Legal Proceedings	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2020
Legal Proceedings [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	11. Legal Proceedings From time to time, we are subject to legal proceedings and claims which arise in the ordinary course of our business. These proceedings include patent enforcement actions initiated by us against others for the infringement of our technologies, as well as proceedings brought by others against us at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTAB”) and in the Federal Patent Court in Germany in an attempt to invalidate certain of our patent claims. We had several patent enforcement actions in Germany, which has a “loser pay” system whereby the non-prevailing party is responsible for statutory attorney fees and costs. To the extent a loss is probable and reasonably estimable as of the balance sheet date, the estimated loss is recorded in the accompanying condensed consolidated statements of comprehensive loss and included in current liabilities under the heading “statutory court costs” in the condensed consolidated balance sheets. As of June 30, 2020, and December 31, 2019, we have accrued an aggregate of $0.33 million and $0.37 million, respectively, in estimated statutory court costs for our cases in Germany. ParkerVision v. Qualcomm and HTC (Middle District of Florida) We have a patent infringement complaint pending in the Middle District of Florida against Qualcomm and Qualcomm Atheros, Inc. (collectively “Qualcomm”), and HTC (HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc.) (the “Qualcomm Action”) seeking unspecified damages and injunctive relief for infringement of certain of our patents. The defendants have filed counterclaims against us for non-infringement and invalidity for all patents in the case. The case was filed in May 2014 and stayed in February 2016 pending decisions in other cases, including the appeal of a PTAB proceeding with regard to U.S. patent 6,091,940 (“the ‘940 Patent”) asserted in this case. In September 2018, the Federal Circuit issued its decision with regard to the ‘940 Patent and, in January 2019, the court lifted the stay in this case. In July 2019, the court issued an order that granted our proposed selection of patent claims from four asserted patents, including the ‘940 Patent, and denied Qualcomm’s request to limit the claims and patents. The court also agreed that we may elect to pursue accused products that were at issue at the time the case was stayed, as well as new products that were released by Qualcomm during the pendency of the stay. In September 2019, Qualcomm filed a motion for partial summary judgement in an attempt to exclude certain patents from the case, including the ‘940 Patent. The court denied this motion in January 2020. A claim construction hearing was held in this case in August 2015, prior to the stay, and a second claim construction hearing was held in November 2019. In April 2020, the court issued its claim construction order in which the court adopted our proposed construction for seven of the ten disputed terms and adopted slightly modified versions of our proposed construction for the remaining terms. This case was scheduled for trial beginning December 1, 2020; however, in March 2020, in response to the impact of COVID-19, the court stayed all deadlines and discovery responses in the case. In June 2020, the court lifted the temporary stay and issued a new scheduling order moving a number of deadlines, including a change in the trial commencement date to May 3, 2021. Discovery and depositions in this case are currently underway. The law firm of McKool Smith is representing us in this case on a contingency fee basis. ParkerVision v. Apple and Qualcomm (Middle District of Florida) In December 2015, we filed a patent infringement complaint in the Middle District of Florida against Apple, LG, Samsung and Qualcomm alleging infringement of four of our patents. In February 2016, the district court proceedings were stayed pending resolution of a corresponding case filed at the International Trade Commission (“ITC”). In July 2016, we entered into a patent license and settlement agreement with Samsung and, as a result, Samsung was dismissed from the district court action. In March 2017, we filed a motion to terminate the ITC proceedings and a corresponding motion to lift the stay in the district court case. This motion was granted in May 2017. In July 2017, we filed a motion to dismiss LG from the district court case (see ParkerVision v. LG below). Also in July 2017, Qualcomm filed a motion to change venue to the southern district of California, and Apple filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue. In March 2018, the district court ruled against the Qualcomm and Apple motions. The parties also filed a joint motion in March 2018 to eliminate three of the four patents in the case in order to expedite proceedings leaving our U.S. patent 9,118,528 as the only remaining patent in this case. A claim construction hearing was held on August 31, 2018. In July 2019, the court issued its claim construction order in which the court adopted our proposed claim construction for two of the six terms and the “plain and ordinary meaning” on the remaining terms. In addition, the court denied a motion filed by Apple for summary judgment. Fact discovery has closed in this case and a jury trial was scheduled to begin in August 2020. In March 2020, as a result of the impact of COVID-19, the parties filed a motion requesting an extension of certain deadlines in the case. In April 2020, the court stayed this proceeding pending the outcome of ParkerVision v. Qualcomm and HTC. ParkerVision v. LG (District of New Jersey) In July 2017, we filed a patent infringement complaint in the New Jersey against LG for the alleged infringement of the same patents previously asserted against LG in Florida (see ParkerVision v. Apple and Qualcomm above). We elected to dismiss the case in Florida and re-file in New Jersey as a result of a Supreme Court ruling regarding proper venue. In March 2018, the court stayed this case pending a final decision in ParkerVision v. Apple and Qualcomm in the Middle District of Florida. As part of this stay, LG has agreed to be bound by the final claim construction decision in that case. ParkerVision v. LG Electronics (Munich, Germany) In June 2016, we filed a complaint in Munich District Court against LG Electronics Deutschland GmbH, a German subsidiary of LG Electronics, Inc. (“LGE”) seeking damages and injunctive relief for the alleged infringement of the German part of our European patent 1 206 831 (“the ‘831 Patent”). In November 2016, the court concluded that certain LGE products using Qualcomm RF circuitry infringe our patent. The final decision in this case was stayed pending resolution of the corresponding nullity, or validity, action filed by Qualcomm in the German Federal Patent Court in Munich (see Qualcomm v. ParkerVision below). In October 2018, we received an unfavorable decision in the nullity case. As a result, our infringement complaint in this case was dismissed. As the non-prevailing party, we are subject to claims for reimbursement of statutory attorney’s fees and costs in this case which are accrued in the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements as of June 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019. We have posted a bond to cover this cost which is included in “Prepaid expenses” in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets. In April 2020, the court fixed the amounts due for statutory attorney’s fees and costs, and we have requested a release of the bond funds which will fully cover this cost. Qualcomm v. ParkerVision – Federal Patent Court in Germany (as appealed to the German Supreme Court) In August 2016, Qualcomm filed a validity action in Federal Patent Court in Germany against the ’831 Patent. The outcome of this validity action impacts our German patent infringement cases against LGE and Apple as discussed above. On October 17, 2018, following an oral hearing, the court ruled that the ‘831 Patent was invalid. In January 2019, we appealed this decision to the German Supreme Court, but withdrew our appeal in July 2019. As the non-prevailing party, we are subject to claims for reimbursement of statutory fees and costs in this case, which are accrued in the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements as of June 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019. ParkerVision v. Apple (Munich, Germany) – the Apple II case The Apple II case sought damages and injunctive relief for the alleged infringement of the German part of our European patent 1 135 853 (“the ‘853 Patent”). The court ruled in April 2019 that Apple does not infringe our ‘853 Patent. We did not appeal this decision. As the non-prevailing party, we are subject to claims for reimbursement of statutory attorney’s fees and costs in this case which we have accrued in the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements as of June 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019. We have posted a bond to cover this cost which is included in “Prepaid expenses” in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets. Intel v. ParkerVision (Federal Patent Court in Germany) In August 2017, Intel filed a nullity action in German Federal Patent Court claiming invalidity of the ‘853 Patent that is the subject of the Apple II case. In December 2019, following the adverse decision in the Apple II case, we elected not to proceed with a defense in this case. As the non-prevailing party, we are subject to claims for reimbursement of statutory attorney fees and costs in this case which we have accrued in the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements as of June 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019. ParkerVision v. Intel (Western District of Texas) In February 2020, we filed a patent infringement complaint in the Western District of Texas against Intel alleging infringement of eight of our patents. The complaint was amended in May 2020 to add two additional patents. In June 2020, we requested that one of the patents be dropped from this case and filed a second case in the Western District of Texas that included this dismissed patent (see ParkerVision v. Intel II below). Intel’s response to our complaint was filed in June 2020 denying infringement and claiming invalidity of the patents. Intel has also filed a motion to transfer venue which has not yet been ruled on by the court. The Markman, or claim construction hearing, is currently scheduled for January 22, 2021 and the case is scheduled for trial beginning February 7, 2022. The law firm of Goldberg Segalla is representing us in this case on a contingency fee basis. ParkerVision v. Intel II (Western District of Texas) In June 2020, to reduce the number of claims in ParkerVision v. Intel, we filed a second patent infringement complaint in the Western District of Texas against Intel that included a single patent that was dismissed from the original case. In July 2020, we amended our complaint adding two more patents to the case. No dates have yet been set in this case. The law firm of Goldberg Segalla is representing us in this case on a contingency fee basis. ParkerVision v. TCL Technology Group Corp (Central District of California) In May 2020, we filed a patent infringement complaint against Technology Group Corp, a Chinese company, and its U.S. subsidiary, TTE Technology, Inc. (collectively “TCL”) in the Central District of California alleging infringement of nine of our patents. TCL products included in the action incorporate modules that contain certain Wi-Fi chips manufactured by Realtek Semiconductor Corporation, a Taiwanese IC provider. TCL’s response to our complaint is due October 9, 2020. The law firm of Goldberg Segalla is representing us in this case on a contingency fee basis.

11. Legal Proceedings

From time to time, we are subject to legal proceedings and claims which arise in the ordinary course of our business. These proceedings include patent enforcement actions initiated by us against others for the infringement of our technologies, as well as proceedings brought by others against us at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTAB”) and in the Federal Patent Court in Germany in an attempt to invalidate certain of our patent claims. We had several patent enforcement actions in Germany, which has a “loser pay” system whereby the non-prevailing party is responsible for statutory attorney fees and costs. To the extent a loss is probable and reasonably estimable as of the balance sheet date, the estimated loss is recorded in the accompanying condensed consolidated statements of comprehensive loss and included in current liabilities under the heading “statutory court costs” in the condensed consolidated balance sheets. As of June 30, 2020, and December 31, 2019, we have accrued an aggregate of $0.33 million and $0.37 million, respectively, in estimated statutory court costs for our cases in Germany.

ParkerVision v. Qualcomm and HTC (Middle District of Florida)

We have a patent infringement complaint pending in the Middle District of Florida against Qualcomm and Qualcomm Atheros, Inc. (collectively “Qualcomm”), and HTC (HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc.) (the “Qualcomm Action”) seeking unspecified damages and injunctive relief for infringement of certain of our patents. The defendants have filed counterclaims against us for non-infringement and invalidity for all patents in the case. The case was filed in May 2014 and stayed in February 2016 pending decisions in other cases, including the appeal of a PTAB proceeding with regard to U.S. patent 6,091,940 (“the ‘940 Patent”) asserted in this case. In September 2018, the Federal Circuit issued its decision with regard to the ‘940 Patent and, in January 2019, the court lifted the stay in this case. In July 2019, the court issued an order that granted our proposed selection of patent claims from four asserted patents, including the ‘940 Patent, and denied Qualcomm’s request to limit the claims and patents. The court also agreed that we may elect to pursue accused products that were at issue at the time the case was stayed, as well as new products that were released by Qualcomm during the pendency of the stay. In September 2019, Qualcomm filed a motion for partial summary judgement in an attempt to exclude certain patents from the case, including the ‘940 Patent. The court denied this motion in January 2020. A claim construction hearing was held in this case in August 2015, prior to the stay, and a second claim construction hearing was held in November 2019. In April 2020, the court issued its claim construction order in which the court adopted our proposed construction for seven of the ten disputed terms and adopted slightly modified versions of our proposed construction for the remaining terms. This case was scheduled for trial beginning December 1, 2020; however, in March 2020, in response to the impact of COVID-19, the court stayed all deadlines and discovery responses in the case. In June 2020, the court lifted the temporary stay and issued a new scheduling order moving a number of deadlines, including a change in the trial commencement date to May 3, 2021. Discovery and depositions in this case are currently underway. The law firm of McKool Smith is representing us in this case on a contingency fee basis.

ParkerVision v. Apple and Qualcomm (Middle District of Florida)

In December 2015, we filed a patent infringement complaint in the Middle District of Florida against Apple, LG, Samsung and Qualcomm alleging infringement of four of our patents. In February 2016, the district court proceedings were stayed pending resolution of a corresponding case filed at the International Trade Commission (“ITC”). In July 2016, we entered into a patent license and settlement agreement with Samsung and, as a result, Samsung was dismissed from the district court action. In March 2017, we filed a motion to terminate the ITC proceedings and a corresponding motion to lift the stay in the district court case. This motion was granted in May 2017. In July 2017, we filed a motion to dismiss LG from the district court case (see ParkerVision v. LG below). Also in July 2017, Qualcomm filed a motion to change venue to the southern district of California, and Apple filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue. In March 2018, the district court ruled against the Qualcomm and Apple motions. The parties also filed a joint motion in March 2018 to eliminate three of the four patents in the case in order to expedite proceedings leaving our U.S. patent 9,118,528 as the only remaining patent in this case. A claim construction hearing was held on August 31, 2018. In July 2019, the court issued its claim construction order in which the court adopted our proposed claim construction for two of the six terms and the “plain and ordinary meaning” on the remaining terms. In addition, the court denied a motion filed by Apple for summary judgment. Fact discovery has closed in this case and a jury trial was scheduled to begin in August 2020. In March 2020, as a result of the impact of COVID-19, the parties filed a motion requesting an extension of certain deadlines in the case. In April 2020, the court stayed this proceeding pending the outcome of ParkerVision v. Qualcomm and HTC.

ParkerVision v. LG (District of New Jersey)

In July 2017, we filed a patent infringement complaint in the New Jersey against LG for the alleged infringement of the same patents previously asserted against LG in Florida (see ParkerVision v. Apple and Qualcomm above). We elected to dismiss the case in Florida and re-file in New Jersey as a result of a Supreme Court ruling regarding proper venue. In March 2018, the court stayed this case pending a final decision in ParkerVision v. Apple and Qualcomm in the Middle District of Florida. As part of this stay, LG has agreed to be bound by the final claim construction decision in that case.

ParkerVision v. LG Electronics (Munich, Germany)

In June 2016, we filed a complaint in Munich District Court against LG Electronics Deutschland GmbH, a German subsidiary of LG Electronics, Inc. (“LGE”) seeking damages and injunctive relief for the alleged infringement of the German part of our European patent 1 206 831 (“the ‘831 Patent”). In November 2016, the court concluded that certain LGE products using Qualcomm RF circuitry infringe our patent. The final decision in this case was stayed pending resolution of the corresponding nullity, or validity, action filed by Qualcomm in the German Federal Patent Court in Munich (see Qualcomm v. ParkerVision below). In October 2018, we received an unfavorable decision in the nullity case. As a result, our infringement complaint in this case was dismissed. As the non-prevailing party, we are subject to claims for reimbursement of statutory attorney’s fees and costs in this case which are accrued in the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements as of June 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019. We have posted a bond to cover this cost which is included in “Prepaid expenses” in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets. In April 2020, the court fixed the amounts due for statutory attorney’s fees and costs, and we have requested a release of the bond funds which will fully cover this cost.

Qualcomm v. ParkerVision – Federal Patent Court in Germany (as appealed to the German Supreme Court)

In August 2016, Qualcomm filed a validity action in Federal Patent Court in Germany against the ’831 Patent. The outcome of this validity action impacts our German patent infringement cases against LGE and Apple as discussed above. On October 17, 2018, following an oral hearing, the court ruled that the ‘831 Patent was invalid. In January 2019, we appealed this decision to the German Supreme Court, but withdrew our appeal in July 2019. As the non-prevailing party, we are subject to claims for reimbursement of statutory fees and costs in this case, which are accrued in the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements as of June 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019.

ParkerVision v. Apple (Munich, Germany) – the Apple II case

The Apple II case sought damages and injunctive relief for the alleged infringement of the German part of our European patent 1 135 853 (“the ‘853 Patent”). The court ruled in April 2019 that Apple does not infringe our ‘853 Patent. We did not appeal this decision. As the non-prevailing party, we are subject to claims for reimbursement of statutory attorney’s fees and costs in this case which we have accrued in the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements as of June 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019. We have posted a bond to cover this cost which is included in “Prepaid expenses” in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets.

Intel v. ParkerVision (Federal Patent Court in Germany)

In August 2017, Intel filed a nullity action in German Federal Patent Court claiming invalidity of the ‘853 Patent that is the subject of the Apple II case. In December 2019, following the adverse decision in the Apple II case, we elected not to proceed with a defense in this case. As the non-prevailing party, we are subject to claims for reimbursement of statutory attorney fees and costs in this case which we have accrued in the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements as of June 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019.

ParkerVision v. Intel (Western District of Texas)

In February 2020, we filed a patent infringement complaint in the Western District of Texas against Intel alleging infringement of eight of our patents. The complaint was amended in May 2020 to add two additional patents. In June 2020, we requested that one of the patents be dropped from this case and filed a second case in the Western District of Texas that included this dismissed patent (see ParkerVision v. Intel II below). Intel’s response to our complaint was filed in June 2020 denying infringement and claiming invalidity of the patents. Intel has also filed a motion to transfer venue which has not yet been ruled on by the court. The Markman, or claim construction hearing, is currently scheduled for January 22, 2021 and the case is scheduled for trial beginning February 7, 2022. The law firm of Goldberg Segalla is representing us in this case on a contingency fee basis.

ParkerVision v. Intel II (Western District of Texas)

In June 2020, to reduce the number of claims in ParkerVision v. Intel, we filed a second patent infringement complaint in the Western District of Texas against Intel that included a single patent that was dismissed from the original case. In July 2020, we amended our complaint adding two more patents to the case. No dates have yet been set in this case. The law firm of Goldberg Segalla is representing us in this case on a contingency fee basis.

ParkerVision v. TCL Technology Group Corp (Central District of California)

In May 2020, we filed a patent infringement complaint against Technology Group Corp, a Chinese company, and its U.S. subsidiary, TTE Technology, Inc. (collectively “TCL”) in the Central District of California alleging infringement of nine of our patents. TCL products included in the action incorporate modules that contain certain Wi-Fi chips manufactured by Realtek Semiconductor Corporation, a Taiwanese IC provider. TCL’s response to our complaint is due October 9, 2020. The law firm of Goldberg Segalla is representing us in this case on a contingency fee basis.