ParkerVision’s US District Court Litigation Rumbles Back to Life
Even as related European litigation stalls, the sole litigation campaign of ParkerVision, Inc. has come back to life in US district courts with the recent withdrawal of the NPE’s complaint in an action filed before the International Trade Commission (ITC) in December 2015. The defendants in the ITC investigation were Qualcomm and three smartphone and tablet makers, Apple, LG Electronics (LGE), and Samsung. ParkerVision filed a concurrent suit in the Middle District of Florida asserting the same four patents (6,879,817; 7,929,528; 8,571,135; 9,118,638) against the same four defendants. The case was stayed pending conclusion of ITC proceedings, which occurred on April 28, and the district court has since reopened the case before it, absent Samsung, which settled out. ParkerVision has now dismissed, without prejudice, its claims in that case against LGE and filed a standalone case against LGE in New Jersey (2:17-cv-05359), where that company is based, in light of the US Supreme Court’s recent TC Heartland decision on patent venue. The suit again asserts the same four patents, targeting radio frequency transmitters and transceivers that operate in smartphones and tablets in conjunction with Qualcomm baseband processors.
This content requires a subscription to view
- Over 7,000 news articles covering new patent cases, key policy decisions, and USPTO assignments
- Advanced custom alerts for campaigns and entities
- Proprietary litigation timelines
- Full access to Federal Circuit, PTAB, and ITC dockets
- Judge, venue, and law firm analytics
- Parkervision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated
- ParkerVision, Inc. v. QUALCOMM Incorporated et al
- Parkervision, Inc. v. Blu Products, Inc.
- Parkervision, Inc. v. Infosonics Corporation
- Parkervision, Inc. v. Bullitt Group LTD
- Parkervision, Inc. v. Apple Inc. et al
- Qualcomm Incorporated v. Parkervision, Inc.
- PARKERVISION, INC. v. LG ELECTRONICS, INC. et al
- ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel Corporation
- Parkervision, Inc. et al v. TCL Technology Group Corp.