ParkerVision 2012.04.02 Q4 Conference Call

April 2, 2012

 

Rob Stabiner

Cindy Poehlman

Jeff Parker

Walter Schenker from MAZ Partners

Peter Massaniso of Ponte Vedra Partners

Ira Nathan of Nathan Financial

Philip Anderson of Pinnacle Fund

 

Allie:  Good morning, and welcome to the ParkerVision, Inc. 2011 Fourth Quarter and Year‑End 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 Allie. Good morning, and thank you for joining us. Before we get started, I'd 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 expected achievements and anticipated results. Included in these factors is the ability to maintain technological advances 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 encouraged to not place undue reliance on any forward‑looking statement contained within this conference call. Additional materials containing these and other risks can be found in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

On today's call, we will hear first from Cindy Poehlman, Chief Financial Officer of ParkerVision, who will provide a review of the company's fourth quarter and year‑end results, followed by Jeffrey Parker, Chief Executive Officer of ParkerVision, who will provide an update on the business of the company.

With that, I will now turn the call over to Cindy. Please go ahead.

Cindy Poehlman:  Thank you, Ron, and good morning to those of you joining us for ParkerVision's 2011 fourth quarter and year‑end conference call. Friday, we reported a net loss of $3.9 million or $0.06 per share for the fourth quarter of 2011 compared to a net loss of $3.3 million or $0.07 per share for the same quarter last year. On a year‑to‑date basis, we reported a net loss of $14.6 million or $0.24 per share compared to a net loss of $15 million or $0.35 per share in 2010.

The reduction in our year‑over‑year net loss was primarily the result of decreases in share base compensations offset somewhat by increases in litigation related expenses. The increase in fourth quarter net loss is also a result of these increased litigation expenses.

In 2011, we incurred approximately $650,000 in expenses related to our patent infringement lawsuit against Qualcomm. This amount includes not only legal expenses, but also expert and other related fees. It's important to note that well over half of these expenses occurred to prior to our engagement of McCool Smith as our lead litigator last November, who has taken over the case on a partial contingency basis.

As I'm sure you've seen from our financial statements filed last Friday, we continued to use cash at the rate of approximately $1 million a month. Based on our cash and available for sale securities of $5.2 million at year‑end, our auditors, Price Waterhouse Coopers, included a going-concern paragraph in their auditor opinion for 2011 as they did in 2010. The inclusion of this going-concern language does not have any impact on the carrying value of our assets or liabilities, rather it is cautionary language indicating we will need additional capital at some time during 2012.

We are currently exploring a variety of funding options and are confident that the prospects in front of us for 2012 provide more attractive venues than has been available to us in the recent past.

One last note before I turn things over to Jeff Parker for a business update, on March 23, we received notice from NASDAQ that we have regained compliance with their minimum list price requirement and, therefore, we are now back in compliance with all NASDAQ listings standards.

I'm, of course, available for questions at the end of the call today, but for now, let me turn things over to our CEO, Jeff Parker.

Jeffrey Parker:  Good morning. Thanks, Cindy. I'm pleased to bring you this update today, and there's been a great deal of progress since our last call in November. There are two areas of activity for the company for which I expect many of you are eager to hear an update, namely the progress towards securing an initial order for our D2P CDMA transmit chips, and the status of our infringement litigation suit against Qualcomm. In addition to those two areas, I'm also going to spend a little time today providing you some additional visibility into our intellectual property portfolio and the associated landscape of the fields in which our portfolio resides, namely direct inversion RF transmitters, receivers, and transceivers.

First, an update on our two main areas of activity. As many of you know, we've been working with our base band partner, VIA Telecom towards the goal of securing a first order for our CDMA D2P transmit chip product with one of their handset OEMs. We've invested significant time and resources towards the design and testing of a handset solution that meets the needs of this OEM initially targeting the Asian market.

We've made a great deal of progress towards that goal albeit taking longer than we had expected. The majority of the time has been spent in working closely with VIA and handset OEMs to get the firmware and software in conformity with the needs and requirements of the handset OEM.

This critical step has just recently been completed, and while we expect that there will be minor changes to the software going forward, we're finally where we believe we need to be to satisfy the testing requirements for the OEM. Schedules for testing will be set in the near future, and we would expect that this will result in testing sometime this month.

One of the key benefits of this product from the OEM's perspective is that of lower operating temperatures. Their current traditional solution runs at a temperature of around mid‑130 Fahrenheit when the phone is operating at full RF power out. Our solution drops that temperature to just over 100 degrees Fahrenheit with the same RF power out conditions.

This, of course, is a reflection of our higher efficiency that our product delivers, which also translates into longer talk and data usage times on these phones. Equally important, the higher temperatures translate into design constraints and reliability issues that the OEM has to deal with.

As you might imagine, a 20 or 25 percent drop in temperature is a very meaningful benefit for any handset manufacturer. The best part is that our solution is yet in its infancy. There are significant incremental benefits yet to be gained. In fact, our latest chip just recently back from the fab, dropped the temperature by yet another double‑digit percentage.

I remain optimistic that this OEM will come to a favorable conclusion after completing their testing of our solution and will work with us to start including D2P in some of their products.

Now, let's turn to the status of our litigation against Qualcomm for willful patent infringement. We post on our website all the public filings so that it's easy for you to follow the evolution of this case. I'd like to speak just briefly about a few of the more recent filings you may have seen.

At the end of February, we filed an amended complaint against Qualcomm. You may have noticed that in this amended complaint, we dropped two of the patents from the original complaint and added one patent that was not in the original complaint.

When a patent lawsuit is filed, the plaintiff identifies the infringement based on what is known at the time of the filing. As more information is learned during the course of the case, there are opportunities to refine and amend the complaint, and this is exactly what we did.

The six patents that we have asserted have a number of claims, which we believe Qualcomm's products are infringing in a literal sense. On March 16, Qualcomm filed a response to our amended complaint and filed amended counterclaims. In this amended filing, Qualcomm has dropped its prior asserted claim that it is a co‑owner of our intellectual property. Qualcomm also dropped its claim that we breached our non‑disclosure contract with them.

The next step will be our filing of an amended response to Qualcomm's defensive counterclaims, which is due to be filed in the coming weeks. In addition to their amended counterclaims, Qualcomm also filed on March 16, a motion to dismiss our claims of indirect patent infringement, a motion which we will ask the Court to deny in our response, which you will see filed later today.

It's important to note that these amended filings have not impacted the calendar as established by the Court in February. Discovery has commenced and the next significant court ordered milestone in this case will be briefs that each party will file in preparation for the Markman hearing, and of course, the Markman hearing itself, which is now less than five months away.

As we said previously, the upcoming Markman ruling will define the property rights for the technology that ParkerVision has invested and has the right to exclusively practice. ParkerVision will brief the Court as to what the relevant terms that are used in our claims mean, and we will ask the Court to adopt our definitions accordingly.

Qualcomm will have the same opportunity. The Court will ultimately determine how these relevant terms should be interpreted and defined, and this will establish guidance that the Court will use to guide the jury.

Now, I'd like to turn the topic to some recent activities we've undertaken that I believe will be helpful in providing investors with a better understanding concerning the value of ParkerVision's intellectual property assets.

As you've seen from our past press releases, ParkerVision has been repeatedly recognized by an independent IP analysis firm, The Patent Board, as having built an intellectual property portfolio that's worthy of ranking alongside many of the largest firms in the telecom industry, the list including a who's who of telecom. This is published as a quarterly scorecard in the online Wall Street Journal.

According to The Patent Board, they track and analyze innovation, movement, and the business value of patented assets on a global basis using six criteria to rank companies in the areas of patent quality, technological strengths, and the breadth of impact.

Their most recent quarterly update, which was published on March 16, ranks ParkerVision as number 20, up from number 25 the previous quarter in the telecom and communications sector. Within the six measurement metrics that they use to establish the rankings, out of the top 50, we are number one in the area of science strength, with a score of over 13,000, where the average score is just under 800. In fact, our score is nearly three times of that of the next highest ranked company in this area, which happens to be Qualcomm.

We're also ranked first in the area of research intensity, with a score of 5.27, nearly five times the average score of 1.06. In The Patent Board's third quarter scorecard, we were the only firm to attain three top scores of the six metrics that they use to measure technology innovation, and in the quarter's scorecard, we were the only firm to attain two top scores of the six metrics, and we ranked second in a third metric, which is industry impact.

Our intellectual property portfolio represents the capture of novel inventions, resulting from the significant investments that we've made in research and development. These inventions have brought notable advancements to the way in which wireless communication devices both transmit radio frequency communications, often referred to as RF signals, as well as advancements to the way in which devices receive RF signals.

Many of these inventions have important features that we believe have enabled some of the revolutionary wireless devices that have been introduced over the past few years and will further enable the time that revolutionary wireless devices that are on the drawing boards for the future.

We believe that it is the significance of our inventions, their relevance to the needs of wireless networks, and their foundational nature that continues to establish us as a ranked company on The Patent Board Scorecard. But the Scorecard is derived from a high level view of the intellectual property technology landscape and it covers a wide range of technological areas that are all attributed to the telecom communication sector.

Recently we engaged a firm by the name of ipCapital Group to assist us with the research and tools to provide better visibility into our intellectual property landscape from a more focused view, namely the intellectual property that deals in direct conversion RF transmitters, receivers and transceivers.

I'd like to share with you today a few data points from their research and a little bit about ipCapital Group and the process they employed.

IpCapital was founded by John Cronin in 1998, who is the managing director and chairman. John spent over 17 years at IBM and became its top inventor with over 100 patents and 150 patent publications. He created and ran the IBM Patent Factory, which was essential to helping IBM become number one in US patents, and was part of the team that contributed to the start of and success of IBM's licensing program.

IpCapital offers a variety of consultant services and has conducted over 700 assignments, including assignments for 50 of the Fortune 500. ipCapital spent some time understanding our business and the IP we've developed over the past several years. It then studied the area of direct conversion receivers, transmitters and transceivers, focusing exclusively on patents in the United States.

Using their expertise along with their proprietary tools and knowledge base, ipCapital Group located, reviewed and analyzed approximately 2,000 relevant patents in this area. They spent a considerable amount of time reading certain areas of each of those patents.

Their findings were directionally similar to that of The Patent Board in that ParkerVision finds itself among a distinguished list of the largest companies in the wireless communication space. However, this list is a bit different since it's narrowed to just our area of practice.

One of the results of their study is a ranking of the top 10 patent holders in our specific area of practice. They found that ParkerVision ranks number two in terms of the number of patent filings alongside, in no particular order, Intel, Ericsson, Broadcom, Samsung, Qualcomm, Panasonic, Nokia, Motorola and Texas Instruments.

Another of their findings is that 250 companies cite at least one ParkerVision patent within their own patent filings, and 15 of these companies cite ParkerVision patents numerous times, in some cases as many as 70 citations.

This metric is an indicator of the number of significant companies developing in this field, as well as the prevalence of ParkerVision's IP in this area. We believe this and other ipCapital Group findings are relevant in that it helps us verify that the innovations we have developed have a great deal of value to an industry that has now become the largest single application for semiconductors ‑‑ the wireless communications industry.

This is an industry that had revenue of over $60 billion last year. Within this industry, the mobile wireless devices category is the single largest consumer product in terms of unit volume, with forecasts predicting volumes of over seven billion units in use worldwide by the end of this year and still growing.

Today, many of the wireless products that require quality RF, such as mobile phones, wireless networking devices and the like, are using direct conversion for at least transmit, received or both.

When our CTO, David Sorrells, forecasted such use in the early 2000s, he was met with skepticism and oftentimes ridicule, because it was not obvious to the industry how direct conversion could replace the quality of the legacy superhets and the analog mixers that the industry had relied upon for so many decades. Today, nobody would question that this has now become commonplace, and it is in certain practical embodiments of this that ParkerVision owns a great deal of highly valuable intellectual property.

The last topic I'll address before we open this call to your questions is with regard to capital needs. As you can see from our recently filed financials, our operating costs remain fairly constant. We've been exploring ways to add capital to our balance sheet, things such as various non‑diluted financing, some from associated financings with our IP, as well as possible debt financing or a small offering of our common stock, or perhaps a combination of all of the above.

We are evaluating the best and least diluted way to continue financing ParkerVision. We're confident that as investors continue to learn of the value we've built in our innovations and the resulting products that we will continue to find good sponsorship and support from a wide range of investment community sources.

So that's my update to you. Now I'd like to open this call for your questions, please.

Allie:  Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, if you have a question at this time, please press star then one on your touchtone telephone. If your question has been answered or you wish to remove yourself from the queue, please press the pound key. One moment while we wait for questions.

[silence]

Allie:  Our first question comes from Walter Schenker of MAZ Partners. Please go ahead.

[18:30]

Walter Schenker:  Jeffrey.

Jeffrey:  Good morning, Walter.

Walter:  As a non‑lawyer and a non‑technology person, which gives me I guess either two pluses or two minuses, if in fact hundreds, 200 or 300 companies have cited your technology or your patents and a much smaller number have cited but a significant number have cited your technology and patents many times in what they have done, why would this not have generated over time inquiries to you as to the use of your patents or the possible licensing of your patents in a patent licensing stream?

Jeffrey:  Well, that's a great question. You know Walter, one of the things, starting in the late 2000s, that the company began to experience were unsolicited calls from patent brokers who kept calling us asking if we were interested in perhaps selling some of our patents. We never could get answers as to who it was they were representing, if anybody, or if those were just cold canvassing types of calls trying to drum up business for themselves and then go out and try to find a buyer. So I don't know for sure why those calls started coming to us in the late 2000s. But it did stimulate our curiosity and is one of the factors that caused us to start looking deeply into, is it possible that some our intellectual property has been used by companies without informing us?

With that activity, that led us to find the information that turned up Qualcomm is an infringer. So you know, I can't speak to why companies might not turn to a patent holder and say, "We're interested in using your technology. Can we work something out?"

But I can only also tell you that people in the industry, both IP boutiques who help companies figure out ways of working with their intellectual property and some of the litigators that I've worked with tell me that this situation we find ourselves in is not particularly unique, in that people have adopted our technology without informing us.

But now we know. As you can see from some of the recent activities we described in this conference call, we are active in trying to get our arms around what we own and how we can better commercialize that.

Walter:  OK. Then just moving to VIA, if in fact the tests this month do not, which has not been the history but let's take the positive side, do not come up with any meaningful problems with the software and the chip, can you just give us some sense as to what the timeframe or just steps even, if not a timeline, would then follow from that?

Jeffrey:  Well, assuming that the testing goes as you described, which is it doesn't come up with anything that is irregular or unacceptable, our next step will be to sit with the OEM and to aggressively solicit them for an order to incorporate our products into their products. We've never been anything other than very straightforward with them that our hope for all this activity is to start getting them to incorporate our products into their products. They've never told us that that isn't their intention. They've always said, "Show us on our boards that your product does what it does on your demonstration product or company demonstration boards, and then we can start to work with you to figure out where the right place is to get started."

The thing that I continue to find very encouraging is they, the OEM, continue to tell us that this significant reduction in heat that we enable is a very attractive big deal for them and for any handset company. Heat that, at the temperature that these power amplifiers that are currently being used generate, is a real issue in the reliability of these phones and in the manufacturer in terms of where you need to put certain things and keep them away from other things.

I will tell you that, coincidentally, it was a fairly hot day here in Jacksonville yesterday. My son had a couple friends over and they went off on a little trek in a park here in Jacksonville. I said, "Hey, please, one of you take a phone so we can reach you if we need to reach you." I couldn't reach him and the kid with the phone said, "Mr. Parker, I'm sorry but my iPhone kept coming up saying it shut down because it was too hot." I didn't believe him and he showed it to me. Sure enough, there was a message right on there.

So heat is a big issue and we take heat right out. As good as the existing product is, these next generation chips, which we've just gotten back, are even more stunningly better. I don't want to go into the specifics right now of how much lower the temperature is, but it's, I think, spectacular. So I'm very optimistic. But let's get through the testing and then we'll get onto an aggressive solicitation of an order from these guys.

Walter:  If in fact you get into the first phone, the applications and the benefits would still be broadly applicable across virtually all their phones.

Jeffrey:  Absolutely. Absolutely. And in fact, if you read a lot of the articles recently about the 4G LTE deployment, it is a big problem, the heat and the power consumption and getting enough power out. A lot of these products aren't getting the maximum power that you're allowed to transmit because the transmit chains are so inefficient that they've got to make the tradeoff between heat, battery life and transmit power. We've certainly divorced the traditional relationship of those three and a lot of people get what they want without having to make those compromises in 3G, but even better in 4G. Yeah, it's definitely broadly applicable.

Walter:  In stating the obvious, and I'll get off, in just a statement. It would be nice on the next conference call, if we can discuss an order as opposed to how close we still are.

Jeffrey:  Walter, it would be better than nice. I agree with you 100 percent.

Walter:  Thank you, Jeff.

Jeffrey:  Thank you.

Allie:  Our next question comes from Peter Massaniso of Ponte Vedra Partners. Please go ahead.

[25:20]

Peter Massaniso:  Good morning, Jeff. How are you?

Jeffrey:  Good morning, Peter.

Peter:  A two part question, has to do with your lawsuit and your current offerings. Are the patents that are involved in the lawsuit still covered in products being currently sold by Qualcomm? Second part of that question is, is the technology you are currently trying to sell to VIA and it's OEMs, is it the same technology or is it totally different?

Jeffrey:  On the first question, the patents cover products that Qualcomm has been shipping, historically. We have tracked it back to a part of 2007. Of course, through discovery, we may learn of additional dates even beyond that, but currently, 2007. Yes, it is still in products that they are shipping today, and to the best of our beliefs, is in products which they have plans to ship in the future. So, yes, those patents cover all that time continuum.

As far as what we are currently selling to the handset OEM working with VIA, that is not the same technology. The technology that Qualcomm have been accused of infringing is a receiver technology. We refer to it as "RF energy sampling," and that's what they've incorporated.

In the handset OEM relationship, we are using a transmit technology that we've developed. It's a different technology, a different set of patents, all together.

Peter:  Thank you.

Jeffrey:  Thank you.

Allie:  Our next question comes from Ira Nathan of Nathan Financial. Please, go ahead.

[27:16]

Ira Nathan:  Good morning, Jeff. How are you?

Jeffrey:  Good morning, Ira. I'm doing well. I hope you are also.

Ira:  Yes, I am. Thank you. A couple of questions, really interrelated. What, if you can discuss, is your agreement with the lawyers, as to the fee and sharing arrangement?

Jeffrey:  Basically, all I'm in a position to share with you this morning is, they have taken this case on what's called a partial contingency, where they've reduced their fees to us significantly. In so doing, we share with them a percentage of any award or settlement that comes out of this particular case. The sharing is scaled, as the award is higher, the percentage that they receive is lower, although the gross number still gets bigger.

I thought they came up with a very fair arrangement with us and one that I don't think is particularly groundbreaking in this industry. Other litigation firms, who felt enthusiastic and positive about the strength of the case, have done similar.

Ira:  Second part would be, has the law firm had any discussions with Qualcomm in regards to a possible settlement?

Jeffrey:  I don't think I really could comment on that, but they do have discussions with the Qualcomm legal representatives. They have those conversations fairly often, because the court really tries to encourage the parties to try to work out differences of opinion, in various briefings, and claims, et cetera. I know that our legal staff and Qualcomm's legal representatives talk pretty often.

Ira:  Thank you.

Jeffrey:  Thank you.

Ira:  Good luck.

Jeffrey:  Thanks.

Allie:  Again, ladies and gentlemen, if you've a question, please press star, then one, now. One moment while we wait for any further questions. Our next question comes from Philip Anderson of Pinnacle. Please go ahead.

[29:46]

Philip Anderson:  Morning, Jeff.

Jeffrey:  Good morning, Phil.

Philip:  Jeff, I'd like to talk about evidence this morning. On the tab, on the website, the company has been thoughtful enough to provide the court filings. Reading those, I can put together a lot of the pieces as to how your relationship with Qualcomm began, and how information was exchanged, going back many years. I'd like to understand, when we can expect to see, through the discovery process, some of the evidence that would be used as the key points in the trial.

Before you comment on that, can you explain what a CircuitVision report is, on the filing? On one of the three filings, made March 16th, Qualcomm placed a CircuitVision report. Is this a specific chip? I'd like to understand what that report includes.

Jeffrey:  Sure. One of the things that our attorneys suggested is that they engage a firm to take the findings that we had found on our own in public documentation, and to use those findings to reverse engineer some Qualcomm chips, which they purchased in phones. There's a firm that they engaged, who can take those chips and then using the public documentation, was able to target specifically where the receiver implementation in those chips was located, and reverse engineered ‑‑ through a very advanced process, they deconstruct the semiconductor chip. They go backwards, starting from the finished chip and one layer at a time, deconstruct it, which is a pretty amazing process. In so doing, they can create the schematic from the devices that have been built on that chip.

What they found when they did that, was that the schematic from that reverse engineering process matches the public documents which were found, so that everything corroborates. Everything is the same.

That was a piece of work that the litigators felt was just a good verification of the assumptions. To make sure, that as we that pursue this action against Qualcomm, that we know 100 percent that they are infringing in exactly what they're doing. That's what that CircuitVision analysis is all about.

Philip:  If one was to take a look at the schematics that this company produced, versus the schematic... I don't know whether Qualcomm has those schematics or not, or to make them publicly available. My real question is, is it obvious to someone, once you look at the schematic, which this report produced, "But hey, that's our stuff," and "Hey, it's in their chip?" Is it fairly obvious or do you have to be very technically competent to make the comparison?

Jeffrey:  You have to be skilled in the art of circuits, and circuit design, and being able to read circuits, and understand what those circuits do, relative to the use of that, in the case of the receiver. Yeah, you have to be skilled in the art. But I would say to you, that someone who is skilled in the art certainly can look at those schematics and see exactly what they're doing. And look at what we're patented, and see that what they're doing matches what we patented. That would be one of the significant basis for the case.

Philip:  This is something which obviously would be part of a trial. How does this piece of evidence factor in to the process, the Markman Hearing, and ultimately the trial?

Jeffrey:  I don't know how it factors into the Markman Hearing. I would imagine, again, McKool Smith will be responsible for laying forth that strategy. I imagine, McKool Smith, during the trial, will use this information to help the judge and the jury see clearly, that what we believe is going on inside Qualcomm's products is, in fact, going on. Although, they may also learn in discovery, or Qualcomm will verify, certain things that, maybe, that CircuitVision analysis won't even be necessary.

Maybe Qualcomm will provide enough information that will say, "OK, they acknowledge that this is what they're doing. Now let's get on with the discussion about why that infringes the claims of ParkerVision patents ."

As far as the Markman Hearing goes, that focused, to the best of my knowledge, exclusively on the parties making recommendations to the court, on what the key terms in our patent claims mean.

We will put forth a brief before the Markman Hearing, for the court to review. So will Qualcomm. We will specify what we see those terms mean. Qualcomm will have their own views. Then the court, the judge, in a hearing, will hear both parties in an oral dissertation.

Then the court will go off and make a decision. They'll come back and they'll say, "OK, we've adopted the terms from ParkerVision, accordingly," or "We've adopted the terms from Qualcomm, accordingly," or they may have their own opinion on some terms.

It will be from that ruling that the claim terms will be defined. That's exactly how the jury will be guided. The Markman is considered to be an important piece of a patent case because, obviously, the claims are what we are afforded by the patent, to protect our invention.

Therefore, we would want to make sure that those claims are construed correctly. Construed correctly, we believe, will clearly show that Qualcomm is an infringer.

Philip:  Is the Markman Hearing open to the public?

Jeffrey:  Yes.

Philip:  If somebody wanted to come down to Jacksonville in the middle of August, and spend some time, that's something which is available?

Jeffrey:  If somebody wants to sit through the 95 degree heat and the 98 percent humidity in Jacksonville, they're welcome to come join us, absolutely.

Philip:  One last question. You mentioned earlier, that public documentation was, if not the initial source, one of the original sources, for the suspicion that Qualcomm had been infringing on our technology. When can investors expect to be able to read that documentation, or have it referred to, presumably in court documents, as part of the discovery process?

Jeffrey:  That's actually a really good question and I honestly don't have the answer, but I will find out. It' a good question, I don't know.

Philip:  Sometime between now and August, presumably?

Jeffrey:  You mean between now and the Markman Hearing?

Philip:  Yeah.

Jeffrey:  I don't know if it will be keyed between now and the Markman Hearing, or if it will be after that. I really don't know but I'll find out. It's a good question.

Philip:  OK, thanks very much.

Jeffrey:  Thank you.

Allie:  We have no further questions in the queue at this time. I'd like to turn the conference back to Mr. Parker for any closing remarks.

Jeffrey:  Thanks folks, for joining us on such an early update, today. On behalf of everyone here at ParkerVision, we continue to really appreciate your support. I can tell all of you that, personally, I think, every day here at the company is getting more and more encouraging. It's a great opportunity we have with the technologies we've developed in front of us.

Have a great week and thanks again. Bye‑bye.

Allie:  That does concludes today's conference call. If you wish to access 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