ParkerVision, Inc. (NASDAQ:PRKR)
Q4 2015 Earnings Conference Call
March 30, 2016, 16:30 ET
Don Markley - IR
Cindy Poehlman - CFO
Jeffrey Parker - CEO
Jon Hickman - Ladenburg Thalmann
Barry Kitt - Pinnacle Fund
Welcome to the ParkerVision’s Fourth Quarter 2015 Conference Call and Webcast. [Operator Instructions]. As of now it's time for opening remarks and introductions I would like to turn the conference over to Don Markley, Investor Relations. Please begin.
Thank you, Latoya. Good afternoon everyone, thank you all for joining us today. Before we begin, I would like to remind you that this conference call will contain forward-looking statements which involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties about our business and the economy, as well as other factors that may cause our actual results to differ materially from expected achievements and anticipated results.
Included in these risks are the company’s ability to maintain technological advantages in the marketplace, the ability to secure new customers for our products and technologies, maintaining our patent protection and the outcome of litigation among others. Given these uncertainties, as well as other factors related to our business, we caution you not to place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements contained on this conference call. Additional information concerning these and other risks can be found in our periodic filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
On today’s call, we will hear from Cindy Poehlman, Chief Financial Officer who will provide a review of the Company’s financial results for the fourth quarter and full year 2015. Following Cindy’s remarks, Jeffrey Parker, Chief Executive Officer, will provide an update on the company’s business.
Thank you again. And with that I’d like to turn the call over to Cindy. Please go ahead.
Thank you, Don and good afternoon and to those of you joining us for ParkerVision's fourth quarter and year end 2015 conference. We announced yesterday that the company has affected a one for 10 reverse split of our common stock. This reverse split took effect as of the opening of trading this morning and we anticipate that this action will enable us to regain compliance with NASDAQ's minimum bid price requirement. I'd like to point out that our annual report on Form 10-K that was filed this afternoon as well as our earnings release and my comments today with regard to earnings per share numbers all reflect the impact of the reverse split on a retroactive basis for all periods presented or discussed.
ParkerVision's Management and Board strongly believe that remaining a quality listed company on the NASDAQ capital market exchange brings value to our global licensing and product strategies. Upon achievement of some of our very near term goals which we'll talk about a bit on today's call. We believe that we will see appropriate gains in our market capitalizations that will ultimately prove this to be the right decision for the company. We reported today a net loss of $3.3 million or $0.33 per share for the fourth quarter of 2015 which is over 40% less than the net loss for the fourth quarter of 2014 of $5.6 million or $0.57 per common share.
For the full year in 2015 we reported a net loss of $17.1 million or $1.74 per share as adjusted compared to a net loss of $23.6 million or $2.45 per share for 2014 representing a year-over-year decrease in our net loss of approximately 28%. Our share based compensation expense decreased by $0.5 million from the fourth quarter of 2014 to the same quarter in 2015. For the year share based compensation decreased approximately $3.3 million in 2015 when compared to 2014. This decrease is a reflection of the significant reduction in new share based awards issued over the past two to three years including the deferral by our independent board members of their annual equity award that is part of their standard board compensation package. In addition, we continue to experience a decrease in cash expenses during 2015. On a year over year basis our cash used for operations declined by $6.8 million or 37%. For the fourth quarter of 2015 as compared to the same quarter in 2014 our use of cash showed a decrease of $3.8 million or nearly 70%. Part of this reduction in cash based expenses is a result of staff reduction in June of 2015. This downsizing is expected to result in an annual savings of approximately 2.6 million in payroll and personnel related costs.
We have also nearly eliminated our expenditures for underfunded litigation related items. The money we expect to spend in 2016 for litigation are essentially fully funded by a third party. Part of the decrease in litigation spending is also the result of a full contingent arrangement entered into with McKool Smith in mid-year 2015 with respect to our patent infringement action against Qualcomm, HTC and Samsung in District Court. Recently this district court action was stayed altogether pending resolution of the ITC investigation. In addition we incurred significant fees in 2014 and 2015 related to our defense of in a party review petition filed with the patent trial an appeal board in 2014. Those actions have then fully resolved in 2015.
Several months ago when Qualcomm filed additional IPRs against three of the patents in our district court case we were able to move the bulk of that defense work in-house. The IPR petitions thus far have been handled by our in-house patent counsel with the support of our internal technical staff. The PTAB recently denied institution of three separate petitions filed against multiple claims of one of our key patents which we believe is a testament to the strength of those patent claims as well as the solid work done by our internal team. We're pleased with the reduction in expenses that we've been able to achieve particularly given that we have reduced our spending while continuing development of new products, prosecuting new patent applications and employing a new international licensing and product venture strategy that we believe will show meaningful results in 2016. That accomplishment has not been easy and it only comes from an all hands on deck mentality. For instance we have very senior knowledgeable people in the organization that can lead large teams but in the absence of a large team these people are willing to roll up their own sleeves and work alongside others to get the job done. That dedication from long term experienced personnel has been critical.
We reported a small amount of revenue in 2015 from engineering design services and component product sales. Our component product distribution partner RSMW continues to generate new customer interest in our IQ modulator demodulator components as evidenced by purchases of evaluation board for customer testing and sampling purposes. We experience some minor cost overruns on a signed contract in the fourth quarter of 2015 but we’re seeing much better results from our design services contract in the first quarter of this year. We ended the year with approximately 2 million in cash and available for sale securities.
Subsequent to year-end we took several actions to strengthen our financial positions including restructuring some of our current accounts payable into a long term unsecured note, receiving a $1 million of proceeds from the sale of unregistered common stock in a private transaction in January and obtaining 11 million from Brickell Key Investments or BKI to support the ITC strategy we initiated in December of 2015. BKI will of course be repaid from future proceeds from our patent related actions. Although our use of cash for operations in the first half of this year 2016 may not be any less than our usage in the first half of 2015 there's a key difference in that a substantial portion of our cash usage this year will be paid from the funds received from BKI. Equally important there are financial cost [ph] in place to ensure that ParkerVision will not be reaching into it's own available working capital to cover fees or cost in these ITC proceeding even in the event of overrun. Meanwhile we will continue to explore opportunities to further improve our operating efficiencies and maintain a tight leash on spending as we work towards some very near term goals to generate meaningful revenues from licenses and products.
Once this company begins to generate meaningful revenue we will be able to recognize the benefits of one of our largest assets, our net operating loss carryforwards which total approximately 300 million as of the end of 2015.
I will be available for questions at the end of today's call but for now I would like to turn things over to Jeff for a few comments.
Well thank you Cindy and good afternoon to all of you and thanks for joining us for our fourth quarter and year-end conference call. While the past 18 months for ParkerVision have been a bit of a roller coaster ride we certainly feel that we're back on a business path that will result in generating a near term sustainable and exciting growth for ParkerVision and will return value to ParkerVision shareholders. Today I'm going to focus my comments on three areas that we believe will generate meaningful revenue and resulting shareholder value, the success of each by itself can provide significant returns given where our valuation is today. But the combination of all three we think can generate a multiplier effect given that they are all under the same ParkerVision umbrella and highly complementary to each other. The three areas that I'll discuss are number one, our international licensing program and the activities that are now well underway to generate revenue from this program in the near term.
Number two, our investment in bringing an end user RF wireless product to the marketplace also in the near term and number three additional technologies that we've developed and patented that are a complement and extend the opportunities for our technologies in both time and products and market relevance. So let's start with our international licensing program. The creation of a sustainable growth business for ParkerVision in this area depends on three key factors. First it depends on having a talented team that can develop and support the innovations that we invest in. Secondly it depends on those innovations fulfilling a need in the marketplace and finally it depends on revenues being generated from those innovation. If these three areas form the analogy of a three legged stool it would be obvious that each leg of the stool must be firmly in place for it to be strong and stable. We have a talented team that has been able to innovate and develop new technologies that are world class. We know that what they've invented has filled a great need in the market because it's now designed into many of the world's highest volume RF and wireless products.
So what's been lacking certainly isn't the adoption of our technologies in the product. I dare say that it's now in billions of units. What has been lacking our customers were willing to pay ParkerVision for it's products which in this case are patented RF and wireless technologies. So the stability of our third leg of the stool depends on our ability to enforce against the unauthorized use of our patented innovation. I won't go through a lengthy recount of the four year process ParkerVision has been through to enforce it's patent rights. For those who want that detail I encourage you to read our petition to the Supreme Court filed in February where we ask in honoring our $173 million jury verdict while the Supreme Court declined to hear that petition the briefs provide a sustained and accurate accounting. So I'm not happy with the outcome of our district court case and the setting aside of our jury verdict. I'm taking this as having made an investment not just a loss. It's an investment because it has now led to the reformation of our business plan, a plan that we believe will lead to a successful international licensing program and more.
What we learned was that we need a means of enforcing our rights that is rapid, more predictable and still provides with the district court system has all but eliminated and which is the ability to exclude unauthorized users from importing infringing products into the United States. What we also learned is that our patent portfolio has the depth and the breath to cover our numerous patented innovations that are infringed and covers those innovations in a way that we can protect the validity of the patents. We learned exactly how the infringement proof must be delivered so that it will not be vulnerable. Those lessons have reshaped the business plan that is well underway.
In December following months of research and preparation, we filed an action at the International Trade Commission against Apple, LG, Samsung and Qualcomm. These infringement actions site different patents and technologies than those that was the subject of our previous cases. Because ParkerVision had IPRs filed against some of our other patent claims we have very good visibility into what the attacks on our patents look like and we have already prevailed in both our receiver technology and our transmitter technology with claims that have been deemed not invalid. This provides a strong and growing foundation for both the licensing and products business. I want to speak for a minute about the time frames upon which the ITC moves and the legal team that’s leading our action. The case management date have been step by an ITC order which you can find on our website. A few highlights, there are three settlement conferences that will occur before the official ITC hearing or what some refer to as an ITC trial. The trial date is scheduled to begin on August 24 of this year slightly less than five months away. The three settlement conferences which each respondent which is what a defendant is referred to in the ITC must be completed by April 14 for the first settlement conference, June 21 for the second and August 17 for the third. The initial determination from the trial is due by December 21 of this year. Suffice to say that the key milestones for an ITC action occur in a much faster time frame than [indiscernible] patent gains.
If the patent holder prevails as we fully expect we will, the penalty for unauthorized importation of infringing product is an injunction which would be in effect approximately a year from now. The team that’s leading our ITC action is from the law firm of Mintz Levin headquartered in Boston and the division head of their intellectual property practice is Michael Reno [ph] who also is one of the leads of our case. Mr. Reno and his team have many years of experience in taking cases to the ITC and have a very strong track record of bringing together users of patented technologies and owners of these technologies in a resulting business arrangement. Mr. Reno has assembled team for ParkerVision that not only has the expertise in ITC actions but also has the expertise in our specific area of technology. They have the benefit of seeing the assaults on our patents through IPR many which fail to even achieve institution and are seeing the infringement defense that Qualcomm put on our first district court case.
I believe the combination of [indiscernible] experience, skills and knowledge in concert with the ITCs charter to rapidly protect innovators in the United States from unfair foreign competition through the injunction of infringing products along with the quality of our inventions, patent and products that we have invested in and continue to invest in will result in a successful international licensing program for ParkerVision. Equally important to what we think is what other knowledgeable and sophisticated people who understand this area of business fully. We have a highly sophisticated and technical Team at Mintz Levin. It has decided ParkerVision is a company that they are willing to put their substantial team behind. In addition the recently announced third party funder Brickell Key Investments under the management of Juridica Asset Management has also after extensive technical and financial due diligence funded $11 million to ParkerVision to ensure the ITC action is fully funded. Their funding decision relies on the quality of our patents and the skills of our legal team along with ParkerVision management to achieve the international licensing success we believe will occur. I stated before there is ParkerVision's technology that has enabled many of the critical features in today's RF and wireless products. Low power consumption, high levels of chip integration, and low cost semiconductors, agile multimode multi-band transceivers, high performance to accommodate the ever growing data rates and numbers of simultaneous users and more.
This technology has now been widely designed into products worldwide and throughout many applications and markets. It is only fair and reasonable that companies should not expect ParkerVision to be a free R&D shop for the world use. Even universities today with large endowments recognize that the large upfront cost and risk of innovation needs to be paid for by users of the patented innovations. It is unreasonable for an authorized party to just take patented technologies from innovators who are creating one of the most important and valuable areas of the U.S. economy and expect that they could use it for free. We believe that the further our ITC case progresses towards the trial in late August the more evident it will be that our claims have great merit and that ParkerVision is the type of company that the ITC exists to protect.
We are hopeful the those facts will bring the parties together to resolve their differences. As has been the experience for other clients of our law firm. The ultimate goal of our current strategy, a goal that our legal team has excelled at achieving for others is to bring parties together to reach reasonable business terms with regard to fair compensation for the use of our innovation. While we've been working diligently to course correct our business plan on the enforcement area we have been just been diligent on the product development area. I’ve mentioned in past updates that one of the challenges we have had to deal with is the fact that our technologies are now designed for many high volume products without authorization and that essentially eliminates those opportunities for ParkerVision except in a licensing arrangement. However we study closely the ever expanding marketplace that uses RF and wireless communication. We've identified numerous opportunities that are under-served by the existing products today. Our current IQ modulator demodulator products that are distributed through RSMW one example of valuation board's of those product that are purchased by world class organizations who have informed us of their intent to design us into their next generation product. And during the latter half of 2015 w embark on research and development of a new end user product based on much of that same technology. While on this update call today I'm not quite ready to go into detail about this product. I will say that it is a complete end user product that we believe has brought appeal in the United States and markets abroad. And that it's targeted at large numbers of consumers who are dissatisfied with today's wireless connectivity offerings. We believe there are multi-channels for getting the products to market and as the sales channels for this has never had a lower barrier to entry. With our ability to reach potential users and make sales whether direct through partners, other OEMs possibly all the above. What I'm most excited about is this product uses multiple ParkerVision technologies, can be brought to market in the near term and as a sale that does not require lengthy design in time for permission of large companies who participate in this rapidly growing wireless marketplace.
I also believe this will be a great complement to our international licensing program. It will demonstrate to our licensees that we not only invent and develop but we also apply and sell products and that we can be a strong partner. Last but not least I also want to mention that we continue to achieve growth in our patented technologies. We had nearly 10 patents issued over the previous 12 months and many new applications filed most of which are for new RF technologies. Given the track record of our team I'm confident that our licensing program and product future has a long runway ahead. Some of our patent innovations that are already in the market have patent protection in the mid-2020 and other patented innovations that we believe will find just as widespread appeal in adoptions that are not yet in the marketplace have protection date out into the early 2030s. On some of our more recent innovations we preserve our rights to attain patents in foreign jurisdictions that will be important and attractive for both licensing and product ventures and that brings to my last topic which is product interest.
ParkerVision predicted years ahead of the market adoption for the need of high performance direct conversion RF transceivers and how to enable that reality by our energy transfer sampling down conversion and our pulse shaping up conversion technologies. There are so many papers written today over a decade after our patents were filed that are just now discovering the benefits of these technologies. The same team that determine the need and conceive the solution for high performance direct conversion transceivers has never stopped. I am confident that their latest innovations will find just as much need in the market and that we remain a few steps ahead of the competition. This is meaningful because it is the foundation for additional business opportunities that the company is considering and would be a good complement to some of our first license successes that we believe will occur. And that spirit we are not [indiscernible] we have already started dialogue that could lead to joint ventures that would be based on exploiting the new technologies we innovated and this time we will not wait and try to convince companies to adopt, we will see partners who want to invest alongside us in getting these technologies into product as soon as possible and to lead the marketplace into the ever evolving next generations of RF and wireless products. It is possible that one or more of our first licensees and also become one of our first partners in such a venture. It is certainly a complement to licensing strategy and can help achieve more competitive product in an ever growing more competitive marketplace.
So thank you for tuning in to our update and now we would like to open this call up for your questions..
[Operator Instructions]. The first question is from Jon Hickman of Ladenburg Thalmann. Your line is open.
Jeff, I’ve a couple of questions. First of all could you explain the IPRs they were instituted you were -- anyway one of the patents all the claims were, the IPRs were denied and the other two patents there is a couple of claims going to trial. That's correct, right?
That is correct.
So you seem to be pretty enthused about the fact that one of those patents all of the claims were denied by the patent review board. Could you explain why -- I mean what's behind that particular like enthusiasm or positive feeling?
Sure. So there's a few things Jon, first of all a petition with the patent board to institute an IPR is heavily slanted towards the petitioner not towards the owners of patent and the reason I say that is because the patents -- the petitioner the company challenging or the individual challenging the patent has let's say if there isn't a lawsuit filed like in this case against Qualcomm, they have up to a year to put together their approach in their petition and furthermore they can hire experts and those experts can provide expert reports in the petition. The owner of the patent however cannot have an expert respond in what's called the patent owners preliminary response. It can only be a response from the company and it has a limited time to do that response. So you can see it's weighted toward institution because the patent owner response is void of any expert help and testimony.
In our situation this 372 patent that was not instituted, the response that was provided was done in-house. It was done by both our in-house counsel and our in-house VP of Engineering who also had some help from others in the company but they've put in a tremendous amount of time and they're very knowledgeable. And they were able to convince the patent office, the patent board that the petition for institution was meritless on every single claim. That's a pretty strong result especially when you think about as I described how the process works. This particular patent also has some features that are similar to one of the patents that are in the ITC case so that's very encouraging that those claims were all denied for institution. One other observation I'll make is that we had two waves of IPRs, we have had a wave of IPRs against our receiver, technology from RPX and a short seller and we had this IPR from Qualcomm.
Between those two waves we had 19 claims that were not instituted for review, okay, a licensing program, a case to enforce patent only relies on one valid claim. So we've had 19 claims that haven't been instituted now. There were claims that were instituted for review on I believe the 940 patents and the 012 patents of the Qualcomm challenge here and we believe that there are numerous claims that have been challenged that we will be able to show the patent office when we bring in expert reports and are able to drill down deeper that will show them that those are also not invalid and should be rejected for IPR removal. So we're very pleased so far with our ability to sustain the IPR challenge both because some of those claims in the 372 are kind of cousins to what the ITC and because of the total challenges 19 of our claims on those transmitter and receiver technology have never been instituted and you might imagine the people who challenge take a great deal of time and spend a lot of money to try to find what they think is the best prior [indiscernible] to invalidate a patent claim.
Now my other question has to do with. ITC case obviously the near term fortunes of ParkerVision hang largely on the outcome of this petition with the ITC. So I have never spoken with the attorneys had Mintz Levin. I know others have but I have not but it seems to me that you know we're kind of in their hands so to speak, could you comment a little bit on the fact they've been very successful it appears in their last seven cases over the last five years. It appears from the research I've been able to do that they have actually been able to create or monetize people's patents create settlements actually before the trials occurred. Could you give us some sense of maybe the criteria that they use to select a case, like how you fit that criteria, if you expect the same kind of outcome or we can expect the same kind of outcome that perhaps there might be settlement even before the August trial. Whatever you could say about that would be helpful to me.
Okay, sure. So Mintz Levin is very selective about the cases that they take to the ITC. You know they kind of remind me of the doctor that doesn't take in a real fixation. They want their patients to be healthy and a good starting point is the start with the patients that they feel are pretty healthy. I don't know exactly what their due diligence is to do that but I can tell you what I do know is that they only will do one possibly two cases simultaneously at the ITC which is why you don't see over the last five years they've done dozens and dozens. They have a great mastery of our patent portfolio, I think they also have a very clear understanding of what occurred in our district court case and how to actually use some of that as an advantage to make sure that that doesn't happen at ParkerVision again and it's really I think the secret to their success is they put a great deal of detail and time and expertise in the specific area of your technology.
I mean they -- I have watched them have conversations with our inventors and their mastery and understanding of our technology is unparalleled from what I’ve seen. It is right there at the level of our own inventors understanding and so that allows them to bring to the ITC and equally importantly I think brings to the defendant the respondents a clear understanding of why the patents are valid, why the products are infringing, why the company is exactly what the ITC looks for to defend against unfair foreign importation and I think they have a very good mastery of putting all that together in a way that once respondent see that there's a real credible situation that they will come to the conclusion a license on a fair and reasonable basis is the best outcome because the alternative if they're willing to risk it because their products will be enjoined and they will no longer be able to be shipped in the United States in a relatively short time frame.
So you know we're not looking to be unreasonable, but we are looking to be fairly compensated. And I think Mintz Levin does a really good job of pulling the other owners of technologies and users of technology into business arrangements and that's really what I think the secret to their success is.
Just one more follow up question. These settlement conferences that are mandated by the ITC like who gets involved with that? Is that attorney to attorney or is that your guys talking to their guy like? Can you give some insight there.
I will give you what I can let me say this at the very minimum it's attorneys to attorneys. However it can include company personnel and each of these conferences have not been through these process before but from my understanding each of these conferences is another opportunity for both the owner of the patents and the user of the patent to sit around a table and to talk to each other to help each other understand from our patent owners perspective this is why we are believing we have a strong case full of merit and for the user of the technology to express well how do they feel about that and I think this is why you mentioned in your question to me earlier why they've had so much success in getting people to do business arrangements in most situations I'm aware of before trial even occurs. It's because they are willing to lay all the cards on the table and show here's the situation, nothing -- [indiscernible] agenda.
So they can include company personnel, Jon, but it is the very least of course would include the attorneys from both parties.
The next question is from Barry Kitt of Pinnacle Fund. Your line is open.
Cindy you mentioned something about the roughly $300 million NOL, what are the opportunities to monetize that under what terms and conditions and is that a viable option for you and are you looking at that seriously?
We are looking at it seriously and obviously the highest and best use of that Barry is net income generated by ParkerVision whether that’s solely by ParkerVision, by a joint venture that ParkerVision maybe as the majority owner of, there are a couple of different opportunities there but 300 million obviously translates into well over $100 million of pure tax savings to the bottom line. So it is n off balance sheet asset right now but certainly one of those meaningful assets for the company.
Right. But we sit here today with less than a $20 million enterprise value with the cash you know now taken in. Obviously you’re going to spend some cash getting from here through the ITC so let's call it a $30 million enterprise value. Obviously those of us that have been involved for more than a decade -- you may have great success with ITC and we're all very hopeful. And actually defending our obviously or we wouldn't still be involved but what is the opportunity to sell the NOL to somebody else? Tell me how that might work?
Barry, let me hop in and take this. As Cindy said -- obviously one of the obvious uses is to shelter income from the profits that we generate. However, you know we have very carefully preserved these NOLs and I mentioned in my comments today that one of the areas that we are already seeking is the potential of creating ventures with other companies to explore how some of our other technologies can be brought to the market and who knows that maybe with parties that we haven't spoken to yet or maybe with parties we’re already in dialogue with, don’t know yet but one of the potential values of these NOLs is for a party who's willing to fund that type of venture with us, we have structured properly we can bring great tax efficiencies to that venture and we believe that can be done in a manner that will make it even more financially attractive to make an investment and to get these new products into the marketplace and do in a way that will actually reduce companies risks and increase there ROI. So there are ways that NOL can help tax efficiency of other ventures, we can do with companies at just another positive that we bring to the table when we sit down and talk to companies about why doing business with ParkerVision is a good idea.
Yes we have great technology. Yes we have people who are willing to do anything to help people get products in those market but we also can bring some amazing tax efficiencies to the venture.
So Jeff you're talked briefly about a new consumer, I believe you said consumer product. How can you launch that in a very low cost manner and still get traction and what methodologies might you use to do that?
Well we're at the stages right now while we're going to be getting prototypes ready to start putting some field testing out in the second quarter and while we're doing that we're exploring a couple of different marketing avenues, one of the marketing avenues that seems pretty obvious is that in today's world a lot of great products are available for direct Internet marketing, there are tons of tools and companies who are available to help companies get visibility, bring their message to users who are looking for a product that your product fulfills a need for and it's a very cost efficient way to do that.
You know 10 years ago we brought some wireless LAN products to the marketplace and there was no such marketing opportunity. People were not used to buying products off the internet, it was a very small marketplace for Internet products and look at Amazon in 2015, look at Amazon in 2005 completely different company. So you know even Walmart is moaning and groaning about what Amazon is doing to their own market share.
So internet marketing today has become a real force and it really reduces the barriers to entry and allows I think owners of new products who have very specific ideas of how they want to get their product and who they want to reach a very low barrier entry to do that, however I also think this product is going to be very attractive to certain types of distribution who can use this product in compliment with some of their own products that will solve some problems as they deal with every single day of the week and who will either want to possibly carry this product and sell it or may be brand it themselves which we certainly be open to. So I think there are several very different avenues into the marketplace but I think the first one that’s fairly straightforward ones to take it to direct to market through internet marketing I think it's quite a splash in the marketplace and find its way into the user's hands pretty quickly.
I'm going to go back to the NOL just for one more second. So you talked about a potential $100 million of $300 million NOL, $100 million is $8 a share to ParkerVision. Obviously you couldn't get all that because somebody still want that value. So let's say it's half of that so it's $4 a share to ParkerVision before you can get to ITC or one day look to monetize your patents in some fashion. So are you putting any effort to talking entities that might be interested in participating that NOL somehow? Are you doing that now?
We’re and that’s through the discussion about product ventures, joint ventures, technology development with companies. Yes that is an absolute meaningful part of the conversation we’re at. And we're finding some pretty strong interest. So yes it's definitely a part of our conversation.
Okay. And then in terms of your -- how many patents do you have now 250 or how is it?
I think it's about 280--
It's 188 U.S. and--
So Barry, let's say for round number 250.
Okay. So it's clear that there is got to be value there somehow, there is got to be value, I know it's been very frustrating trying to monetize that, well I guess I don't really have a question there. Obviously you’re doing everything you can to monetize it.
I will leave it with you like this, we share your frustration but we're not mobilized by it, we're going to get this the company moving forward. I'm really encouraged by our work with Mintz Levin over the last number of months and from what I can determine the program that they are running for is moving along exactly the way it has for their other clients and so I think that in combination with our product efforts could be an explosive result for ParkerVision this year.
I will add to that Barry, that you know not only internal to the company but a lot of really smart people external to the company. Legal advisors, this new funding party, you know their investment decisions -- these people are all making real investment in ParkerVision, their decisions are based almost entirely on the value that they see in that portfolio and as you might imagine that value in their eyes has to be many, many multiples of the investment that they're making for that be a smart decision for them.
What kind of due diligence effort in recent funding partners is for the $11 million in the company? What kind of process do they go through to get to the point where they were willing to do that?
I don't know that we have complete visibility into that Barry, I mean I can tell you it's months of months of due diligence but I do know that includes there engagement of outside the resources to take third party unemotional view of what the assets of our company are and how they stack up against the need of a international licensing program like what we’ve launched. So they do conduct their own independent third party due diligence with outside resources.
Well folks, it appears as if everybody has the information that they've been looking for. We appreciate your listening in today. We are very much looking forward to bringing some positive and tangible financial results to this company this year. So we look forward to the balance of the year and to speaking with you again soon. Have a good evening. Thank you very much. Bye.
Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen this concludes today's conference. You may now disconnect. Good day.