Patents and Patent Applications
Pending – A more Recent Look
March
15, 2004
From the company’s 2003 10K statement (page 9):
“In the wireless division, the Company has
obtained 29 patents related to its D2D technology and has over 90 patent applications
pending in the United States and other countries. In the video division,
the Company has obtained 25 patents related to its camera tracking technology
and automated production systems and has 27 additional applications pending.”
August, 2004
In product descriptions posted on CompUSA for its wireless PC LAN
card, ParkerVision states that it has “over 130
patents awarded and pending” on D2D technology.
March 16, 2005
From the company’s 2004 10K
statement (page 8):
“The Company has obtained 59 patents related to its D2D technology
and has over 90 patent applications pending in the United States and other
countries. The Company estimates the economic life of its patents
to be fifteen to twenty years.”
Observations
We updated our investigation of ParkerVision’s claims about
the total number of patents and pending applications from its recent
statements. We note that because these statements are recent,
we cannot fully verify them. Our information will not include
patent applications that were filed within the last 18 months,
namely after September 1, 2003. Patents, however, are typically
published about 3 months after they issue, so we will have more
up-to-date information there. In any case, we can calculate
the difference between our search results in public records and
the ParkerVision claims for D2D technology. .
We again define “portfolio” as all issued, independent
patents and patent applications (i.e., we did not count different
codes for the same application number as separate patent applications
as they are only different versions of the same application). Detailed
holdings based on searches at the US Patent & Trademark Office
website (www.uspto.gov )
and the WIPO website (www.wipo.int )
are given in Appendix 1. We summarize the following statistics
for ParkerVision assigned intellectual property holdings at the
time of the 10K release. Note that all patents and applications
are sorted by filing date, rather than by issue date or publication
date.
D2D
Year |
Total (Cum) |
Total Filed |
US Patents |
US Pat Apps |
Intnl Patents |
Intnl Pat Apps |
≤1998 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1999 |
21 |
17 |
10 |
0 |
4 |
3 |
2000 |
36 |
15 |
7 |
0 |
2 |
6 |
2001 |
43 |
7 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
5 |
2002 |
58 |
15 |
1 |
13 |
0 |
1 |
2003 |
62 |
4 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
2004 |
66 |
4 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
Total |
66 |
66 |
23 |
20 |
6 |
17 |
Video
Year |
Total (Cum) |
Total Filed |
US Patents |
US Pat Apps |
Intnl Patents |
Intnl Pat Apps |
2003 |
33 |
4 |
18 |
5 |
3 |
7 |
- In its 2003 10K report, ParkerVision claims that it has 25
issued patents and 27 pending applications in its camera/automated
production technology. We were able to count 21 issued
patents and 8 patent applications. We note that the
discrepancy in issued patents is small, while there is a discrepancy
of 15 applications (which could have been unpublished prior
to November 29, 2000).
- In its 2003 10K report, ParkerVision claims that is has 29
issued patents and 90 patent applications in D2D technology. We
note that the error in patent applications with our analysis
should be small, given that there is only a three month window
within which applications would have been published for our
analysis and actual filings made. We counted 29 issued
patents, in exact agreement with the 10K statement. However,
we only counted only 33 patent applications filed worldwide. This
is a discrepancy of 57 patent applications, or a factor of
two in the number of applications filed.
- In its 2004 10K report, ParkerVision claims that it has 59
issued patents and 90 pending applications worldwide for a
total portfolio size of 149 items. The difference between
the claimed portfolio size and what our search reported is
greater than a factor of 2, or 83 items. A factor of
2 is a sizeable discrepancy.
- On closer inspection, ParkerVision has 23 + 6 = 29 published
patents worldwide on D2D technology, which is the same number
as in 2003. ParkerVision claimed 59 issued patents in
its 10K report, which is twice the number of patents that we
were able to find, or a discrepancy of 30 patents. Given
only a three month lag in publication of issued patents, we
do not understand how ParkerVision can substantiate these claims,
or else 30 patents would have had to issue in December 2004!
- Similarly for patent applications, ParkerVision claims 90
pending applications worldwide. Interestingly enough,
this is the same number of patent applications claimed in 2003. However,
we only found 20 + 17 = 37 published applications, i.e., a
discrepancy of 53 applications. Given that our search
data is accurate up to Sept 1, 2003, this means that ParkerVision
filed 53 patent applications worldwide in the last 18 months,
at a rate of about 35 patents/year. Given the maximum
annual number of applications ever filed was 17 (in 1999) at
the inception of D2D technology, we are greatly puzzled by
this discrepancy.
- We also note the discrepancy between the Signal Max product
marketing description, which states 130 patents awarded and
pending, and the current 10K report, which states a total of
149 patents awarded and pending.
The only way in which we can rationalize this discrepancy is that
ParkerVision double counts international applications based on
title changes or corrections. In WIPO notation, the initial
submission is designated as A1. If changes are made, the
application’s number is modified to A2 or A3. If the
European community is designated, another number having an EP rather
than WO prefix is generated for the same patent application. If
the title is changed, or the patent application is translated into
a different language, different suffixes are attached to the application
number, such as C2 or T2. Thus, the same patent application
can appear to have two to six different suffixes for the same number. Clearly,
this approach can lead to a misinterpretation of the size and value
of a company’s portfolio.
If we take this inflated approach, then ParkerVision would have
counted 138 patents and patents and applications at the end of
2003 in both video and D2D. However, ParkerVision claimed
a total of 171 patents and applications in its 2003 10K report,
so even with the double counting, we were unable to match the claimed
portfolio size. Similarly, in 2004, ParkerVision had 138
published patents and applications that we counted. Of these,
44 related to the video business which was sold. Therefore,
we counted a total of 94 patents and applications in D2D technology
with the inflated approach. We note that again, our results
are far from the D2D portfolio claiming 149 items in the 2004 10K
report.
Given that ParkerVision assigns a high value to its D2D patent
portfolio, namely over $8 million dollars of net value, we find
it disturbing that we cannot reconcile the claims in the 10K reports
with publically available information. Further, we find it strange
that ParkerVision only assigned a value of $1.5M to its video technology
patent portfolio (prior to amortization), given that in 2004, it
accounted for 35% of its total portfolio and that the division
was generating substantially more revenue than the wireless division.
|
|