United States Court of Appeals Confirms QualMark Corporation's Victory In Copyright Infringement Litigation.

DENVER -- QualMark Corporation (OTCBB: QMRK) today announced that on Friday, March 11, 2005, a three-Judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, unanimously affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of QualMark issued by the U.S. District Court on June 18, 2004.(2)

The Court of Appeals ruling affirming the June 18, 2004, grant of summary judgment confirms that QualMark Corporation is the rightful owner of the copyrighted material in question, and allows for recovery of QualMark's attorneys' fees and costs from the plaintiff, Gregg K. Hobbs. QualMark submitted its request for costs and attorneys' fees in excess of $230,000, which is pending before the District Court Judge.

The District Court Judge's Order dated June 18, 2004, stated that summary judgment was granted based on Dr. Hobbs inability to prove ownership of the copyrights, which he had sold to QualMark, and that his argument regarding regaining the copyrights was "insufficient to defeat summary judgment with respect to ownership of the seminar materials."(1) The District Court Judge's Order also stated that Hobbs and HEC (Hobbs Engineering Corporation) unambiguously conveyed to QualMark all intellectual property rights, including pre-September 1995 copyrights with respect to the seminar materials plaintiff Hobbs has put at issue in this case."(1) The District Court finally ordered that "...defendant QualMark Corporation shall recover its attorneys' fees and costs."(1)

The Company submitted an application for attorneys' fees and costs incurred in the District Court since the commencement of this case and will seek to collect (from Hobbs) the entire amount to be awarded by the Judge. The Company also intends to vigorously pursue all available legal remedies, as appropriate, in a separate District Court action to prevent Hobbs and Hobbs Engineering (and those persons working for Hobbs Engineering) from conducting seminars using copyrighted material owned by QualMark.

The District Court's Order granting summary judgment in favor of QualMark and the subsequent affirmation by the United States Court of Appeals brings to a conclusion a two-year-long copyright infringement litigation commenced by Dr. Gregg K. Hobbs, a former director and officer of the Company.

QualMark Corporation, headquartered in Denver, Colorado, is the leader in designing, marketing and manufacturing accelerated life-testing systems, which provides the world's largest corporations with products that improve product reliability and allow a faster time to market. The Company has installed more than 500 of its proprietary testing systems in 18 countries and operates four of its own testing and consulting facilities in Denver, Colo., Santa Clara, Calif., Hopkinton, Mass., and Huntington Beach, Calif. The Company also has established strategic alliances with large testing facilities throughout Europe and Asia Pacific. The Company offers engineering services and products that complement the core technologies of QualMark and other test equipment providers.

(1) June 18, 2004, Order Granting Defendant QualMark Corporation's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Order Granting Defendant QualMark Corporation Motion for Leave to Supplement Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Civil Action No. 03-WY-0196-AJ (MJW))

(2) March 11, 2005, Order and Judgment affirming Defendant QualMark Corporation's June 18, 2004, Summary Judgment (No. 04-1246 -- appealing from Civil Action No. D.C. No. 03-WY-198-AJ (MJW))

The statements included in this press release concerning the potential impact of the Hobb's litigation the Company's financial condition and management's view of the litigation constitute forward-looking statements made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. These statements involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause or contribute to such differences include, but are not limited to, factors detailed in the Company's Securities and Exchange Commission filings, the judge's decision on awarding attorneys' fees and costs, the impact of the motion ruling on the Company's other pending litigation with Dr. Hobbs, the Company's future cash flows, timing of any payment required to be made to Dr. Hobbs and other factors.