As a registered patent attorney, I completely disagree with your legal analysis and conclusions, which are flawed and incomplete. But even if one were to assume everything you say is correct, you are only considering here past damages that the jury will award if it finds at least one claim of at least one of Parkervision's four patents in suit infringed and not invalid. If a single claim of a single Parkervision patent is found to be infringed and not invalid, then Parkervision is entitled to not just past damages from the jury, but also ongoing royalties, which the judge will set, and which are required to be at a royalty rate higher than that used by the jury to calculate past damages. You also fail to acknowledge the judge can award Parkervision up to three times the awarded past damages and its attorneys fees if the jury finds Qualcomm's infringement was willful, which seems very likely from the extensive history between the parties, and Qualcomm's own internal emails acknowledging that Parkervision had broad patents on the "holy grail" of down converter technology.
Apple, MediaTek, Samsung, and Spreadtrum were the top five players by revenue share, with Qualcomm capturing an outsized 53% of the entire market. It's clear that Qualcomm continues to be the undisputed market-share leader in smartphone applications processors