Jeffrey Shealy: Regarding the lawsuit Qorvo filed against Akoustis in Delaware, the case has reached a point where I can share Akoustis’ view that the facts do not support the wide ranging allegations made by Qorvo. Akoustis filed a motion for partial summary judgment on February 1. And if granted in full, this motion would dispense with a majority of Qorvo’s complaints, everything but the patent claims. But I’ll add that the company is well positioned on the patent claims. As mentioned in prior calls, the company has developed design updates to demonstrate with real world data that XBAW filters do not use Qorvo’s patents. The motion we filed also asks the court to confirm that these designs do not infringe one of the two Qorvo patents at issue.
The other Qorvo patent expires this summer. Akoustis also believes Qorvo’s damage experts use faulty methods and assumptions to develop key parts of Qorvo’s estimate of damages. Akoustis has filed a motion to exclude that testimony. This motion represents an additional challenge to key parts of Qorvo’s claims. Please keep in mind, even if the court ultimately does not grant Akoustis’ motions, the defects in Qorvo’s case will remain hurdles Qorvo would have to overcome at any trial. Qorvo has filed its own motion for partial summary judgment, but this motion is limited to a ruling on the validity of Qorvo patents. No matter the outcome of the motion, Qorvo will still bear the burden of proving Akoustis products infringe Qorvo patents, notwithstanding all the engineering performed by Akoustis to support its defense in the case.
Now turning to the lawsuit filed by Akoustis against Qorvo in federal court in the Eastern District of Texas, this case is beginning to gather steam. As a reminder, this lawsuit alleges Qorvo is infringing a patent licensed exclusively to Akoustis by Cornell University, as described in past calls. Qorvo has filed a motion to dismiss the case and a motion to strike Akoustis’ infringement contentions. The Court held a hearing on Qorvo’s motion to strike on January 10, 2024. After hearing both sides, the court denied Qorvo’s motion to strike. As a result, this case is moving forward at full steam.
Operator: We have reached the end of our question-and-answer session. I would like to turn the call back over to management for closing remarks.
Jeffrey Shealy: This is Jeff. I want to thank everybody for your time today. I did want to point out that one typo that we had in the prepared comments was – we actually sampled the 3.8 GHz and shipped samples of that 3.8 GHz and that was not the Band 41. So I just want to clarify that before we end the call. With that, we look forward to speaking with you during our next update call to discuss the current quarter’s execution against our milestones that we discussed today, as well as future expectations. And with that, I’d like to wish everybody a great day. And thank you and goodbye.
Operator: Thank you. This will conclude today’s conference. You may disconnect your lines at this time and thank you for your participation.
