Parkervision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc
Authored by: Jeremy J. Gustrowsky
A recent decision by the Federal Circuit has breathed new life into ParkerVision’s long-running patent dispute with Qualcomm over wireless communication technology. The court found that the lower district court made key errors when it dismissed ParkerVision’s claims of patent infringement and excluded its expert testimony, sending the case back for further proceedings.
The heart of the dispute centers on technology for converting high-frequency signals to lower frequencies in wireless devices—a process called “down-conversion.” ParkerVision previously lost an earlier case against Qualcomm, but in this newer lawsuit, it asserted different patents, including U.S. Patent No. 7,218,907 and U.S. Patent No. 6,091,940. The district court had ruled that ParkerVision was barred from pursuing its claims because the issues were already decided in the earlier case, and it also excluded ParkerVision’s expert witnesses for not conducting certain tests and simulations.
The Federal Circuit disagreed, explaining that the district court failed to properly analyze whether the patent claims in the new case were truly the same as those in the old one. The court emphasized that claim construction—carefully interpreting the language of the patents—must come first, and that experts can rely on technical documents and reasonable sources, not just hands-on testing, to form their opinions. The court also clarified that findings from patent office reviews (which use a lower standard of proof) do not automatically prevent ParkerVision from defending its patents in court, where a higher standard applies.
As a result, the Federal Circuit vacated the summary judgment of non-infringement and reversed the exclusion of ParkerVision’s expert testimony. The case now returns to the district court for a closer look at the patent claims and a fair opportunity for ParkerVision to present its case. This decision highlights the importance of careful claim interpretation and the flexibility experts have in forming their opinions in complex patent disputes.