Commitments And Contingencies | 9 Months Ended |
Sep. 30, 2014 |
Commitments And Contingencies [Abstract] | ' |
Commitments And Contingencies | ' |
10. Commitments and Contingencies |
|
Legal Proceedings |
|
From time to time, we are subject to legal proceedings and claims which arise in the ordinary course of our business. We believe, based on advice from our outside legal counsel, that the final disposition of such matters will not have a material adverse impact on our financial position, results of operation or liquidity. In addition, we are subject to the following legal proceedings: |
|
ParkerVision vs. Qualcomm, Inc. |
On July 20, 2011, we filed a patent infringement action in the United States District Court of the Middle District of Florida against Qualcomm Incorporated (“Qualcomm”) seeking unspecified damages and injunctive relief for infringement of several of our patents related to radio-frequency receivers and the down-conversion of electromagnetic signals. Qualcomm filed a counterclaim against us alleging invalidity and unenforceability of each of our patents. In October 2013, a jury awarded us $172.7 million in damages for Qualcomm’s direct and indirect infringement of eleven claims of four of our patents. The jury also found that Qualcomm did not prove its claims of invalidity for any of the eleven claims of the four patents in the case, and furthermore found that we did not prove our claims of willfulness, which would have allowed enhancement of the jury-awarded damages. On June 20, 2014, a final district court ruling was issued in which the court denied Qualcomm’s motion to overturn the jury’s verdict regarding validity of the patents but granted Qualcomm’s motion to overturn the jury’s verdict of infringement. On June 25, 2014, we filed a notice of appeal with the court to appeal the decision of non-infringement to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. We filed our opening brief with the appellate court on September 15, 2014 and Qualcomm’s response and opening brief is due to be filed by November 20, 2014. No date has yet been set for a hearing by the U.S. Court of Appeals. The collection of damages from Qualcomm in this action, if any, will be dependent upon the final disposition of this case. |
|
ParkerVision vs. Qualcomm, HTC, and Samsung |
On May 1, 2014, we filed a complaint in the United States District Court of the Middle District of Florida against Qualcomm, Qualcomm Atheros, Inc., HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc. seeking unspecified damages and injunctive relief for infringement of seven of our patents related to RF up-conversion, systems for control of multi-mode, multi-band communications, baseband innovations including control and system calibration, and wireless protocol conversion. On August 21, 2014, we amended our complaint adding Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”) as defendants as well as four additional patents to this case. The parties are required to file a case management report with the court by December 8, 2014. |
|
|
RPX and Farmwald vs. ParkerVision |
In June 2014, RPX Corporation and Michael Farmwald (collectively, the “Petitioners”) filed petitions for Inter Partes review (“IPR”) with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTAB”) seeking to invalidate certain claims related to three of the four patents in our July 2011 district court case against Qualcomm. In July 2014, the Petitioners filed an additional IPR petition seeking to invalidate certain claims of the fourth patent in the July 2011 district court case against Qualcomm. On September 24, 2014 and October 10, 2014, we filed our preliminary responses to these petitions with the PTAB. The PTAB will make a determination as to whether or not to institute IPRs within six months of the filing date. |
|
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 were seeking unspecified damages, including attorneys’ fees and costs. In October 2012, the court granted our motion to transfer the case to the Middle District of Florida where discovery commenced. |
|
In July 2014, we conducted a demonstration of our d2p technology for the Plaintiffs. As a result of the demonstration and the discovery conducted to date, the parties entered into a confidential resolution of this action. In connection with the resolution, the Plaintiffs stated that they agree and acknowledge that the d2p technology works in a manner consistent with our representations during the period covered by the litigation. The Plaintiffs further agreed and acknowledged that their allegations with regard to the efficacy of the d2p technology and all statements in their complaint attributed to or based upon the pvnotes website, Michael Farmwald, Barbara Paldus, Alfred Riddle, Steven Cripps and Joy Laskar with regard to the efficacy of our d2p technology are without merit. The financial terms of the confidential resolution will have no impact on our financial position, results of operations or liquidity. |
|