© 2024 Alpha Spread Limited. All Rights Reserved.
www.alphaspread.com is not operated by a broker, a dealer, or a registered investment adviser. Under no circumstances does any information posted on www.alphaspread.com represent a recommendation to buy or sell a security. The information on this site, and in its related newsletters, is not intended to be, nor does it constitute, investment advice or recommendations. The information on this site is in no way guaranteed for completeness, accuracy or in any other way. In no event shall Alpha Spread Limited be liable to any member, guest or third party for any damages of any kind arising out of the use of any content or other material published or available on www.alphaspread.com, or relating to the use of, or inability to use, www.alphaspread.com or any content, including, without limitation, any investment losses, lost profits, lost opportunity, special, incidental, indirect, consequential or punitive damages. Past performance is a poor indicator of future performance.
You don't have any saved screeners yet
Intrinsic Value is all-important and is the only logical way to evaluate the relative attractiveness of investments and businesses.
Intrinsic Value is all-important and is the only logical way to evaluate the relative attractiveness of investments and businesses.
Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the ParkerVision Fourth Quarter 2018 Conference Call and Webcast. [Operator Instructions]
At this time, it's my pleasure to turn the floor over to Christopher Chu. Sir, the floor is yours.
Thank you, operator. Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you all for joining us today. Before we begin, I'd 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 advances 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 to not place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements contained in 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 2018. Following Cindy's remarks, Jeffrey Parker, Chief Executive Officer, will provide an update on the Company's business.
Thank you again for joining us. And with that, I'd like to turn the call over to Cindy. Please go ahead.
Thank you, Chris, and good afternoon to those of you joining us for ParkerVision's fourth quarter and year end 2018 conference call. We reported today a net loss of $7.2 million or $0.27 per share for the fourth quarter of 2018, compared to a net loss of $6.3 million or $0.32 per share for the fourth quarter of 2017. Our net loss for the fourth quarter is heavily impacted by a $4.6 million loss related to the increase in the fair value of our contingent payment obligation for the quarter.
If you take a look at our non-GAAP net loss which excludes this change in fair value and also excludes share based compensation, you'll see a very different picture. Our non-GAAP net loss for the fourth quarter of 2018 was $2.5 million or $0.09 per share, which reflects a 50% decrease from the non-GAAP net loss in the fourth quarter of 2017 of $5 million or $0.26 per share.
Our fourth quarter operating expenses were approximately $3 million or 55% lower than operating expenses for the same period in 2017. That decrease is reflective largely of our restructuring efforts in the latter part of 2018, along with some decreases in litigation expenses for the fourth quarter of 2018 compared to 2017. On a year-to-date basis, our net loss for 2018 was $20.9 million or $0.85 per share compared to $19.3 million or $1.09 per share in 2017. Non-GAAP net loss was $14.2 million or $0.58 per share for 2018 and $16.4 million or $0.93 per share for 2017.
The results for 2018 include approximately $1.8 million in non-recurring, restructuring and inventory impairment charges, most of which were incurred in the third quarter of 2018, which we discussed on our last call. Liquidity continues to be an area of focus for the Company. During 2018, we used proceeds from both debt and equity transactions to fund our operations. We used cash for operations of $10.3 million in 2018, compared to $14.1 million in 2017.
In the fourth quarter, our cash used for operations decreased by 60% to $1.2 million compared to $3 million for the same quarter last year. We are continuing our efforts to further reduce our operating expenses in 2019 as well as exploring opportunities to properly finance our future operations.
With that, I'm going to turn the call over to Jeff, for a brief business update, but I'm available to answer any questions you may have at the end of the call today. Jeff?
Thank you, Cindy, and good afternoon. Thanks to those of you who are attending our update call today. My comment is going to be pretty brief as it seems to be that the norm with patent litigation these days is an exercise and hurry up and wait. But let's review kind of where we are in the various enforcement actions that represent our intellectual property program today.
Currently we're waiting on the next steps for two different actions that we have underway in the middle district of Florida; one in the Federal Court in Jacksonville, and the other in Federal Court in Orlando. We also have an action which we believe is near to its conclusion in Munich, Germany.
So, starting with the Jacksonville District Court, we expect a ruling on our Markman, which addresses claim construction anytime now. The court indicated that the Markman hearing itself that was held the end of August of last year, that a ruling would occur in short order. However, that didn't come with a date certain, so we can only hope that this will happen anytime now.
In the Orlando District Court case, the stay that was placed on that case after IPR's were filed was officially listed in January of this year, and the court has now received the proposals from both parties for key dates that lead up to trial, as well as guidance on which patents and claims we proposed to take forward to the trial. This court's been responsive after the IPR challenges in this case were resolved and asked us quickly after the IPR resolution if we were ready to move forward. So hopefully we will see guidance on the latest proposals we submitted very shortly.
On the Munich, Germany case, we attended what we believe was the final hearing a couple of weeks ago in Munich, in mid March. The purpose of this hearing was very technical in nature. A court appointed expert attended the two-day hearing as a guide to the court on the differences that exists between ParkerVision's guidance and Apple's guidance on highly technical issues around the invention itself and its use in Apple products. One of the ground rules is that the expert can have no correspondence outside of the public hearing with any of the parties even including with the court. The expert's role was to answer questions from both parties as well as the court, and to provide guidance on highly technical matters.
Candidly, I wish we would have more time as there wasn't enough time even in the two days for all the topics. However, keep in mind that the use of a technical expert for this court is unusual and normally the court doesn't depend on having an expert to help sort through these types of topics and gets to decisions without the use of a court appointed expert.
Overall my view on this case is that the patent we asserted clearly covers energy sampling and not prior our voltage sampling as the defendant has stated. The claim itself in fact never even one-time uses the word "Voltage". On infringement, we provided very detailed guidance in our briefs on exactly how the infringing products practice the claims in a step-by-step proof.
The expert himself stated at the onset of the hearing that it was his opinion that this type of down converting circuit was not known at the time of the filing of this patent. But that today it is widely deployed and commonly understood. Counsel has currently guided us that their expectation is that there will be a ruling some time in April. And so for now, we will await the court's decision.
And that's really the update that we have on the three actions that are currently underway; Jacksonville, which is involving Qualcomm and Apple; Orlando, which involves Qualcomm and HTC; and Germany, which involves Apple and Intel.
So, for now, I'd like to open this call up for any questions you may have.
Thank you, sir. [Operator Instructions] Mr. Parker, there doesn't appear to be any questions at this time.
Okay. Well, listen folks, thanks for joining us for today's update. And I hope that in the very near future we can bring you good news from one or maybe all of the actions that are currently underway. Hope you have a great week. Thank you very much.
Ladies and gentlemen, this does conclude today's conference. We appreciate your participation. You may disconnect at this time, and have a great day.