Whilst doing some research on patent litigation I noticed that much of the research seems to differentate between practicing entites and "non-practicing entites". The definiton of an NPE is:
"NPEs vs. Practicing Entities
Patent ownership can be held both by practicing entities and non-practicing entities (NPE). A practicing entity is a patent holder who actually makes, uses or sells a product for which a patent is held. A non-practicing entity is generally a patent holder who does not actually engage in the manufacture of products, but instead patents or acquires patents with a primary purpose of vigorously enforcing those patents against infringing companies."
I think it's safe to classify PV as an NPE.
Now check out this!
"Patent Quality and Settlement Among
Repeat Patent Litigants
McCombs Graduate School of Business
University of Texas at Austin
SECOND ANNUAL RESEARCH ROUNDTABLE ON THE
EMPIRICAL STUDIES OF PATENT LITIGATION
Thursday, November 18th, 2010—Friday, November 19th, 2010"
Some tidbits :
"The results are equally striking for patents owned by non‐practicing entities (NPEs), and for
software patents. NPEs and software patentees overwhelmingly lose their cases, even with
patents that they litigate again and again. Software patentees win only 12.9% of their cases,
while NPEs win only 9.2%."
BTW how many of those cases that were lost involved a patent holder disclosing its confidential informationto another party (Q in this case), and that other party (Q) offering a royalty deal valued at hundreds of millions of dollars, and then, when the parties could not come to an agreement, it allegedly just stole the patent holder's technology, and was then sued in an infringement suit.
ParkerVision has produced and sold at retail WiFi routers and NICs incorporating their D2D chips. They have been unable to sell the technology since, ostensibly and allegedly, according to their legal claims, because Qualcomm has used the technology without paying for it.
ParkerVision has produced sample products incorporating D2D technology in cooperation with VIA and for one or more Asian handset manufacturers.
I think that qualifies ParkerVision as a practicing entity.
Your citation covers software patents, and ParkerVision's patents are more than that. Furthermore, success or failure are not matters of chance on which one can quote odds. It is a matter of the strength of the claims and the case itself, and I feel comfortable with these claims and this case.