1 | P a g e

z

Investment Thesis ▪ We believe that America is living through the second Gilded Age with few select

monopolies ruling the largest portion of the economy in over a century. However, growing competition from China and the U.S.’ weakening IP prowess suggest that we are now at an inflection point. The first Gilded Age – from 1870s to about 1900 – was marked by a period of strong economic growth and the emergence of monopolies like Standard Oil, the sugar trust, the financial and railroad interests, etc. The current economic set up is reminiscent of that period with large companies across the economic spectrum – and especially those in the tech space – dominating market share and profit pools and muscling smaller companies out by their sheer financial and legal clout. However, the rise of these tech giants has come at the cost of innovation – the core engine that has driven the rise in the country’s economic prosperity – and the U.S. now lags countries in Europe and Asia on innovation and intellectual property protection and faces an ever rising threat from China to its IP. As a result, we believe that the current trend of big tech domination is unsustainable and that we are on the cusp of a trend reversal driven by market, regulatory, and legal forces.

▪ We believe that radio frequency technology pioneer ParkerVision (PRKR) is the prime candidate to benefit from this inflection – the company is currently battling what could be the biggest IP case in U.S. history. PRKR’s inventions revolutionized the RF transceiver which is a critical element of every wireless device. PRKR’s Direct to Data (D2D) technology and patented inventions created new RF up and downconverters and replaced fundamental circuit architectures. D2D from PRKR ushered in high performance single chip direct conversion RF transceivers that helped make today’s phone smarter by using tiny transceivers for super-fast data speeds and are the driving force behind the explosion in smartphone sales over the last two decades. However, despite its inventions, PRKR has not been rewarded and compensated for the technology it developed, which is currently being used in products made by Qualcomm (QCOM), HTC (TPE:2498), Intel (INTC), Apple (AAPL), LG (KRX:066570), Samsung (KRX: 005930), and TCL Technology Group (SHE: 000100). This has led to PRKR filing lawsuits against these companies seeking damages (that we estimate total $2 Bn+) and injunctive relief for infringement of certain of its IP.

▪ There are multiple indicators that point to a high probability of PRKR’s success in its legal efforts. First is the April 2020 Markman order in the case against QCOM and HTC, where the judge adopted PRKR’s position as to the proper interpretation of the majority of the key terms. Historically the party winning the Markman has a high probability of winning the jury trial. Second is the evidence trail and initial jury award in PRKR’s first case against QCOM. Other reasons include doubts over the constitutionality of the PTAB, patent eligibility in light of the 2018 Berkheimer v. HP Inc. case, and progress on the STRONGER Patents Act.

▪ We estimate a damages award totaling $1.6 Bn in favor of PRKR in the QCOM case and net accrual to shareholders at $927 Mn ($7.17/share). Our model suggests 1.75Bn infringing units and average damages per unit of $1.44, implying total damages of ~$2.5Bn. Discounting this number by 66% (probability of win per historical data by PwC) results in a damages award of $1.6Bn. Adjusting for legal and other fees, we estimate the net accrual to shareholders at $927Mn, accounting for full dilution expectations and a 30% settlement rate (industry average), implying that the expected per share accrual to investors is $7.17/share (~14x PRKR’s current market price).

▪ This report focuses on the litigation and damages assessment. In future updates we will analyze PRKR’s going concern. We view the stock with one-sided optionality as current value reflects going concern with no attribution of litigation damages.

ParkerVision, Inc. (PRKR) Initiation of Coverage

Monday, June 08, 2020

VALUATION

Current Price $0.46 52 Week Range $0.07– 0.65 Market Cap ($-Mn) 27 Ent. Value ($-Mn) 29 Shares Out. (Mn) 59 Short Int (% Flt) 0% Daily Vol 76K P/Book NM EV/ Sales NM EV/EBITDA NM P/E (CY20) NM

FUNDAMENTALS

Sales (CY19) $74K EBITDA (CY19) ($6.4M) FCF (CY19) ($3.4M) Insider Owner 12% Inst. Owners 10% Retail Owners 87% ROIC NM Net Debt ($-Mn) $2

RELATIVE PERFORMANCE

CONTACT

Peter Wright

Intro-act

617-454-1088

peter@intro-act.com

Please refer to disclaimers at the end

of this report for more information

about Intro-act, and this report.

2 | P a g e

Company Overview

ParkerVision (PRKR) — The Radio Frequency (RF) Technology Pioneer

▪ ParkerVision, Inc. is a leader in proprietary radio frequency (RF) technologies. With decades of RF technology expertise,

PRKR designs, develops and markets advanced wireless solutions for current and next generation communications

networks. Protected by a highly-regarded worldwide patent portfolio, the company’s solutions for wireless transfer of RF

waveforms addresses society’s needs for a broad range of wirelessly connected devices that deliver high levels of RF

performance, coupled with best-in-class power consumption. ParkerVision is headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida.

▪ ParkerVision’s inventions revolutionized the RF transceiver which is a critical element of every wireless device. According

to ResearchAndMarkets the RF transceiver market is predicted to attain a size of $18.5 billion in shipments by 2024 growing

at a CAGR of 11.6%1. “The emerging IoT technology, surging use of wireless communications devices, swift digitization,

heavy adoption of smartphones, increasing dependence on technology in the daily routine, and growing deployment of

upgraded devices in the defense, telecommunication, automotive, and transportation industries are expected to boost the

RF transceiver market growth during the forecast period.”

▪ Technology background: The RF transceiver in a smartphone is what detects and extracts data from an RF signal that has

been sent— such as from a cellphone tower; referred to as the RF receiver, and what creates and sends a RF signal from a

smartphone – such as back to a cellphone tower; and is referred to as a RF transmitter. The RF receiver processes the

received signal in a way that extracts the data that has been “carried” on the RF signal, also referred to as an RF carrier

signal.

▪ RF receivers for smartphones must work over a very large range of signal strength, from the smallest possible RF

carrier signal when the smartphone is the greatest distance from a cell phone tower, to the strongest RF carrier

signal when it is close to the tower. This critical operational requirement is referred to as linearity and dynamic

range.

▪ To achieve this level of performance it becomes even more challenging as the RF carrier signal is used to carry

large amounts of data such as in 4G and 5G smartphones.

▪ At the heart of a RF receiver is the “downconverter” which processes the RF carrier signal to a lower frequency

signal where it is practical to extract the data that has been carried and the “upconverter” which processes the

data signal to a higher frequency (RF) where it is carried to a remote location. The capabilities and performance

of the RF downconverter and upconverter are critical elements to what kind of RF transceiver can be built and the

application it can be used for.

▪ ParkerVision’s patented inventions of RF Energy Transfer Sampling downconversion and Pulse Shaping RF

upconversion technologies enabled the creation of high performance single-chip RF transceivers. These

transceivers exceed the performance of legacy transceivers while eliminating large numbers of external parts,

reduce power consumption, are a fraction of the size of previous transceivers – all of which depended on and

were limited by old traditional RF up and downconverters.

▪ ParkerVision RF Technologies.

▪ Example Problem: Old mobile phones were bulkier, drained batteries quicker, had painfully slow data speeds,

and could only work in certain locations.

1 https://finance.yahoo.com/news/global-rf-transceiver-market-anticipated-145622530.html

3 | P a g e

▪ ParkerVision was the company that helped change that. In the late 1990’s ParkerVision invented Energy Transfer

Sampling, also marketed as “Direct to Data” or D2D. The D2D patented inventions created new RF up and

downconverters and replaced fundamental circuit architectures that had been used for almost 100 years in

transceivers, and for decades in the mobile phones that preceded the smartphone. D2D from ParkerVision

ushered in high performance single chip direct conversion RF transceivers. Direct conversion is where in a single

processing step an RF carrier is downconverted to the data and also in a single step data is upconverted to a RF

carrier. High performance direct conversion transceivers based on ParkerVision’s technologies helped make

today’s phone smarter with tiny high-performance RF transceivers for super-fast data speeds.

Chart 1: Legacy Wired Communication: Audio Signal is at Low Frequency

Source: Intro-act, Company

Chart 2: High Performance RF Transceivers Using ParkerVision’s RF Energy Transfer Sampling Downconversion & Pulse Shaping RF Upconversion Technologies

Source: Intro-act, Company

▪ ParkerVision pioneered new direct upconversion and downconversion technologies.

▪ Historically, multiple up and downconverters, referred to as super-heterodyne technology was the mainstay for

handset transceivers. High performance was achieved through multiple frequency conversion steps using

conventional continuous analog mixers that required high power levels for the desired sensitivity and linearity.

This approach was impractical for the higher volume mobile handsets that sought to use lower-cost and low-

power-CMOS based applications, then, and for the highly integrated, deep submicron CMOS transceivers and

SoCs, which are found in today’s wireless devices. The industry turned to direct conversion analog mixers to meet

4 | P a g e

the needs of a rapidly growing cellphone market; however, these types of RF transceivers were short lived as the

insatiable demands for more users, higher data rates, and more features packed into Smartphones quickly

outgrew the capabilities of what could be expected from RF transceivers based on traditional up and

downconverters.

▪ ParkerVision created a fundamental shift in RF signal processing. Moving the industry away from reliance on

ages old continuous analog circuits, ParkerVision invented the first, and to this day only, RF sampling technology

that could meet the needs of the challenging cellphone standards 3G, 4G, 5G and beyond. Inventing RF energy

sampling technologies, PRKR was also the first to develop a practical, matched-filter correlator for frequency

downconversion resulting in a breakthrough in high performance while significantly lowering transceiver cost and

size. Recognizing that the entire RF transceiver required a new foundation ParkerVision also invented a new

transmitter architecture, based on pulse shaping upconversion. Both the up and downconversion technologies

embodying new switching techniques which were a perfect fit with the ever-shrinking transistors of low-cost

CMOS semiconductor chips. The technologies provide the highest sensitivity, bandwidth, and dynamic range that

are available for direct-conversion transceivers, in addition to benefits in selectivity and rejection of interference.

These benefits are enhanced by eliminating RF signal division between I and Q paths which in legacy transceivers

required splitters (receiver) and combiners (transmitter). The resulting lower power consumption, greater

operational frequency bandwidth and dynamic range, and better modulation and demodulation accuracy ushered

in completely new RF transceivers which are currently in the vast majority of Smartphones and many other

wireless devices.

▪ The technology has been proven to be compact and cost-effective in CMOS technology. It enables multimode

transceivers to be implemented in ever-decreasing CMOS geometries and voltage levels, while facilitating ever-

increasing levels of functional integration. By reducing redundancy, silicon area shrinks. By improving dynamic

range, fewer resonant structures and external SAW or BAW filters are required. Now, the technology is being

applied to a wide range of applications, including handsets, embedded modems, and tablets, that must

accommodate various combinations of GSM, EDGE, CDMA, UMTS, TD-CDMA, and LTE standards.

Chart 3: Features of PRKR’s RF transceiver technologies Chart 4: Benefits of PRKR’s RF transceiver technologies

▪ Low Power Consumption

▪ High Sensitivity, linearity & dynamic range

▪ Broad frequency operation

▪ Wideband channel capabilities

▪ Low Voltage Operation

▪ Small Footprint

▪ Ease of integration and reduced cost

▪ Longer general-use battery life

▪ Fewer dropped connections, more sustained high-data-rate demodulation

▪ Resistance to interference

▪ Integration within decreasing CMOS geometries

Source: Intro-act, Company

▪ ParkerVision’s creation of the D2D technology enabled RF transceivers to be built from low-cost CMOS computer chips.

These chips use little power consumption, have the agility to work over worldwide bands of radio frequencies, and can

process broadband channels for high data rates from streaming video and big data. ParkerVision’s inventions helped create

complete wireless systems on a CMOS chip.

▪ D2D from ParkerVision has enabled the RF receivers to work in unison with many other critical phone

technologies. The smartphone revolution has been made possible by the convergence of several technologies

including better batteries, and the speed and capabilities of digital computer processing combined with advanced

RF receivers based on D2D. Thanks to ParkerVision’s investment in R&D, consumers today have smartphones with

super-fast data transfer speeds and phones that work when and where we need them.

5 | P a g e

▪ ParkerVision’s Radio-Frequency Integrated Circuit (RFIC): PV5870 Demodulator – Modulator

▪ ParkerVision developed the PV5870 as an example of what its up and downconversion technologies can achieve.

▪ The PV5870 is a direct conversion quadrature modulator / demodulator designed for communication systems

requiring excellent linearity with some of the lowest power consumption in the industry. The device is optimized

for wide- band applications with RF inputs ranging from 400 -3600MHz.

▪ Benefits of the component include amplitude and phase balance, low conversion loss with low noise figure, very

low DC offset, and low power dissipation. Intermodulation products IM2 and IM3 can be optimized through

adjustment. RF, LO and baseband interfaces are fully differential. The baseband outputs of the device can

interface directly to baseband amplifiers or low-pass filters.

▪ The linearity of the PV5870 direct conversion quadrature demodulator can improve receiver dynamic range and

significantly reduce bill of materials cost by eliminating the need for IF signal processing components.

▪ Performance as a modulator is equally impressive. Sideband suppression of >40dBc and carrier leakage of <-

40dBm are achievable without adjustment for 900MHz applications. The on-channel LO input has a broad

operating range from -6dBm to +6dBm. The modulator core operates from a 1.8V power supply while providing

an OIP3 of +21dBm and OIP2 of +60dBm along with a P1dB of +7.5dBm at 900MHz. The LO path uses a +3V power

supply that can be regulated as low as 2.85V.

Chart 5: ParkerVision’s PV5870 Demodulator – Modulator

Source: Intro-act, Company. *Performance results are specific to this I/Q mod/demo implementation and are not representative of the performance limits of the technologies employed or of a complete RF transceiver.

▪ As of December 31, 2019, PRKR had approximately 130 active U.S. and foreign patents related to its RF technologies.

These patents belong to the following four categories 1) RF receiver technologies, 2) RF transmitter technologies, 3) RF

power amplification technologies, and 4) Efficiency for information processing in communication channels. The company’s

current portfolio of issued patents have expirations ranging from 2020 to 2036. In addition, it has a number of recently

expired patents that the company believes continue to have significant economic value as a result of PRKR’s ability to assert

past damages in its patent enforcement actions. PRKR estimates the economic lives of its patents to be the shorter of fifteen

years from issuance or twenty years from the earliest application date.

6 | P a g e

The Litigations – Background & Timeline

▪ When developing consumer video cameras, however, ParkerVision encountered a problem – the power and battery

requirements for RF communications made a cost effective, consumer-sized product impractical. So, Mr. Sorrells and

ParkerVision’s engineering team began researching ways to solve this problem. At the time, a decades-old RF technology

called super-heterodyne dominated the wireless products industry. But this technology was not without its own problems

– the circuity was large and required significant power.

▪ From 1995 through 1998, ParkerVision engineers developed an innovative method of RF direct conversion by a process

of sampling an RF carrier signal and transferring energy to create a downconverted baseband signal. After creating

prototype chips and conducting tests, ParkerVision soon realized that its technology led to improved RF receiver

performance, lower power consumption, reduced size and integration benefits. In other words, RF receivers could be built

smaller, cheaper, and with greater improved performance that would lead to higher data rates.

▪ ParkerVision’s innovations did not stop there. ParkerVision went on to develop additional RF downconversion

technologies, RF upconversion technologies, and other related direct-conversion technologies. ParkerVision also

developed complementary wireless communications technologies that involved interactions, processes, and controls

between the baseband processor and the transceiver, which improved and enhanced the operation of transceivers that

incorporate ParkerVision’s downconverter and upconverter technologies. To date, ParkerVision has been granted over 200

patents related to its innovations including, the patents-in-suit.

▪ In 2000, ParkerVision acquired Orlando based Signal Technologies (STI) which specialized in product development and

engineering design work for wireless communications. STI President and Founder Gregory Rawlins had conducted research

in direct-conversion technology and multiband, multimode radios for U.S. government agencies and Fortune 500

companies. Leading ParkerVision’s semiconductor chip development team, he became a named inventor on additional

ParkerVision direct-conversion technologies and a lead inventor on other ParkerVision innovations. Dr. Rawlins is also an

adjunct professor at the University of Central Florida.

▪ After spending millions of dollars developing RF technologies, ParkerVision sought to partner with larger, well-

established companies who could use ParkerVision’s innovations to manufacture highly integrated circuits on a large scale

for the consumer market. In the late 1990s, ParkerVision began meeting with companies such as Qualcomm, an industry

leader in RF chip technology.

▪ Qualcomm quickly recognized the significance of ParkerVision’s direct conversion technology. In internal

communications, Qualcomm engineers and senior executives lauded ParkerVision’s technology:

“This is virtually the holy grail of RF receiver designs –- achievable and within practical limits!”;

“[w]e are very impressed with the performance! We can make a phone with [ParkerVision’s] parts with higher

dynamic range than today’s phones”, and

“[t]he truth is Parker Vision have [sic] stumbled on something revolutionary.”

After testing ParkerVision’s technology, a Qualcomm senior executive and former engineer stated:

“[t]o tell you the truth, I am more of a believer now than when I started talking with [ParkerVision].”

And Qualcomm’s then-division President stated:

“this is critical technology that we must land based on what we have seen so far. It offers revolutionary rf versus

power performa[n]ce based on early te[s]t resul[t]s.”

▪ From 1998 through 1999, ParkerVision and Qualcomm negotiated over whether Qualcomm would license ParkerVision’s

energy transfer sampling downconversion technology. In 1999, ParkerVision informed Qualcomm that ParkerVision had

patents pending for its downconversion technology and specifically discussed a number of ParkerVision’s pending patent

applications. A Qualcomm CTO who reviewed the applications commented to his colleagues by email,

7 | P a g e

“All of the (patent) applications have been developed by an outside firm which seems pretty good at covering every

little detail, but I can’t imagine how expensive all this must be. Bottom line is it is going to be very difficult for anybody

to ever use this technique (D2) without stepping on one or more of their (patent) claims.”

ParkerVision also disclosed to Qualcomm its development of complementary technology that used feedback and interaction

with the baseband processor to improve upon the performance of the downconverter and/or receiver. Fundamentally

believing in the value of its technology and being of the opinion that Qualcomm was not negotiating reasonably,

ParkerVision did not agree to the financial terms Qualcomm offered and broke off licensing discussions in mid- to late 1999.

▪ Qualcomm and ParkerVision never entered into an agreement. Qualcomm continued to track the issuance of

ParkerVision’s patents. In 2002, a Qualcomm co-founder sent an email to his colleagues,

“ParkerVision patent just issued. 89 pages long.” related to the press release, “ParkerVision Receives Omnibus Patent

Covering Direct2Data Technology in Wireless LAN and Cellular Telephone Markets.”

▪ Various Qualcomm employees would turn to Qualcomm legal regarding advice on ParkerVision’s patents; approximately

50 requests through 2002 are documented.

▪ Before licensing discussions broke off between the parties, ParkerVision shared with Qualcomm information and test

results regarding its upconversion technology. In addition, ParkerVision’s disclosure of pending patent applications to

Qualcomm included at least one patent application which became an issued U.S. patent covering ParkerVision’s direct

conversion technology.

▪ Smartphones were the tipping point for Qualcomm’s need of ParkerVision technologies. In the mid-2000s, with the rise

in popularity of smartphones, there became a critical need for smaller, more efficient receivers capable of supporting much

higher data rates and multiple frequency bands. ParkerVision’s technology met this need as the performance of their up

and downconversion technologies meant the elimination of external parts such as numerous required saw filters, expanded

the bandwidth performance for broadband channels [higher data rates], and allowed more frequency bands on a single

chip that enabled worldwide use per phone, which was a key to the launch and success of 3G and 4G Smartphones. Two

Qualcomm engineers who had been part of the review process of ParkerVision’s technology in 1999 sent an email to each

other in 2004,

“I agree we need to look into next generation radio transceiver. … I will setup a meeting with Chuck (SVP Tech) to go

over parker vision approach and see if we can make it work [for 3G]. … we need to think about maintaining our edge

4 years from now.”

RF transceiver chip development for mobile phones typically being a 3- to 4-year timeframe.

▪ In 2010, a ParkerVision engineer found a Qualcomm conference paper describing Qualcomm’s then-current RF

technology. The technology was strikingly similar to the technology that ParkerVision disclosed to Qualcomm years earlier.

Through reverse engineering of Qualcomm’s RF chips, ParkerVision confirmed that Qualcomm had been using

ParkerVision’s patented technology. And, Qualcomm has enjoyed great financial success by doing so. ParkerVision sued

Qualcomm and its customers for patent infringement and has been locked in litigation ever since.

▪ On information and belief, seeing Qualcomm’s success, other chip manufacturers such as Intel shifted to using

ParkerVision’s technology. This shift in the industry ultimately led to the abandonment of traditional analog up and

downconverters for transceiver technology. ParkerVision’s energy sampling downconversion and pulse shaping

upconversion technologies helped make today’s mobile devices, such as smart phones and tablets, a reality by enabling RF

chips used in these devices to be smaller, cheaper, and more efficient, and with higher performance and ability to carry

large amounts of data used in 3G, 4G, and 5G smartphones.

8 | P a g e

▪ The infringement of its intellectual property means that ParkerVision has not been rewarded and compensated for the

technology developed by it and currently being used in products made by Qualcomm (QCOM), HTC (TPE:2498), Intel

(INTC), Apple (AAPL), LG (KRX:066570), and Samsung (KRX: 005930). This has led to PRKR filing suits (discussed below)

against these companies seeking damages and injunctive relief for infringement of certain of its patents.

Current Litigations, Timeline, and Milestones

Chart 6: Summary – Current Cases Filed by ParkerVision for IP Infringement

Defendant(s) District, Case No. Infringed Patents (ParkerVision IP)

Examples of Infringing Products (Defendants)

Milestone for Investors

- Qualcomm (QCOM)

- HTC Corp. (TPE:2498) and HTC America

Middle District of Florida, 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS

- #6,091,940 - #7,039,372 - #7,865,177 - #7,218,907

Qualcomm - RTR8600 - QTR8200 - QSC6270 combination RF transceiver-

baseband chip - QSD8250 baseband - Chipset including WCN3660, RTR8600,

and MSM8960 HTC - HTC Evo 4G LTE cellular telephone

handset - HTC Flyer tablet and Surround handset

Case is scheduled for trial beginning May 3, 2021

- Apple (AAPL) - Qualcomm

(QCOM)

Middle District of Florida, 3:15-cv-01477-BJD-JRK

- #9,118,528 Apple - iPhone6/6s smartphone - iPad Air tablet Qualcomm - WTR 1625 transceiver - WTR 3925 transceiver Samsung (Settled) (doesn’t include Q or any 3rd party chips) - Galaxy S5/S6 smartphones

Jury trial is scheduled to begin in August 2020 Now postponed behind Orlando

- LG (KRX:066570) District of New Jersey, 2:17-cv-05359-MCA-LDW

- #6,879,817 - #7,929,638 - #8,571,135 - #9,118,528

LG - G Flex 2 smartphone - G3 smartphone

Directly linked to outcome of ParkerVision vs. QCOM and AAPL case above

- Intel (INTC) Western District of Texas, 6:20-cv-00108-ADA

- #6,049,706 - #6,580,902 - #7,110,444 - #7,539,474 - #8,588,725 - #8,660,513 - #9,246,736 - #9,444,673 - #9,118,528 - #6,266,518

Intel

- Chips including PMB 5750, PMB 5757, and PMB 5762 used in smartphones

-

- TCL Technology Group Corp (SHE: 000100)

Central District of California, 5:20-cv-01030

- #6,049,706 - #6,266,518 - #6,580,902 - #7,110,444 - #7,292,835 - #8,588,725 - #8,660,513 - #9,118,528 - #9,246,736 - #9,444,673

TCL - Chips/Modules WCOHR2601 - Smart TVs

-

Source: Intro-act, Company, Court Filings

9 | P a g e

▪ Timeline: ParkerVision v. Qualcomm and HTC (Middle District of Florida, Case No. 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS)

▪ PRKR has a patent infringement complaint pending in the Middle District of Florida against Qualcomm and

Qualcomm Atheros, Inc. and HTC (HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc.) seeking unspecified damages and

injunctive relief for infringement of certain of its patents. Certain of the defendants have filed counterclaims

against PRKR 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 as the result of Qualcomm’s IPR challenge 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 PRKR’s 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 PRKR 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. 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.

.

▪ On March 16, 2020, in response to the impact of COVID-19, the parties filed a motion requesting a stay of all

deadlines and discovery responses for a period of four weeks, or until April 14, 2020, at which time the situation

will be assessed as to whether an additional stay or extension of the case schedule is required.

▪ In April 2020, the Middle District of Florida (Orlando division) issued its patent claim construction ruling, or

Markman Order, in the ongoing patent infringement action between ParkerVision and Qualcomm Inc. and HTC.

The court adopted PRKR’s position as to the proper interpretation of the majority of the key terms in dispute in

the litigation. The parties identified a total of ten disputed claim terms. The court's order adopted ParkerVision's

proposed construction for seven of the disputed terms and adopted a slightly modified version of ParkerVision's

proposed construction for the remaining three terms.

▪ In June 2020, the Middle District of Florida ( Orlando division ) issued an order that the ParkerVision trial date for their infringement case against Qualcomm has been moved to May 3, 2021 due to pandemic related delays which have now been assessed as requiring a new date to accommodate trial preparation activities that could not be accomplished due to business and court closures during the covid shutdown. The court has already mapped out the new detailed pre-trial time-line. Importantly, the Judge has set the deadlines for the close of discovery, mediation, and pre-trial statements which have all been moved to accommodate the covid delays. It appears that the court reset the dates as soon as it had visibility into when relevant activities could be resumed after the covid shutdown. It seems that after six years in limbo, ParkerVision will at last get its day in court.

▪ Trial date is now set for May 3, 2021.

▪ The law firm of McKool Smith is representing PRKR in this case on a contingency fee basis.

▪ Qualcomm v. ParkerVision – Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) – related to above Case No. 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS

▪ In August 2015, Qualcomm filed an aggregate of ten petitions for Inter Partes Review (IPR) with the PTAB seeking

to invalidate certain claims related to three of the eleven patents originally asserted in PRKR’s Qualcomm Action.

10 | P a g e

▪ The PTAB denied institution of three of the petitions, all of which relate to PRKR patent 7,039,372 (the ‘372

Patent). PRKR filed a motion to disclaim the challenged claims of U.S. patent 7,966,012 (the ‘012 Patent) and,

accordingly, the PTAB entered an adverse judgment against PRKR with respect to the one petition pertaining to

the ‘012 Patent.

▪ In March 2017, the PTAB issued its decisions on the six outstanding IPRs, all of which relate to the ‘940 Patent.

The PTAB ruled in PRKR’s favor on three of the six petitions, ruled in Qualcomm’s favor on two of the six petitions

and issued a split decision on the claims covered in the sixth petition. As a result of the PTAB decisions, certain

claims of the ‘940 Patent were found to be un-patentable and certain claims were found not to be unpatentable.

▪ In May 2017, PRKR filed a notice of appeal of these decisions with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

(CAFC). Qualcomm also appealed the decisions that were unfavorable to them.

▪ On September 13, 2018, the CAFC upheld the PTAB ruling with regard to the ‘940 Patent. As a result of the ruling,

PRKR prevailed with regard to the method claims of the ‘940 Patent and Qualcomm prevailed on the apparatus

claims. This matter is now closed although the patents at issue in this proceeding are the subject of the

Qualcomm Action discussed above.

▪ Timeline: ParkerVision v. Apple and Qualcomm (Middle District of Florida, Case No. 3:15-cv-01477-BJD-JRK)

▪ In December 2015, PRKR filed a patent infringement complaint in the Middle District of Florida against Apple, LG,

Samsung, and Qualcomm alleging infringement of four of its 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, PRKR 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, PRKR 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, PRKR 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 PRKR’s 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 PRKR’s 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 is 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. Although currently a request has not been made to change the trial date, the parties plan

to file a joint status report in April 2020, at which time the situation will be assessed as to whether additional

modifications to the case schedule will be required.

11 | P a g e

▪ In April 2020, the Court accepted a joint motion made by ParkerVision and Apple to stay this case until resolution

of the Orlando case discussed above.

▪ Timeline: ParkerVision v. LG (District of New Jersey, Case No. 2:17-cv-05359-MCA-LDW)

▪ In July 2017, PRKR filed a patent infringement complaint in the district of New Jersey against LG for the alleged

infringement of the same patents previously asserted against LG in the middle district of Florida (see ParkerVision

v. Apple and Qualcomm above).

▪ PRKR elected to dismiss the case in the middle district of 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 the ParkerVision v. Apple and Qualcomm case.

▪ Timeline: ParkerVision v. Intel (Western District of Texas, Case No. 6:20-cv-00108-ADA)

▪ In February 2020, PRKR filed a patent infringement complaint in the Western District of Texas against Intel alleging

infringement of eight of its patents. Subsequently, the complaint added two additional patents for a total of 10

patents in total.

▪ The law firm of Goldberg Segalla is representing PRKR in this case on a contingency fee basis.

▪ Timeline: ParkerVision v. TCL Technology Group of Huizhou, China (Central District of California, Case No. 5:20-cv-01030)

▪ In May 2020, PRKR filed a patent infringement complaint in the Central District of California against TCL

Technology Group of Huizhou, China and its subsidiary TTE Technology, Inc. of Corona, California for the

infringement of nine of its patents. The complaint requests a jury trial to determine, among other items, the

financial damages for the unauthorized use in TCL televisions and other TCL products of ParkerVision's patented

technologies.

▪ The law firm of Goldberg Segalla is representing PRKR in this case on a contingency fee basis.

▪ In addition to existing lawsuits, PRKR’s legal counsel Goldberg Segalla estimates there could be numerous suits that are

likely to be filed based on the use of PRKR’s patented innovations in WiFi, Bluetooth, GPS and other applications. They

expect to file at least 10 suits in the next 12 months, asserting PRKR’s patents in WiFi. In counsel’s opinion , these suits could

settle in three to nine months after filing and generate enough cash flow to PRKR ( the Company will get 50% of any

settlement ) to amply cover its current burn rate.

Courtroom Flavor – April 2020 Markman Order

▪ In April 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Orlando division) issued its patent claim

construction ruling, or Markman Order, in the ongoing patent infringement action between PRKR and QCOM and HTC,

and adopted PRKR’s position as to the proper interpretation of the majority of the key terms in dispute in the litigation .

The parties identified a total of ten disputed claim terms. The court's order adopted PRKR’s proposed construction for seven

of the disputed terms and adopted a slightly modified version of PRKR’s proposed construction for the remaining three

terms.

▪ The April 2020 Markman order sets up a good landscape for PRKR to prove infringement and boosts the company’s

chances at the jury trial. Typically, in a Markman, the defendant is trying to add limitations to the complaint to avoid

infringement. This is what QCOM did in their approach to the Markman, but the approach was not successful as the judge

12 | P a g e

said in his order time and again that QCOM is trying to include impermissible limitations with the words they were

suggesting. On seven of the 10 terms that were in dispute, the judge adopted PRKR’s proposals as is. On the other three

terms, the judge adopted PRKR’s terms with slight modifications that he felt were adding limitations that he thought would

be difficult to quantify. This Markman order sets up a good landscape for PRKR to prove infringement as well as make its

case for why the patents are valid and not contemplated by prior art. Two of the four patents in this case (transmitter

patents) were challenged by QCOM in IPR’s – on one of the patents the PTAB did not institute and on the other PRKR lost

the apparatus claims but won the method claims. However, QCOM challenged this at the appellate court and lost that

challenge. So now this is law and likely will not be challengeable. Markman’s are generally considered a strong indicator of

who will win the jury trial, and historically the party winning the Markman has a high probability of winning the jury trial.

13 | P a g e

Why ParkerVision Is Likely to Win – Timeline of First Case vs. Qualcomm

▪ The evidence trail, timeline, and the initial jury verdict in PRKR’s first case against Qualcomm gives confidence about PRKR’s ability to win

its current cases against the defendants. As we demonstrate in the step-by-step exhibits below, we believe QCOM knowingly infringed on

PRKR’s patents. PRKR had filed a suit against QCOM in 2011 which led to a jury award of $173 million in damages for PRKR 2013. Even though

the jury verdict was overturned by the court in 2014 (Judge Dalton), the following timeline, and the circumstantial and direct evidence

presented during the trial (including reverse engineering of QCOM chips by PRKR at a cost of $120,000 to prove infringement) boosted PRKR’s

confidence to file additional cases and appeal against the verdict (current case against Qualcomm and HTC in Middle District of Florida), and

lend credence to PRKR’s claims against the defendants including QCOM, AAPL, INTC, LG, and HTC.

Chart 7: Timeline and Evidence Trail – ParkerVision’s First Case vs. Qualcomm (2011-2014) – Part 1/4

Source: Intro-act, Company, Court Filings

14 | P a g e

Chart 8: Timeline and Evidence Trail – ParkerVision vs. Qualcomm Case (2011-2014) – Part 2/4

Source: Intro-act, Company, Court Filings

15 | P a g e

Chart 9: Timeline and Evidence Trail – ParkerVision vs. Qualcomm Case (2011-2014) – Part 3/4

Source: Intro-act, Company, Court Filings

16 | P a g e

Chart 10: Timeline and Evidence Trail – ParkerVision’s First Case vs. Qualcomm (2011-2014) – Part 4/4

Source: Intro-act, Company, Court Filings

17 | P a g e

Chart 11: Trial Exhibits That Have Been Made Public

Click Here to Access Trial Exhibits That Have Been Made Public and That Contain Direct and Circumstantial Evidence

Backing ParkerVision’s Claims (indicative list below)

QCOM Business Development Manager Prasant Kanak’s August 1998 e-mail to Qualcomm CEO Irwin Jacobs saying

the following about PRKR’s RF technology after the first meeting in “This is virtually the holy grail of RF receiver designs

— achievable and within practical limits!”

QCOM Engineer Bazarjani’s February 1999 e-mail to senior QCOM executives with detailed technical summary the test

results of PRKR’s D2D technology, and saying that “The truth is ParkerVision have stumbled on something revolutionary

but they are in no way able to converge on a full solution without our help.”

Prasant Kanak’s February 1999 e-mail to PRKR Executives Jeff Parker and David Sorrells, and QCOM’s executive team

following the D2D test results. The e-mail emphasizes rapid next steps in discussion with PRKR.

February 1999 e-mail from QCOM VP Don Shrock (head of chip development) emphasizing the importance of D2D,

and saying, “FYI this is critical technology that we must land based on what we have seen so far. It offers revolutionary

rf vs power performance based on early test results.”

QCOM SVP for Technology Chuck Wheatley’s March 1999 e-mail to QCOM team saying that, “I did ask him (PV’s

Sorrells) if he could explain just exactly what it is that they are doing that is lacking in the prior art……without my

prompting he said that the existing methods are designed to maximize voltage transfer, while PV is maximizing

power transfer. And that makes all the difference.” And “From what I’ve been able to figure out about this gadget

is that he may be right.”

Another e-mail from Chuck Wheatley in March 1999 stating that “After reading all the references provided by Seyfi, I

think PV [ParkerVision] is doing something different”

ParkerVision’s Valuation Analysis conducted by QCOM in March 1999. The model includes potential benefits to QCOM

in the form of market share gains, margin expansion, and EPS part from PRKR’s valuation.

May 1999 QCOM document highlighting strategic benefits of a deal with PRKR for QCOM.

QCOM co-Founder Franklin Antonio’s internal e-mail in May 2002 after reading PRKR’s 89-page long D2D patent

Transcript of the November 2012 Deposition of QCOM SVP for Technology Chuck Wheatley who became one of the

only six Qualcomm Fellows in a company of 20,000+ employees.

Source: Intro-act, Company, Court Filings

18 | P a g e

IP Litigation Trends

Trends Starting to Favor Innovators and Small Companies and their IP Rights

▪ We believe that investors following this case need to focus on three trends/developments that indicate that the

pendulum is swinging in the favor of innovators and smaller companies like PRKR in IP litigation cases. These three are 1)

doubts over the constitutionality of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB); 2) patent eligibility in light of the Federal

Circuit’s 2018 decision in the Berkheimer v. HP Inc. case; and 3) progress on the STRONGER Patents Act or other bills that

seek to strengthen the US patent system. We discuss the importance of each of these below.

▪ The Federal Circuit’s 2019 decision in Arthrex terming the appointment of PTAB administrative patent judges (APJs) as

unconstitutional means that more than 200 AIA reviews may be subject to remand and rehearing, affecting over 50

litigations. According to RPX Corp.2, 341 petitions for America Invents Act (AIA) review were filed with the PTAB in 1Q20,

nearly flat y/y, after the filings suffered a y/y decline 2019 due to the uncertainty created by the Federal Circuit’s October

decision in Arthrex, which held that the appointment of PTAB APJs is unconstitutional. The court concluded that APJs were

“principal officers” requiring Senate confirmation under the Constitution’s Appointments Clause because they do not have

enough oversight from the director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). The U.S. government and both parties

sought a rehearing but the Federal Circuit declined to rehear Arthrex on March 23, and has since rejected calls by the U.S.

government and both parties to stay the issuance of its mandate. RPX Corp. estimates that this judgement could have a

sweeping impact as more than 200 AIA reviews may be subject to remand and rehearing—affecting over 50 litigation

campaigns in which the patents challenged in those reviews have been asserted. As discussed earlier, in March 2017, the

PTAB issued its decisions on six outstanding IPRs related to PRKR ‘940 patent and ruled against PRKR and in favor of

Qualcomm on two of the six petitions and issued a split decision on the claims covered in the sixth petition. While the

rehearing of AIA reviews might gather pace and result in the reversal of earlier decisions, this is unlikely to impact PRKR’s

case against Qualcomm.

Chart 12: AIA Review Petitions Filed with PTAB Declined in 2019 And Have Levelled Off Ever Since

Source: Intro-act, RPX Corp. IPR = Inter Partes Review, CBM = Covered Business Method, PGR = Post-Grant Review

2 https://www.rpxcorp.com/intelligence/blog/q1-in-review-first-quarter-filings-see-a-bump-while-litigation-finance-bolsters-a-new-breed-of-plaintiffs/

19 | P a g e

▪ The drop in patent invalidation rates after the Berkheimer and Aatrix verdicts also bodes well for PRKR which is facing

patent invalidation claims filed by Qualcomm and others. In a landmark decision in Berkheimer v. HP Inc. case in 2018, the

Federal Circuit ruled that it is not always appropriate to declare the broadest independent claim to be representative, and

also held that questions of fact underlying patent eligibility determinations, which make summary judgment inappropriate

in at least some cases. According to Knobbe Martens3, the Federal Circuit’s decision was likely the most consequential

development in patent eligibility since the Supreme Court introduced its two-part eligibility framework in Alice Corp. v.

CLS Bank and Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories. Alice and Mayo had a dramatic impact on patent

law, paving the way for lower courts to invalidate thousands of claims from hundreds of patents for failure to claim patent-

eligible subject matter under U.S.C. § 101. Berkheimer tempers Alice and Mayo by imposing procedural requirements that

may insulate patent claims from § 101 challenges. Without early resolution, the costs of litigation increase dramatically, and

patentees gain additional leverage to extract settlement payments from accused infringers. Patentees also gain additional

time to marshal any evidence that may be relevant to the eligibility inquiry.

▪ The impact of the Berkheimer ruling is already reflected in the fall in patent invalidation rates. According to

data from RPX Corp., through 1Q20, 44% of patents challenged under Alice that have seen rulings since

Berkheimer have had claims invalidated, whereas 67% of the patents adjudicated before Berkheimer saw the

invalidation of claims. Ongoing shifts in the venue distribution of patent suits may accelerate this trend as judges

are more inclined to expansively apply Berkheimer and Aatrix in patent cases, a notable example being District

Judge Alan D. Albright of the Western District of Texas.

Chart 13: Patents Invalidated Under Alice Before and After Berkheimer

Source: Intro-act, RPX Corp. Note: Some percentages add up to more than 100%, as patent claims occasionally see multiple Alice rulings with different outcomes.

3 https://www.knobbe.com/news/2019/06/impact-fact-issues-patent-eligibility-after-berkheimer

20 | P a g e

Chart 14: Patents Invalidated Under Alice Before and After Berkheimer by Procedural Stage

Source: Intro-act, RPX Corp.

▪ Finally, there is The STRONGER Patents Act of 2019 that aims to level the IP playing field between U.S. Big Tech and

smaller companies and stop the bullying tactics used by large companies to stifle competition from their smaller

counterparts. The U.S. intellectual property ecosystem – which lies at the heart of the country’s economic growth engine –

has weakened in recent years through a series of judicial, legislative, and administrative changes45, and the Supreme Court’s

2006 eBay decision that has been misapplied by many lower courts as a categorical rule against injunctions for inventors

who license their patents, and had led to a fall in the rate of injunctions obtained by inventors6. These changes have favored

Big Tech companies and undermined patent rights and made it difficult for other inventors and smaller companies to protect

their innovations from infringement.

▪ At a recent House antitrust subcommittee field hearing in Colorado to examine abusive practices in the tech

industry7, Patrick Spence, CEO of smart speaker firm Sonos said the following about big tech companies like Apple,

Amazon, and Google, “They have come to use the scope of their platforms and their overwhelming dominance in

certain markets to unfairly disadvantage competitors and squelch potential competition." This sentiment was

echoed by Kirsten Daru, vice president and general counsel at Tile, who said about the Apple app ecosystem,

“They make rules about how the platform should operate, who should have access to permissions and exempt

themselves from all those rules. We need equal access and permissions. ... We need rules applied consistently

across the board to everyone in the ecosystem.”

▪ The same trend was identified by a Financial Times (FT)8 investigation which found that, “Because their [Big

Tech] own products (for example, smartphones) require so many different bits of technology, the companies have

an interest in keeping these inputs as cheap as possible. They can deploy legions of lawyers to protect any crucial

4 https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/03/21/how-google-and-big-tech-killed-the-u-s-patent-system/id=95080/ 5 https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/03/21/tech-giants-maintain-dominance-copying-technologies/id=94596/ 6 https://hooverip2.org/wp-content/uploads/ip2-wp17004-paper.pdf 7 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/17/big-tech-competition-investigation-100701 8 https://www.ft.com/content/502c8580-3935-11ea-a6d3-9a26f8c3cba4

21 | P a g e

IP of their own while “efficiently infringing” on the patents that belong to others (that’s the term for violations

done knowingly by big companies as a cost of doing business).”

▪ Such tactics hurt the growth prospects and viability of small firms like PRKR that lack the legal and financial

muscle to sustain multiple and lengthy lawsuits against Big Tech companies. This is evident in the $120,000 that

PRKR has to spend on reverse engineering one product that has been infringed by Qualcomm – doing so for all

patents when revenue streams have been cut/curtailed due to IP infringement is extremely challenging and only

adds to the legal fees that a company needs to pay, resulting in losses, layoffs, restructuring, and in some cases

shut down of smaller businesses.

▪ The above trend has weakened the U.S.’ competitive position in the global IP and venture capital landscape .

According to Pitchbook, the U.S.’ share of global venture capital has fallen from 66% in 2010 to <40% by the end

of 3Q19 while China’s shared has more than tripled from 12% to ~40% in the same time frame. U.S. had fallen to

11th place and is currently placed 9th in Bloomberg Innovation Index (2020 Edition), and trails Germany, South

Korea, and other countries in Europe and Asia that have maintained a stronghold on the index in the last few

years.

Chart 15: Weak Patent System Means That the U.S. Trails Countries in Europe and Asia in the Bloomberg Innovation Index (2020 Edition)

Source: Intro-act, Bloomberg Innovation Index

▪ The STRONGER Patents Act9 aims to make numerous changes to strengthen the U.S.’ IP landscape and make it

easier for patent owners to win injunctions when infringement is found and more difficult for the PTAB to

invalidate patents. The STRONGER Act focuses on post-grant validity proceedings, injunctive relief, and the

continuing problem of patent trolls and their negative effect upon the patent system. Bi-partisan support from

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), who co-sponsored the STRONGER Act along with Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark) and Reps.

9 https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/3666/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22STRONGER+Patents+Act+of+2019%22%5D%7D&r=1&s=1

22 | P a g e

Steve Stivers (R-Ohio) and Bill Foster (D-Ill.), suggests that it has been frustrating to inventors that patents, despite

being examined and approved by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), are subject to repeated

challenges as a result of the administrative proceedings that came about upon the passage of the AIA.

▪ One of the provisions of the Act restores the presumption of injunctive relief upon a finding that a patent is

both valid and infringed – key points in PRKR’s litigations against Qualcomm, Apple, HTC, and other

defendants. The new 35 U.S.C. 283(b) would state10: INJUNCTION — Upon a finding by a court of infringement of

a patent not proven invalid or unenforceable, the court shall presume that— (1) further infringement of the patent

would cause irreparable injury; and (2) remedies available at law are inadequate to compensate for that injury.

The new provision would essentially overrule the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in eBay v. MercExchange 2006

case, where the Court held that the presumption that an injunction should issue to a prevailing patent owner was

inappropriate and that courts needed to apply the four-factor test that they have historically employed for

injunctions.

▪ This proposed change in the STRONGER Patents Act re injunctive relief and the presumption of irreparable

injury would be favorable for PRKR. ParkerVision is a good example of a patent holder that kept its invention

team together for many years believing that the system would ultimately provide the relief it sought. But a couple

of years ago (7 years after filing its first litigation and 4 years after being denied an injunction) PV had to disband

its innovation engineering team which took over 15 years to build, and was responsible for numerous patented

breakthroughs. The irreparable injury is that even with collection of damages in the future PV’s innovation effort

has been stalled while the world moved on. PV will get back into the innovation business again but the harm to

ParkerVision, its investors, and US innovation economy is immeasurable, while the world (especially Asia)

continues to rise in dominance.

▪ Other provisions of the STRONGER Patents Act include the following, among others:11

▪ Claim Construction: The bill harmonizes the standard used in post-issuance proceedings at the Patent Trial

and Appeal Board (PTAB) with the standard used in district court litigation, codifying a recent USPTO rule.

▪ Burden of Proof: Another section harmonizes the PTAB standard of proof with that used in district courts,

where “clear and convincing” evidence is needed to invalidate a patent. According to the bill’s sponsors,

this standard gives appropriate deference to the USPTO’s initial expert examination and issuance of a

patent, which is relied upon by inventors, patent owners, and investors.

▪ Re-Examination of Patents: The bill harmonizes the treatment of re-examination proceedings with the

treatment of inter partes review (IPR) post-grant proceedings and establishes clear guidelines for the

treatment of parallel proceedings.

▪ The strong pro-patent owner bent of the Act makes it truly remarkable and favor innovators like PRKR, and is

facing stiff resistance from Big Tech. The Act, which aims to make sweeping changes, is unlikely to pass in its

current shape in 2020 due to its controversial nature and opposition by the big tech lobby, but certain key

provisions could move forward as separate legislations.

▪ Such steps indicate that the pendulum is now starting to swing back in favor of innovators and smaller

companies like PRKR that are likely to enjoy enhanced protection of their IP rights in the not-so-distant future.

10 https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/3666/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22STRONGER+Patents+Act+of+2019%22%5D%7D&r=1&s=1 11 https://scarincihollenbeck.com/law-firm-insights/intellectual-property/stronger-patents-act-of-2019-controversy/

23 | P a g e

Damages Assessment

Damages Award for PRKR Likely to Total $1.6 billion

▪ Our damages assessment model indicates that PRKR’s damages award in the current case against Qualcomm (Middle

District of Florida, 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS) is likely to be $1.6Bn. Our model uses the damages approved by the Jury in

2013 in PRKR’s first case against Qualcomm as a starting point, and estimates the number of infringing units and the damage

per such unit for the current case that covers the 2008 to 2018 period (PRKR’s patents expired at the end of this period). In

the first case, that focused only on receiver patents and did not cover transmitter patents, damages expert (Paul Benoit)

arrived at a $0.58 per unit damages number for the 750Mn infringing units between 2008 and 2012. The jury applied ~40%

discount to arrive at a $0.23 per unit award or $173Mn in total damages in favor of PRKR.

▪ We believe that the damages in the current case are significantly higher because 1) the number of infringing units has

increased between 2013 and 2018, and 2) the per unit infringement is much higher due to the increase in the number of

bands, application of PRKR IP to 4G/LTE handsets, and cost savings to QCOM due to use of PRKR’s D2D technology that

eliminated the needs for SAW filters and other components.

▪ We estimate the total number of infringing units between 2008 and 2018 stands at 1.75Bn. The first case established that

the number of QCOM chips infringing PRKR’s D2D IP stood at 750Mn between 2008 and 2012. Our analysis indicates that

this number grew by ~1Bn units between 2013 and 2018, as ~20% of the 5Bn chips produced by QCOM in this period were

shipped to the U.S. (see model below) taking the total number of infringing units/chips to 1.75Bn.

▪ We estimate that the per unit damages stand at $0.87/unit for 2008-2012 and $1.90/unit for 2013-2018, implying total

damages of $2.5Bn. The RF receivers covered in the first case supported a maximum of 8 bands and could thus be used

only in limited geographical areas. However, the receivers covered in the current case supported up to 40 bands (5x the

first case) and can be used anywhere in the world – such coverage is possible in the small space for the RF transceiver

allocated in a Smartphone only by the use the downconversion technology (D2D) developed by PRKR. The receivers also

enable the use of 4G/LTE technology, thus adding to their commercial value. In addition, PRKR’s technology also eliminated

many unwanted parts from the chip. In particular, prior technology needed a SAW (surface acoustic wave) filter for every

band and PRKR’s IP eliminated the need for such filters, thus saving between $2 to $10 in parts depending on how many of

those bands a smartphone wants to operate over. Assuming $5 as the average cost saving and attributing a conservative

25% of it to PRKR (and the rest to QCOM) results in $1.25 in damages per receiver unit. Further, the current case also covers

transmitter technology where our cost benefit analysis indicates $0.63 in damages per unit or 50% of the damages per

receiver unit. Overall, total damages per unit stand at $1.88/unit ($1.25+$0.63) for the period 2013 to 2018, implying

damages worth $1.8Bn. Similarly, taking the transmitter patents into account, the total damages per unit for the period

2008 to 2013 add to $0.87/unit ($0.58+$0.29), implying damages worth $652Mn. Overall, we believe that the total damages

accrued to PRKR stand at $2.5Bn between 2008 and 2018.

▪ We estimate the net accrual to shareholders at $927Mn – this translates into $7.17 per share or 14x the current share

price. Unlike the first case where the jury applied a 40% discount to the damages, we believe that the jury might give a

more favorable verdict in favor of PRKR in the current case. This is because in the first case QCOM produced a corporate

witness who said he never heard of ParkerVision even though he was responsible for designing the accused products – this

seemed to gain some sympathy with the jury and resulted in a no willfulness verdict even though the jury found

infringement on part of QCOM. However, in the current case, it is indisputable that QCOM knew about these patents and

their infringement since May 2014 (when the case was filed) and has since introduced at least 3 or more generations of RF

transceivers, implying that PRKR now has a strong case for willfulness and infringement and that the jury is likely to award

the complete damages ($2.5Bn) to PRKR. Discounting this number by 66% (probability of win per historical data published

by PwC) results in a damages award of $1.6Bn. Adjusting for legal and other fees (see model below), we estimate the net

accrual to shareholders at $927Mn ($7.17/share) after averaging the per share accrual based on 110Mn authorized shares

after current raise and a 30% settlement rate (industry average), implying ~14x PRKR’s current market price.

24 | P a g e

Chart 16: Damages Estimate Model – PRKR vs. QCOM

Source: Intro-act

25 | P a g e

Patent Damages Trends and Key Awards in the U.S.

Chart 17: Total Patent Damages Awarded in the U.S. Are on An Upswing Since 2016

Source: Intro-act, IP Closeup. Total Patent Damages exclude fees, costs, and interest.

Chart 18: Top Ten Largest Amounts of Initial Damages Awarded in U.S. Patent Litigation Cases ($ Million)

Source: Intro-act, PwC Patent Litigation Study, Performance & Accountability Report (USPTO), U.S Courts, Statista. Data from 1998 to 2017.

2.55 2.41

1.46

3.92

1.661.90

0.74 0.32 0.89

1.40

78 75 76 73

5854

5056 57 56

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

$ B

n

Total Patent Damages Awarded (2009 - 2018)

Amount (LHS, $ Bn) Cases (RHS)

26 | P a g e

Chart 19: Patent Holder Success Rates: Pre-Trial vs. Trial Chart 20: Patent Holder Success Rates at Trial

Source: Intro-act, PwC Patent Litigation Study, Performance & Accountability Report (USPTO), U.S Courts. Data from 1998 to 2017.

Chart 21: Patent Holder Success Rates: Top Ten Industries

Source: Intro-act, PwC Patent Litigation Study, Performance & Accountability Report (USPTO), U.S Courts. Data from 1998 to 2017.

27 | P a g e

Strong Management Team & Board of Directors

▪ PRKR has a strong management team and board of directors with extensive experience in key fields like technology,

regulatory, legal and intellectual property, and running publicly listed firms. The experience of these team members is

critical to PRKR’s ability to succeed in its IP lawsuits as well as drive sustainable innovation-led growth of the company in

the long term.

▪ Jeffrey L. Parker. Chairman of the Board and CEO. Jeffrey L. Parker is one of the original founders of ParkerVision

and has served as chairman of the board and chief executive officer since the company’s inception in 1989. From

1983 to 1989, Mr. Parker served as executive vice president for Parker Electronics, a joint venture partner with

Carrier Corporation performing research, development, manufacturing, sales, and marketing for the heating,

ventilation, and air conditioning industry. Mr. Parker also led the team at ParkerVision that developed the Emmy

award winning PVTV live broadcast news system that was installed in hundreds of television stations in North

America. Mr. Parker is a named inventor on over 30 U.S. patents in the fields of HVAC electronics and systems,

video camera automation and subject tracking, and wireless systems. Among other qualifications, as Chief

Executive Officer, Mr. Parker has relevant insight into PRKR’s operations, industry, and related risks as well as

experience bringing disruptive technologies to market.

▪ Cynthia Poehlman. CFO. Cynthia Poehlman has been ParkerVision's chief financial officer since June 2004 and corporate secretary since August 2007. From March 1994 to June 2004, Ms. Poehlman was ParkerVision's controller and our chief accounting officer. Prior to joining ParkerVision, she served six years in the audit and advisory divisions of top tier accounting firms, Deloitte as well as Arthur Anderson. Ms. Poehlman has been a certified public accountant in the state of Florida since 1989.

▪ David Sorrells. Senior Technology Strategist. Mr. Sorrells is one of the original founders of ParkerVision and has

been a partner with Mr. Parker since 1983 at Parker Electronics. Mr. Sorrells holds over 200 U.S. and foreign

patents. Mr. Sorrells was the lead inventor for the invention of RF energy transfer sampling downconversion

technology and is either a lead or named inventor on numerous technologies developed at Parker Electronics and

ParkerVision. Some of Mr. Sorrells innovations include HVAC controls, systems and related semiconductor

implementations; automated video tracking cameras and related technologies, and RF direct up and down

conversion technologies and semiconductor implementations.

▪ Gregory Rawlins. Chief Staff Scientist. Dr. Rawlins joined ParkerVision in 2000 when ParkerVision acquired

Orlando based Signal Technologies (STI) that specialized in product development and engineering design work

for wireless communications. Dr. Gregory Rawlins was STI President and Founder and had conducted extensive

research in direct-conversion technology and multiband, multimode radios for U.S. government agencies and

Fortune 500 companies. Leading ParkerVision’s semiconductor chip development team, Dr. Rawlins is a named

inventor on numerous ParkerVision direct-conversion technologies and a lead inventor on other ParkerVision

innovations. Dr. Rawlins is also an adjunct professor at the University of Central Florida.

▪ Frank N. Newman. Independent Director. Frank N. Newman has been a director of ParkerVision since December

2016. Mr. Newman has served since 2011 as chairman of Promontory Financial Group China Ltd., an advisory

group for financial institutions and corporations in China. From 2005 to 2010, he served as chairman and chief

executive officer of Shenzhen Development Bank, a national bank in China. Prior to 2005, Mr. Newman served as

chairman, president, and chief executive officer of Bankers Trust and chief financial officer of Bank of America

and Wells Fargo Bank. Mr. Newman served as Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Treasury from 1994 to 1995 and as

Under Secretary of Domestic Finance from 1993 to 1994. He has authored two books and several articles on

economic matters, published in the U.S., mainland China, and Hong Kong. Mr. Newman has served as a director

for major public companies in the U.S., United Kingdom, and China, and as a member of the Board of Trustees of

Carnegie Hall. He earned his BA, magna cum laude, in economics at Harvard.

28 | P a g e

▪ Paul A. Rosenbaum. Independent Director. Paul A. Rosenbaum has been a director of ParkerVision since

December 2016. Mr. Rosenbaum has extensive experience as a director and executive officer for both public and

private companies in a number of industries. Since 1994, Mr. Rosenbaum has served as chief executive of SWR

Corporation, a privately held corporation that designs, sells, and markets specialty industrial chemicals. Since

2009, Mr. Rosenbaum has been a member of the Providence St. Vincent Medical Foundation Council of Trustees,

and previously served as president of the Council. In addition, from September 2000 until June 2009, Mr.

Rosenbaum served as chairman and chief executive officer of Rentrak Corporation, and from June 2009 until July

2011, Mr. Rosenbaum served in a non-executive capacity as chairman of Rentrack. From 2007 until 2016, Mr.

Rosenbaum served on the Board of Commissioners for the Port of Portland. Mr. Rosenbaum was chief partner in

the Rosenbaum Law Center from 1978 to 2000 and served in the Michigan Legislature from 1972 to 1978, during

which time he chaired the Michigan House Judiciary Committee, was legal counsel to the Speaker of the House of

the state of Michigan and wrote and sponsored the Michigan Administrative Procedures Act. Additionally, Mr.

Rosenbaum served on the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, as vice chairman of the

Criminal Justice and Consumer Affairs Committee of the National Conference of State Legislatures, and on a

committee of the Michigan Supreme Court responsible for reviewing local court rules.

▪ Robert G. Sterne. Independent Director. Robert Sterne has been a director of ParkerVIsion since September 2006

and also served as a director from February 2000 to June 2003. Since 1978, Mr. Sterne who is a co-founder has

been a partner of the law firm of Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC, specializing in patent and other intellectual

property law. Mr. Sterne has co-authored numerous publications related to patent litigation strategies. He has

received multiple awards for contributions to intellectual property law including Law 360’s 2016 Top 25 Icons of

IP and the Financial Times 2015 Top 10 Legal Innovators in North America.

Best-In-Class Legal Team

Chart 22: Best-In-Class Legal Team Across Cases

Law Firm Case(s) Expertise for PRKR Case(s)

Goldberg Segalla ParkerVision vs. Intel

AND

ParkerVision vs. TCL

The firm of Goldberg Segalla is

currently representing ParkerVision

in its patent infringement cases

against Intel Corporation in the

Western District of Texas and Asian

TV maker TCL in the Central District

of California. Led by the co-Chairs of

the Intellectual Property practice of

the firm are Chandran Iyer and

Ronald Daignault

Smith Hulsey and Busey ParkerVision vs. Qualcomm & HTC

AND

ParkerVision vs. Qualcomm & Apple

Local counsel to Goldberg Segalla

and McKool Smith with a good feel

for local court rules.

29 | P a g e

McKool Smith ParkerVision vs. Qualcomm & HTC The lead law firm for the Orlando Federal court case of ParkerVision vs Qualcomm and HTC. The firm is considered among the top law firms for plaintiffs defending their patent rights through litigation in the U.S.

According to the firm, "McKool Smith’s courtroom track record in intellectual property cases is unrivaled. Since 2006, we have secured nine nine-figure patent infringement verdicts—more than any other law firm in the country—and nine eight-figure patent infringement verdicts." Leading the McKool Smith team for the ParkerVision case is lead litigator Douglas Cawley. Mr. Cawley has served as lead counsel in six patent infringement trials that have earned "Top 100 Verdict" rankings by The National Law Journal and VerdictSearch. He is ranked as a leading intellectual property lawyer by Chambers USA and is included in the Lawdragon 500 listing of "Leading Lawyers in America."

Caldwell Cassady & Curry ParkerVision vs. Qualcomm & HTC Assisting McKool Smith is the firm of Caldwell Cassady and Curry and litigator Kevin Burgess. The Caldwell firm is also recognized for representing large patent infringement cases and recently secured $454 million that was paid by Apple to their client VirnetX.

Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky

and Popeo PC

ParkerVision vs. Qualcomm & Apple

AND

ParkerVision vs. LG

Case stayed until after Orlando.

Louis J. Freeh and Freeh Sporkin &

Sullivan (FSS)

ParkerVision vs. Qualcomm & HTC

AND

ParkerVision vs. Qualcomm & Apple

The firm of Freeh Sporkin is assisting on these cases with former Federal Judge and FBI Director Louis Freeh and former US Attorney Robert O'Neill.

Source: Intro-act, Company. Based on Latest Court Filings of the Five Active Cases.

30 | P a g e

Going Concern

▪ There will be a follow-up to this report focusing on the “going concern” of ParkerVision, outlining what the company could

be valued at if the QCOM case ends up unsuccessful. This will require analysis of other related and adjacent litigations, as

well as other technologies and IP. That said, we want to provide some context to the financial requirements that we are

expecting to keep PRKR solvent through trial.

TOP QUESTIONS FROM INVESTORS OUTSIDE QCOM LITIGATION:

▪ What is current quarterly burn?

Quarterly cash burn is currently ~$600K (~$2.5M/year)

▪ How will the burn change around trial?

The out of pockets for the entire case is forecast to be $2.5M to 3M of which around half of that will get spent at trial.

▪ What do ParkerVision’s opportunities include outside of the QCOM damages?

PRKR has developed additional patented technologies in i) Super High Efficiency RF Power Transmission for High Data Rate

RF systems (think 5G and beyond) - especially attractive for mobile devices such as Smartphones and for Small Cells which

5G will need many of ii) Antenna steering and control technology which increases reliability, distance, and capacity (again

think 5G and beyond) also for mobile devices and Small cells. iii) Very high efficiency communication channel technologies

which allows higher data rates in the same bandwidth channels - mostly attractive for wide area wireless networks, i.e. 5G

and beyond. Once PRKR resolves its first litigations successfully it will pursue relationships to license these technologies and

possibly do some of its own chip products. It is expected that a portion of the award would also fund the acquisition of

complimentary IP.

▪ What are ParkerVision’s capital requirements and plans to satisfy these requirements?

ParkerVision is currently in the midst of a capital raise that is expected to get them through the next 2 years of operations.

There are several options the company is pursuing. Intro-act does not represent PRKR in this capital raise, so any interest

should be directed directly to Jeff Parker (JPARKER@ParkerVision.com).

▪ What is the $1.5M in past litigation payables?

These are expenses PRKR accrued to the team preparing for the Jacksonville trial that has now been moved to be after the

Orlando case - although much of the prep is also very helpful for the Orlando case.

31 | P a g e

Investment Risks

▪ PRKR’s business operations, litigations, and financial condition may be impacted by the coronavirus outbreak. The global

spread of COVID-19 has created significant volatility and uncertainty in financial markets. If such volatility and uncertainty

persist, PRKR may be unable to raise additional capital on acceptable terms. In addition, COVID-19 is expected to negatively

impact the timing of PRKR’s current patent infringement actions as a result of office closures, travel restrictions, and court

closures. For example, each of its patent infringement cases in Florida have motions pending or granted for the extension

of certain court deadlines due to the impact of COVID- 19. If the disruptions posed by COVID-19 continue for an extended

period of time, PRKR’s business, results of operations, and financial condition may be materially adversely affected.

▪ IP risk. PRKR relies on its IP rights to provide competitive advantage and protect itself from theft of intellectual property.

However, third parties like Qualcomm (QCOM), Apple (AAPL), etc. have made claims of invalidity with respect to certain of

its patents and other similar claims may be brought in the future. For example, the Federal Patent Court in Munich recently

invalidated one of PRKR’s patents that was the subject of infringement cases against LG and Apple in Germany following a

nullity claim filed by Qualcomm. If PRKR’s patents are shown not to be as broad as currently believed, or are otherwise

challenged such that some or all of the protection is lost, the company will suffer adverse effects from the loss of competitive

advantage. As a result, there would be an adverse impact on its financial condition and business prospects.

▪ Inability to secure funding and high contingent fees. PRKR has funded a significant portion of its litigation cost through

contingent financing arrangements with Brickell Key Investments, LP and contingent fee arrangements with legal counsel.

The repayment obligation to Brickell is secured by the majority of PRKR’s assets and its contingent arrangements will result

in reductions in the amount of net proceeds retained by it from litigation, licensing, and other patent-related activities. The

contingent fees payable to others could exceed half of PRKR’s future proceeds depending on size and timing of proceeds,

among other factors. The continuation of PRKR’s business plan is dependent upon its ability to secure sufficient financing,

and its ability to generate revenues and/or patent-related proceeds sufficient to offset expenses and meet its contingent

payment obligation. Failure to do so may impede PRKR’s ability to obtain additional financing which will have a material

adverse effect on PRKR’s ability to achieve its long-term business objectives.

▪ Key man risk arising out of dependence on CEO Jeffrey Parker. Because of Mr. Parker’s leadership position in the company,

the relationships he has garnered in both the industry and the investment community, and the key role he plays in PRKR’s

patent litigation strategies, the loss of his services might be seen as an impediment to the execution of the company’s

business plan. If Mr. Parker was no longer available to the company, investors might experience an adverse impact on their

investment. PRKR maintains $5 million in key-employee life insurance for its benefit for Mr. Parker.

▪ Rapidly evolving technology landscape. The technology industry, especially the wireless technology segment, is subject to

rapid technological changes which if PRKR is unable to match or surpass, will result in a loss of competitive advantage and

market opportunity. Because of the rapid technological development that regularly occurs in the wireless technology

industry, PRKR has historically devoted substantial resources to developing and improving technology and introducing new

product offerings. However, because of its limited financial resources, the company has ceased R&D activities which could

result in a loss of future market opportunity and adversely affect future revenue potential.

▪ OTC trading risk. ParkerVision’s stock (PRKR) is listed on the over-the-counter market and not on major U.S. exchanges like

NYSE or NASDAQ. The first key risk associated with OTC stocks is the lack of complete disclosures; OTC-listed companies

have a much less stringent reporting standard to follow compared to their NYSE- or NADAQ-listed counterparts. As a result,

investors have limited publicly available information to make their investment decisions. The second key risk is that OTC

stocks generally have very small market caps and are more vulnerable to attempts of manipulation, exposing to investors

to pump-and-dump schemes that can result in loss of capital. Finally, OTC stocks generally have less liquidity due to the

reduced number of investors market makers, and analysts that invest in/follow such securities.

32 | P a g e

General Disclaimer and Copyright

This report has been issued by Intro-act, LLC, in consideration of a fee payable. Fees are paid upfront in cash and/or equity

without recourse. Intro-act, LLC may seek additional fees for the assistance with investor targeting, access, and further investor

preparation services, but does not get remunerated for any investment banking services.

Accuracy of content: All information used in the publication of this report has been compiled from publicly available sources

who are believed to be reliable. However, we do not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this report, and have not

sought for this information to be independently verified. Opinions contained in this report represent those of the Intro-act

analysts at the time of publication. Forward-looking information or statements in this report contain information that is based

on assumptions, forecasts of future results, and estimates of amounts not yet determinable, and therefore involve known and

unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors that may cause the actual results, performance, or achievements of their

subject matter to be materially different from current expectations.

Exclusion of Liability: To the fullest extent allowed by law, Intro-act, LLC shall not be liable for any direct, indirect, or

consequential losses, loss of profits, damages, or costs or expenses incurred or suffered by you arising out or in connection

with the access to, use of, or reliance on any information contained in this note.

No personalized advice: The information that we provide should not be construed in any manner whatsoever as personalized

advice. Also, the information provided by us should not be construed by any subscriber or prospective subscriber as Intro-act’s

solicitation to affect, or attempt to affect, any transaction in a security. The securities described in the report may not be eligible

for sale in all jurisdictions or to certain categories of investors.

Investment in securities mentioned: Intro-act has a restrictive policy relating to personal dealing and conflicts of interest. Intro-

act, LLC does not conduct any investment business and, accordingly, does not itself hold any positions in the securities

mentioned in this report. However, the respective directors, officers, employees, and contractors of Intro-act may have a

position in any or related securities mentioned in this report, subject to Intro-act’s policies on personal dealing and conflicts of

interest.

Copyright: Copyright 2019 Intro-act, LLC (Intro-act).

Intro-act is not registered as an investment adviser with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Intro-act relies upon the

“publishers’ exclusion” from the definition of investment adviser under Section 202(a) (11) of the Investment Advisers Act of

1940 and corresponding state securities laws. This report is a bona fide publication of general and regular circulation offering

impersonal investment-related advice, not tailored to a specific investment portfolio or the needs of current and/or prospective

subscribers. As such, Intro-act does not offer or provide personal advice, and the research provided is for informational

purposes only. No mention of a particular security in this report constitutes a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold that or any

security, or that any particular security, portfolio of securities, transaction, or investment strategy is suitable for any specific

person.