To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (196039 ) 10/14/2025 4:46:40 PM From: QCOM_HYPE_TRAIN 7 RecommendationsRecommended By
Read Replies (1) | Respond to ParkerVision, Inc. sued Qualcomm Inc. in 2014, alleging infringement of patents related to wireless communications technology. This followed a 2011 lawsuit where ParkerVision claimed Qualcomm infringed on different but related patents. In the 2011 case, the court granted judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of non-infringement, which was affirmed on appeal. In the 2014 case, the district court granted Qualcomm’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement based on collateral estoppel from the 2011 case and excluded certain expert testimonies from ParkerVision. The district court for the Middle District of Florida granted Qualcomm’s motions, concluding that the claims in the 2014 case were materially similar to those in the 2011 case, thus applying collateral estoppel. The court also excluded ParkerVision’s expert testimonies on validity and infringement, deeming them unreliable due to a lack of testing and simulation. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. It vacated the summary judgment of non-infringement, finding that the district court erred by not conducting a proper claim construction to determine if the claims in the 2014 case were materially different from those in the 2011 case. The appellate court also reversed the exclusion of ParkerVision’s expert testimonies, ruling that the district court improperly required testing and simulation for the expert opinions to be considered reliable. The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine the proper scope of the claims and whether the differences in the claims would materially alter the question of infringement. On remand it was further litigated and on Aug 21, 2025 The court entered an Unopposed Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Noninfringement and Dismissal Without Prejudice of Invalidity Counterclaims. The Court entered partial summary judgment in favor of Defendants Qualcomm, Inc. and Qualcomm Atheros, Inc. as to claims 1 and 10 of the '907 Patent and claims 24 and 331 of the '940 Patent. Defendants Qualcomm, Inc. and Qualcomm Atheros, Inc.'s.There is some further clarification in this document an appeal . of the above result.
