Business
ParkerVision Completes Appeal Briefing
ParkerVision Believes Qualcomm Makes Critical Contradiction in its Own Appeal Brief JACKSONVILLE, FL / ACCESS Newswire / March 25, 2026 / ParkerVision, Inc. (the "Company") (OTCQB:PRKR) today announced that it has completed appellate briefing ...
About this update from Qualcomm Incorporated
[{"type":"text","content":"ParkerVision Believes Qualcomm Makes Critical Contradiction in its Own Appeal Brief ","length":93,"tagName":"p"},{"type":"text","content":"JACKSONVILLE, FL / ACCESS Newswire / March 25, 2026 / ParkerVision, Inc. (the "Company") (OTCQB:PRKR) today announced that it has completed appellate briefing in its appeal of the Orlando district court's claim construction ruling in its patent infringement case against Qualcomm - a ruling that forced ParkerVision to stipulate to non-infringement and seek expedited appellate review.","length":399,"tagName":"p"},{"type":"text","content":"In its final brief, ParkerVision highlights that a careful review of Qualcomm's appellate filing reveals a critical contradiction that calls into question the basis of the non-infringement stipulation (and order of the district court entering judgment thereon).","length":265,"tagName":"p"},{"type":"text","content":"For years, Qualcomm argued that ParkerVision's patents required a specific technical limitation: that signal "down-conversion" must occur at or after a capacitor. In its recent claim construction ruling, and notwithstanding the guidance from the Federal Circuit in the prior appeal, the district court "read in" a "generating" limitation to all asserted claims of the receiver patents. That position allowed Qualcomm to claim the patents at-issue in this case were effectively the same as those in an earlier case and led directly to the stipulation of non-infringement, and the district court's judgment based thereon, because of "issue preclusion."","length":698,"tagName":"p"},{"type":"text","content":"However, in its new filing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Qualcomm now takes a fundamentally different position. It argues that the case is not about where down-conversion occurs at all.","length":213,"tagName":"p"},{"type":"text","content":"As explained in its Reply brief at the Federal Circuit, ParkerVision believes this shift is more than a technical nuance - it is legally decisive.","length":146,"tagName":"p"},{"type":"text","content":"Based on Qualcomm's new argument, the earlier case was decided on different issues and therefore, issue preclusion cannot apply. That means the non-infringement stipulation and district court judgment based thereon sh...