ParkerVision 2011 Q3 Conference Call
November 14, 2011
Steve Springer of Target Capital
Walter Schenker from MAZ Partners
Philip Anderson of Pinnacle Fund
Charles Bellows of White Pine Capital
Ira Nathan of Nathan Financial
Rob Cannon of Cannon Capital
Latoya: Good afternoon and welcome to the ParkerVision, Inc. Third Quarter 2011 Conference Call and Webcast. Today's conference is being recorded and all listeners are in a listen‑only mode. Following the presentation, we will open up the conference call for questions and answers. The company has requested that questions and answers be limited to one question and one follow‑up per caller. As it is now time for opening remarks and introductions, I would like to turn the conference over to Ron Stabiner with the Wall Street Group. Please go ahead, sir.
Ron Stabiner: Thank you, Latoya. Good afternoon and thank you for joining us. Before we get started, I would like to remind listeners that this conference call will contain forward‑looking statements which involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties about our business and the economy and other factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from our expected achievements and anticipated results. Included in these factors is the ability to maintain technological advantages in the marketplace, the ability to increase manufacturing capacity to meet demands, achieving timely market introduction and acceptance of product, maintaining our patent protection, and the availability of capital, among others.
Given these uncertainties and other factors for our business, listeners are cautioned not to place undue reliance on any forward‑looking statement contained within this conference call. Additional materials including these and other risks could be found in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
On today's call, we will hear first from Cynthia Poehlman, Chief Financial Officer of ParkerVision, who will provide a review of the company's Third Quarter results, and she'll be followed by Jeffrey Parker, Chief Executive Officer, who will provide an update on the business of the company. With that, I will now turn the call over to Cynthia. Please go ahead.
Cynthia Poehlman: Thank you, Ron, and welcome to those of you joining us this afternoon for ParkerVision's 2011 Third Quarter Conference call. Today, we reported a net loss of $3.8 million, or $0.06 per share, for the Third Quarter of 2011, compared to a loss of $4 million, or $0.10 per share, for the same quarter last year. On a year‑to‑date basis, ParkerVision reported a net loss of $10.7 million, or $0.19 per share, which represents a nine percent decrease from the same period in 2010 of $11.7 million or $0.28 per share. The reduction in our year‑over‑year net loss was primarily the result in decreases of certain non‑cash items including share‑based compensation, and depreciation and amortization of operating assets.
In September, we raised approximately $6.5 million in an at‑the‑market offering to two institutional investors. Excluding the impact of proceeds from equity offerings and warrant exercises, our cash usage for the first nine months of 2011 was approximately $8.4 million or an average of $2.8 million per quarter. As of September 30, we had $8.8 million in cash and short‑term investments.
Last week, we announced the retention of McKool Smith as Lead Counsel in our Patent Infringement Litigation against Qualcomm, Inc. McKool Smith is representing us on a partial contingency fee basis, which means that we pay a greatly reduced hourly fee for services and in return McKool Smith shares in any litigation awards on a percentage basis.
This compensation arrangement enables ParkerVision to be represented by a leading litigation firm while reducing up-front cost and still maintaining a significant percentage of the ultimate award. I'll be available to respond to any questions you have regarding financials at the end of today's call. But for now, I'd like to turn the call over to our CEO, Jeff Parker. Jeff?
Jeffrey Parker: So thanks, Cynthia, and thanks to those of you joining us this afternoon. It's been a busy and productive time since our last conference call and I'm going to provide a brief update today on both our litigation activities and our business operations and then I'll open up the call for your questions. On our last call, I stated that we were actively working on the expansion of our team of professionals to support ParkerVision in its litigation against Qualcomm, Inc. and we were awaiting Qualcomm's response to our complaint.
Qualcomm's response and counterclaims, which were filed on September 16, included many of the standard or typical responses by accused infringers in patent litigation, namely, denial of infringement and allegations of invalidity and un‑enforceability of the patents in question.
Qualcomm also filed counterclaims against both ParkerVision and the law firm of Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox, alleging that the Sterne firm breached the fiduciary duty to Qualcomm and ParkerVision aided and abetted Sterne in doing so and also tortuously interfered with the contractual relationship Qualcomm had with the Sterne firm.
Just a week or so ago, both ParkerVision and Sterne firm filed separate motions to dismiss a number of Qualcomm's counterclaims and we also filed a motion to strike certain of Qualcomm's affirmative defenses based on the inadequacy of their pleadings. Qualcomm also filed last week a motion for preliminary injunctions to prevent the Sterne firm from representing ParkerVision in this litigation, even though ParkerVision is not represented by the Sterne firm in this matter. To my knowledge, none of these pending motions have yet been ruled on by the court.
We do anticipate a case management conference will be held between the interested parties within the next few weeks and at which time the targeted trial date will be established as well as a schedule for discovery and other important deadlines.
Our particular lawsuit has been assigned what is called a Track two case, which by Florida law means that the dates for the trial is typically scheduled between one and two years from the time the lawsuit was filed. We will keep our website regularly updated with all public court documents filed so that our shareholders can follow these various pleadings in as real time as possible. I would encourage you if you're interested in following the details of this case to check our website frequently.
I'd like to speak just briefly about the recent addition of the law firm of McKool Smith as our lead counsel in this litigation. As we previously reported, we spent a significant amount of time and effort in interviewing various patent litigation firms.
As you might imagine, when a firm is considering taking a client on a contingency basis, they want to understand what they are investing in. The team at McKool conducted a rigorous review of all facets of this litigation, including and among other things, an in‑depth review of the construction of our patent, our infringement case and the Qualcomm products, as well as in‑depth market studies.
Although this was a lengthy process, the efforts extended and the analysis performed were all necessary activities in readying our case for the next steps. So, although the McKool firm has just been recently retained in an official capacity, they have been working alongside ParkerVision's team for a number of weeks now.
We couldn't be more pleased with the caliber of the firm and specifically the team of professionals that are assigned to this case. Doug Cawley and Gordon White, who are leading our prosecution team, were also the lead trial counsel for the highly publicized i4i Patent Infringement Case against Microsoft, which went all the way to the Supreme Court, ending in a successful outcome for their client earlier this year. This team has a great deal of experience in leading cases where the basis for patent infringement involves highly‑technical subject matter.
What should you expect to hear regarding litigation over the coming weeks? I think it's reasonable to anticipate that some firm dates will emerge from the case management conference which will help us establish some of the future milestones ‑‑ typically, in case management, time frames or dates that are set for discovery, the Markman hearing, deadlines for certain motions, and the trial date.
With regard to our commercialization efforts, we continue to make solid progress with a significant OEM customer. We've had teams working overseas on a regular basis over the last several months. As we reported previously, our team, along with teams from VIA Telecom and the OEM have been working on a handset design that incorporates our Transmit IC.
We've delivered an initial group of our chips and the OEM has readied the design of a handset board that incorporates these chips. We're all working to finish up the software to integrate the final requirements for this design, which we anticipate can be wrapped up in the coming weeks.
After that, we expect the testing of these boards will occur, and we still expect that this will lead to our first order for this first model of our transmit components. Our preliminary test that was conducted recently by the OEM was to measure the temperature of our chip when it's operating at full RF output power ‑‑ which, this application was tested at 24.2 dBm or 263 milliwatts of power at the antenna.
The traditional transmit PA currently being used generates heat at 55 degrees Centigrade, or 131 degrees Fahrenheit, at the power amplifier packages measured in an open‑air ambient room temperature environment. Additionally, as the traditional PA heats up, the RF output power on the traditional solution begins to drop.
The OEM measured our chip under the same operating conditions and verified that our chip only generated heat of 36 degrees Centigrade, or 97 degrees Fahrenheit, and had no drop in output power.
Also remember, our transmit solution component includes all the functions from the base stand IQ data input to the RF power output. In the case of the measurement of the traditional power amplifier temperature, it only includes the RF power amps. It did not include the RF transmitter which generates additional heat and is required in the traditional solution to create the transmit signal that drives the RF power amp.
So, what is the significance of this heat reduction in layman's terms? In a nutshell, the reduction of heat provides much greater flexibility to the designer, and not only does the heat generated represent lost efficiency and shorter battery life, but this heat has the potential to negatively impact other components in the handset and constrain the designers flexibility.
In a test environment, when the engineers can ascertain the heat reduction relative to an existing component by simply laying a finger on the chip, that certainly gets their attention. This is just one example of the type of testing that our chips have and will continue to undergo in this process. It demonstrates one of several highly‑attractive features of our technology so we are confident it will lead us to successful commercialization of our RF products.
I expect there's a number of questions that you have, so perhaps now we should go ahead and open the call so that we have an opportunity to address them. So could we please open our call for questions?
Latoya: Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, if you have a question, please press "*" and then "1" on your touchtone telephone. If your question has been answered or you wish to remove yourself from the queue, you may press the "#" key. Once again, if you have a question, please press "*" and then "1."
Latoya: Once again, if you have a question, please press "*" and then "1" on your touchtone telephone. [pause]
Latoya: Once again, if you have a question, please press "*" and then "1." [pause]
Latoya: Our first question is from Steve Springer of Target Capital. Your line is now open.
Steve Springer: Yes. Jeff, could you give us any more color on the process that you're going through with the OEM entity and where you think the timing might be to actually get an order from this customer?
Jeffrey: OK, sure. Hi, Steve. The process is that the boards that incorporate our chips have been readied, the chips have been delivered, initial testing was actually started just very recently. I believe that will continue on. There's some software that still needs to be wrapped up for this specific implementation. Teams are working literally in real time on that now. I would expect that to be done in the next week or two. Beyond that, Steve, there will be a little bit more testing. At that point, to the best of our knowledge, we're done with the process, and we would expect then that the OEM will give us the indication that they want to move forward, giving us an order and a schedule. Hopefully this will take on a whole life of its own from that point going forward. That's kind of where we're at.
Steve: Is there any reason why this would continue beyond, let's say, another six weeks? Or let's take the end of the year or approximately the end of the year. Is there any reason why it could go on beyond that?
Jeffrey: Not that I'm aware of right now. Nothing that I'm aware of right now would create that. Assuming the software gets wrapped up in the next week or two, I think the schedule I described should be pretty accurate.
Steve: What has been the commitment on the part of the OEM in terms of staff, time, et cetera? I assume that there's been a substantial commitment on their part to get to this point.
Jeffrey: Yes, there has. They have a dedicated team specifically on this program that's been involved in understanding how our component gets designed into the phone and working with us to take feedback we've provided in the design phase. Designing the test processes, working with both us and Via Telecom to make sure that the software gets completed. They've got a dedicated team of a number of people specifically on this program, and we've had multiple teams who have been residing in the Asian geography working directly with them continuously the last number of months now.
Steve: Jeff, is there any reason why you could not be commencing negotiations with other OEMs, rather than simply focusing on one?
Jeffrey: I think, Steve, right now, our view is that this OEM has in good faith, because they've dedicated a team and because they're putting a lot of effort to helping us get this finished, that we need to stay focused on them. If they continue on at the pace that they've been going and this continues to come to the kind of conclusion that we believe it's going to come to at this point, I think as I said earlier, what will happen is this will take on a life of its own. Meaning there'll be an order, there'll be scheduled deliveries that will turn loose a number of other activities that we'll have to get going on.
To the extent that we have more capacity than this OEM commits to, then, sure, we could open up additional activities beyond with other OEMs that we think would find this also very attractive.
But, let's wait and see what their commitment is once we've wrapped up the testing and we see what they do for the next test.
Steve: OK, thank you.
Jeffrey: Thanks, Steve.
Latoya: Thank you. Our next question is from Walter Schenker from MAZ Partners. Your line is open, sir.
Walter Schenker: Thank you, Jeffrey.
Jeffrey: Hi, Walter.
Walter: Two questions that are sort of interrelated. First, the discussions, negotiations with VIA Telecom's original OEM who is affiliated with them in some way at this point is basically being shelved?
Jeffrey: We have not focused attention on them in the last several months. We've been completely absorbed by this other OEM that we've been working with. Yes.
Walter: On the OEM you are working with, the unit you are going to be designed into, A) is it currently on the market in Asia? And secondly, can you give us some sense as to roughly what their annualized, in some way, sales of units of this model or family of models might be?
Jeffrey: To the best of my understanding, it's a different version of a newer model that's currently shipping. To the best of my knowledge, this particular model is shipping in some number of tens of thousands of units per month. They would kind of view this as the launching point that would then expand to different models. I think that's an excellent starting point for us, and this is an OEM that certainly is full of potential for us to service and sell a lot of other models in worldwide applications that they are pretty dominant in.
Walter: The last question, along the same lines, have the delays in getting into production on a chip in any way affected adversely your relationship with your chip supplier who will be manufacturing this for you, and their ability to supply you once you go into production?
Jeffrey: No. The chip supplier, or the suppliers that we use both for semiconductors and packaging insets, they've been supporting companies not unlike us for a long time, and they recognize that sometimes these things take longer than originally hoped for. They continue to wish us well and cheer us on, and ask us if there's anything they can do to help us. There's been no adverse effect on that all.
Walter: OK, thank you.
Jeffrey: Thank you.
Latoya: Thank you. Once again, if you have a question please press *1. [pause]
Latoya: Our next question is from Philip Anderson of Pinnacle Fund. Your line is open.
Philip Anderson: Hi, Jeff. This year, I've gotten to know a bit about the business of being an intellectual property law firm. This is big business. Can you talk to us about the access that the lawyers had and the kind of diligence they were able to conduct as they, in effect, convinced themselves that partnering with ParkerVision was the best used for their marginal time versus all the opportunities which were coming into their door?
Jeffrey: Sure. We are completely open with our legal counsel. We want them to know absolutely everything there is to know, and everything they asked us, we certainly gave them full access to. In this situation, they wanted to take an in‑depth review of the patents and the prosecution of the patents. They wanted to look at all of the background of any interaction that we've had with Qualcomm going back over time. They wanted to study the patent claims and the infringing products. They wanted to do an in‑depth study of the market and any other licenses that we have outstanding.
They did, as they said in our press release when we announced them, they did a rigorous review of all these different aspects. If you look at McCool Smith's history, you can see that they're not unfamiliar with handling cases based on technology and infringers of technology and certainly have taken on many cases that involve infringers who were large in size.
So, I think between their understanding of what they're working with and their comfort in their historical success in situations like this, they felt this was a good and appropriate place for them to make an investment, and we're very happy that they did.
I don't know if that helps you get a little bit more visibility.
Philip: Yeah, that's helpful. Does the ITC appear to be a viable venue for the company to take its case to trial?
Jeffrey: Let's just say our legal strategy is going to be a point of continuous discussion with our litigators, and I don't think it would be appropriate for me right to comment on possible strategies moving forward. So, why don't we just say that at this time we have the case files in the middle district of Florida, and we'll proceed forward accordingly?
Philip: OK, thank you very much, Jeff.
Jeffrey: Thanks, Phil.
Latoya: Thank you. Our next question if from Steve Springer of Target Capital. Your line is open.
Steve: Yeah, I'd like to follow up, Jeff. Clearly McCool Smith, in taking this project on on a partial contingency believes that this case has significant merit. I'm wondering, you have alluded in the past to possible other infringers. I'm wondering if you could talk a little bit about the size of the potential damages. I know that it's relatively early on, but you must have done some work on this subject to try to include what this really means. Does it justify a lawsuit? What potential dollars could we be talking about? What other infringers are there? How extensive could this be ‑‑ the adoption of your technology illegally? Could you give us a little bit more color on that?
Jeffrey: Sure. In terms of the size, let's start with the potential size of Qualcomm's infringement. We find that they started and using and infringing our technology in the mid‑2000s, and we believe that they standardized on this technology in the latter part of that decade. Albeit, all of that verification - beyond the initial product that we found - has yet to be verified in discovery, but we believe that it will be. Assuming that they in fact did standardize on this technology, this is a company that is shipping between 400 million and 500 million chipsets that would incorporate our technology this year.
So, the infringement here is significant, assuming that our assumptions are proven out in discovery. Certainly McCool Smith agreed with us, that this is certainly worth pursuing. Not just because this is what we believe to be a willful infringement case, but because we believe this is a broadly‑deployed technology within Qualcomm's product lines.
As far as other infringers ‑‑ let me also say that Qualcomm as a market‑share company is about 30 percent to 35 percent of the market, whatever that's worth.
As far as other possible infringers, Steve, really our focus right now is purely on Qualcomm. But I will say we have a roadmap now to follow to find other potential infringers. You can certainly rest assured that if and when we do, we will certainly take speedy and appropriate action.
Steve: OK. So, you'll take speedy and appropriate action when the time is appropriate. But can you tell us, have you identified any other infringers?
Jeffrey: There's no other infringers that we've identified to the degree that we're ready to take any action right now. Let's just leave it at that.
Steve: OK. Jeff, has the filing of your suit against Qualcomm, could you describe how that could potentially affect, either positively or negatively, your relationship with the OEM that you're negotiating with? Are they a licensee of Qualcomm? Do they use Qualcomm's technology? How does that play into this whole situation?
Jeffrey: Yes, right now, I'd rather not comment on who else they use other than VIA Telecom. Although, look, I guess I can say this. VIA Telecom's products are CDMA‑based products. So, are they likely using Qualcomm products? Yes. Has there been any effect that this lawsuit has played in our discussions or interaction with the OEM? No. At this point, Steve, we're just focused like a laser beam on doing what the OEM has asked us to do, which is deliver chips. We have, check the box. Work with them on their phone boards? We have. And help them do their testing and get the software done. So, that's our focus, and my hope and expectation is that will remain the focus and that it'll turn into an order.
Steve: All right, thank you.
Jeffrey: Thanks, Steve.
Latoya: Thank you. Our next question is from Ira Nathan of Nathan Financial. Your line is open.
Ira Nathan: Hi, Jeff, how are you?
Jeffrey: Fine, Ira, fine, thank you.
Ira: I do have some questions, and by the way, I missed the first few minutes of the conference call. Can you comment, if you haven't already, on what percent of the fees to the lawyer are contingency?
Jeffrey: Yes, I'm really not at liberty, outside of what our earlier comments and Cynthia's earlier comment was, which is... Cynthia, what was your exact comment?
Cynthia: That the fee arrangement, obviously ‑‑ and it's not appropriate for us to disclose the exact fee arrangements, that's a negotiation between us and the law firm ‑‑ but Ira, they are providing their services at a greatly reduced hourly fee in exchange for a partial contingent fee. That contingent fee's certainly less than it would be on a full contingency basis, but it still allows us an opportunity to enjoy a very significant portion of any awards that we receive. But beyond that, we really can't discuss the specifics of the fee arrangement.
Ira: Would there be the same arrangement when and if you go after other companies? Have you talked about that with the law firm?
Jeffrey: We have not talked about that with the law firm. I think, Ira, really, each and every case that ParkerVision may work on would be probably analyzed on its own merits. So I think, yes, I think it'd be premature to kind of make a prediction on that. But, let's just say I think if we found a case that was in similar scope to this one, we would except that they or other firms of a similar stature would certainly have an interest in doing a partial contingency relationship just as this one was.
Ira: What is the usual time frame in a case like this?
Jeffrey: You know, a lot of this will be defined now in the case management meeting which is coming up in just a few weeks, so in that meeting a trial date will be set. A trial date would be, by the type of track that this was given in the middle district of Florida, would be as early as one year from the time we've filed, but supposedly no later than two years. So it's somewhere between one and two years. So, before the trial, there will be discovery, there'll be a Markman hearing, and there'll be other motions that will occur. So, there will be a fair number of I think key milestones that will occur now between this point forward and the trial date. Obviously, we're hopeful that we'll get the quickest trial date possible, because we're anxious to get this before a judge and a jury.
Ira: Have there been any discussions with Qualcomm on settlements?
Jeffrey: We've had no discussions with Qualcomm.
Ira: All right.
Jeffrey: Thank you, Ira.
Ira: Has the law firm had discussions with them?
Jeffrey: Well, I'd rather not comment on anything that the law firm is doing publicly. But we've had no discussions with Qualcomm.
Ira: OK, well, thank you very much, Jeff.
Jeffrey: Thank you.
Latoya: Thank you. Our next question is from Charles Bellows of White Pine Capital. Your line is open.
Charles Bellows: Hi, Jeff.
Jeffrey: Hi, Charlie.
Charles: We've been down this road with VIA before, ran into a brick wall, exactly the same sequence of events you're now looking at with the current OEM also with VIA. What makes it so different this time that you think that there will actually be an order?
Jeffrey: The difference this time is this OEM has dedicated a team to working on this program, and has moved further in that effort than any OEM we've worked with, or let's say the previous OEM we worked with. This particular OEM has kind of a history of working on programs with emerging technology, and helping kind of push those emerging products through the process. Because there's no question that the process for an emerging product like this with an emerging company like ours, there's sometimes a little bit of a bump in the road here and there. This company has a fair amount of experience in that. So those are the reasons, Charlie, why I'm confident that these guys will in fact move forward as we test the product and they verify the performance that we told them that they'll see in the phone boards that's their own phone board.
Charles: OK, and they have all of those boards. As I recall with our last one, you had gone through all sorts of work on software to have it adapted. Was that work not applicable to this OEM?
Jeffrey: Some of that work is applicable, but that work actually never got completed. So, let's just say I'm encouraged, because I see the work here going all the way to completion, and I believe it will be what's necessary to finish the testing that they want to see as we get on to the production ramp, that they'll enable when they start to incorporate this into products that they want to enjoy the benefits from.
Charles: OK. The other question is, what are you going to do for cash in here, given your burn and everything that's going on?
Jeffrey: Well, right now, I think the focus for our firm is clear. Which is, let's get an order, let's work with McKool Smith to get this case to the next steps. My hope is that as we show the market the progress that we're making on these fronts that that will be well‑received by the investment community, and we'll deal with fundraising at a time when we need to deal with it, which isn't now.
Charles: So given that, your timing is definitely to have proof of concept on it shown by this time as actually having an order by the end of the year, or definitely into the very first part of the first quarter, because otherwise, you've got trouble, if I'm not mistaken, on your cash, because you're going to burn cash with your lawyers, even at a reduced rate.
Jeffrey: Charlie, I am confident that the program that I've described is one we can execute on, which is, get the lawsuit to the next step, get an order from the customer, and just keep marching down this road, absolutely.
Charles: OK, thanks.
Jeffrey: Thank you.
Latoya: Thank you. Our next question is from Philip Anderson of Pinnacle Fund. Your line is open.
Philip: Jeff, in addition to participating in a settlement out of Qualcomm, would the lawyers participate in an ongoing royalty from Qualcomm?
Jeffrey: The lawyers will participate in whatever financial success, Phil, we will enjoy from this lawsuit, yes.
Philip: So the short answer is yes, they get both the participation in the catch-up and a participation in the future.
Philip: You mentioned some numbers earlier to Steve ‑‑ in the mid‑2000s, 400 million to 500 million units a year. What is your sense of what the average selling price of those units may have been, or maybe in the modern marketplace?
Jeffrey: You know, I'm going to give you a range, because honestly, again, that needs to come out really in discovery. But you're talking about, what's the product that Qualcomm has incorporated our technology into selling for? Is that what your question is?
Philip: Let me just refine it. Let's say that the legal situation progressed to a stage where parties wanted to establish a royalty rate. I guess my question is, what price, given the history at the prices these products have sold for, can you give us a range as to what that price might be from which a royalty would then be struck?
Jeffrey: I believe that the complete modem chipsets that Qualcomm sells is going to be greater than $10 and less than $30, depending upon the features it comes with, the number of bands it covers, the number of standards that it incorporates, if it's a single or a dual band. Focused on more of an emerging market like China or India, it's going to be closer to the lower number. If it's a multi‑band, multi‑mode, it's going to be closer to the higher number. So it's going to have a blend somewhere, Phil, between I believe those two kind of bookends, $10 to $30.
Philip: Well, that's helpful, explaining it in sort of an economic context. The last question. The sum of our partial contingency fee for lawyers, does that fee ever cap out at some point in time?
Jeffrey: I'm sorry, ask that again. I'm not sure I followed the question.
Philip: I said, did our fee ever cap out at some point in time, or we will continue to pay a participation at this greatly reduced rate until the trial is ultimately brought to its conclusion?
Jeffrey: No, the greatly reduced rate will continue to conclusion.
Philip: OK, thanks very much.
Jeffrey: You bet.
Latoya: Thank you. Our next question is from Rob Cannon of Cannon Capital. Your line is open.
Robert Cannon: Hey, Jeff.
Jeffrey: Hi, Rob.
Robert: Quick question. Is there any timeline, rather, the longevity of the patents that Qualcomm has infringed? In other words, if they design this in as their de facto standard, and that was late last decade, going forward, how much longer does our patent last if they continue to use our technology going forward?
Jeffrey: Yes, well, we've asserted seven patents, and I believe that the latest date on some of those extends into the 2020s some place. I can't remember if it was 2025, 2022, 2026. It's somewhere in the 2020s. I don't have that at my fingertips.
Robert: Good enough.
Jeffrey: But it's a good while longer.
Robert: OK, thanks.
Jeffrey: You bet.
Latoya: Thank you. We have no further questions in the queue at this time. I'll turn the call back over to Mr. Parker for any closing remarks.
Jeffrey: Well, thank you folks for joining us today. I think we have very exciting milestones that will occur in the balance of this year and into the early part of next year. We look forward to bringing you news of those, and we appreciate your continued support. Hope you have a good evening, and if we don't talk to some of you before, have a nice Thanksgiving holiday. Bye‑bye.
Latoya: That does conclude today's conference. If you wish to access the archived audiocast replay of this call, you may do so by visiting the company's website at www.parkervision.com. Thank you.
Transcription by CastingWords