Skip to content
Andrew Tobias
Andrew Tobias

Money and Other Subjects

  • Home
  • Books
  • Videos
  • Bio
  • Archives
  • Links
  • Me-Mail
Andrew Tobias
Andrew Tobias

Money and Other Subjects

Parker And Patents

October 6, 2022October 5, 2022

Long-time readers will be familiar with the ParkerVision saga.  Some of you may own shares.  I own a zillion.

You may also recall that many years ago a jury awarded PRKR $174 million in its suit against Qualcomm, but that — far from awarding additional damages as punishment for “willfulness” (as, up to treble damages, he would have been allowed to do) — the  judge waited several months and then inexplicably (at least to our side) tossed the whole thing out.

Recently another judge — who we think will be overturned on appeal — refused to allow a second PRKR case against Qualcomm, involving different patents, even to reach a jury.

So apart from some small lawsuits, two big ones remain:

> This one, against Qualcomm, if the judge is overturned on appeal.

> A smaller but still large suit against Intel.

The Intel suit was recently delayed from December to February . . . but for a lovely reason.  Our lawyers, having lately become convinced that Intel willfully (i.e., knowingly) violated PRKR patents, petitioned the judge to allow them to add willfulness to PRKR’s claim.  The judge read their reasons and said okay, giving Intel that extra time to prepare its defense.

What were the lawyers’ reasons?  Against Intel’s wishes, they’ve just now been made public.

It’s dense going, but Paragraph 63 says that Intel was interested in purchasing patents from Skyworks, a multi-billion-dollar leader in the field of wireless technology, and that as part of their back and forth, Skyworks identified for Intel 74 ParkerVision patents as being the dominant patents in the field.

So PRKR held the dominant patents . . . as acknowledged by a leading, third-party authority . . . Intel knew this and profited magnificently from PRKRs inventions (or so PRKR claims) . . . yet PRKR was never paid a dime.

Might a jury decide in February that a great many dimes are due?

Might the judge decide the theft of intellectual property was willful, and double or triple the damages to send Big Tech a message?

Might a different judge eventually decide the same thing with respect to Qualcomm?

I have no clue, but a zillion reasons to hope so.

 

Post navigation

← Fareed Zakaria On Immigration
Tom Friedman: →

Quote of the Day

"A cult is a religion with no political power."

Tom Wolfe

Subscribe

 Advice

The Only Investment Guide You'll Ever Need

"So full of tips and angles that only a booby or a billionaire could not benefit." -- The New York Times

Help

MYM Emergency?

Too Much Junk?

Tax Questions?

Ask Less

Recent Posts

  • Three Good Ones

    June 4, 2025
  • "A Disgusting Abomination" Indeed

    June 4, 2025
  • Move To Canada? Help Design My Sign? Save The IRS?

    June 2, 2025
  • 90 Must-See Seconds

    June 1, 2025
  • "Those Who Cannot Remember The Past . . ."

    May 31, 2025
  • Heartwarming / Thought-Provoking / Silver Lining -- And Despair

    May 30, 2025
  • Destroy The FBI; Protect The High-Jump!

    May 28, 2025
  • George Orwell, Joe, And Carl

    May 28, 2025
  • Harvard - UPDATED

    May 27, 2025
  • Harvard -- UPDATED

    May 27, 2025
Andrew Tobias Books
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
©2025 Andrew Tobias - All Rights Reserved | Website: Whirled Pixels | Author Photo: Tony Adams