The reality is that Parkervision won the lawsuit on all patents and claims and now awaits determination of the award in phase 2 of the trial. An award is not a settlement until further actions are taken. The parties could settle with payment to PV but that is not usually what happens and is very unlikely to happen in this case due to a number of factors. However, even without a settlement with money being transferred into PV's bank account, the decision greatly bolsters the chances of reaching licensing agreements with other companies. Most likely that would take months and can be expected to involve additional lawsuits.
On the face of it, the jury decision looks 100% affirmative: PV won on all products, on all patents and on all claims for both direct and indirect/induced infringement. Underlying the win is the long-reaching process: An award is subject to court appeals and adjustments. Trade sanctions are possible but are taken up with the US ITC as Q does not sell directly into the US market but through foreign produced suppliers of devices. Google/MOTO devices might be an exception - not sure how that works.
Q can possibly avert damages on future sales by making changes to their chips or otherwise providing assurance to the court that future products do not infringe.
So what? For now its a mo-mo play. Ride the blue sky momentum up, ride the reality of basing a business on becoming a patent licensing company wherever that unfolds going forward. Usually the enthusiasm overcomes reality. As in the past, promises must be kept.
What you say is correct, however, the primary interest of investors on these boards is the 3 day to 6 month time frame. Once damages are awarded, ParkerV can pursue settlement and injunctive relief including trade/import sanctions through the US iTC, however, Qualcomm and the subject device suppliers would have the associated avenues of appeals and remedies.
There are recent and ongoing cases involving Samsung, Apple, Nokia, Qualcomm and others that can be quickly Googled to get a basic understanding of the process.
However, that is not what the go-go momentum crowd wand or necessarily need to know... its 'run 'er up' time based on both the bullish reality of the decision and the mob mentality that rules the current situation. That is just as real, for the moment, as the settled our impacts of the legal decision i the 1st, and soon, 2nd phase of the current trial. Asking the go-go crowd to get their heads into deeper than surface understanding is pointless. However, investing is a game.. ride 'er up, ride 'er down..
"... analyst Kevin Smithen said. "Given the limited liquidity in S shares post tender, we are prepared to be a few months early in order to not miss what could be a rapid 20-30% next year. Larger investors should take advantage of any increased volatility and liquidity around the Q3 print to aggressively build positions ahead of what we think will be improving newsflow and postpaid sub trends over the next few qtrs. At the end of the day, we believe that spectrum quantity wins and in Son-San’s vision and track record of execution. "
Smithen says 'what could be a rapid 20-30%'.. which is a poor target. The stock has made several 10%+ moved up and down that a skillful trader could ride or a reasonably well timed long selling covered calls could have benefitted to be up 40%+ since the acquisition. The goal over the next 12 months should be for a similar 30%-40% annual gain imo. A 20% gain target in a speculative stock and economy is a no show.
Con't, chapter 13, page 337
Sprint remains in a building mode during which they must fight tooth and nail to retain subscribers while T-Mobile, Verizon and AT&T expand service into wider channels of spectrum.
T-Mobile is the most price competitive of the three competitors. Verizon is similarly expanding into AWS spectrum, the most extensive holdings in that band due to acquisition of spectrum from the cable companies. And Verizon is rolling out their home broadband service - a service that competes with both cable and DSL for home BB and TV as well as mobile services. However, their price tag can be up to $195 per month with their lowest home-mobile service being around $120. That leaves the choice more as being between 'Cadillac' service and the Volkswagen/Honda offerings from T-Mobile-Vodafone and Sprint-Softbank respectively.
Improvements can come from cost cutting and network and device supply efficiencies... until network improvements get Sprint more competitively positioned... which might take up to three years to be fully reached.. the timing is difficult because competitors are racing ahead with small cells, cloud services infrastructure, IAAS, and SAAS and collaborative network services. Its a bit like trying to forecast when Sprint will catch up based on the old metric of wireless network deployments while the new metrics of integrated cloud services, integrated home BB/TV and mobile services are starting to take over. Sprint might be judged to reach one goal in 2 or 3 years only to have become outflanked on other fronts.
Softbank/Son are imagined to be the 'Zen masters' of Internet-Cloud-Mobile service integration... the problem is that SB-Son face companies already woken out of whatever slumber their Japanese rivals may have been in... VZ, T-Mobile, even AT&T are not so much laggards in being innovators themselves. Sprint will have to push fast, hard, and put em' to bed wet.
Good points. Sprint has been adding bricks to one end of the wall while the other end has been washing away: They will report probably he final substantial losses of subscribers due to the shut down of the Nextel iDen network's as long-term business contracts have ended. Meanwhile, Sprint has made up for past losses with gains over the past few years starting with 11 million using CW's WiMAX network. More recently on the gain side have been new subscribers to the iPhone. The net result was somewhat higher ARPU and minor net loss of subscribers.
Over the past few years the US market for SmartPhone use has grown about 65% saturation and new subscriber additions has tapered off. Full saturation is expected to be about 85% - a point at which 'everyone who will buy one has one'... with very few stragglers to fight over. That will lead to more fighting to win over competitors subscribers. Saturation is expected to be reached in 2015.
Meanwhile, T-Mobile, Verizon and AT&T had been investing earlier and more heavily into their new networks than had been the case for then cash-strapped Sprint. A gap in both network capacity and coverage has resulted. That can be seen in recent network surveys that show T-Mobile, Verizon and AT&T all have higher bandwidth than Sprint. T-Mobile has similarly engaged in unlimited plans while Verizon and AT&T remain less inclined to fight over price and uncapped bandwidth... mostly because they are not forced to do so. Sprint retains a marketing image but lacks full strength in the network to back up their long standing claim of higher capacity uncapped service. If a service gets bogged down, its that same thing as having a cap on bandwidth.
This all may sound gloomy, however, it has been what was projected to happen since competitors acquired spectrum, made plans, and announced their large capital deployments of networks, backhaul, smallcells and other upgrades. Con't to the next page of the novel...
No, infringement was already determined in phase 1. Whether that was willful and, thus, is subject to punitive treble damages award is subject to phase 2 determination.
"usually the party asks for the highly likely award but not so high as to look outlandish." .. usually the party asks for the highly UNlikely level of award but not so high that the jury might take it as being outlandish... so that it looks bad. The 'Samson' wants to get the jury on their side, not against them by asking for a figure that look ridiculous. The $500 million figure was based on more than licensed technology - on building entire portfolio of solutions. As such, it looks within bounds of reality for that set of circumstances. However, the circumstances to be decided are for patent licensing, not entire RF design and products.
Parkervison presented its case with damages assertions put forward by its expert witness Benoit. The used a valuation method based on share of profits from sale of end products and on early 1999 time-frame negotiations. The judge has ruled that the court will use legal precedent established in 'Georgia Pacific' that outlines a list of fifteen criteria for awards determination and does not make use of the methodology used by Parkervision's expert. He left in the possibility of the use of the alternative valuation method but it does not look likely. The judge sided with the predominate methods used in patent litigation. The $500 million figure comes from Parkervision as their opening salvo in the case. You can decide on what that means.. usually the party asks for the highly likely award but not so high as to look outlandish. I think the figure was borderline ridiculous but that is my opinion. I suggest doing some research on the Internet if you have basic questions of how lawsuits are normally pursued.
The methodology the court will use looks first at nearby agreements and negotiations. PV engaged in pre-licensing and development agreements with VIA Technologies that are most timely and pertinent. The exact details of those agreements and rates are not public but are assumed to be similar to rates found elsewhere in the industry... thus the guesstimates of $60-$120 million. Given that the jury appears 'bought into' Parkervisions arguments, the higher end of that range might be expected. An unusual award would be for treble damages and legal costs. Whenever that occurs its almost a guarantee of being appealed and very likely, by historical measures, of being whittled down.
The first phase was a clear victory for Parkervision... however, an injunction will not be imposed as a simple matter of course regardless of how the jury rules during the awards phase. Trade injunctions/sanctions on communications products are among the most serious forms of court intervention and are particularly well considered measures in major communications disputes. The threat will hang out there while suppliers of chips and devices have appeal options open to them.
The first thing to remember is that an award is broken into two parts: the current damages for products already sold and the future damages for products that might ship with the infringed technology. Qualcomm would obviously be liable for the first because a ruling would be irrefutable on grounds that the product itself was not ruled as infringing.
Further products remain a matter for speculation by the court for which Qualcomm could offer to change their design so that it no longer infringes. This is a step that has been done by Samsung, Nokia, Microsoft (code), and Qualcomm. Such a move was recently reported: "HTC and Qualcomm are reworking a radio chip for the HTC One smartphone in order to avoid a U.S. ban on imports of patent-infringing technology, according to a Wall Street Journal report.
The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) made a preliminary ruling last week that Taiwan's HTC had infringed on two Nokia patents. The infringed patents cover a method for receiving and transmitting radio signals, and a method for eliminating unwanted signals."
The NBS bargaining analysis hardly applies because the court has decided what infringes and also on the most applicable method of finding an appropriate rate/value, namely comparisons to nearby, similar agreements. If its used at all, its function would be supplementary.
Parkervision, (PRKR) a long unfulfilled developer of transceiver technology has been reborn several times in its attempts to productize and then license patents it has developed to cover direct conversion RF technology. IN the course of the past 13+ years, Parkervision has talked with over 100 companies, including Qualcomm, in attempts to forge development and license agreements. Up until now, the company had developed no meaningful revenue or a single patent license. Nonetheless, the Tampa jury sided in favor of the 'Samson vs. Goliath' storyline that PV's attorneys had laid out.
Some key points:
The verdict is a clear win for the first stage of the trial: PV won on all patents and all claims. PV also won on indirect as well as direct infringement. That can lead in PV going after injunctions on products using QCOM's chips.
The trial is broken into two stages: The first stage, the 'infringement stage' was just decided with today's verdict. The second phase will determine the extent of 'damages'.. the amount awarded to Parkervision for infringement. INfringement is determined on products sold incorporating the infringed technology which were detailed in the case. This includes current damages which is that for products already produced and sold and future damages.
Up to treble damages and legal costs can be awarded if the jury finds for willful infringement during the second phase. This is rare but not unheard of. Qualcomm can be expected to push for FRAND type licensing rates based on Parkervisions previous attempts at licensing the technology to VIA and others. This lower rate for similar IPR is more common in the industry than the rate that results in the $500 million figure proposed by Parkervision. The court had earlier defined terms for the second phase that would tend to push the jury toward the VIA/FRAND level, however, the jury appears to have bought into the Samson vs. Goliath storyline fully... so an out of scope award is possible.
What a rube. Just because you don't like my opinion doesn't give you the right to tell anyone what they do on public stock boards. Grow up.
ParkerVision Inc. (PRKR), a designer of wireless communication networks, won the first phase of a trial in which it’s seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in patent royalties from Qualcomm Inc. (QCOM) over chip technology, according to a lawyer attending the trial.
Qualcomm infringed ParkerVision patents and none were invalid, said Dan Ravicher, executive director of the Public Patent Foundation, who is attending the trial. The verdict was issued by a federal jury in Orlando, Florida. A second phase now begins to determine how much Qualcomm should pay. The jury decision came after more than a week of testimony.
To contact the reporter on this story: Susan Decker in Washington
That's correct: it falls into the category of being insignificant to halt trading... the stocks often moves up and down by 1% or over $1 billion in value. While its theoretically possible for the jury to award PV with an award of $500 million, the odds of that happening under the rulings of the court are extremely slim. Dalton might adjust the award and it otherwise would be appealed where the amount would most likely be overturned. Q certainly will report the verdict and it will appear on the quarterly and annual reports.
"The shorts now try to tell us there will be no money coming from damages and royalties. Right" That is the same type of over-simplified exagerted statement that 'helped' fellow Stockzombies, er investors buy PRKR up to 50 only to see it go down to 50c.
If someone is saying that if Qualcomm is ruled to have infringed that there will be no damages you should know better and just put them on ignore.
On the other hand, its just as thieving in nature to make wildly misleading claims about what is likely. Some of the stockzomibes here were touting the $500 million opening gambit as a sure thing.
What is most likely is based on precedent as now outlined in Judge Dalton's decision. That is the basis for exclusion of the 1999 negotiations and emails other than as background information. And its unlikely the NBS calculations can be used because these are not normally used for non-exclusive patent licensing determination. At the top of the list is similar and timely agreements, in this case the VIA agreements/negotiations. That makes sense because it is for like type of licenses and for the same or very similar technology and markets. You guys may not like it, but thats the way it comes down from the judge... and is the way it was likely to come down baring a long shot.
Nobody is trying to 'telling us there is no money' likely, however, its going to be 'by the law' and then its subject to being appealed and, possibly, for wiggle room for Q to get out from under future royalties portion by shifting to a proof of non-infringed design. How do I know this? Because its what happens... in this type of circuit fairly often so long as there are alternatives which I think is the case and many in the industry and even Dalton, according to his recent ruling, think is the case. That may not happen but, then it just might. Investors needs all the truth, not just funked up kind of truth.
This looks what might be expected and is generally favorable to a finding of infringement.. although certainly not conclusive.
I'm surprised that Dalton would not allow in a transcript of Dr. Prucnal's testimony as requested, less so about Dr. Fox's report since it had not been admitted as evidence. There are actually 'rights of the jury' to demand the review of evidence, although it almost never comes up and the jury has little to say if the judge refuses. It is a difficult area because information can be 'for attorneys eyes only' or otherwise agreed by the parties not to be disclosed. However, once brought into evidence, there may be rights of the jury to review the evidence and not have to rely on their collective memories and notes. The jury needs a lawyer.
Thanks for the refreshingly honest attitude bill.brittain. There's nothing wrong about expressing opinions when its put in the way you did.. you gave basic reasons and also the caveats... I think reasonable people can take away value.
With a cost basis of 2.12 and a long term investment strategy, there is little reason to change position. I think S has not yet proven which way its going to head over the next year... it looks more like settling into a sideways pattern for now imo. Sprint has the basic elements to notch up in competitive position while increasing margins over the next 1-2 years such that even if sales and subscriber growth remain relatively flat, the stock can move higher. The threat remains, however, that competitors improved networks will put pressure on the turnaround in terms of sales growth or subs... even so, S may manage to improve their balance sheet and margins during a formative period over that takes up to three years to reach bluer skies overhead. (to become fully competitive in most aspects of performance).
What is indicated by how long a verdict takes?
For commercial trials or patent litigation that is similarly complex, it was pointed out that it typically takes 2+ days to reach a verdict. However, a ruling of non-infringement tends to take less time, as short as a few hours. A verdict for infringement where multiple products and patents are involved requires more work on the part of the jury to decide which patents and claims are infringed and which products they apply. This case involves complex technology and some convoluted and long term business considerations, but is not as complex as those involving multiple patents covering diverse (sets of) technology or in which the jury members might be hounded by the press or write books about their experience ala Apple v. Samsung.
Its looking more likely the jury will find for infringement as the deliberation goes past today.
My guess is a verdict will be reached tomorrow or the next day (by Friday).
Oh come on.. this is an investment.
Justice? Justice in the USA is determined by the laws and the usual inbred distortions... money and politics. "You get the justice you deserve" is often usurped by 'that you (can) pay for' which sometimes has become like the American medical system... until death or bankruptcy. "We that gots gets" is lyrically followed by "we that don't get the shaft".
Verdicts in complex patent litigation cases usually take 2+ days. Large, complex cases can take a week or more during which they can ask for advice from the judge or review of the evidence. Some juries split into sub-groups to study specific aspects of the determination such as laying out of the claims and specifics of infringement. The details of recent cases can be looked up to get an idea of how this might work. What often happens is a few jury members help organize/chair the process. In this case one jury member who is a lawyer and another an engineer, so it might be guessed they will play the role of helping to lead the deliberations.
This is often where the weight of the trial comes down on the jurists, some who probably want this to end quickly. However, the judge has to compel the jury to get the details right: In Apple vs. Samsung's recent case the individual patents were detailed with assessment of damages attributed to each. Samsung used what they claimed as incongruities as part of their appeal of the ruling of infringement. So, while the longs may hope for a quick ruling, the odds weigh against it.