ParkerVision: Recent Hearing Further Supports Bull's Views - The Best Is Yet Come May. 27, 2014 12:11 PM ET | About: ParkerVision, Inc. (PRKR), Includes: QCOM
Disclosure: I am long PRKR. (More...) Summary
PRKR had a very successful day at the May 1 hearing on post trial motions and Judge Dalton indicated he will uphold the jury's verdict. In closing, the judge stated “I'm certainly going to grant some ongoing royalties”. The judge will set (a probably enhanced) royalty rate if PRKR and QCOM can't agree on it. PRKR has filed a second lawsuit against QCOM and also named HTC as an infringer. The damages in the second case will be multiples greater than in the first case. The patents in Case Two are different than those in Case One. PRKR believes QCOM’s new 28 nanometer products infringe the patents in Case Two. The infringing chips in Case Two include QCOM's baseband processors, its bread & butter product. QCOM could owe PRKR $450m annually ($4.70 per share) in ongoing royalties through the mid-2020s.
ParkerVision (PRKR) is a development-stage company in the process of commercializing patented radio-frequency (RF) technology in the telecommunications industry that owns over 200 U.S. wireless technology patents. ParkerVision filed a lawsuit versus Qualcomm (QCOM) on 7/20/11 alleging broad-based infringement of PRKR's technology.
On October 17, 2013, a Florida federal jury found that Qualcomm infringed ParkerVision patents. The jury awarded ParkerVision $173 million in past damages, and awarded ParkerVision a royalty of $0.23 cents per unit on future use by Qualcomm. After the trial, briefs were submitted by both parties arguing post-trial motions on 5/1/14, Judge Dalton held a hearing to allow PRKR and QCOM's attorneys to argue their final post-trial motions, and I attended that hearing. I believe PRKR had a very successful day in court, and that Judge Dalton's statements at the end of the hearing suggest he will uphold the jury's verdict.
The hearing began for 9:00am on May 1st, and ended at 5:00pm. At the end of the day, around 4:50pm, Judge Dalton told the courtroom that,
With respect to ongoing royalties, both the request for prejudgment (past damages) and post judgment (ongoing royalties), that is, the various iterations of the periods for which those damages would apply, I'm certainly going to grant some ongoing royalties (ParkerVision, Inc vs. Qualcomm, Inc., United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, Docket 3:11-cv-719, May 1 2014, Transcript of Motions Hearing before the Honorable Roy B. Dalton, Jr., page 253)
