From:
`To:
`CC:
`Sent:
`Subject:
`
`Prashant Kantak
`Lisa Wen; Prashant Kantak; syounis; sciccarelli; kmontalvo
`udhaliwa; jnybeck; rcama; jlodenius; dschrock; pak
`10/7/1998 9:24:38 PM
`Re: Resending.. ParkerVision
`
`Lisa,
`I believe we have made substantial progress since then. To tell you the truth, I am more of a
`believer now than when I started talking with them.
`
`-We have been able to establish a common language to measure the performance parameters for
`their technology. Both parties have agreed on a common test setup and the performance numbers
`we measured using that setup. Thanks to you guys and especially Steve and Saed, we have shown
`that a relationship with Qualcomm will add value to their goal of maximizing the benefits of
`this technology whether or not it is useful to our purpose. In return, we would like to share
`in their success -- perhaps through equity if they are successful in other markets and/or
`through a favorable licensing agreement if this technology is useful to us in its full or
`reduced scope. I have constantly conveyed this point to Jeff Parker and he is very aware of
`it.
`
`-The performance parameters that were tested on this board have been quite encouraging
`according to our own folks. They have agreed to put in some extra effort to come up with a
`discrete board in the interim until they get their CMOS parts back which they said they could
`tweak to get closer to our requirements. Yes, the schedule for the discrete board has slipped
`and I am planning to use that to extract additional concessions rather than conclude that it
`is worthless to pursue this further. Jeff Parker has agreed to give me an update every friday
`on their progress and on any changes to the time schedules, performance goals, etc. He has
`also agreed that he would be willing to reveal the technology to us since he now has a
`technology disclosure agreement in place as well as a licensing agreement that he will present
`to us shortly.
`
`-To answer Upkar’s concern that they do not have a complete handle on what they are doing, it
`is to our advantage to exploit that opportunity and shepherd them along the right (our) path.
`It is an inefficient process, but from his point of view, as the CEO of a public company, he
`is constantly torn between maximizing the short-term benefits (value of an agreement in the
`wireless LA_N area, say) and a more risky, but long-term benefit in the digital phone market
`given the limited amount of resources he has. I believe he is closer to getting the technology
`validated for the wireles LAN application. I am trying to get him to give more importance to
`our needs. I am not expecting 100% attention to us, but it is still better than what we had
`when we started out.
`
`In short, we just have to deal with their culture and be ready when we need to make a move.
`
`Prashant
`
`At 09:17 AM 10/7/98 0700, Lisa Wen wrote:
`>Isn’t it funny that I went thru this same thing back in april and here we
`>are 6 months later going thru it again with little to no progress?
`>Thanks for still tracking this.
`>lisa
`>
`>At 6:42 PM -0700 10/5/98, Prashant Kantak wrote:
`>>Folks,
`>>
`>>The 2-4 week time window for PV to come back to us with a discrete board is
`>>now open (since last thursday), but we have no idea what progress they
`>>have/haven’t made.
`>>
`>>In this context, Jeff Parker got back to me friday late afternoon. He
`>>mentioned that he and his folks have been busy completing patent documents,
`>>etc. have not devoted themselves full time to fulfilling the goals we had
`>>set when we last met in the lab. He also pleaded ignorance on knowledge of
`>>the status of the effort. I have chided him for, first and foremost, not
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`QCPV001389618
`
`PX 64.00001
`
`ParkerVision Ex. 2015
`Intel Corp. v. ParkerVision, Inc.
`IPR2020-01265
`
`

`

`>>informing us about his progress (or lack thereof) despite Saed and I
`>>calling them repeatedly and to my specific questions to him when I met him
`>>in Florida, and secondly for not showing a strong enough commitment to us.
`>>
`>>Given his other random musings during my conversations with him, I gathered
`>>that he (they) are devoting much of their efforts to wireless LAN
`>>applications -- which might end up being a complete waste, especially since
`>>wireless LAN has not taken off for reasons other than ParkerVision’s
`>>technology. In any case, regardless of the real reasons for this delay, I
`>>believe that since he has yanked our chain, I would like to tighten the
`>>noose around him and use this situation as a bargaining tool since we have
`>>baited him enough with our interest.
`>>
`>>If the folks from ParkerVision call you, please get as much information
`>>from them as possible as to the status of their efforts, timeframes, etc.
`>>but please DO NOT give out any information on our judgement of their
`>>technology (given their latest numbers, whether good or bad) and any time
`>>frame when they could come down to do another demo with us. Please refer
`>>them to me. Also, please keep me informed if you guys hear from them,
`>>since I would like to know what they have (or haven’t) told you when I talk
`>>to them. We also need to provide one voice from our end in this situation
`>>
`>>Thanks for your cooperation.
`>>Prashant
`>
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`QCPV001389619
`
`PX 64.00002
`
`ParkerVision Ex. 2015
`Intel Corp. v. ParkerVision, Inc.
`IPR2020-01265
`
`