share_log

ParkerVision V. Qualcomm Sent Back to Florida for Trial After Appellate Court Overturns District Court in a Precedential Ruling

ParkerVision V. Qualcomm Sent Back to Florida for Trial After Appellate Court Overturns District Court in a Precedential Ruling

高通与ParkerVision之间的诉讼被上诉法院在具有先例意义的裁决后退回到佛罗里达州进行审判。该裁决推翻了地方法院的判决。
Accesswire ·  13:40

ParkerVision Resumes Decade-Long Legal Fight

ParkerVision恢复了为期十年的法律斗争

JACKSONVILLE, FL / ACCESSWIRE / September 6, 2024 / ParkerVision, Inc. (the "Company") (OTCQB:PRKR) announced today that the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("CAFC") has issued a favorable ruling in ParkerVision v. Qualcomm (Case No. 2022-1755). The CAFC upheld ParkerVision's position on each of the appealed issues and has sent the case back to the Middle District of Florida ("District Court") for trial.

佛罗里达州杰克逊维尔,ACCESSWIRE,2024年9月6日,ParkerVision股份有限公司(OTCQB: PRKR)今天宣布,美国联邦巡回上诉法院(CAFC)在ParkerVision v. Qualcomm(案号2022-1755)中作出了有利的判决。CAFC支持ParkerVision在每个上诉问题上的立场,并将该案发送至佛罗里达州中区法院(District Court)审理。

The CAFC opinion:

CAFC的意见:

  • Reversed the District Court's Daubert ruling, which had deemed ParkerVision's expert report inadmissible and likewise vacated the District Court's grant of summary judgement of non-infringement of the transmitter claims which was based on the exclusion of ParkerVision's infringement experts. The District Court had dismissed the evidence supporting ParkerVision's patent infringement claims because the expert did not create his own simulations of Qualcomm's accused radio frequency chips. However, the CAFC found that the District Court abused its discretion in excluding the testimony of ParkerVision's validity expert, stating "the district court should have left it to jurors to evaluate the correctness of facts underlying an expert's testimony". This reversal reinstates ParkerVision's expert report, allowing the Company to present its infringement claims against Qualcomm to a jury.

  • Vacated the District Court's summary judgement ruling, which had barred ParkerVision from asserting its radio frequency receiver patents in this case. The lower court had based its decision on the argument that these patents are essentially the same as other ParkerVision receiver patents previously asserted against Qualcomm in 2011. The CAFC found that the District Court erred in its determination that the asserted receiver claims did not have a scope that is materially different from the claims at issue in the 2011 case and remanded for further consideration.

  • Reversed the District Court's application of collateral estoppel, which prevented ParkerVision from defending the validity of its '940 patent using arguments it previously presented to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB") and the CAFC. These arguments had been successful in a prior inter partes review ("IPR") proceeding initiated by Qualcomm in 2015 which delayed the patent infringement case until 2019.

  • 撤销了地方法院的达伯特裁定,该裁定认定ParkerVision的专家报告不可接受,并同样撤销了地方法院基于排除ParkerVision的侵权专家的判决,该判决裁定发射机权利要求不侵权。地方法院因该专家未创建自己的高通被控无线电频率芯片模拟而驳回了支持ParkerVision专利侵权诉讼的证据。然而,CAFC认为地方法院在排除ParkerVision有效性专家证词方面滥用了自己的酌定权,称“地方法院应该让陪审团评估专家证词所涉及事实的正确性”。此次反转恢复了ParkerVision的专家报告,允许公司向陪审团提出对高通的侵权诉讼。

  • 撤销了地方法院的总结判决,该判决禁止ParkerVision在本案中主张其无线电频率接收器专利。下级法院基于以下论点做出决定,即这些专利与2011年ParkerVision先前对高通主张的其他接收器专利本质上是相同的。CAFC认为地方法院在确定涉案接收器权利要求与2011年案件中的权利要求没有实质性区别时错误,并将案件退回以进一步考虑。

  • 撤销了地方法院对抗辅助阻断的适用,该阻断阻止ParkerVision使用其先前在专利审理和上诉委员会(PTAB)和CAFC提出的论点来捍卫其'940专利的有效性。这些论点在2015年高通发起的先前的插图审查(IPR)程序中取得了成功,该程序将专利侵权案推迟到2019年。

The CAFC has remanded the case to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, ordering the reopening of the original case (Case No. 6:14-cv-00687). A copy of the CAFC opinion is available through the CAFC website at: . The CAFC also awarded ParkerVision costs for the appeal.

CAFC已将此案件退回给美国佛罗里达州中区地区法院,命令重新开启原案(案号6:14-cv-00687)。CAFC的意见副本可通过CAFC网站获取。CAFC还授予了ParkerVision上诉的费用。

ParkerVision CEO Jeffrey Parker commented, "I am extremely pleased with the CAFC rulings, and we are eager to reopen this case in district court. This case was ready for trial nearly two and a half years ago, so I am optimistic that the district court will act swiftly to place it back on the docket. ParkerVision has prosecuted this case for over a decade, confident that Qualcomm has built its Smartphone wireless chip business on our proprietary technologies. Based on publicly available information, we estimate that our technologies have been integrated without our authorization into over 1.5 billion Qualcomm chips that have been made, used, or sold in the U.S. Qualcomm challenged patents through IPRs, but both the PTAB and the CAFC upheld certain claims as not invalid. The IPRs delayed the case from 2015 to 2019, a common tactic in the big tech playbook to delay justice. We are committed to bringing this case to trial as soon as possible."

ParkerVision首席执行官Jeffrey Parker评论道:“我对CAFC的裁决非常满意,我们非常希望在地区法院重新开启此案件。这个案件已经准备好近两年半了,所以我对地区法院能迅速将其重新列入案件清单持乐观态度。ParkerVision已经为此案件辩护超过十年,确信Qualcomm是基于我们的专有技术建立其智能手机无线芯片业务。根据公开可得的信息,我们估计我们的技术已经在超过15亿颗Qualcomm芯片中被未经授权地集成、生产或销售。Qualcomm通过知识产权审查对专利进行了挑战,但PTAb和CAFC都认定某些权利主张并未无效。知识产权审查使案件从2015年延迟到2019年,这是大型科技公司常用的拖延正义的策略。我们致力于尽快将此案件提交审判。”

History of ParkerVision v Qualcomm:

ParkerVision诉Qualcomm的历史:

ParkerVision initiated this case against Qualcomm in the Federal District Court in Orlando, Florida, in May 2014 while awaiting a final decision on a separate 2011 patent infringement case involving different receiver patents (see ParkerVision v. Qualcomm-2011 below). The case experienced several delays due to Qualcomm's IPR challenges to patent validity and court closures caused by the pandemic. By May 2021, all final pre-trial motions had been filed. With courts reopening in 2022, the District Court held a pre-trial motion hearing in January 2022, signaling preparation for a near-term jury trial. However, in March 2022, the District Court issued orders in Qualcomm's favor on all motions, effectively barring ParkerVision from presenting the case to a jury. The court subsequently closed the case file.

ParkerVision在2014年5月在佛罗里达州奥兰多的联邦地区法院对Qualcomm提起了本案,同时还在等待有关不同接收器专利的2011年专利侵权案的最终裁决(见下文ParkerVision v. Qualcomm-2011)。由于Qualcomm对专利有效性提出知识产权审查的挑战以及由于大流行引起的法院关闭,该案件经历了多次延迟。到2021年5月,所有最终的庭前动议都已提交。随着2022年法院重新开放,地区法院在2022年1月举行了庭前动议听证会,表明正在为即将到来的陪审团审判做准备。然而,在2022年3月,地区法院发布了有关Qualcomm的有利动议的命令,有效地阻止了ParkerVision将此案提交给陪审团。法院随后关闭了此案文件。

ParkerVision appealed three of the District Court's rulings to the CAFC, and by the end of 2022, both parties had submitted their appellate briefs and replies. In November 2023, the CAFC permitted oral arguments to support these briefs. However, in July 2024, the CAFC found that it lacked proper jurisdiction over the case because the District Court had not issued a final order on Qualcomm's counterclaims for invalidity. Subsequently, the parties filed a joint motion with the District Court. On August 1, 2024, the District Court issued an order dismissing Qualcomm's invalidity counterclaims, without prejudice, clearing the way for the CAFC to proceed with its ruling on the appeal.

ParkerVision对地区法院的三项裁决提出了上诉,到2022年底,双方已经提交了上诉陈述和回复。2023年11月,美国联邦巡回上诉法院允许进行支持这些陈述的口头辩论。然而,2024年7月,巡回上诉法院发现其对此案没有适当的管辖权,因为地区法院尚未就高通的无效反诉发表最终判决。随后,各方向地区法院提出了联合申请。2024年8月1日,地区法院作出裁定,驳回高通的无效反诉,但不作为解决之道,为巡回上诉法院继续对上诉进行裁决铺平了道路。

ParkerVision v. Qualcomm - 2011

ParkerVision诉高通-2011

ParkerVision filed its first patent infringement case in 2011, alleging that Qualcomm infringed on certain receiver patents. In 2013, a jury found that Qualcomm infringed all the patents in the case and determined that they were not invalid. The jury awarded ParkerVision over $170 million in damages for Qualcomm's past use of its technology. On the same day in May 2014 that ParkerVision filed its current case against Qualcomm, a hearing was held on final post-judgment motions from the 2011 case. During this hearing, the judge instructed the parties to negotiate an on-going royalty rate that Qualcomm would pay ParkerVision for continued use of the infringed patents, remarking that "there are certainly going to be on-going royalties". However, in July 2014, the judge reversed the jury's verdict and closed the case, ruling that ParkerVision's technical expert had provided testimony that undermined the jury's infringement findings. ParkerVision appealed the decision, but the CAFC upheld the lower court's ruling.

ParkerVision于2011年提起了第一起专利侵权案,声称高通侵犯了某些接收器专利。2013年,陪审团裁定高通侵犯了该案中的所有专利,并确定它们是有效的。陪审团裁定ParkerVision由于高通过去使用其技术而获得超过1700万美元的赔偿。在2014年5月ParkerVision对高通提起当前案件的同一天,举行了2011年案件的最终判决后动议的听证会。在此听证会期间,法官敦促各方协商高通为继续使用被侵权专利而向ParkerVision支付持续的专利权使用费,并表示"肯定会有持续的专利权使用费"。然而,2014年7月,法官推翻了陪审团的裁决,并结案,裁定ParkerVision的技术专家提供的证词削弱了陪审团的侵权发现。ParkerVision对此决定提出了上诉,但巡回上诉法院维持了低级法院的裁决。

About ParkerVision

关于ParkerVision

ParkerVision, Inc. invents, develops and licenses advanced, proprietary radio-frequency (RF) technologies that empower wireless solution providers to create and market state-of-the-art wireless communication products. ParkerVision is actively involved in multiple patent enforcement actions in the U.S. to safeguard its patented technologies, which it believes are being broadly infringed upon by others. For more information, please visit . (PRKR-I)

ParkerVision, Inc.发明、开发和许可先进的专有无线射频(RF)技术,使无线解决方案提供商能够创建和销售最先进的无线通信产品。ParkerVision积极参与美国多起专利实施行动,以保护其认为被广泛侵犯的专利技术。欲获取更多信息,请访问。 (PRKR-I)

Safe Harbor Statement

Safe Harbor声明

This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Act of 1934, as amended. All statements, other than statements of historical fact, included or incorporated in this press release are forward-looking statements. The Company does not guarantee that it will actually achieve the plans, intentions or expectations disclosed in its forward-looking statements and you should not place undue reliance on the Company's forward-looking statements.

本新闻稿含有根据1933年修订版的证券法第27A和1934年修订版的证券法第21E的前瞻性声明。除历史事实陈述外,本新闻稿中的所有陈述均为前瞻性声明。 公司不保证其实际实现其前瞻性声明中披露的计划、意图或期望,您不应过度依赖公司的前瞻性声明。

Forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties, and actual results could vary materially from these forward-looking statements. There are a number of important factors that could cause the Company's actual results to differ materially from those indicated or implied by its forward-looking statements, including those important factors set forth under the caption "Risk Factors" in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2023 and disclosures in the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 and June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Although the Company may elect to do so at some point in the future, the Company does not assume any obligation to update any forward-looking statement and it disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise.

前瞻性声明涉及风险和不确定性,实际结果可能与这些前瞻性声明有重大差异。有许多重要因素可能会导致公司的实际结果与其前瞻性声明所示或暗示的结果有重大差异,包括公司年度报告(形式10-k)第2023年12月31日结束的年度报告和公司季度报告(形式10-Q)第2024年3月31日和2024年6月30日结束的披露“风险因素”标题下的重要因素,报告已向美国证券交易委员会提交。尽管公司未来可能选择这样做,但公司并不承担更新任何前瞻性声明的义务,并且放弃更新或修正任何前瞻性声明的意图或义务,不论是因为新信息、将来事件还是其他原因。

Contact:

联系方式:

Cindy French
Chief Financial Officer
cfrench@parkervision.com

Tony Vignieri
Communications Director
tvignieri@parkervision.com

Cindy French
致富金融(临时代码)
cfrench@parkervision.com

Tony Vignieri
通信-半导体主任
tvignieri@parkervision.com

SOURCE: ParkerVision, Inc.

来源:ParkerVision公司。


声明:本内容仅用作提供资讯及教育之目的,不构成对任何特定投资或投资策略的推荐或认可。 更多信息
    抢沙发