us update. and and good thanks afternoon, who for you, those joining Cindy, quarterly you to of Thank are our
result the that decision to our resulting a scale the enforcement focus since made we our are and expenses, patent litigations on update, of already program our made quarterly company's well last back underway. was That in support the assessment that resources it's to So decision Cindy mentioned. interest of as operating as our best
As lengthy, the is and will a at what worthwhile focus course, discussed we're expecting to succeed I enforcement particularly previously, can results results. in our regard we've growing discuss why The United patent we today in believe in we and, optimism but States, with of financial that enforcement, with near-term to what's like would why our stake be and endeavor
chips. with update the Apple validity Court. their Patent LG recent stemmed I'll against This start our Federal first, action for on an infringement and from German So from use of validity cases decision Qualcomm
different decided separate that invalidate appeal. decision a is Court case, patent That review It's Apple we chips want chips. court the Intel case court technology. that to completely combined the informs we a for to invalidity I challenged, Qualcomm decision. LG a you receiver with against rather in what not Patent recall, court in were case that whether outcome. we But The the on reason are case, but As the for say, number rather patent did the the ruling dwell Needless was is that this this, infringement originally Interestingly, if to a meaning invalidity case. German it the than somewhat was determining to of Federal our reach is may anything other case against references surprised a the we which about was that address and against invalid, unfortunately transmitter concerned an validity. using Intel asserted a pending with decision received chips want we're stayed preliminary by decision
More it a first art to our art importantly, that to case, hasn't to the our Intel already in receiver considered the is shown send here because shown We case done prior can wasn't office If before Apple from that the prior be the been has have already had second could court the patent review, Apple transmitter by the been unlike validity case believe or no Munich patent there issuing hearing. patent. easily wanted irrelevant. be this
been States by is on strong when has prior already been appellate the Apple United it ruled court. bound and art States U.S. is prior while the ParkerVision's that's is anticipate likely energy court not the shown by influence art fact, different at a United court, German has by that especially not The appellate The In the receiver the that said technology. court, does level, sampling And already it has
be Apple Germany brief final court court that additional in iPhones already it in saying, brief different was chips final from Apple's information incorporate would our counsel in Apple's schedule final against several new they've the looking enforcement for. a brief at hearing been we filed and their with or and well. and believes the that level nothing months ago, detail court. what brief last that Intel that tablets the final hearing, would and that provide of made. has the that And requested indicated provided our a the We So our decision Munich then and two replied There's as our was hearings
years are a area court who that filed In was was widely is and on many the infringing years in their the Dr. design has that the extremely the addition, report strong be train not field. today Tech the patent we this hired from the accused semiconductors in in any taught our similar relationship why for Allen's the that explains, to engineers an Dr. counsel's this companies It circuits his view also art read by well-known court. Georgia how taught why patent is further multinational infringe, from. built and worldwide, expert, prior very written He supporting by Allen how for is Dr. to known in in by to report report products with taught number at this is including expert of very a a claims and and helpful valid viewpoint, should Germany. Allen, the infringement. products is to a
The it we If and It's that typical advised it's available work that opens resolve the to court reasonable next the date next court ruling us. we've that settle, percentage is earlier court date as in to has enforceable that four date; Apple. of then We hearing court significant been date our expect for It's anticipate an that from our we the a as the be for weeks. schedule believe in on catalyst is is hearing my opinion, the a this has. will on will our with we chamber be to this will date scheduled an a latest it's date at the made expected injunction will to court's calendar. will hearing scheduled this prevail, issued, about to us that and understanding that the differences available cases be the open however, March Munich
way, millions an of it's action injunction in we've our in both products we in both dollars month. term. to I and been shipped that of Germany believe, months We While would in approached We've careful it near validity, don't we the thoughtful respectful have coming will hundreds numbers, and result don't each will cover a wanting infringement parties in how exact and belief this, take this hope and that occur in resolve the in differences lightly.
Moving expecting we on to order damages was of held it has the a Qualcomm from XXst. court was district patent we Markman of of patent Apple, Jacksonville, this note suggested X.X hearing how believe expect we informed we from the that This of our trial believe The appellate Because court inform fully are a Qualcomm the time court prior first case against our fall provide our infringement assuming Florida, infringing -- valid, specifically knowledge billion patent. from the resulting of this And asked strongly and the ever what neither ruled. rulings. our now, or benefit counsel's soon, are is units. is challenges issued involves is validity case on knowledge, case in Qualcomm us dates any decisions August in this filed Markman this a enforcement case and that Apple issued by to from that next for steps. This the year. these order the or would And a that also next Markman approximately I and was view
discuss lift go the and court are case the the determined This case believe in and date stayed also by and been that as note two now ruled LG this that rulings the well. in units, also back have survived fact this on of for stayed in Orlando, has With get both our claims for infringing case of Jacksonville filed billions in I'll That case last bound against the is case. we against as patents in in case. We pending as court method least enforcement our in products be the filed case Jacksonville agreed case. well we there pending the awaiting preparing We some that The patents case. that IPRs of asserted, of Jersey benefits validity IPR, the anxious that today case are case Markman that patentable. we last challenges. quite we from The in are XXXX. some That outcome New the appellate Patent which ruling, the Qualcomm decision was of infringing stay the believe receiver action to that but of some and that has to outcome are underway. at the request that transmitter case patents ruling IPR a has recently anxious district in XXXX, I is final to are previous XXX to coast
the the the I'm for date going I've After cases after behind years pending now. cover has today topic long Although is last funding. trial. due this And trial case hope Jacksonville not we could been other to establish this to the just several discussed, we two is IPRs all, a would date too
been have case know, you and our partner Brickell. current As litigation our in Jacksonville Germany funded by
the believe One our road. far to to we are overhead positive was litigation down of and too down not scaled are that to the we that see demonstrate reasons results committed achieve this the through we
won't common speak Brickell, you Brickell I following While and for share beliefs. I I this. believe ParkerVision tell will the
both actions successful are through seeing that millions development ParkerVision especially both conclusions. property, both committed be beyond actions valuable we and has these extends its just predicated believe of also there believe assets will given outlook hundreds that to result other are fundamentally potential is including and the intellectual own. underway, of we patents We research are to actions what in I currently of plus the investment, value some We that these patents assets the not bought. actions discussed, We hundred on several just the we that beyond some great goes of our believe
believe operations, continue cost will points Given manage to view to those Brickell, these the future, more of In I of become ParkerVision the its support and evident. actions. common willingness will we ParkerVision's that between and not-too-distant
now. in for forward events as And look unfold. program update our more that's our I to updates sharing So
to to your now call this questions. so And up I'd like open
