JACKSONVILLE, FL / ACCESSWIRE / August 19, 2022 / ParkerVision, Inc. (OTCQB:PRKR) (the "Company") announced today that it has filed its appellate brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, appealing the final judgment and a number of dispositive rulings made by the District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Orlando Division) in ParkerVision v. Qualcomm (Case No. 6:14-cv-00687).
ParkerVision's appellate brief requests the Federal Circuit to consider three specific issues:
- Whether the district court erred in denying ParkerVision the right to assert receiver claims in this case based on a non-infringement decision from the Company's prior litigation against Qualcomm ("ParkerVision I") that involved different patents, particularly considering the district court's prior denial of Qualcomm's 2019 summary judgment motion seeking the same result.
- Whether the district court erred by purporting to limit the Company's ability to defend the validity of certain claims of its ‘940 patent when both the PTAB and Federal Circuit found those same claims not invalid under an inter partes review ("IPR") filed by Qualcomm.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion in striking ParkerVision's expert report as being unreliable, leaving ParkerVision no basis to prove infringement or counter Qualcomm's expert report.
ParkerVision's appellate brief, which can be found at https://parkervision.com/patent-enforcement/ discusses each of the three issues in detail.
With respect to the district court's elimination of the receiver claims, ParkerVision asserts that the claims at issue in this case are significantly and dispositively different from the claims in ParkerVision I. The Company points out that the district court already ruled for ParkerVision on this issue in January 2020 denying Qualcomm's 2019 motion for summary judgment. ParkerVision asserts that the court's 2022 summary judgment motion reversing its prior position fails to even acknowledge its previous decision or to include any analysis of the claims at issue.
Regarding the second issue, ParkerVision's brief explains, among other things, that IPRs are governed by a statutory estoppel provision that limits a party that challenges validity but loses (here, Qualcomm), not the prevailing patentee. The brief contends that the district court turned the statutory estoppel rules upside down by finding that collateral estoppel applied against ParkerVision based on judgments affirming ParkerVision's claims in the ‘940 Patent IPR.
Lastly, the Company's appellate brief discusses the court's striking of ParkerVision expert report based on the expert's reliance on Qualcomm's own schematics, simulations, and admissions in deposition regarding the operation of electrical circuits in Qualcomm chips, rather than on simulations conducted by ParkerVision's experts. ParkerVision contends the district court abused its discretion, citing testimony of Qualcomm's senior engineering staff that Qualcomm's schematics and design reviews are all that anyone needs to accurately determine how Qualcomm's products work.
ParkerVision's brief quotes the following statements made by the district court judge early in a two-day January 2022 hearing:
"We all know the jury isn't going to follow 99 percent of what you all are talking about in this trial. Right? We all know that. They're going to come up with a rough idea of who deserves to win, but the nuances of a patent case, there's no way a jury understands this... which is why this shouldn't be tried to a jury, in my opinion. They will never understand. This should be PTAB 100 percent. We should be out of it, but that's how it is."
ParkerVision contends that the court's orders ensured that the district court would be out of the case by issuing rulings that left nothing to try to a jury. ParkerVision's brief concludes that the Federal Circuit should allow ParkerVision to have its day in court by reversing the final judgment issued by the district court in this case; reversing or vacating the underlying orders on summary judgment, collateral estoppel, and Daubert; and remanding the case back for trial.
Jeffrey Parker, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of ParkerVision stated, "After waiting over eight years to get this case in front of a jury it is difficult to find the right words to express our disappointment in the district court's rulings that left nothing for a jury to decide. Our appeal brief speaks for itself, and it is evident from the facts and arguments presented in the brief that we have solid grounds for this appeal."
ParkerVision, Inc. (OTCQB:PRKR) invents, develops, and licenses cutting edge, proprietary radio-frequency (RF) technologies that enable wireless solution providers to make and sell advanced wireless communication products. For more information, please visit www.parkervision.com.
Safe Harbor Statement
This press release contains forward-looking information. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on any such forward-looking statements, each of which speaks only as of the date made. Such statements are subject to certain risks and uncertainties which are disclosed in the Company's SEC reports, including the Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 and Forms 10-Q for the quarters ended March 31 and June 30, 2022. These risks and uncertainties could cause actual results to differ materially from those currently anticipated or projected.
Chief Financial Officer
SOURCE: ParkerVision, Inc.
View source version on accesswire.com: