [withholding the TAP-funded software from the governments intended recipient].
● March 2011 – DOE documents obtained via FOIA confirm that Battelle’s litigation has already cost taxpayers over $900,000 through 2010. This figure does not include all the Battelle-PNNL technical staff scientists’ time spent on this case.
● April 2012 – Inspector General Greg Friedman implicated by DOE-FOIA documents. He admits guilt by stonewalling, i.e., refuses to release unredacted smoking-gun email of his investigations agent leaking whistleblower/DOJ information to accused contractor Battelle’s legal team.
● June 2012 – Pulver submits his opening brief to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The brief details the extensive perjury & false representations to the court by Q-Clearance holder Dorow [accessing classified information, e.g., air cargo explosives research] done to block fraud evidence.