Commitments And Contingencies | 12 . Commitments and Contingencies Lease Commitments In April 2017, we entered into a new lease agreement for our Lake Mary, Florida facility. The lease term is expected to commence July 1, 2017 and provides for a straight-lined monthly base rental payment of approximately $11,900 through November 2022 with an option for renewal. Legal Proceedings From time to time, we are subject to legal proceedings and claims which arise in the ordinary course of our business. These proceedings include patent enforcement actions initiated by us against others for the infringement of our technologies, as well as proceedings brought by others against us at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTAB”) in an attempt to invalidate certain of our patent claims. These patent-related proceedings are more fully described below. Although there is at least a reasonable possibility of an unfavorable outcome in any one or more of these matters, we believe that any such outcome is not expected to have a material im pact on our financial position or results of operation s . ParkerVision vs. Qualcomm and HTC (Middle District of Florida) We have a patent infringement complaint pending in the Middle District of Florida against Qualcomm, Qualcomm Atheros, Inc., and HTC (HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc) (the “Qualcomm Action”) seeking unspecified damages and injunctive relief for infringement of certain of our patents . Certain of the defendants have filed counterclaims against us for non-infringement and invalidity for all patents in the case. A claim construction hearing was held in August 2015 but no ruling on claim construction has been issued by the court. In February 2016, the court granted the parties’ joint motion to stay these proceedings until resolution of the proceedings at the International Trade Commission (“ ITC ”) as discussed below. In May 2017, we filed a motion to continue the stay of these proceedings pending an appeal of certain PTAB decisions with regard to our ‘940 Patent as discussed below. Qualcomm Inc. and Qualcomm Atheros, Inc. vs. ParkerVision (PTAB) In August 2015, Qualcomm, Inc. and Qualcomm Atheros, Inc. filed an aggregate of ten petitions for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) with the PTAB seeking to invalidate certain claims related to three of the eleven patents originally asserted in our Qualcomm Action. In March 2016, the PTAB issued decisions denying institution of trial for three of the petitions, all of which relate to our U.S. patent 7,039,372 (“the ‘372 Patent”) . The remaining petitions , all of which relate to our U.S. patent 6,091,940 (the ‘940 Patent”) and U.S. patent 7,966,012 (“the ‘012 Paten t”) were instituted for trial by the PTAB. In May 2016, the PTAB granted our motion to disclaim the challenged claims of the ‘012 Patent and entered an adverse judgment against us with respect to those claims. In March 2017, the PTAB issued its decision s on the six outstanding IPRs, all of which relate to the ‘940 Patent. The PTAB ruled in our favor on three of the six petitions, ruled in Qualcomm’s favor on two of the six petitions and issuing a split decision on the claims covered in the sixth petition. As a result of the PTAB decisions, certain claims of our ‘940 Patent which are the subject of our district court case against Qualcomm and HTC were found to be unpatentable. In May 2017, we filed our notice of appeal of these decisions with the Federal Circuit. ParkerVision v. Apple, LG and Qualcomm (ITC and Middle District of Florida) In December 2015, we filed a complaint with the U.S. I TC against Apple, Inc., LG (LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc.) (collectively LG), Samsung (Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.) and Qualcomm alleging that these companies make, use or sell products that infringe certain of our patent claims and requesting that the ITC bar the defendants from continuing to import and sell infringing products in the U.S. We filed a corresponding patent infringement complaint in the Middle District of Florida against these same defendants alleging infringement of four of our patents. In January 2016, the ITC instituted an investigation based on our complaint. In February 2016, the district court proceedings were stayed pending resolution of the proceedings at the ITC. In July 2016, we entered into a confidential patent license and settlement agreement with Samsung and, as a result, Samsung has been removed from both the ITC and the related district court action. In January 2016, we dismissed three of the four patents from the case in order to simplify the investigation. On March 10, 2017, the administrative law judge (ALJ) issued a ruling on a pre-trial motion that precluded us from presenting key evidence in our case. As a result, on March 13, 2017, we filed a motion to terminate the proceedings at the ITC. On April 28, 2017, the ITC granted our motion to withdraw from the ITC proceedings. Accordingly, on May 4, 2017, we filed a motion to lift the stay in the district court case. The court has not yet ruled on this motion. ParkerVision v. LG Electronics (Munich, Germany) In June 2016, we filed a complaint in Munich Regional Court against LG Electronics Deutschland GmbH, a German subsidiary of LG Electronics, Inc. (“LGE”) seeking damages and injunctive relief for the alleged infringement of one of our German patents. A hearing in this case was held in November 10, 2016. On November 14, 2016, the court concluded that certain LGE products using Qualcomm RF circuitry infringe our patent. Subject to successful completion of the co-pending nullity action in the German Federal Patent Court in Munich, the regional court will enjoin the sale and importation of these LG products in Germany. The court has not yet ruled on the nullity action, which is a validity only challenge. ParkerVision v. Apple (Munich, Germany) In October 2016, we filed a complaint in Munich Regional Court against Apple, Inc., Apple Distribution International, and Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG (collectively, “Apple”) seeking damages and injunctive relief for the alleged infringement of the same German patent as in the LGE case (the “Apple I” case) . In February 2017, we amended our complaint adding the infringement of a second German patent and alleging infringement by Apple devices that incorporate an Intel transceiver chip. The Munich Regional Court has bifurcated the new claims into a second case separate from the original Apple case (the “Apple II” case) . A hearing was held on May 4, 2017 in the Apple I case . The court set a date of June 22, 2017 for its decision in that case. A hearing for the Apple II case is scheduled for June 29, 2017. |