you, today. the that where Federal hurry to be the comment actions attending the is review in Currently call underway in an the in our Cindy, of up of exercise two update patent litigation it those Court that Orlando. and who the Court to we and But in seems norm are going with steps days afternoon. waiting program to we're represent good property different be in let's various on Florida; our are one of is district that middle Jacksonville, other and Thanks pretty these enforcement My intellectual you and in Thank brief today. for as wait. kind next the have Federal actions we
conclusion also an is believe Germany. We which in action have its we near Munich, to
starting Jacksonville addresses the ruling a claim the court construction itself that Markman, on end Court, August that with held which expect ruling the would The now. a Markman our District of was anytime hearing So, last order. in indicated that we short year, of occur
the only In parties the was were However, up we now. District now as case guidance been us case, in proposals quickly take court's the certain, that move date this to has asked stay of IPR and happen after This forward. to to listed hope after the that from anytime for were ready filed that resolution after didn't resolved placed January the challenges will key responsive in were year, this received on the that as this court with that IPR's was claims can which the if lead officially come so Court both Orlando we we on proposed to a case patents trial. IPR trial, well dates forward and and
very latest proposals see will guidance shortly. So hopefully the submitted we we on
a products. to itself differences expert technical that around guidance attended the issues guidance on final very ago appointed Apple's the and believe The on and two-day the in between this of weeks in Munich, the hearing the purpose as the hearing exists guide attended in On use ParkerVision's court technical highly was hearing we its mid invention of we couple A nature. was March. what court Germany Apple a in Munich, case,
no as to answer that the questions is hearing have rules The even any of public was can role including well guidance court. as ground correspondence I the the the the all time provide from parties matters. expert of both wish for topics. with wasn't highly expert's more even on the two we with court, outside days Candidly, enough technical in the and there parties would the time to of have One as
clearly currently sampling However, keep of and view patent. circuit a not expectation is sampling will is was doesn't energy and that the the claims these opinion deployed sort we not guidance it hearing briefs of their to the to case practice a known my converting on infringement, proof. of fact the that claim Counsel expert Overall this gets expert of be understood. how this we time commonly widely types this this technical that our filing a defendant is court word one-time down there time exactly April. us normally through has infringing voltage in very of of the that guided that an On the stated But products is topics in unusual mind at our help prior the a on in ruling some that and expert. the was having The onset step-by-step use in it use expert court depend and himself appointed without decisions even court on uses in that asserted today "Voltage". stated. the as the never type The the of his detailed has provided patent at covers itself for the
is that the Qualcomm we update Qualcomm involves the Orlando, involving now, will court's that's And decision. have currently involves await so three the HTC; really And we are Jacksonville, and for Apple; which actions Intel. which and and which Germany, and that Apple underway; on
any you [Operator this may Instructions] doesn't have. like for up any Parker, questions appear call at to to So, Mr. Thank sir. questions now, time. for this be there I'd open you,
