ParkerVision Believes Qualcomm Makes Critical Contradiction in its Own Appeal Brief

JACKSONVILLE, FL / ACCESS Newswire / March 25, 2026 / ParkerVision, Inc. (the "Company") (OTCQB:PRKR) today announced that it has completed appellate briefing in its appeal of the Orlando district court's claim construction ruling in its patent infringement case against Qualcomm - a ruling that forced ParkerVision to stipulate to non-infringement and seek expedited appellate review.

In its final brief, ParkerVision highlights that a careful review of Qualcomm's appellate filing reveals a critical contradiction that calls into question the basis of the non-infringement stipulation (and order of the district court entering judgment thereon).

For years, Qualcomm argued that ParkerVision's patents required a specific technical limitation: that signal "down-conversion" must occur at or after a capacitor. In its recent claim construction ruling, and notwithstanding the guidance from the Federal Circuit in the prior appeal, the district court "read in" a "generating" limitation to all asserted claims of the receiver patents. That position allowed Qualcomm to claim the patents at-issue in this case were effectively the same as those in an earlier case and led directly to the stipulation of non-infringement, and the district court's judgment based thereon, because of "issue preclusion."

However, in its new filing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Qualcomm now takes a fundamentally different position. It argues that the case is not about where down-conversion occurs at all.

As explained in its Reply brief at the Federal Circuit, ParkerVision believes this shift is more than a technical nuance - it is legally decisive.

Based on Qualcomm's new argument, the earlier case was decided on different issues and therefore, issue preclusion cannot apply. That means the non-infringement stipulation and district court judgment based thereon should never have occurred. Qualcomm's own brief effectively concedes that the foundation for the claim construction ruling now under appeal has collapsed.

ParkerVision argues that the patent claims clearly establish down-conversion occurs at a switch, which is well documented in the patent specifications and the plain claim language. Recognition by the appellate court that these patents in this case are different from the first ParkerVision case should reverse the issue preclusion and send the case back for trial.

"This is about fundamental fairness and consistency," ParkerVision CEO Jeffrey Parker said. "For years now Qualcomm has argued that ParkerVision's patent claims require down-conversion in a specific location and now in their own brief for the first time they claim that was never the argument. You can't win a case based on a rule and then claim that rule never applied. Qualcomm has long held that they don't infringe ParkerVision's patents because they use switches for down-conversion. The patents in this case clearly use switches for down-conversion so now Qualcomm is trying to rewrite ParkerVision's patents. Qualcomm's own arguments show that this case deserves to be heard by a jury."

The next step in the appeal will be oral arguments at the Federal Circuit in Washington DC. The Federal Circuit's decision could determine whether ParkerVision finally receives its day in court after more than a decade of litigation in this case.

A copy of the appellate court briefings can be found HERE.

About ParkerVision

ParkerVision, Inc. is an innovator in radio frequency (RF) technologies used in advanced wireless communication systems. The company holds an extensive patent portfolio in the U.S. and internationally and continues to pursue licensing and enforcement strategies to protect its intellectual property rights. For more information, please visit www.parkervision.com.

Safe Harbor Statement

This press release contains "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements regarding the potential outcome and timing of the Company's pending appeal, including the potential impact of the Federal Circuit's decision on the Company's ability to proceed with its claims and the timing of the oral argument. These statements are based on current expectations and assumptions and involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially, including factors beyond the Company's control.

Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially include, but are not limited to, the outcome of appellate proceedings and the timing of oral argument, and other risks detailed in the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2025, and subsequent filings. Forward-looking statements can be identified by words such as "believe," "could," and similar expressions. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date they are made.

The Company undertakes no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise, except as required by law.

Contact:

Media@parkervision.com

SOURCE: ParkerVision, Inc.