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

高通公司訴ParkerVision案經上訴法庭推翻地區法院判決,被送回佛羅里達州重新審理
Accesswire ·  09/07 01:40

ParkerVision Resumes Decade-Long Legal Fight

ParkerVision恢復了爲期十年的法律鬥爭

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.

佛羅里達州傑克遜維爾,ACCESSWIRE,2024年9月6日,ParkerVision股份有限公司(OTCQB: PRKR)今天宣佈,美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院(CAFC)在ParkerVision v. Qualcomm(案號2022-1755)中作出了有利的判決。CAFC支持ParkerVision在每個上訴問題上的立場,並將該案發送至佛羅里達州中區法院(District Court)審理。

The CAFC opinion:

CAFC的意見:

  • 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.

  • 撤銷了地方法院的達伯特裁定,該裁定認定ParkerVision的專家報告不可接受,並同樣撤銷了地方法院基於排除ParkerVision的侵權專家的判決,該判決裁定發射機權利要求不侵權。地方法院因該專家未創建自己的高通被控無線電頻率芯片模擬而駁回了支持ParkerVision專利侵權訴訟的證據。然而,CAFC認爲地方法院在排除ParkerVision有效性專家證詞方面濫用了自己的酌定權,稱「地方法院應該讓陪審團評估專家證詞所涉及事實的正確性」。此次反轉恢復了ParkerVision的專家報告,允許公司向陪審團提出對高通的侵權訴訟。

  • 撤銷了地方法院的總結判決,該判決禁止ParkerVision在本案中主張其無線電頻率接收器專利。下級法院基於以下論點做出決定,即這些專利與2011年ParkerVision先前對高通主張的其他接收器專利本質上是相同的。CAFC認爲地方法院在確定涉案接收器權利要求與2011年案件中的權利要求沒有實質性區別時錯誤,並將案件退回以進一步考慮。

  • 撤銷了地方法院對抗輔助阻斷的適用,該阻斷阻止ParkerVision使用其先前在專利審理和上訴委員會(PTAB)和CAFC提出的論點來捍衛其'940專利的有效性。這些論點在2015年高通發起的先前的插圖審查(IPR)程序中取得了成功,該程序將專利侵權案推遲到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已將此案件退回給美國佛羅里達州中區地區法院,命令重新開啓原案(案號6:14-cv-00687)。CAFC的意見副本可通過CAFC網站獲取。CAFC還授予了ParkerVision上訴的費用。

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首席執行官Jeffrey Parker評論道:「我對CAFC的裁決非常滿意,我們非常希望在地區法院重新開啓此案件。這個案件已經準備好近兩年半了,所以我對地區法院能迅速將其重新列入案件清單持樂觀態度。ParkerVision已經爲此案件辯護超過十年,確信Qualcomm是基於我們的專有技術建立其智能手機無線芯片業務。根據公開可得的信息,我們估計我們的技術已經在超過15億顆Qualcomm芯片中被未經授權地集成、生產或銷售。Qualcomm通過知識產權審查對專利進行了挑戰,但PTAb和CAFC都認定某些權利主張並未無效。知識產權審查使案件從2015年延遲到2019年,這是大型科技公司常用的拖延正義的策略。我們致力於儘快將此案件提交審判。」

History of ParkerVision v Qualcomm:

ParkerVision訴Qualcomm的歷史:

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月在佛羅里達州奧蘭多的聯邦地區法院對Qualcomm提起了本案,同時還在等待有關不同接收器專利的2011年專利侵權案的最終裁決(見下文ParkerVision v. Qualcomm-2011)。由於Qualcomm對專利有效性提出知識產權審查的挑戰以及由於大流行引起的法院關閉,該案件經歷了多次延遲。到2021年5月,所有最終的庭前動議都已提交。隨着2022年法院重新開放,地區法院在2022年1月舉行了庭前動議聽證會,表明正在爲即將到來的陪審團審判做準備。然而,在2022年3月,地區法院發佈了有關Qualcomm的有利動議的命令,有效地阻止了ParkerVision將此案提交給陪審團。法院隨後關閉了此案文件。

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對地區法院的三項裁決提出了上訴,到2022年底,雙方已經提交了上訴陳述和回覆。2023年11月,美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院允許進行支持這些陳述的口頭辯論。然而,2024年7月,巡迴上訴法院發現其對此案沒有適當的管轄權,因爲地區法院尚未就高通的無效反訴發表最終判決。隨後,各方向地區法院提出了聯合申請。2024年8月1日,地區法院作出裁定,駁回高通的無效反訴,但不作爲解決之道,爲巡迴上訴法院繼續對上訴進行裁決鋪平了道路。

ParkerVision v. Qualcomm - 2011

ParkerVision訴高通-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於2011年提起了第一起專利侵權案,聲稱高通侵犯了某些接收器專利。2013年,陪審團裁定高通侵犯了該案中的所有專利,並確定它們是有效的。陪審團裁定ParkerVision由於高通過去使用其技術而獲得超過1700萬美元的賠償。在2014年5月ParkerVision對高通提起當前案件的同一天,舉行了2011年案件的最終判決後動議的聽證會。在此聽證會期間,法官敦促各方協商高通爲繼續使用被侵權專利而向ParkerVision支付持續的專利權使用費,並表示"肯定會有持續的專利權使用費"。然而,2014年7月,法官推翻了陪審團的裁決,並結案,裁定ParkerVision的技術專家提供的證詞削弱了陪審團的侵權發現。ParkerVision對此決定提出了上訴,但巡迴上訴法院維持了低級法院的裁決。

About ParkerVision

關於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.發明、開發和許可先進的專有無線射頻(RF)技術,使無線解決方案提供商能夠創建和銷售最先進的無線通信產品。ParkerVision積極參與美國多起專利實施行動,以保護其認爲被廣泛侵犯的專利技術。欲獲取更多信息,請訪問。 (PRKR-I)

Safe Harbor Statement

Safe Harbor聲明

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.

本新聞稿含有根據1933年修訂版的證券法第27A和1934年修訂版的證券法第21E的前瞻性聲明。除歷史事實陳述外,本新聞稿中的所有陳述均爲前瞻性聲明。 公司不保證其實際實現其前瞻性聲明中披露的計劃、意圖或期望,您不應過度依賴公司的前瞻性聲明。

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.

前瞻性聲明涉及風險和不確定性,實際結果可能與這些前瞻性聲明有重大差異。有許多重要因素可能會導致公司的實際結果與其前瞻性聲明所示或暗示的結果有重大差異,包括公司年度報告(形式10-k)第2023年12月31日結束的年度報告和公司季度報告(形式10-Q)第2024年3月31日和2024年6月30日結束的披露「風險因素」標題下的重要因素,報告已向美國證券交易委員會提交。儘管公司未來可能選擇這樣做,但公司並不承擔更新任何前瞻性聲明的義務,並且放棄更新或修正任何前瞻性聲明的意圖或義務,不論是因爲新信息、將來事件還是其他原因。

Contact:

聯繫方式:

Cindy French
Chief Financial Officer
cfrench@parkervision.com

Tony Vignieri
Communications Director
tvignieri@parkervision.com

Cindy French
致富金融(臨時代碼)官
cfrench@parkervision.com

Tony Vignieri
通信-半導體主任
tvignieri@parkervision.com

SOURCE: ParkerVision, Inc.

來源:ParkerVision公司。


譯文內容由第三人軟體翻譯。


以上內容僅用作資訊或教育之目的,不構成與富途相關的任何投資建議。富途竭力但無法保證上述全部內容的真實性、準確性和原創性。
    搶先評論