ParkerVision Inc (QB) (PRKR)

Thanks, Neverending, for this astute historical summary of the highlights of this case. Much appreciated!

Thanks for that opinion Neverending, and for sharing the transcript.

Law360 (June 1, 2026, 8:15 PM EDT) -- A Federal Circuit panel Monday seemed reluctant to consider ParkerVision's challenge to a lower court's claim construction while other parts of its patent suit against Qualcomm remain pending, with one judge saying the litigation's protracted nature doesn't make it exceptional or justify special treatment.

At the hearing, the three-judge appeals court appeared skeptical of the Florida federal court decision allowing ParkerVision to appeal an order interpreting claims in two of the wireless communications patents, even though some claims in one of those patents remain pending in front of the lower court.

Joshua W. Budwin, representing ParkerVision, argued that if the appeals court is unhappy with the lower court's use of Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to certify the partial ruling for appeal, the panel can still have jurisdiction under Title 28 of the U.S. Code Section 1292(b), which governs interlocutory appeals.

U.S. Circuit Judge Sharon Prost quibbled with that alternative.

"That's such a rare procedure that's used by our court," Judge Prost said. "We've got hundreds and hundreds of cases, and the minute we open up one little hole, people can drive a truck through it."

While Budwin argued the case is exceptional and highlighted the Federal Circuit's own characterization of it as a "litigation saga" in an earlier opinion, Judge Prost retorted, "Unfortunately, we've got quite a few of those in our sphere."

For his part, Budwin contended the case is over a decade old and has already been to the Federal Circuit, not to mention proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. He also argued that ParkerVision will "continue to lose evidence" if the litigation persists for years more, given that the inventor of the technologies at issue has already died, as have some key witnesses.

"We're losing the witnesses and the people who were involved in this case," he said.

The companies have been fighting over ParkerVision's patent infringement arguments since 2011 in a case that led to a $173 million jury verdict that was overturned by a district court judge in a decision later affirmed by the Federal Circuit. The current proceedings stem from a second complaint filed in 2014, asserting patents that weren't at issue in the previous litigation.

The lower court ruled that issue preclusion barred the case, a ruling the Federal Circuit overturned in 2024. That decision led to a claim construction order from the Florida federal court that adopted Qualcomm's arguments.

The parties then stipulated to non-infringement of some of the claims at issue, leading to ParkerVision's request for a judgment and a pause on proceedings for the pending claims while the company pursued its appeal. The judge granted the request, saying in an order in October 2025 that he has now issued three claim construction orders, the third of which was at the Federal Circuit's behest.

"The Federal Circuit is now intimately familiar with this case and is well-positioned to promptly review the Court's construction of claims that it identified," the judge said.

For its part, Qualcomm's counsel, Sophie Hood of Keker Van Nest & Peters LLP, said at Monday's hearing that absent the current appeal, the parties might have already gone to trial on the still-pending patent claims.

U.S. Circuit Judges Sharon Prost, Edward M. Chen and Leonard P. Stark sat on the panel for the Federal Circuit.

The patents-at-issue are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,218,907 and 6,091,940.

ParkerVision is represented by Kevin Burgess, Colin Hickl, Charles E. Fowler Jr. and Joshua W. Budwin of McKool Smith.

Qualcomm is represented by Robert A. Van Nest, Matthew M. Werdegar, Sophie Hood and Anjali Srinivasan of Keker Van Nest & Peters LLP, and Matthew Brigham, Dena Chen and Eamonn Gardner of Cooley LLP.

The case is ParkerVision Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc. et al., case number 26-1033, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Read more at: https://www.law360.com/articles/2484152/fed-circ-side-eyes-parkervision-appeal-in-qualcomm-ip-suit?copied=1

This is a transcription of the June 1st Federal Circuit oral arguments. Even if PRKR wins this and the judges say they have jurisdiction and reverse the claims construction PRKR still has years more of trial and they are broke. If PRKR loses then they still have the transmitter claims alive which must be worth something. I think the longer this takes to get a ruling the better the chance the judges are actually reviewing the claims construction. It could take 1-6 months to get a ruling from what I could tell. In my opinion.

https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/105165/parkervision-inc-v-qualcomm-incorporated/

They asked super hard questions because the federal circuit has to cover themselves! I bet if PRKR wins QCOM appeals their decision to the Supreme Court!

Thanks again, Neverending, for your astute analysis. It is much appreciated.
There is a saying in the legal world that justice delayed is justice denied.
Perhaps the appeals court will take this old (but true) adage into consideration.

The federal appeals judges hammered PRKRs lawyer on the Rule 54B jurisdiction issue because they would be creating a legal precedent by granting jurisdiction and hearing the full appeal. The judges fear every delayed case, of which they noted there are quite a few, would come knocking at their door overwhelming their limited time and resources. The fact that a district court judge allowed the rule 54B appeal was viewed as possible legal error by the federal circuit appeals court. They noted they do not have to hear the full appeal simply because a lower court judge grants the rule 54b motion. On PRKRs side you have the extended delay of the trial and the witnesses dying off and aging out. You also sort of have that the district court did consider and allow the rule 54b appeal so perhaps the federal judges would view this as a barrior to them getting inundated with appeals from the many other very delayed trials out there. At any rate PRKR still has the admittedly lass important (?) transmitter claims to bring to trial. Of court this judge is totally hostile to PRKR so winning on that will be difficult and the judge could just throw out or reduce any decent outcome then its back to appeals court...YEARS later. With the way the courts work I do not think an appeal after the transmitter claim trial would happen for 3-4 years....and PRKR has almost no money. In my opinion.

Good point, Neverending. Thanks!

I think the only shot PRKR has ot the court ruling they even have jurisdiction is if they take into consideration PRKRs lawyers argument that the case has gone on so long that all the witnesses in a trial are aging out or dead. The court said why would you delay 1 year to do this appeal if that were the case then PRKRs lawyers said it would likely have taken 2-3 years to finish a trial on the transmitter claims only to then appeal. IMO.

Thanks, Neverending. You present some pretty solid arguments. Yet, as you know, anything can happen in the legal process.

Even AI thinks you lost the appeal! I believe AI totally nails the path forward. In my opinion! I asked it will parkervision win the rule 54B jurisdiction case in the Federal Circuit. This is what the AI came up with. Seems to be accurate based on my interpretation of the proceedings>>> Based on the recent oral arguments, ParkerVision is facing significant skepticism and is unlikely to win validation for its piecemeal appeal under the Rule 54(b) certification at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 1, 2

During the oral arguments held on June 1, 2026, the three-judge Federal Circuit panel openly questioned whether it even has jurisdiction to hear the case under Rule 54(b) while other related patent claims remain active in the lower court. 1, 2, 3

The Core Procedural Conflict

The Lower Court’s Action: In October 2025, a Florida federal district court granted ParkerVision’s motion for a Rule 54(b) certification. This was intended to let ParkerVision immediately appeal a damaging claim-construction ruling regarding its wireless "receiver" patent claims, while pausing separate "transmitter" claims down below. 1, 2
The Federal Circuit's Pushback: The appellate panel strongly "side-eyed" this approach. The judges remarked that the lengthy, decade-long nature of this litigation does not automatically make it exceptional or justify special treatment. 1
A "Floodgates" Concern: U.S. Circuit Judge Sharon Prost specifically rejected alternative arguments to establish jurisdiction (such as under 28 U.S. Code § 1292(b) for interlocutory appeals). She warned that allowing piecemeal patent appeals like this could open up a "hole" that litigants would "drive a truck through," creating a messy administrative precedent. 1
Potential Outcomes & Legal Trade-offs

If the Federal Circuit chooses to dismiss this expedited appeal, it will likely be on narrow procedural and jurisdictional grounds rather than the scientific merits of the patent dispute. 1, 2

If the Federal Circuit dismisses the Rule 54(b) appeal: The case will be bounced right back to the Florida district court. ParkerVision will be forced to fully litigate or resolve all remaining transmitter claims before they are legally allowed to bring the entire, completed case back to the Federal Circuit. 1, 2
If ParkerVision surprises observers and wins the jurisdictional hurdle: The court will actually look at the underlying claim construction. ParkerVision argues that Qualcomm fundamentally changed its legal positions, which should wipe out the previous summary judgment of non-infringement and send the receiver patents to an official trial. 1, 2, 3
A formal written opinion from the Federal Circuit panel dismissing or ruling on the appeal is expected in the coming months.

IMO you lost at the Federal Circuit. I do not even think the judges will agree with PRKR that they have jurisdiction at this stage. I also think you lost the arguments on the merits of the case. So what now? The case goes back to be tried on the transmitter claims which PRKR thinks are not valuable in the same court that hates you. Maybe you get a trial and a win on those...the judge might just throw that out. Then you can maybe get an appeal in another 3-5 years. It is over my friends. PRKR cannot last at this point. In my opinion.

NOBODY is speculating that you will win. There is almost no volume or price increase going into the critical Federal District Court decision on MONDAY 6/1. What that means to me is all we have here are hopeful deeply underwater mostly longtime "stuckholders" from all of PRKRs other failed price appreciations. If you win this drags out forever and you end up losing on appeal or the judge reducing the jury award to near nothing or throwing it out (as he did in PRKRs 1st go at QCOM) IF YOU LOSE ON MONDAY the stock will be nearly worthless. You will even have trouble selling at any price. It is simply not worth the risk. The advice would be to sell now and then just maybe if they win reevaluate the situation. I do not even see the share price increasing much if they "win" on Monday. Think about this my friends. The Federal District Court judges are just as anxious to kick patent trolls like PRKR to the curb and they just needed a reasonable argument which the District court made when the Federal Circuit forced him to do so after PRKRs "win" on the last appeal when he did the formal claims construction. These Federal Circuit judges will rubber stamp it and you are DONE. In my opinion.

This is why you will almost certainly lose June 2nd>> PRKR may have won the last Federal Circuit appeal but that was only because the district court judge was in such a hurry to kick PRKR to the curb that he failed to do what is called a "Markman" hearing to set the claims construction (how the patents are defined). All the Federal Circuit asked on remand was (my interpretation) just give us something, anything so we can end this patent troll for good. The district court has now completed the claims construction and if you actually read it you would see it is a slam dunk for QCOM and they clearly do not infringe. Since the district court claims construction makes sence and is reasonable the Federal Circuit will not change it. There is simply no "clear error" here in the district courts ruling and without this high standard being met the Federal Circuit will not help you at all. Essentially PRKR is finished. In my opinion.

The share price is tanking into the appeal ruling. This is not good my friends. A loss will wipe out your investment. If PRKR somhow wins the appeal, which seems VERY unlikely, there will be lots of time to buy back in with no risk. Of course I do not believe they will ever win in court and if they win I doubt the amount will ever be enough to raise the share price of a stock with so many outstanding shares. In my opinion.

If PRKR loses the appeal June 2nd this is a 5c or less stock. It is totally not worth the risk. Appeals courts do not lightly over turn District Court rulings even if that may seem incorrect. A loss for PRKR is almost certain since the District Courts claims construction was very well reasoned. I read it and it seemed air tight. If PRKR wins the appeal it only means many more years of litigation that PRKR cannot afford. Even an eventual win with a jury is likely to be thrown out by the judge or reduced to a small amount. The resulting appeal will take yet more years. PRKR is finished my friends. 22c. a share is a very good price. In my opinion!

The Federal District Appeals Court almost NEVER overturns a district courts claims court ruling even if it seems incorrect. It has to be "clear error" which is an almost impossible standard to achieve. I expect PRKR to lose and then the stock will collapse. Just trying to help u my friends. In my opinion.

Once PRKR loses at the federal appeals court then it is look out below. I expect 5-10c at best. The ruling once it comes will actually ruin their other Realtek and Mediatek cases. The stock will be practically worthless. It seems like a risk not worth taking. Even if they somehow get their case losing claims construction reversed the road is long and the judges are determined to put the patent trolls to rest. Selling now seems like the best option. In my opinion.

I believe the QCOM case has been referred back to the District Court.

The QCOM judge was not overturned by the federal appeals court. The appeals court only said he must hold a markman hearing and make a ruling on claims construction. The district court judge followed the appeals court instructions and made a well reasoned claims construction ruling. Federal Appeals courts to not simply overturn these rulings and have great deference to them. There is a "clear error" standard and the district courts claims construction makes a lot of sence if you read it. IMO

You may be right, but remember the judge who overturned the Jury Verdict was overturned by the higher court and that case is likely to trial with a different presiding judge.

They are unlikely to win my friend and even if they do a judge will likely throw it out or award them tiny damages. Then you have the unevitable appeal which will take more years. This is a hopeless situation for shareholders in my opinion.

Bottom Line: ParkerVision's patents are "upheld" in the sense that they are still legally valid and enforceable despite hundreds of challenges from the world's largest tech companies. However, they are still chasing the "Holy Grail"—a jury verdict of infringement that survives the inevitable Federal Circuit appeal. Judge Albright, the presiding judge in the Realtek and MediaTek trials is a no nonsense fair jurist and we shall see how the Texas Jury assesses the case.

Litigation Summary
Current Litigation Summary

Case Current Status (April 2026)
Qualcomm Pending at Federal Circuit 2024 reversal of non-infringement; currently fighting claim construction.
MediaTek - Trial Postponed (TBD 2026) Patents survived PTAB challenges (IPR); pending damages report update.
Realtek Trial Set (Late April 27, 2026) Major Win: USPTO Director denied IPR institution in Jan 2026. Intel Settled ($25M) Case closed; provided capital for ongoing litigation.

Even when PRKR has "won" in the past the judge just thew out the jury win and the appeals court upheld his decision. The judges these days not not like the patent trolls (companies that produce nothing and are not actually using their patents) and look for any way to kick them ot the curb. In my opinion.

Actually, the patents were upheld and the main issues are the damage calculations and the Expert Witness methodology employed to arrive at them. The patent expiration question is an interesting one, but is not relevant to past damages incurred for infringement. That said, theTrial appears to be on for next week and the outcome will be decided by the Jurors.

The companies patents have NEVER held up in court and I do not expect that to change. The patents expired years ago and I do not think they will get much if anything. In my opinion.

As of this morning, there has been no new scheduling order or postponement notice filed on the public docket for ParkerVision v. Realtek. Very good news for Parkervision, if indeed Judge Albright has decided to move forward as scheduled. This would obviously bode well for Parkervision vs MediaTec, as well, to be rescheduled following evaluation of the Daubert Motion followup brief additions in that case.

$PRKR Trial delayed.

NOTICE REGARDING REPLIES IN SUPPORT OF
PENDING MOTIONS IN LIMINE
Plaintiff ParkerVision, Inc. and Defendants’ MediaTek inc. and MediaTek USA inc.,
write to inform the Court, that in view of today’s ruling that they have agreed to not file Replies
in Support of the Parties’ respective motions in limine (Dkt. Nos. 249 and 253).

You now know as much as I do.

Geez! Every board with you is the same story. You only buy stocks in lawsuits?

INZA et al v. AT&T INC. et al

Ya knucklehead! You're rooting for a lawsuit settlement that only pays Inza? Good job!
AT&T hired a junior partner to handle the dismissal.

Your appeal is on hold until the Federal Circuit eventually gets to the motion that QCOM filed claiming that you cannot appeal PART of a patents claims being ruled non infringing. This will take months to be ruled on and only then can the "expediated" appeal even more forward. A win is highly unlikely since appeals courts only over turn district court judges for gross error. PRKR only won the last appeal because the district court judge did not follow the step of conducting a claims construction hearing. They told him to do so and he has. Now that he has and it was well reasoned there is no way the appeals court makes any changed. I give PRKR a 5% chance of winning but even winning will mean a many years road ahead as even more legal technicalities are used to draw it out until PRKR gives up or takes a tiny settlement. In my opinion.

Ouch

Thanks, Neverending, however, PRKR must do everything within its power to keep the lights on during this protracted legal battle, or it is game over. It is more cost effective for the company to raise the necessary capital through share selling, which does raise the float, than by going to the bank and trying to get a loan under unfavorable terms. As a business strategy, keeping the float down while going out of business helps no one. I agree with the company that selling shares to keep the lights on is the best strategy for the shareholders, even if it means an increase in the float. JMHO.

Like 21,000,000 shares just added to the float! The float was like 121,000,000 shares! MASSIVE DILUTION. Paying the insiders money with now results for investors. In my opinion they are just hobbeling along paying insiders.

MORE SHARE DILUTON!!! >>> ParkerVision raises about $3.46M via a direct registered equity sale.

ParkerVision agreed to sell 16,481,579 common shares at $0.21 per share to accredited investors, for aggregate gross proceeds of roughly $3,461,132. The transaction is a registered direct offering under an existing Form S-3 shelf, so the shares are already covered by an effective registration statement.

The company is selling the shares directly, with no underwriter or placement agent, which can reduce transaction costs but may also reflect a more targeted investor base. Closing is expected on November 24, 2025, when the cash inflow would occur and the new shares would be issued.

Claim Construction: The core of the current dispute is the legal interpretation (claim construction) of ParkerVision's patents. ParkerVision argues that the district court's addition of a "generating limitation" to its claims was an error, while Qualcomm contends it was correct. The Federal Circuit's decision on this matter will be critical.
Expert Testimony: The previous Federal Circuit ruling in September 2024 found that the district court erred in excluding ParkerVision's expert testimony, which could allow a stronger infringement case to be presented at a future trial.
Jury Trial: If ParkerVision is successful in the current appeal, the case will likely return to the district court for a full jury trial, where a jury would weigh the evidence of infringement. In a prior 2013 lawsuit (ParkerVision I), a jury had initially awarded ParkerVision $173 million, a verdict that was later overturned by the district judge.
In summary, the legal process is complex and ongoing. While ParkerVision secured a significant procedural victory in September 2024 that kept their claims alive, the outcome remains uncertain as the case works its way through the appellate system.

Thanks, Neverending. I really appreciate your insights into this matter.

Since the expediated court timeline is now seems up in the air PRKR will probably have to put out another PR because they said in their recent PR:

"The court's order provides for an opening brief by ParkerVision no later than December 1, 2025; Qualcomm's response brief no later than January 16, 2026; ParkerVision's reply brief no later than February 6, 2026; and scheduling of oral arguments for the next available session after briefing is complete."

I imagine the share price will really tank then. It is only people closely watching the filings that have made it tank up until now. From my interpretation PRKRs lawyers made a boo boo and they want the appeals court to bail them out. It will likely not happen. I think that they do not know what they are doing. It bodes poorly for your case. In my opinion.

Good analysis, Neverending. If your opinion is correct, then this is most unfortunate for PRKR.

PRKRs lawyers are terrible in my opinion! The problem now with the expediated appeal is PRKRs lawyers did not read QCOMs briefs properly and missed a key item they stuck in there to enable them to delay any appeal. PRKRs lawyers called it "gamesmanship" but what it is is good lawyering and sloppy work by PRKRs lawyers not picking up on it. They now want a do over but it does not work that way in the legal world.
PRKRs lawyers must be junior associates who are just gaining experience. Their poor work resulted in the appeal even being necessary in the first place. They treated the last appeal win as a ruling that their patents in this case are not the same as in the first PRKR v QCOM case. It was no such thing. The judge even wrote that PRKRs lawyers did not do a traditional claims construction brief. That is why they lost the receiver claims.
I would have to say I have little hope for PRKR to prevail because they will continue to make mistakes that good lawyers at QCOM can capitalize on. In my opinion!

The experiated appeal is not longer expediated. QCOM won this one. This is from PRKRs most recent motion from 11/6>>
"ARGUMENT
The Court should reinstate the expedited briefing schedule"

So for PRKR to ask the court to reinstate the expediated appeal must mean it is not currently expediated. PRKR just cannot win in court. In my opinion.

PRKRs been tanking the last few days. I expect bad news with this stock! QCOM is trying to get the expediated appeal dismissed. They have a motion pending. In my opinion.

I appreciate your insights, even if I hope that you are wrong.

The appeals court "win" was procedural in nature alone. The district court judge did not check all the boxes he needed to and the appeals court said check the "claims construction" box and we are good. PRKR has a good law firm but they must have junior people on the case because they took this as some sort of ruling from the appeals court that there was no generating limitation in PRKRs receiver patents. PRKRs claims constuction argument assumed they already won and they did not even make the arguments they needed to in order to win. It is not the job of the appeals court to make up for PRKRs lawyers failure to make a good argument. That is why I say PRKR will lose the appeal. At least it will be over quick maybe by March 2026. In my opinion.

The Appeals court ordered the district court to do claims construction to show a generating limitation on PRKRs receiver claims. Now that is done and it is proven with the facts that QCOM does not infringe. The appeal should be over quickly and PRKR will lose in my opinion. The "win" at the appeals court was simply about the District Court following the correct procedure: From the Appeal ruling:

"Absent a claim construction finding a generating limitation or similar requirement to be part of the claims, the Qualcomm accused products might infringe the receiver claims in this action even if they are found to down-convert the signal before the capacitor."

Thanks for posting, and for sharing your perspective, Neverending.

Court ruling October 2 2025- QCOM case is severed and stayed. That means the case is on hold until the receiver claims can be appealed. If the Federal Circuit hears an "expediated" appeal it takes like 2 years. If they do not I have seen it take up to 4 years. In my opinion>>>
IV. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Enter Stipulated Final Judgment of
Noninfringement of the Receiver Claims under Rule 54(b) and to
Sever and Stay the Remaining (Transmitter) Claims Pending Appeal
of the Court’s Claim-Construction Order (Doc. 811) is GRANTED
2. Final Judgment pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b) of noninfringement
on the Receiver Claims2 (see Doc. 815) is entered in favor of
Defendants Qualcomm Inc. and Qualcomm Atheros, Inc.
3. All other claims are SEVERED and STAYED pending appeal.
4. The parties shall provide written status reports every ninety (90) days
hereafter or upon the occurrence of any event that may result in the
stay being lifted.
5. The Clerk is DIRECTED to administratively close the case.
DONE AND ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on October 2, 2025.

Thanks for sharing your opinion, Neverending. You may very well be correct, which would be a travesty for ParkerVision. My hope is that justice prevails in spite of a judge's bias against ParkerVision. Perhaps the new Justice Department should look into this case. JMHO.

Pending the judges order is "PARKERVISION’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR RULE 54(b)
FINAL JUDGMENT AND TO STAY REMAINING CLAIMS PENDING
APPEAL (DKT. 811)"

Since this judge is clearly not giving PRKR any favorability my bet is he denys PRKRs attempt to stay the case pending appeal of the claims construction that is fatal to their case. I hope he does deny the stay because this judge will find a way to boot PRKR to the curb anyway or if PRKR somehow gets to a jury and wins my bet is this judge will reduce any win to a nominal amount. It is going to the appeals court no matter what. If the stay is granted the appeal will take 2-4 years and is no sure bet. We could have a trial in 2026 on the transmitter claims and then the judge very likely screws PRKR and the whole thing can just be appealed at the same time. I think this is better than waiting for an appeal now for YEARS only to get back in this judges court wait another 1-2 years for trial only to lose on some other ruling from this judge then have to get back in line another 2-4 years for an appeal then. This case is dead for many years. Maybe the other cases have a chance I have not looked into them. In my opinion.

Although you make a grim forecast, I appreciate your willingness to share your opinion. You could be right about the outcome although I should certainly hope not. If this judge is fair, or at least neutral, ParkerVision has a shot at justice. Obviously I am pulling for the underdog.