[Neverending]

I think once people realize we are talking about a YEARS delay in the PRKR v QCOM litigation you will see the share price erode back to where it came from before the appeal was "won". That "won" appeal is now back where it started and the share price then was sub 10c. I think it will get there in 1-2 years. Then if the appeal is won again it might rise back up. I will set my calendar for 2027 and check the legal filings and if PRKR wins the appeal (if there even is one) then I might jump in. In my opinion.

[chazzy1]

Sounds reasonable to me, given the predilection of this judge.

[chazzy1]

Okay, thanks for clarifying.

[Neverending]

The way it will end is at the appeals court anyway in my opinion. Even if you win with a jury this judge will probably throw out the verdict like the last judge in PRKR1. IMO

[Neverending]

Expediate: is a variant of "expedite," though it is generally considered less standard.

[chazzy1]

Your opinion is noted, Neverending. I assume that by "expediated", you meant expedited, as in an expedited appeal?
All we can do is speculate as to how this case will end. You may very well be correct, however, if an expedited appeal resulted in a win for PRKR, the extra 2 year wait would still have netted a greater ROI than would have been produced in a CD or money market, or any other traditional investment vehicle.

[Neverending]

Do you realize the best case scenario is the case is on hold for 2 YEARS? That is only IF the Appeals court hears an expediated review other wise I have seen appeals take 3-4 YEARS to be heard. All that is IF the judge in this case allowes a final judgement of non infringement on the received claims so they can be dismissed and appealed. QCOM opposes the dismissal and final judgement of noninfringement on the receiver claims. They must just want PRKR to lose once and for all and be done with the case and since the judge has seen things their way almost 100% of the time they figure they are in a batter position. IN my opinion.

[chazzy1]

Thanks for your insight and perspective on this situation, Neverending. Hope you had a happy 4th of July!

[Neverending]

PRKR will not win an appeal because of the "clear error standard". This is a review standard used by appellate courts when evaluating factual findings made by a trial court, particularly in bench trials where a judge makes the factual determinations. It dictates that an appellate court will only overturn a lower court's finding of fact if it is left with a "definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed". Essentially, the appellate court must be very sure that the trial court's finding was wrong, even if there is some evidence to support it.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
Focus on Facts:
The clear error standard applies specifically to findings of fact, not conclusions of law.
Deference to Trial Court:
Appellate courts show significant deference to the trial court's factual findings because the trial judge has the opportunity to observe witnesses, assess evidence, and make credibility determinations firsthand.
"Definite and Firm Conviction":
The "clear error" standard is a high bar. The appellate court must be strongly persuaded that the trial court made a mistake, not just that they might have reached a different conclusion.
I do not think that PRKRs claims construction loss meets that standard. IN my opinion.

[chazzy1]

Thanks for your perspective, Neverending.
Although it seems well reasoned, I am sure that PRKR's attorneys will use whatever legal strategy makes sense to them to bring about a positive outcome for ParkerVision involving the least delay.

[Neverending]

From PRKRs legal filing. 2027....MAYBE! LOL! >>>

Here PRKR is arguing for a final ruling of non infringement on the receiver claims so that an immediate appeal can be filed. 2027 IF the Appeals court even allows expediated hearing of the appeal and you win which is a big if since the "clear error" standard applies for overturning District court rulings. I read the District courts claims construction ruling and it was VERY WELL REASONED...actually compelling. The specifications of PRKRs patents actually use the word "generating". My bolding is below this is all in my opinion. PRKR is finished in this case. The appeal might not even be expediated. I have seen these appeals take 4 YEARS to be heard.

"The practical alternatives are clear: a transmitter-only trial at a time set by the Court (either later this year or early next year), potentially followed by a second trial at some future date if the 2025 Claim-Construction Order is reversed on appeal after the transmitter-only trial, or an immediate appeal now and a single, final trial most likely in 2027 (depending on whether the Federal Circuit agrees to expedite the appeal). The short-term delay associated with an immediate appeal is far outweighed by the potential to avoid years of additional litigation, the prospect of multiple trials, and the burdens of presenting the same witnesses in multiple trials."

[Neverending]

I think PRKRs last appeal took 3 years. I followed another patent company that lost on the claims construction and had their case dismissed appealed the case and it was heard by the appeals court 4 YEARS later. I do not think there is such thing as an appeal being heard right away. So say it takes 3 years to hear it then another 1.5 years to get back to the trial stage you are talking 4-5 years at least. That would not be good. Also, PRKR might not win an appeal. Their case was taken apart by the judge like a kitten fighting a lion. In my opinion.

[Neverending]

I have no idea why the stock is tanking right now. The only explanation I can figure out is the stock plunged to 27c/share when the markman ruling first came out but then recovered. I assume it was people seeing a good deal and buying the dip. Perhaps people are figuring out what happend. At the very least the time line for a trial will probably be pushed out a couple of years if an immediate appeal is allowed but if the judge does not make a final ruling on the receiver claims then the trial might proceed soon on the transmitter claims. I have no idea! In my opinion.

[chazzy1]

I appreciate your humility, Neverending. We can all be wrong at times. You are correct though that many people, myself included, are probably not reading the filings but are relying on the PRs for their information.
From another perspective, all it takes is one. If any part of a patent is used without consent, or without a license, infringement has occurred and damages can be assessed and applied. Even if we do not get the whole enchilada (i.e., transmitter and receiver), we may still be entitled to damages which can be enormous.

[Neverending]

On the other hand I am often wrong. I just think it looks bad for PRKR right now and since most people do not read the actual court rulings they have no idea how bad it might be for PRKRs case. If you just go by the PRs and trust in them fully then it looks like things will turn out ok. Almost no people read this board so that will not influence the share price. Maybe the transmitter claims that would survive are worth a lot and PRKR wins the case on those. It seems to me like they just lost 1/2 of the case if the transmitter claims are worth what the receiver claims are. In my opinion.

[fung_derf]

By the way, what will you say if they win this?

What will you say when they don't....or even worse, what will you say when you learn the shareholders have no claim on any money won from an anti-trust suit?

[chazzy1]

Neverending, I appreciate your willingness to share your candid and insightful perspective on this situation. Mr. Market seems to agree with you. It will be interesting to see what the strategy will be for PRKR's attorneys going forward. Anything can still happen and sentiments can turn on a dime. Currently I am still holding.

[Neverending]

PRKR is just trying to give people their case in the best possible light but to me it leaves out some facts about what actually happend. The PR makes it sound like the Appeals court made a firm ruling that there was no collateral estoppel in play in this case. The Appeals court made no such ruling they only said a claims construction hearing was necessary to determin if that was the case and they remanded the case to the District court to hold that claims construction hearing. All in my opinion.

[chazzy1]

This sounds like a serious oversight. Thanks for digging deeper into to the details of this case.

[Neverending]

What PRKR said in their PR is flat out wrong in my opinion.>>>

"Jeffrey Parker, CEO of ParkerVision. "The Federal Circuit made clear that our patents in this case do not include what has become known as the ‘generating' limitation which was central to the non-infringement finding in an earlier case against Qualcomm."

NO THEY WOULD NOT! If you read the Appeals court ruling all they said was that additional proceedings were necessary by the District court to determine if the generating limitating exists in this case like it did with PRKR v QCOM 1. The Appeals court said they could not determine this because they had not seen claims construction briefs from the parties in this case. The only error the Appeals court found was that the proper legal process had not been followed to make the generating limitation conclusion.

"If the patents in this case did cover such ‘capacitor down conversion,' the Federal Circuit would have upheld this district court's prior ruling on collateral estoppel, which prevented us from asserting the receiver patents in this case. To the contrary, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court and sent this case back for trial on these patents."

NO THEY DID NOT! If you read the Appeal court ruling they said they could not rule on collateral estoppel AT THIS TIME because the claims construction had not been completed by the District court. The Appeals court did not send the case back to the District court for "trial" they specifically sent it back to do the claims construction to determine the scope of the patents.

All in my opinion but if you simply read the company PRs you would really not have a good idea what happend. The District court judge destroyed your case and PRKRs lawyers thought they had it in the bag and did not even do a traditional claims construction brief. In my opinion.

[chazzy1]

I am familiar with one patent infringement lawsuit where the defendant, a major tech giant, filed a motion to dismiss on Alice grounds. The plaintiff's lawyers had drafted their complaint in such a way that the judge had little choice but to grant the motion to dismiss on Alice grounds. The language in the complaint literally stated that the patent allegedly being infringed was an algorithm. An algorithm being a type of mathematical formula is clearly unpatentable.The judge dismissed the case without prejudice, and provided guidance to the plaintiff in his ruling, which allowed the plaintiff an opportunity to redraft their complaint in a manner that successfully overcame the Alice shortcoming, and refile it. Although this mistake cost the plaintiff a couple of years in delays and legal fees, they eventually won the case but settled out of court.

[Neverending]

I read the appeals court ruling and the district court rulings several times trying to find some daylight for PRKRs argument there and could not find anything. I wanted this to work as a long shot. The appeals courts job is not to help PRKR make the argument which they failed to do themselves. I am hoping to find some real patent lawyers take on how PRKR has a chance and am scouring the internet but nothing yet. They lost this one in my opinion.

[Neverending]

The District court judge hung PRKRs lawyers out to dry clearly on this issue of not trying to argue the intrinsic language of the patent itself. It is an indisputable failure. It almost seems like either PRKRs lawyers had no argument at all or they were incompetent or,,,, I won't say because they are still a powerful law firm. My theory is they had very junior people assigned to the case and they gave it little attention. I just cannot see a way that the appeals court will see the clear error standard here in order to change the claims construction ruling. In my opinion.

[chazzy1]

Again, you seem to have a well-informed opinion based on some keen legal insight into this case. The mistakes you allege by PRKR's attorneys, are more common than many people may realize. I am aware of two other patent infringement lawsuits where the plaintiffs' lawyers made certain tactical, legal and strategic errors in presenting their plaintiffs' cases, and it cost them dearly. And you are correct that, in legal proceedings, a do-over is not always permitted, depending of course on the nature of the error.
Yes, sticking with the language of the patent itself is always the safest strategy in a formal courtroom setting.
Any attempt to broaden the scope of a patent by introducing language not specifically contained in the patent filing itself, would be frowned upon by most judges and would be a serious misstep by counsel. However, I am not asserting that this is what happened here, although I hear what you are saying.

[Neverending]

PRKRs lawyers screwed up big time in my opinion. Rather than do what the Appeals court said they should do and what is typically done in a claims construction brief they went another way. PRKRs lawyers should have cited the intrinsic evidence which is the patents language and specification to argue for their interpretation of the patents. Instead PRKRs lawyers choose to rely completely on extrinsic evidence, the opinion of their experts, to argue their case. McKool Smith is a top notch law firm but I bet they had some inexperienced junior associates running this case. Unfortunately there is no do over as they approved their own lawyers strategy I assume. All in my opinion!

[Neverending]

This case is dead for awhile possibly 2-3 years if there is an appeal OR maybe if the judge does not allow the receiver claims to be appealed now and the case proceeds with the transmitter claims. I have no idea if they have much value. If the appeal proceeds perhaps 1 of their other cases is a better reason to hold the stock. I have not looked into them but PRKRs track record in court seems to be a total failure. In my opinion.

[chazzy1]

Thank you Neverending. I do appreciate your astute analysis and valuable contribution to this board. I will take your recommendation under advisement.

[Neverending]

The judges have technical people that help them understand the issues. While the exact words of the PRKR receiver patents do not explicitly state the "generating" limitation the specification submitted with the patent clearly says there is a "generating" limitation. This is called "intrinsic evidence" and is the sort the Appeals court said the judge had to look at to make a determiation. The Appeals court said they had not looked at this evidence yet because that is the job of the District court to do during the claims construction proceedings. The intrinsic evidence clearly supports the generating limitation so therefore QCOM does not infringe on PRKRs receiver patents. It is plain as day it just had to be formalized with the district courts adjudication. PRKR lost and even if the appeals court hears an appeal on this it will be several YEARS before you find out if you won or lost the appeal! If I had shares I would sell as this will eventually dawn on shareholders and the share price will collapse. Most people do not read the court rulings only the very optimistic PRs which, in PRKRs case, never seem to work out! In my opinion.

[chazzy1]

This is very technical language and seems to be a matter for ParkerVision's attorneys to sort through and hash out with Qualcomm's attorneys and the judge.
One judge already stated that ParkerVision's expert witness would not be allowed because, in his opinion, the jury would never understand the technical jargon involved. I wonder if the judge even understands it.

[Neverending]

You should read the claims construction ruling. The district court judge totally demolishes your case in several ways. The worst was that the actual specification in the submitted 907 patent specifies a "generated" signal. The generated limitation is what killed PRKR in the first QCOM trial. The District court has done what the Appeals court asked and made a reasonable determination that there can be no infringement of the receiver claims. Appeals courts do not ever intervene unless there is "clear error" which is a VERY HIGH standard to be met. If you read the district courts ruling you would see there is no "clear error" which would require Appeals court intervention. It's over for PRKR on this issue. In my opinion. From the claims construction ruling (my bolding)>>>

"That is, if Figure 82A describes a “generated” down-converted signal using energy stored in a capacitor, the signal is not already down-converted during the periodic couplings and thereafter merely shaped. Similarly, the specification describes the signal in Figure 57E as a “generated” signal: “FIG. 57E illustrates a demodulated baseband signal S712, which is generated by the down-conversion process.” (‘907 patent at 87:9–10)."

[chazzy1]

Thanks, Neverending. As to wherher or not this is the end of it, we shall soon see.
I gather from your posts that you are not invested in PRKR? Are you invested in QCOM, or are you a disinterested party to all of this? Just curious.

[Neverending]

Mr Parker may think his invention was stolen but what he invented and what the patent says are 2 different things. Unless it is spelled out in the patent it cannot be used against QCOM. The Appeals court told the District court to do the claims construction and make a reasonable argument that PRKRs patents are limited and that is the end of it. This step has been completed.

[chazzy1]

Neverending, thank you for going the extra mile by citing an excerpt of the court filing and for offering your astute opinion/interpretation. You are correct, in that I have not studied the details of these filings but instead, I am basing my opinions on the testimony of Jeff Parker.
Again, you may well be correct in your grim assessment of ParkerVision's chances of prevailing in this matter.
Again, this is why I stated that investing in these kinds of stocks is a long shot. In fact, PRKR represents a negligible fraction of my investment portfolio. Actually, I purchased this stock based on a Glenn Beck interview with Jeff Parker, and I found Mr. Parker to be most credible. By the way, so did Glenn Beck. Finally, court filings, as I am sure you are aware, may or may not predict the outcomes of legal proceedings. JMHO.

[Neverending]

This is the key part from the Appeals Court that likely sinks any appeal (my bolding): "Therefore, determining whether the infringe ment issue here is the same as the infringement issue in the 2011 Action requires only an assessment of whether the receiver claims of the ’907 and ’940 patents asserted in this case are materially the same as the claims that were the basis for the finding of non-infringement in the 2011 Action. Evaluating this issue requires a comparison of the scope of the claims at issue in the 2011 Action with the scope of the claims asserted here. See Ohio Willow, 735 F.3d at 1342 (explaining collateral estoppel applies when “the differences between the unadjudicated patent claims and adjudicated patent claims do not materially alter the question” at issue). The determination of claim scope, in turn, is “a matter of claim construction.”

"the district court erred by failing to assess claim scope by conducting claim construction according to the process we set out in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). "
"Consequently, summary judgment of non-infringement based on collateral estoppel is not warranted at this stage. Instead, we vacate the grant of summary judgment and remand for the district court to determine the scope of the asserted receiver claims and further to determine whether that scope is materially different from that of the claims at issue in the 2011 Action."

This is what really sinks your case on the receiver claims. PRKRs own experts say the 'generating limitation" exists in the current case on the 907 and 940 patents:

"In defending the grant of summary judgment of collat eral estoppel, Qualcomm relies heavily on ParkerVision’s experts in this case, who testified in deposition that the receiver claims of the ’907 and ’940 patents “require that you produce a lower-frequency signal using energy that’s been
transferred from a higher-frequency signal into a storage medium.” J.A. 42088. We agree that this testimony might be understood as an admission that the claims asserted in this case include a generating limitation or similar requirement."

SO you see the Appeals court did not make any such RULING that would prevent the district court from ruling that Parkervision 1 claims are similar enough to Parkervision 2 to say they have already been given their day in court and could not be tried again in this case. The Appeals courts ONLY issue with the District court kicking PRKR to the curb is that the DUE PROCESS was not properly followed. As long as the District court has a well reasoned claims construction ruling, which the judge did if you even read it, then they will not touch it on appeal. The reason for this is there is a CLEAR ERROR standard on appeal before they mess with a District court order. There is no clear error here just a reasonable dispute of the facts which appeals courts never get in the middle of by overturing a ruling. PRKR is finished in this appeal if the judge even allows a final ruling and appeal at this time my friends. In my opinion.

[Neverending]

The QCOM side of the argument and what the district court judge said was what PRKR claims is its tech and what was actually in the patent is 2 different things. The patents did not actually protect the claimed invention and infringement in this case. Anyhow best case scenario is this drags out for many years. You really know nothing about what is going on here do you. Do you even read the legal arguments or just rely on the PRs? In my opinion.

[chazzy1]

I happen to believe Jeff Parker. In good faith, he provided Qualcomm engineers and management the secret to his patented technology, because he thought they were about to sign a licensing agreement with him. Once he revealed the technology to them, the licensing agreement talks were terminated.
Qualcomm then introduced some revolutionary new phone products, which Parker claims incorporated his patented technology. Jeff Parker felt that he had no other option but to sue Qualcomm for patent infringement. He won that case in a jury trial but the judge, under suspicious circumstances, overturned the jury's verdict.
Jeff Parker is still in this fight to try to get justice. I hope that he prevails, but it will be an uphill battle in our current legal system.

[Neverending]

QCOM opposes final judgement to allow PRKR to appeal the receiver claims construction order. For QCOM this makes sense because it drags things out even longer which will bankrupt PRKR because we are talking 3-5 YEARS!

[Neverending]

The last appeal took 2 years. You are looking at a huge delay now. Even if the appeal is won there wont be a trial for 3-4 years. The appeal is no slam dunk. The appeals court did not rule out collateral estoppel they only said the district had not held a claims construction hearing in order to properly determine if PRKR could not try the received claims because they are too similar to the claims they lost in PRKR v QCOM 1. I would say this case is not a good hope for share price appreciation. Perhaps 1 of the other cases will have a more positive outcome but of course all those judges hate patent trolls as well so....good luck! In my opinion.

[chazzy1]

That is precisely why I call it a long shot investment. It is not that the patent owner does not hold exclusive rights to the patents. It's that the legal system is so heavily stacked against him ever collecting anything for the infringement of those patents.
For this reason, one should only invest mad money in these types of stocks.

[Neverending]

I watchched a bunch of cases lost 1 big time. It fails almost all the time.

[Neverending]

I watchched a bunch of cases lost 1 big time. It fails almost all the time.

[chazzy1]

Yes, this news is probably already baked into the share price. These patent infringement cases are typically a long shot investment precisely because the deck is stacked against the patent owner in our current legal system. However, the rewards can make such investments very worthwhile when the little guy does occasionally prevail.

[Neverending]

Yes true but appeals take forever and it looks bad. Maybe the stock won't react to the news since its kind of baked in to those watching.

[chazzy1]

A dismissal without prejudice simply means that the case is not dead. It can, and will be brought back if this judge grants a dismissal without prejudice.
This judge is apparently prejudiced, as he is violating the appellate court's instructions. He is siding with Qualcomm's claim construction definitions, which is a blatant contradiction to ParkerVision's own patent language. How can he get away with this? Or can he?

[Neverending]

People should have know this was coming. We'll see if there is any stock reaction: QUALCOMM’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NONINFRINGEMENT AND
DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF INVALIDITY
COUNTERCLAIMS
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendants Qualcomm Incorporated and Qualcomm Atheros, Inc.
(collectively, “Qualcomm”) respectfully move for (1) entry of partial summary
judgment of noninfringement of claims 1 and 10 of U.S. Patent 7,218,907 (the
“’907 Patent”) and claims 24 and 331 of U.S. Patent 6,091,940 (the “’940
Patent”) (collectively, the “Receiver Claims”) pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 56(a) and (2) dismissal without prejudice, subject to renewal
in the event of a reversal or remand, of Qualcomm’s 2nd Counterclaim for
Invalidity as it pertains to claims 24 and 331 of the ’940 Patent and
Qualcomm’s 16th Counterclaim for Invalidity of the ’907 Patent.

[fung_derf]

You're still buying lottery tickets??!!!...Well that's the sign of someone who has saved money for retirement......Odds of winning the lottery are 15 million to one and you're bragging your odds are better here? Well done.
The only problem I have is you lying to others.

[chazzy1]

For the same reason that I might buy a lottery ticket, only the odds are much more favorable with these stocks. If you have a problem with this, I suggest you take it up with your psychiatrist.

[Neverending]

If PRKR ever won even 1 court case it would be different. The 1 case they actually took to trial and won the judge simply threw out the jury verdict and said the facts did not merit the win. I expect them to lose any court cases even if they appear to win initially. In my opinion.

[fung_derf]

Seriously, why would a retired person keep buying these high risk nuisance patent companies?

[Neverending]

maybe so BUT appeals take YEARS!!!!