PRKR ParkerVision Inc (QB)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(UNAUDITED)



1.  Description of Business



ParkerVision, Inc. and its wholly-owned German subsidiary, ParkerVision GmbH (collectively “ParkerVision”, “we” or the “Company”) is in the business of innovating fundamental wireless technologies and products. We have designed and developed a distributed WiFi product line for consumers and small businesses that is being marketed under the brand name Milo®. We have also designed and developed proprietary radio frequency (“ RF ”) technologies and integrated circuits for use in wireless communication products. We have expended significant financial and other resources to research and develop our RF technologies and to obtain patent protection for those technologies in the United States and certain foreign jurisdictions. We believe certain patents protecting our proprietary technologies have been broadly infringed by others and therefore our business plan includes enforcement of our intellectual property rights through patent infringement litigation and licensing efforts.



We restructured our operations during the third quarter of 2018 in order to reduce operating expenses in light of our limited capital resources.  Our primary business is to support and defend the investments we have made in developing and protecting our technologies by focusing on our patent enforcement program.  We have made significant investments in developing and protecting our technologies and products, the returns on which are dependent upon the generation of future revenues for realization.



2.  Liquidity and Going Concern



Our accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements were prepared assuming we would continue as a going concern, which contemplates that we will continue in operation for the foreseeable future and will be able to realize assets and settle liabilities and commitments in the normal course of business.  These condensed consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments to reflect the possible future effects on the recoverability and classification of assets or the amounts and classification of liabilities that could result should we be unable to continue as a going concern.



We have incurred significant losses from operations and negative cash flows in every year since inception and have utilized the proceeds from the sales of our equity securities and contingent funding arrangements with third-parties to fund our operations, including the cost of litigation.  For the three months ended March 31, 2019, we incurred a net loss of approximately $2.1 million and negative cash flows from operations of approximately $1.7 million.  At March 31, 2019, we had a working capital deficit of approximately $3.2 million and we had an accumulated deficit of approximately $394.4 million.  These circumstances raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue to operate as a going concern within one year following the issue date of these condensed consolidated financial statements.



For the three months ended March 31, 2019, we received aggregate net proceeds of approximately $1.3 million from the sale of convertible promissory notes. At March 31, 2019, we had cash and cash equivalents of approximately $0.4 million.  Our Milo product line has not generated expected revenues to date and the amount and timing of proceeds from our patent enforcement actions, if any, is difficult to predict.  Although we have made significant reductions in our operating costs, we will need additional working capital to fund our operations.

We are exploring additional financing opportunities for both our short and long-term capital needs.  These financing opportunities may include debt, convertible debt, common or preferred equity offerings, or a

combination thereof.  There can be no assurance that we will be able to consummate a financing transaction or that the terms of such financing will be on terms and conditions that are acceptable.  



Our ability to meet our liquidity needs for the next twelve months is dependent upon (i) our ability to market and sell existing products; (ii) our ability to successfully negotiate licensing agreements and/or settlements relating to the use of our technologies by others in excess of our contingent payment obligations; and/or (iii) our ability to obtain additional debt or equity financing.  We expect that revenue generated from product sales, patent enforcement actions, and technology licenses over the next twelve months may not be sufficient to cover our working capital requirements.  In the event we do not generate sufficient revenues to cover our operational costs and contingent repayment obligations, we will be required to use available working capital and/or raise additional working capital through the sale of equity securities or other financing arrangements.    



We expect to continue to invest in patent prosecution and enforcement and, on a reduced basis, our product marketing and support for our technologies and products. The long-term continuation of our business plan is dependent upon the generation of sufficient revenues from our technologies and/or products to offset expenses and contingent payment obligations.  In the event that we do not generate sufficient revenues, we will be required to obtain additional funding through public or private debt or equity financing or contingent fee arrangements and/or reduce operating costs.  Failure to generate sufficient revenues, raise additional capital through debt or equity financings or contingent fee arrangements, and/or reduce operating costs will have a material adverse effect on our ability to meet our long-term liquidity needs and achieve our intended long-term business objectives.

3.  Basis of Presentation



The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements for the three months ended March 31, 2019 were prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) for interim financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Rule 10-01 of Regulation S-X.  Operating results for the three months ended March 31, 2019 are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the year ending December 31, 2019 or future years.  Certain reclassifications have been made to prior period amounts to conform to the current period presentation.  All normal and recurring adjustments which, in the opinion of management, are necessary for a fair statement of the consolidated financial condition and results of operations have been included.



The year-end condensed consolidated balance sheet data was derived from audited financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2018, but does not include all disclosures required by GAAP.  These interim condensed consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with our latest Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018 (“2018 Annual Report”).



The condensed consolidated financial statements include the accounts of ParkerVision, Inc. and its wholly-owned German subsidiary, ParkerVision GmbH, after elimination of all intercompany transactions and accounts.  

4.  Accounting Policies



There have been no changes in accounting policies from those stated in our 2018 Annual Report, except as follows:



Adoption of New Accounting Standards



As of January 1, 2019, we adopted Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 842, “Leases.” ASC 842 requires lessees to recognize right-of-use (“ROU”) assets and lease liabilities on the balance sheet for all finance and operating leases with lease terms of more than 12 months and disclose key information about leasing arrangements (see Note 8).  ASC 842 allows for the application of the new standard on the adoption date without restatement of prior comparative periods or a modified retrospective transition method which requires application of the new standard at the beginning of the earliest period presented.  We have elected to use the adoption date as the initial application date without restatement of prior comparative periods.  We also elected the package of practical expedients permitted under the transition guidance which, among other things, does not require us to reassess lease classification.  Upon adoption of ASC 842, we recognized an adjustment to beginning retained earnings of approximately $0.04 million for the cumulative effect of the change in accounting principle. We also recorded a ROU asset of approximately $0.56 million and an increase in our operating lease liabilities of approximately $0.60 million, primarily related to operating leases for our office and warehouse facilities.  Our accounting for finance leases remains substantially unchanged. Adoption of the standard did not materially impact operating results or cash flows. 



As of January 1, 2019, we adopted Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) 2018-02, “Income Statement - Reporting Comprehensive Income (Topic 220): Reclassification of Certain Tax Effects from  Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income .”  The amendments in this update allow a reclassification from accumulated other comprehensive income to retained earnings for stranded tax effects resulting from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.  We have no stranded tax effects included in our other comprehensive loss and therefore the adoption of ASU 2018-02 did not impact our consolidated financial statements.

5.  Loss per Common Share



Basic loss per common share is determined based on the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding during each period.  Diluted loss per common share is the same as basic loss per common share as all common share equivalents are excluded from the calculation, as their effect is anti-dilutive.



We have shares underlying outstanding options, warrants, unvested RSUs and convertible notes that were excluded from the computation of diluted loss per share as their effect would have been anti-dilutive.  These common share equivalents at March 31, 2019 and 2018 were as follows (in thousands):







6.  Prepaid Expenses



Prepaid expenses consist of the following (in thousands):





7.  Intangible Assets



Intangible assets consist of the following (in thousands):





8.  Leases



We lease our office and other facilities and certain office equipment under long-term, non-cancelable operating and finance leases.  Some leases include options to purchase, terminate, or extend for one or more years.  These options are included in the lease term when it is reasonably certain that the option will be exercised.   We do not recognize ROU assets and lease liabilities for leases with terms at inception of twelve months or less.  



At inception, we determine if an arrangement contains a lease and whether that lease meets the classification criteria of a finance or operating lease. Some of our lease arrangements contain lease components (e.g. minimum rent payments) and non-lease components (e.g. services).  For certain equipment leases, we account for lease and non-lease components separately based on a relative fair market value basis.  For all other leases, we account for the lease and non-lease components (e.g. common area maintenance) on a combined basis. 



Following the adoption of ASC 842 as of January 1, 2019 (see Note 4), operating leases are included in operating lease right-of-use assets and operating lease liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheets.  Operating lease ROU assets and liabilities are recognized at commencement date based on the present value of lease payments over the lease term using the implicit rate, when readily available, or our incremental borrowing rate for collateralized debt based on information available at the lease commencement date.   Lease expense for operating leases is generally recognized on a straight-line basis over the lease term and is included in operating expenses on the condensed consolidated statement of comprehensive loss.  For the three months ended March 31, 2019, we recognized operating lease costs of approximately $0.1 million.





Finance leases are included in property, plant, and equipment, other accrued expenses and other long-term liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets.  Finance leases are recorded as an asset and an obligation at an amount equal to the present value of the minimum lease payments during the lease term.  Amortization expense and interest expense associated with finance leases are included in selling, general, and administrative expense and interest expense, respectively, on the consolidated statements of comprehensive loss.  Our finance leases are not material to our consolidated financial statements as of or for the three months ended March 31, 2019.



No new finance or operating leases commenced during the three months ended March 31, 2019.  The following table summarizes the supplemental cash flow information related to leases, including the right-of-use assets recognized upon adoption of the new lease standard (in thousands):







The following table summarizes other supplemental information related to leases:





The future maturities of lease liabilities consist of the following as of March 31, 2019 (in thousands):











As of December 31, 2018, we had a lease liability of approximately $0.1 million which represented the estimated fair value of remaining lease rental payments for our cease-use facility in Lake Mary, Florida, less estimated sublease rentals, as accounted for under ASC 840, “Leases” which was superseded by ASC 842 as of January 1, 2019.



9. Long-term debt



Note Payable to a Related Party

We have an unsecured promissory note payable to Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein, & Fox, PLLC (“SKGF”), a related party, for outstanding unpaid fees for legal services (the “SGKF Note”).   The SKGF Note, as amended in 2018, accrued interest at a rate of 8% per annum and provided for payments of principal and interest of approximately $48,500 per month commencing October 31, 2018 through March 31, 2020.  At December 31, 2018, we were in default on the payment terms of the SKGF Note.  In March 2019, we amended the SKGF Note to provide for a waiver of past payment defaults, a decrease in the interest rate from 8% per annum to 4% per annum, an extension of the maturity date from March 2020 to April 2022, and a modification of payment terms.  This amendment constitutes a troubled debt restructuring and will be accounted for on a prospective basis from the date of the amendment.  At March 31, 2019, we are in compliance with all the terms of the amended SKGF Note.



Secured Note Payable

We have a note payable to Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. (“Mintz”) for outstanding, unpaid attorney’s fees and costs associated with our patent enforcement program (the “Mintz Note”).  The Mintz Note is non-interest bearing, except in the event of a default, and is secured by certain of our U.S. and foreign patents.  The Mintz Note accelerates and becomes immediately due and payable in the case of standard events of default and/or in the event of a sale or other transfer of substantially all of our assets or a transfer of more than 50% of our capital stock in one or a series of transactions or through a merger or other similar transaction.  In an event of default, the Mintz Note will accrue interest at a rate of 12% per annum on any outstanding balance until such time that the note is paid in full.  As of December 31, 2018, we were in default on the payment terms of the Mintz Note.  The payment default was cured in January 2019.  On April 1, 2019, Mintz waived past and future payment defaults under the note through at least May 31, 2019, provided that no other event of default occurs.  Mintz also waived acceleration of unpaid principal and interest as well as an increase in the interest rate to the default rate of 12%.  As of March 31, 2019, we are in compliance with all the terms of the Mintz Note.

Convertible Notes



Our convertible notes represent five-year promissory notes that are convertible, at the holders’ option, into shares of our common stock at fixed conversion prices.  The convertible notes bear interest at a stated rate of 8% per annum and interest payments are made on a quarterly basis.  Interest is payable, at our option and subject to certain equity conditions, in either cash, shares of our common stock, or a combination thereof.



We have the option to prepay the notes any time following the one-year anniversary of the issuance of the notes, subject to a premium on the outstanding principal prepayment amount of 25% prior to the two-year anniversary of the note issuance date, 20% prior to the three-year anniversary of the note issuance date, 15% prior to the four-year anniversary of the note issuance date, or 10% thereafter.  The notes provide for events of default that include failure to pay principal or interest when due, breach of any of the representations, warranties, covenants or agreements made by us, events of liquidation or bankruptcy, and a change in control.  In the event of default, the interest rate increases to 12% per annum and the outstanding principal balance of the notes plus all accrued interest due may be declared immediately payable by the holders of a majority of the then outstanding principal balance of the convertible notes.



Convertible notes payable at March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018 consist of the following (in thousands):





Secured Contingent Payment Obligation



The following table provides a reconciliation of our secured contingent payment obligation, measured at estimated fair market value, for the three months ended March 31, 2019 and the year ended December 31, 2018 (in thousands) :









Our secured contingent payment obligation represents the estimated fair value of our repayment obligation to Brickell under a February 2016 funding agreement, as amended in May 2016, December 2017, April 2018, September 2018 and December 2018.  Under the agreement, as of March 31, 2019, we have received aggregate proceeds of $18.0 million in exchange for Brickell’s right to reimbursement and compensation from gross proceeds resulting from patent enforcement and other patent monetization actions.  To date, we have repaid an aggregate of $3.3 million to Brickell from patent enforcement proceeds.



Brickell is entitled to priority payment of 100% of proceeds received from all patent-related actions until such time that Brickell has been repaid in full.  After repayment of the funded amount, Brickell is entitled to a portion of remaining proceeds up to a specified minimum return which is determined as a percentage of the funded amount and varies based on the timing of repayment.  In addition, Brickell is entitled to a pro rata portion of proceeds from specified legal actions to the extent aggregate proceeds from those actions exceed the specified minimum return.



Brickell holds a senior security interest in the majority of our assets until such time as the specified minimum return is paid, in which case, the security interest will be released except with respect to the patents and proceeds related to specific legal actions.  The security interest is enforceable by Brickell in the event that we are in default under the agreement which would occur if (i) we fail, after notice, to pay proceeds to Brickell, (ii) we become insolvent or insolvency proceedings are commenced (and not subsequently discharged) with respect to us, (iii) our creditors commence actions against us (which are not subsequently discharged) that affect our material assets, (iv) we, without Brickell’s consent, incur indebtedness other than immaterial ordinary course indebtedness, or (v) there is an uncured non-compliance of our obligations or misrepresentations under the agreement.   As of March 31, 2019, we are in compliance with our obligations under this agreement.



We have elected to measure our secured contingent payment obligation at fair value based on probability-weighted estimated cash outflows, discounted back to present value using a discount rate determined in accordance with accepted valuation methods.  The secured contingent payment obligation is remeasured to fair value at each reporting period with changes recorded in the condensed consolidated statements of comprehensive loss until the contingency is resolved.  As of March 31, 2019, the fair value of the obligation is estimated to be approximately $25.1 million (see Note 10). 



10. Fa ir Value Measurements



The following tables summarize the fair value of our assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis as of March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018 (in thousands):











The fair value of our secured contingent payment obligation was estimated using a probability-weighted income approach based on various cash flow scenarios as to the outcome of patent-related actions both in terms of timing and amount, discounted to present value using a risk-adjusted rate.  We used a risk-adjusted discount rate of 16.27% at March 31, 2019, based on a risk-free rate of 2.27% as adjusted by 8% for credit risk and 6% for litigation inherent risk.  At December 31, 2018, w e used a risk-adjusted discount rate of approximately 16.5%, based on a two year risk-free rate of approximately 2.5% as adjusted by 8% for credit risk and 6% for litigation inherent risk. The contingent payment obligation does not have a fixed duration; however, our cash flow projections assume a remaining duration ranging from approximately one to three years with an average duration of 2.6 years.  The cash outflows could potentially range from $0 to $47.1 million through 2021 with a weighted average outflow of approximately $36.2 million.  We evaluate the estimates and assumptions used in determining the fair value of our secured contingent payment obligation each reporting period and make any adjustments prospectively based on those evaluations.   Changes in any of these Level 3 inputs could result in a higher or lower fair value measurement.

11.  Legal Proceedings



From time to time, we are subject to legal proceedings and claims which arise in the ordinary course of our business.  These proceedings include patent enforcement actions initiated by us against others for the infringement of our technologies, as well as proceedings brought by others against us at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTAB”) and in the Federal Patent Court in Germany in an attempt to invalidate certain of our patent claims.   We have several patent enforcement actions in Germany which has a “loser pay” system whereby the non-prevailing party is responsible for statutory attorney fees and costs.  To the extent a loss is probable and reasonably estimable as of the balance sheet date, the estimated loss is recorded in the accompanying statement of comprehensive loss and included in current liabilities under the heading “statutory court costs” in the consolidated balance sheets.  The accompanying statements of comprehensive losses for the three months ended March 31, 2019 exclude any charges related to probable losses that arose after the date of these financial statements. There is at least a reasonable possibility of an unfavorable outcome in any one or more of our legal proceedings that could result in expenses in the aggregate that could have a material unfavorable impact on our results of operations as more fully discussed below.



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

We have a patent infringement complaint pending in the Middle District of Florida against Qualcomm and Qualcomm Atheros, Inc. (collectively “Qualcomm”), and HTC (HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc.) (the “Qualcomm Action”) seeking unspecified damages and injunctive relief for infringement of certain of our patents.  Certain of the defendants have filed counterclaims against us for non-infringement and invalidity for all patents in the case.  A claim construction hearing was held in August 2015 but no ruling on claim construction has been issued by the court.  In February 2016, the court granted the parties’ joint motion to stay these proceedings until resolution of proceedings at the International Trade Commission (“ITC”).  In May 2017, the stay of these proceedings was continued pending an appeal of certain PTAB decisions with regard to our U.S. Patent 6,091,940 (“the ‘940 Patent”).  In September 2018, the Federal Circuit issued its decision in the appeal of the ‘940 Patent.  Accordingly, in January 2019, the court lifted the stay.  A trial schedule has not yet been set for this case.



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

In December 2015, we filed a patent infringement complaint in the Middle District of Florida against Apple, LG, Samsung and Qualcomm alleging infringement of four of our patents.  In February 2016, the district court proceedings were stayed pending resolution of the corresponding case filed at the ITC.  In July 2016, we entered into a patent license and settlement agreement with Samsung and, as a result, Samsung was dismissed from the district court action. In March 2017, we filed a motion to terminate the ITC proceedings and a corresponding motion to lift the stay in the district court case.  This motion was granted in May 2017.  In July 2017, we filed a motion to dismiss LG from the district court case (see ParkerVision v. LG below).  Also in July 2017, Qualcomm filed a motion to change venue to the southern district of California and Apple filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue.  In March 2018, the district court ruled against the Qualcomm and Apple motions.  The parties also filed a joint motion in March 2018 to eliminate three of the four patents in the case in order to expedite proceedings leaving our U.S. patent 9,118,528 as the only remaining patent in this case.   A claim construction hearing was held on August 31, 2018, and we are currently awaiting the court’s decision regarding claim language pertinent to this case.  We anticipate that a trial date will be scheduled for this proceeding following the court’s order regarding claim construction.



ParkerVision v. LG (District of New Jersey)

In July 2017, we 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).  We elected to dismiss the case in the middle district of Florida and re-file in New Jersey as a result of a recent Supreme Court ruling regarding proper venue.  In March 2018, the court stayed this case pending a final decision in ParkerVision v. Apple and Qualcomm in the Middle District of Florida. As part of this stay, LG has agreed to be bound by the final claim construction decision in that case.

ParkerVision v. LG Electronics (Munich, Germany)

In June 2016, we filed a complaint in Munich District Court against LG Electronics Deutschland GmbH, a German subsidiary of LG Electronics, Inc. (“LGE”) seeking damages and injunctive relief for the alleged infringement of the German part of our European patent 1 206 831 (“the ‘831 Patent”). A hearing in this case was held in November 2016 at which time the court concluded that certain LGE products using Qualcomm RF circuitry infringe our patent.  The final decision in this case was stayed pending resolution of the corresponding nullity, or validity, action filed by Qualcomm in the German Federal Patent Court in Munich (see Qualcomm v. ParkerVision below).  In October 2018, we received an unfavorable decision in the nullity case for which we have filed an appeal.  The outcome of our appeal of the nullity action will determine the outcome of this action.  If our appeal is unsuccessful, we will be subject to a claim for reimbursement of statutory attorney’s fees and costs in this case.  We estimate a claim of approximately $0.06 million for which we have posted a bond.  The cost of the bond is included in “Prepaid expenses” in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets and will be charged to expense if a loss becomes probable.



ParkerVision v. Apple (Munich, Germany) - the Apple I case

In October 2016, we filed a complaint in Munich District Court against Apple, Inc., Apple Distribution International, and Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG (collectively “Apple”) seeking damages and injunctive relief for the alleged infringement of the ‘831 Patent (the “Apple I Case”).  In February 2017, we amended our complaint adding the infringement of a second German patent and alleging infringement by Apple devices that incorporate an Intel transceiver chip.  The Munich Regional Court bifurcated the new claims into a second case (see ParkerVision v. Apple - the Apple II case below).   A hearing was held in May 2017 in the Apple I Case.  In June 2017, the court deferred its ruling pending the decision from the German Federal Patent Court in the validity action filed by Qualcomm (see Qualcomm v. ParkerVision below ).   In October 2018, we received an unfavorable decision in the nullity case for which we have filed an appeal.  We opted not to post a bond to cover the potential statutory costs in this case. As a result, in March 2019, the district court declared the complaint withdrawn, a decision we opted not to appeal. Accordingly, we are subject to a claim for reimbursement of statutory attorney’s fees and costs of approximately $0.1 million, which is accrued in the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements as the loss is considered probable as of March 31, 2019.



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

In August 2016, Qualcomm filed a validity action in Federal Patent Court in Germany against the ’831 Patent.  The outcome of this validity action impacts our German patent infringement cases against LGE and Apple as discussed above. On October 17, 2018, following an oral hearing, the court ruled that the ‘831 Patent was invalid.  Based on the October 2018 decision from the federal court, we recorded a contingent loss of $0.1 million for the estimated statutory fees and costs in this case as of December 31, 2018.  In January 2019, we appealed this decision to the German Supreme Court.  Dates have not yet been established for the appeal.  If we ultimately do not prevail in this case, we will be subject to an additional claim for reimbursement of statutory attorney fees and costs for the appeal which we estimate to be approximately $0.1 million.  In addition, we may be subject to claims for reimbursement of statutory attorney fees and costs for the LG case that is stayed pending this validity decision.  



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

The Apple II case seeks damages and injunctive relief for the alleged infringement of the German part of our European patent 1 135 853 (“the ‘853 Patent”).  A preliminary hearing was held in November 2017.  Subsequent to the hearing, the court requested that we supplement certain elements of the infringement claims against Apple devices.  In May 2018, we filed our supplemental briefs as requested by the court.  In October 2018, we also filed a supplemental expert report.  The court appointed an expert in this case and a hearing was held in March 2019 for purposes of providing expert testimony.  The court ruled in April 2019 that Apple does not infringe our ‘853 Patent.  We are currently evaluating our options for appeal of this decision.   We have posted a bond of approximately $0.14 million which is our estimated maximum exposure in this case. The cost of the bond is included in “Prepaid expenses” in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets.



Intel v. ParkerVision   (Federal Patent Court in Germany)

In August 2017, Intel filed a nullity action in German Federal Patent Court claiming invalidity of the ‘853 Patent that is the subject of the Apple II case.  If the ‘853 Patent is declared invalid, we may be subject to a claim for reimbursement of statutory attorney fees and costs in this case which we currently estimate will not exceed $0.1 million.  No dates have yet been set in this nullity action, and the accompanying consolidated financial statements do not include any accrual for a loss contingency in this case as a loss is not considered probable.  

12. Share-Based Compensation



There has been no material change in the assumptions used to compute the fair value of our equity awards, nor in the method used to account for share-based compensation from those stated in our 2018 Annual Report. 



The following table presents share-based compensation expense included in our condensed consolidated statements of comprehensive loss for the three months ended March 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively (in thousands):





13.  Subsequent Events

In April 2019, the district court in Munich, Germany ruled that Apple does not infringe our ‘853 Patent (see Note 11). As a result of this ruling, we may be subject to court fees and other statutory costs of approximately $0.14 million for which we have posted a bond.  In addition, this ruling will result in a change in certain assumptions used in determining the fair value of our secured contingent payment obligation (see Note 10).  We estimate the impact of the change in those assumptions will result in a decrease in the fair value of our secured contingent payment obligation and a corresponding gain from the change in fair value of approximately $0.56 million which will be recognized in future periods.  This ruling had no impact on our consolidated financial statements as of and for the three months ended March 31, 2019.







IT EM 2.  Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations