"IP protection is a fundamental part of our technology development process"
What excuse do you anticipate Parkervision will come up with for failing to exercise its right to challenge QCOM's applications for the allegedly-infringing patents when they were first published back in 2004 in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 122?
"IN GENERAL - Any third party may submit for consideration and inclusion in the record of a patent application, any patent, published patent application, or other printed publication of potential relevance to the examination of the application, if such submission is made in writing before the earlier of -
(A) the date a notice of allowance under section 151 is given or mailed in the application for patent; or
(B) the later of -
(i) 6 months after the date on which the application for patent is first published under section 122 by the Office, or
(ii) the date of the first rejection under section 132 of any claim by the examiner during the examination of the application for patent."
I've pointed out an undisputed fact. When QCOM first published in 2004 or thereabouts their applications to patent technology you are now claiming infringes the ParkerVision technology - in spite of ParkerVision's expressed commitment to protecting its intellectual property, ParkerVision did not challenge the QCOM patent applications.
Three of you here in particular - Roundermatt, Overbrook and Longprkr - seem only too ready to offer your opinions on just about any issue aired in this forum. It seems a tad strange that all three of you have preferred not to offer an opinion on ParkerVision's likely defence for failing to challenge those patent applications.
Perhaps if I make this a multiple-choice thread .....
ParkerVision filed its initial complaint against QCOM on July 20 2011. In QCOM's 10-K for the twelve months ended September 30 2011 there was no mention of the ParkerVision action. Yet by the time the 10-K was issued in November, QCOM had four months in which to make a preliminary assessment of the likely success of the ParkerVision action.
Where 10-K risk guidance is concerned the prudent strategy is "when in doubt, mention it". When a company is already mentioning at least half a dozen major law suits, an additional action is unlikely to make much difference.
Why do you think QCOM didn't take the earliest opportunity to warn its shareholders / potential investors about the potential adverse effect on its profitability of the ParkerVision action?