1. Why do you see any possibility of a finding of wilful infringement - allowing a punitive (treble) damages award?
The recent rulings on other cases pointed out by Pvnotes must leave you in no doubt that wilful infringement is now decided either by the judge or by the appeal court judges.
a) Qualcomm told ParkerVision in 1999 that its patents appeared to cover prior art.
b) ParkerVision told its investors in 2000 that Qualcomm would need a license from ParkerVision for the ZIF architecture.
c) Qualcomm did not apply for a license.
d) ParkerVision did not sue.
Do you dispute any of the foregoing?
If not - what basis do you have for expecting a JUDGE to rule that Qualcomm was unreasonable in viewing ParkerVision's about-turn as a tacit admission that the patents were (as Qualcomm had suggested) unenforceable because of prior art?
2. In the event that the judge doesn't rule the ParkerVision patents as invalid, and finds Qualcomm guilty of non-wilful infringement - do you agree that the order to pay a reasonable royalty will not apply to Qualcomm sales before July 20 2011?
From 35 USC § 287 - Limitation on damages and other remedies; marking and notice -
"In the event of failure so to mark, no damages shall be recovered by the patentee in any action for infringement, except on proof that the infringer was notified of the infringement and continued to infringe thereafter, in which event damages may be recovered only for infringement occurring after such notice. Filing of an action for infringement shall constitute such notice."
"For purposes of this subsection, notice of infringement means actual knowledge, or receipt by a person of a written notification, or a combination thereof, of information sufficient to persuade a reasonable person that it is likely that a product was made by a process patented in the United States."
Did ParkerVision notify Qualcomm before the 2011 complaint that the 2006 products were covered by the ParkerVision patents?