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

Okay, thanks for clarifying.

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.

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

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.

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, 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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

You seem very judgmental. What gives you the right to judge whether or not someone has wasted their life? I think that the VPLM team is doing everything humanly possible to monetize their intellectual property for the benefit of themselves and for all shareholders alike.
Whether or not they are ultimately successful, is not a basis for measuring the value of their lives. Successful people have often failed many times before they succeeded. By the way, what will you say if they win this?
I think that you are calling the game while it is still in play. JMHO.

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, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

As you know, "authorized" is not counted as "issued" or "outstanding," and does not in and of itself dilute. A company may authorize new shares for the purpose of creating stock options for employees or to compensate attorneys, or to pay down anticipated debt. Authorizing new shares is a better option than running out of money and going bankrupt. JMHO.

GreenBackClub, thank you for sharing these court filings and for sharing the news article, which essentially lays it all out there. VPLM does not need to prove infringement in the antitrust case. Their principle complaint is that they are the victim of a coordinated effort to exclude them from the wi-fi competition, even though they laid the groundwork and own crucial patents currently being used by the defendants. Again, if justice prevails, VPLM wins big!

Thank you GreenBackClub, for presenting a most lucid, clear and understandable synopsis of VPLM's antitrust cases against some of the world's most powerful telecommunications giants. You have done an excellent job of translating complex legal jargon, into understandable lay language. You have summarized the crux of the issue. As you have stated, these giants have used VPLM's groundwork, patented technology and locked VPLM out of the game in a most anti competitive, monopolistic fashion. If justice prevails, we win big! Many thanks to you! GLTA!

"Scam"? Here is what AI says:
"In conclusion, VOIP-Pal.com Inc. is a legitimate company engaged in active legal proceedings. While there are ongoing lawsuits and claims of anti-competitive practices, this does not automatically classify the company as a scam. The outcomes of the ongoing litigation and the company's future business practices will ultimately determine its legitimacy."

I would add that VP's patent portfolio is quite legitimate, having been tested through the IPR process and surviving thirty six out of thirty six challenges. No scam company could make such a claim to legitimacy.

That is great to see! Thanks Good Sport!

I completely agree. Cheers!

Good Sport, the expenditures that LocWolf and I cited are all documented in court filings.
I just don't know if those filings account for the entire sum of the NEO settlement.
Some of that money may have been paid out in salaries as well, but you are correct that it is all gone.
HDC could be finished at this point. I just don't know. I do know that we are long overdue for a communication from the company. But based on their track record, I am not holding my breath.

I believe that some of the NEO settlement money was used to initiate the lawsuit against Intel. I am not sure how much money was required for that, or exactly where the rest of the money went. However, since HDC was current with their SEC filings at that time, it is logical to assume that a significant dollar amount went for accounting costs. Plus, it seems that George McGovern may have repaid himself the money that he had loaned to the company, which would have also come from the NEO settlement.

LocWolf, you have done some good detective work. Yes I remember MBMoney too. Gee, that goes way back and brings back memories of an era gone by.
Be well my friend.

Yes I agree. He should be recused from hearing this case. But if not, he is providing grounds to be overturned at the appellate court.

Yes, i remember Scott. I wonder where he is now and what he is doing. I wonder if he still has shares of HDVY.

Thank you, GreenBackClub, for sharing these court filing updates and for providing the helpful explanatory footnotes.

Good points, Buylow2, for which we don't have answers.

Yes, although the transmitter claims are still in play, the judge clearly erred in the claims construction definitions of the receiver claims.
He allowed a definition which contradicts the explicit language of PRKR's receiver patent claims (a reversible error in my opinion, and grounds for an appeal if not corrected).
Jeff Parker states that there may be a provision to correct this error later in the proceedings, but if not, he is prepared to reach out to the appellate court. The law and the patent itself support PRKR's infringement claims against QCOM in this matter. IMHO.

Thank you, Neverending. I appreciate your informative and insightful posts.

Thus, it would appear that this judge may be interpreting certain terms used by PRKR's experts in a way that favors QCOM. If this is the same judge who overturned the previous jury verdict, he should recuse himself because of his obvious bias. This the whole process is starting to look like it has been rigged to favor a predetermined outcome. If this is true, then this is not a trial to discover the facts, but a charade to bury those facts. JMHO.

Yes, we settled for chump change. But why? It has never been explained to the shareholders why $2.25 million was a
"reasonable" settlement. Expectations were much higher. Would this law firm have even taken on this case had they felt that this is all it would be worth? I seriously doubt it. So what happened, and will we ever know?
Obviously Alan thinks (or at least thought) that HDC's IP is marketable and worth pursuing. He has a good track record. Maybe he can pull a rabbit out of HDC's hat, but that remains to be seen. Curiously, something has kept the HDVY ticker symbol from being delisted, which usually happens after eighteen months on the Expert market.

Neverending, I appreciate your insightful summary of these proceedings. You may well be correct in your dire prediction for PRKR, however, based upon my information, there was evidently some collusion between the Obama justice department, QCOM and the presiding judge, resulting in the presiding judge suddenly reversing a jury verdict at the eleventh hour of the damages assessment process (post trial). I am not certain if the same district court judge who overturned the previous jury verdict is the one who is hearing the current case, however, this whole thing smells of corruption, and the Trump justice department may need to intervene. JMHO.

Frankly, like you, and perhaps most everyone else here, I am dismayed by the lack of progress, combined with the lack of communication from the company.
Either nothing is happening or it is so secretive that they can't talk about it.
I am starting to suspect that it is the former. Like so many others here, I had high hopes that HDC would be able to monetize their fantastic intellectual property. Sadly, I am starting to doubt that that is ever going to happen. It is still possible, but I will be surprised if and when it does. I still believe that Alan is our best hope of bringing HDC's IP to fruition. JMHO.
I was just thinking about how our attorneys worded the first lawsuit such that Judge Albright interpreted our patent as an algorithm, then dismissed that lawsuit as patent ineligible under Alice. HDC's attorneys redrafted and refiled that lawsuit, carefully revising their wording to get around the Alice issue that caused judge Albright to stumble. I say stumble, because we are talking about the exact same patent that he subsequently allowed as patent eligible. In my view, we should have won this case under the original filing, had not certain mistakes been made. Most unfortunate. However, had we won it, there is still the question of damages. Based on the paltry settlement sum, HDC apparently could not prove damages beyond $2,250,000.

That would appear to be the case. Unless of course the company has modified and refiled, extending the life of the patent.
Or perhaps the company is working with a lab company to develop a diagnostic tool which incorporates the SVM-RFE technology. Any such diagnostic tool could be independently patented and licensed, whether the underlying SVM-RFE patent is active or not.