Commitments And Contingencies | 9 Months Ended |
Sep. 30, 2013 |
Commitments And Contingencies [Abstract] | ' |
Commitments And Contingencies | ' |
11. Commitments and Contingencies |
|
Legal Proceedings |
|
In addition to the legal proceedings described below, from time to time, we are subject to legal proceedings and claims which arise in the ordinary course of our business. We believe, based upon advice from outside legal counsel, that the final disposition of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or liquidity. |
|
ParkerVision vs. Qualcomm, Inc. |
On October 17, 2013, a jury in the United States District Court of the Middle District of Florida delivered its verdict in the first phase of our patent infringement litigation against Qualcomm. The jury found Qualcomm liable of both direct and indirect infringement of all eleven claims of our four patents asserted in this case for all Qualcomm accused products. In addition, the jury found that Qualcomm had not proven any of the eleven patent claims to be invalid. On October 24, 2013, the same jury returned its verdict in the second phase of this litigation, awarding us $172.7 million in past damages for Qualcomm’s infringement. The jury found that we did not prove our claims of willfulness, which would have allowed the judge to enhance the jury-awarded damages. |
The parties have a number of post-trial motions and briefs to be filed, including our request for an injunction against Qualcomm, or alternatively, ongoing royalties for future infringing sales by Qualcomm. Based on a joint schedule filed with the court in November 2013, we expect to file, by December 2, 2013, a motion for injunction or ongoing royalties, as well as a motion for pre-and-post judgment interest and costs. In addition, the parties have agreed to a deadline of December 20, 2013 for filing any additional judgment as a matter of law briefings or new trial motions, with responses to such motions filed by January 24, 2014. The court will then enter a final judgment after ruling on these outstanding motions. We do not know at this time when the court will rule on these outstanding motions or enter a final judgment. The amount and timing of the collection of damages from Qualcomm is dependent upon final disposition of the litigation which may include settlement discussions and/or appeals. |
|
We first filed a complaint against Qualcomm on July 20, 2011, as amended on February 28, 2012, seeking unspecified damages and injunctive relief for infringement of six of our patents related to radio-frequency receivers and the down-conversion of electromagnetic signals (the “Complaint”). Qualcomm filed an Answer and Counterclaim to our Complaint (the “Counterclaim”) in which Qualcomm denied infringement and alleged invalidity and unenforceability of each of our patents, including claims of patent unenforceability due to alleged inequitable conduct. Qualcomm also named our long-time patent prosecution counsel, Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC (“SKGF”) as a co-defendant in its Counterclaim and further alleged that we aided and abetted SKGF in its alleged breach of fiduciary duty to Qualcomm and tortiously interfered with Qualcomm’s contractual relationship with SKGF. Qualcomm also filed a motion to dismiss our claims of indirect patent infringement. In March 2013, the court denied Qualcomm’s motion to dismiss. |
|
In November 2011, as amended in April 2012, we filed a motion to dismiss Qualcomm’s Counterclaims related to inequitable conduct, aiding and abetting, and tortious interference, and a motion to strike certain of Qualcomm’s affirmative defenses. SKGF also filed a motion to dismiss Qualcomm’s claims against them. In November 2012, the court granted SKGF’s motion and dismissed these claims without prejudice; and furthermore, the court abated Qualcomm’s Counterclaims against SKGF such that Qualcomm is unable to file an amended Counterclaim against SKGF until such time that the court lifts the abatement. |
|
In January 2013, the court dismissed with prejudice two of the three theories Qualcomm asserted in support of its claims of inequitable conduct. The court also dismissed without prejudice and abated the aiding and abetting and tortious interference claims against us that related to the claims against SKGF that were dismissed. Furthermore, Qualcomm’s affirmative defenses of inequitable conduct and unclean hands were stricken by the court. In April 2013, Qualcomm filed an amended Counterclaim which dropped the remaining claims against us that relate to inequitable conduct. |
|
The court held a non-adversarial technology tutorial in July 2012 and a claim construction hearing in August 2012 where we and Qualcomm presented our respective arguments for the proposed construction of disputed claim terms. On February 20, 2013, the court issued its claim construction ruling in which the court adopted our interpretation for approximately ninety percent of the key terms in dispute. |
|
In May 2013, we filed a motion for summary judgment of no invalidity which was granted in part and denied in part in August 2013. Qualcomm also filed a motion for partial summary judgment in May 2013 to remove certain identified products from the case and to eliminate our claims of induced and contributory infringement for four of the six patents in the case. Qualcomm’s motion for summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part by the court in August 2013. |
|
In July 2013, both parties filed motions to disqualify certain of the opposing party’s expert testimony (“Daubert Motions”). The court heard arguments regarding the Daubert Motions on September 24, 2013, and on October 11, 2013, during the first phase of the trial, the court granted in part and denied in part each party’s respective Daubert Motions. In August 2013, Qualcomm filed a motion to split the trial proceedings into two phases. In September 2013, the court granted this motion in part, agreeing to try the issues of infringement and invalidity in the first phase and the issues of willfulness and damages in a second phase with the same jury. Also in September 2013, in order to narrow the scope of the trial proceedings, we reduced our complaint to eleven claims and four patents and also reduced the number of accused products. |
|
Maxtak Capital Advisors LLC vs. ParkerVision |
On December 28, 2011, Maxtak Capital Advisors LLC, Maxtak Partners LP and David Greenbaum (the “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint in the United States District Court of New Jersey against us, our chief executive officer, Jeffrey Parker and one of our directors, Robert Sterne, alleging common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation of material facts concerning the effectiveness of our technology and our success in securing customers. The Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages, including attorneys’ fees and costs. On March 3, 2012, we filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to transfer this case to the Middle District of Florida. In October 2012, the court granted our motion to transfer the case to the Middle District of Florida. In May 2013, the court denied our motion to dismiss. Discovery is ongoing in this case with a discovery cut-off date of July 1, 2014 and a trial date commencing February 2, 2015. We believe this matter is without merit, and we do not believe it is probable that this case will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or liquidity. |
|