ParkerVision Responds to Court Ruling in Long-Running Patent Case Against Qualcomm
- Federal Circuit previously reversed a district court ruling and sent the case back for trial, supporting ParkerVision's position
- Company has clear documentation showing their technology uses switches for down conversion, not capacitors
- Case only impacts receiver patent claims, leaving transmitter claims unaffected
- Court ruling interprets patent terms unfavorably for ParkerVision
- Legal battle has been ongoing for over 11 years without resolution
- Company may need to pursue costly additional appellate review
Company Believes Ruling Conflicts with Higher Court Guidance
JACKSONVILLE, FL / ACCESS Newswire / June 2, 2025 / ParkerVision, Inc. (OTCQB:PRKR), a leader in wireless radio-frequency (RF) innovation, today issued a statement in response to a recent claim construction ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida in its over 11-year patent infringement lawsuit against Qualcomm. This recent ruling only impacts the receiver patent claims in this case and is not relevant to the transmitter claims in this case.
The court's order granted Qualcomm's request to interpret certain terms in ParkerVision's patents in a manner that the company asserts is in conflict with the language of the patents and commonly understood claim construction principles, and importantly, conflicts with prior guidance issued by the higher court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit).
Claim construction is where the court may further define a specific term in a patent claim. While a term is presumed to have its plain and ordinary meaning, the court may define it more narrowly if certain conditions are present. ParkerVision does not believe there was any basis for the court to "read in" a limitation to the terms in this case as it did in its ruling.
"We respectfully disagree with the Court's ruling and its recent interpretation of our patent claims," said Jeffrey Parker, CEO of ParkerVision. "The Federal Circuit made clear that our patents in this case do not include what has become known as the 'generating' limitation which was central to the non-infringement finding in an earlier case against Qualcomm. The 'generating' limitation was defined in the prior case as where RF down conversion occurs at or after a capacitor and is clearly not what the patents in this case cover.
Our patented technology performs down-conversion at a switch - a distinction that the Federal Circuit explicitly acknowledged in its ruling last year. If the patents in this case did cover such 'capacitor down conversion,' the Federal Circuit would have upheld this district court's prior ruling on collateral estoppel, which prevented us from asserting the receiver patents in this case. To the contrary, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court and sent this case back for trial on these patents."
ParkerVision contends that Qualcomm is well aware that capacitors cannot perform down conversion and that limiting these patents to capacitors performing down conversion is contrary to what the patents expressly claim and how Qualcomm's products operate. It also does not align with the detailed teaching of its novel technology that ParkerVision provided to Qualcomm in prior business negotiations between the companies which exclusively disclosed switches used for down conversion.
Parker added, "We've fought for over a decade to protect our innovations that we believe have enabled billions of wireless chips shipping every year; and we're committed to seeing this through. We respect the Court's responsibility in resolving patent disputes, and we are hopeful there is still a path to correct this issue. I don't know how much clearer this issue could be as one of the patent claims specifically states that RF down conversion occurs at the 'UFT Module' (acronym for 'Universal Frequency Translation Module'). The patent shows that the UFT is made exclusively from a switch and is never shown as an 'energy storage device' (capacitor). I believe Qualcomm's motivation is that it has represented to this court multiple times that its accused infringing products use switches for down conversion and therefore is trying to convince the court that our patents use something other than switches."
The company is considering its legal options and is prepared to pursue further appellate review if necessary.
Parker added, "We believe the record - and the law - support our position. Our investors, partners, and stakeholders can rest assured: we will continue to defend our intellectual property with integrity and resolve. This is important not just for ParkerVision but for the integrity of protecting all American innovators. Our country has never been more challenged by the rising threat from foreign competition than it is today, and the integrity of our patent system is critical to supporting American innovation to counter this growing challenge."
About ParkerVision
ParkerVision, Inc. is an innovator in radio-frequency (RF) technologies used in advanced wireless communication systems. The company holds an extensive patent portfolio in the U.S. and internationally and continues to pursue licensing and enforcement strategies to protect its intellectual property rights. For more information, please visit www.parkervision.com.
Safe Harbor Statement
This press release contains "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements regarding ParkerVision's legal strategies, expectations concerning litigation outcomes, the potential for appellate review, and the Company's commitment to protecting and enforcing its intellectual property rights. These statements are based on current expectations and assumptions and involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially, including factors beyond the Company's control.
Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially include, but are not limited to, the outcome of legal proceedings, interpretations of patent law by the courts, the ability to obtain favorable rulings on appeal, and other risks detailed in the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024, and subsequent filings. Forward-looking statements can be identified by words such as "believe," "hopeful," "prepared to," "committed to," and similar expressions. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date they are made.
The Company undertakes no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise, except as required by law.
Contact:
Cindy French
Chief Financial Officer
cfrench@parkervision.com
Tony Vignieri
Communications Director
tvignieri@parkervision.com
SOURCE: ParkerVision, Inc.
View the original press release on ACCESS Newswire
FAQ
What is the latest ruling in ParkerVision's (PRKR) patent case against Qualcomm?
How does the court ruling affect ParkerVision's (PRKR) patent claims against Qualcomm?
What is the key technical dispute in ParkerVision's (PRKR) patent case?
What are ParkerVision's (PRKR) next steps in the Qualcomm patent case?
How long has the patent dispute between ParkerVision and Qualcomm been ongoing?
