Patently Strategic Podcast Highlights Consensus of Two Former Federal Judges Supporting Grant of ParkerVision's Petition to US Supreme Court
ParkerVision (OTCQB:PRKR) announced that its Supreme Court petition (No. 24-518) challenging the Federal Circuit's use of one-word affirmances in Patent Trial and Appeal Board appeals has gained significant support. The petition argues that these affirmances violate Section 144 of the Patent Act, which requires the court to issue an opinion.
Two former Federal Circuit Judges, Paul Michel and Kathleen O'Malley, have publicly supported ParkerVision's position. The case has received thirteen amici across nine briefs calling for Supreme Court review, including support from Harvard Law School's Professor Mary Ann Glendon. Notably, the respondents (TCL and LGE) did not dispute the merits of ParkerVision's petition in their opposition brief.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to consider the petition on March 21st, 2025. The outcome could significantly impact how patent appeals are handled, potentially ensuring greater transparency and accountability in the U.S. patent system.
ParkerVision (OTCQB:PRKR) ha annunciato che la sua petizione alla Corte Suprema (n. 24-518) che contesta l'uso da parte del Federal Circuit di conferme in un'unica parola negli appelli del Patent Trial and Appeal Board ha ottenuto un sostegno significativo. La petizione sostiene che queste conferme violano la Sezione 144 del Patent Act, che richiede alla corte di emettere un parere.
Due ex giudici del Federal Circuit, Paul Michel e Kathleen O'Malley, hanno pubblicamente sostenuto la posizione di ParkerVision. Il caso ha ricevuto tredici amici in nove memorie che chiedono la revisione da parte della Corte Suprema, incluso il supporto della professoressa Mary Ann Glendon della Harvard Law School. È degno di nota che i rispondenti (TCL e LGE) non hanno contestato i meriti della petizione di ParkerVision nel loro atto di opposizione.
La Corte Suprema è programmata per considerare la petizione il 21 marzo 2025. L'esito potrebbe avere un impatto significativo su come vengono gestiti gli appelli in materia di brevetti, potenzialmente garantendo maggiore trasparenza e responsabilità nel sistema dei brevetti statunitense.
ParkerVision (OTCQB:PRKR) anunció que su petición ante la Corte Suprema (n. 24-518) desafiando el uso de afirmaciones de una sola palabra por parte del Circuito Federal en los recursos del Patent Trial and Appeal Board ha obtenido un apoyo significativo. La petición argumenta que estas afirmaciones violan la Sección 144 de la Ley de Patentes, que requiere que la corte emita una opinión.
Dos ex jueces del Circuito Federal, Paul Michel y Kathleen O'Malley, han apoyado públicamente la posición de ParkerVision. El caso ha recibido trece amigos en nueve escritos que piden la revisión de la Corte Suprema, incluido el apoyo de la profesora Mary Ann Glendon de la Facultad de Derecho de Harvard. Cabe destacar que los demandados (TCL y LGE) no disputaron los méritos de la petición de ParkerVision en su escrito de oposición.
Se espera que la Corte Suprema considere la petición el 21 de marzo de 2025. El resultado podría tener un impacto significativo en la forma en que se manejan los recursos de patentes, potencialmente asegurando una mayor transparencia y responsabilidad en el sistema de patentes de EE. UU.
ParkerVision (OTCQB:PRKR)는 연방 순회 법원(Federal Circuit)의 특허 재판 및 항소 위원회(Patent Trial and Appeal Board) 항소에서 단어 하나로 확인하는 방식에 대한 대법원 청원(번호 24-518)이 상당한 지지를 얻었다고 발표했습니다. 이 청원은 이러한 확인이 법원이 의견을 제출해야 한다고 요구하는 특허법 제144조를 위반한다고 주장합니다.
전 연방 순회 법원 판사인 Paul Michel과 Kathleen O'Malley는 ParkerVision의 입장을 공개적으로 지지했습니다. 이 사건은 하버드 로스쿨의 Mary Ann Glendon 교수의 지지를 포함하여 아홉 개의 브리프에서 열세 개의 친구들이 대법원 검토를 요청하는 지지를 받았습니다. 특히 피고 측(TCL과 LGE)은 반대 서면에서 ParkerVision의 청원의 실체를 문제 삼지 않았습니다.
대법원은 2025년 3월 21일에 청원을 검토할 예정입니다. 그 결과는 특허 항소 처리 방식에 중대한 영향을 미칠 수 있으며, 잠재적으로 미국 특허 시스템에서 더 큰 투명성과 책임을 보장할 수 있습니다.
ParkerVision (OTCQB:PRKR) a annoncé que sa pétition auprès de la Cour suprême (n° 24-518) contestant l'utilisation par le Circuit fédéral d'affirmations d'un seul mot dans les appels du Patent Trial and Appeal Board a obtenu un soutien significatif. La pétition soutient que ces affirmations violent la section 144 de la loi sur les brevets, qui exige que la cour émette un avis.
Deux anciens juges du Circuit fédéral, Paul Michel et Kathleen O'Malley, ont publiquement soutenu la position de ParkerVision. L'affaire a reçu treize amis dans neuf mémoires appelant à un examen par la Cour suprême, y compris le soutien de la professeure Mary Ann Glendon de la Harvard Law School. Notamment, les intimés (TCL et LGE) n'ont pas contesté le bien-fondé de la pétition de ParkerVision dans leur mémoire d'opposition.
La Cour suprême devrait examiner la pétition le 21 mars 2025. Le résultat pourrait avoir un impact significatif sur la manière dont les appels en matière de brevets sont traités, garantissant potentiellement une plus grande transparence et responsabilité dans le système de brevets américain.
ParkerVision (OTCQB:PRKR) gab bekannt, dass seine Petition beim Obersten Gerichtshof (Nr. 24-518), die die Verwendung von Ein-Wort-Bestätigungen durch den Federal Circuit in Berufungen des Patent Trial and Appeal Board anfechtet, erheblichen Rückhalt gewonnen hat. Die Petition argumentiert, dass diese Bestätigungen gegen Abschnitt 144 des Patentgesetzes verstoßen, der von dem Gericht verlangt, eine Stellungnahme abzugeben.
Zwei ehemalige Richter des Federal Circuit, Paul Michel und Kathleen O'Malley, haben die Position von ParkerVision öffentlich unterstützt. Der Fall hat dreizehn amici in neun Schriftsätzen erhalten, die eine Überprüfung durch den Obersten Gerichtshof fordern, einschließlich der Unterstützung von Professorin Mary Ann Glendon von der Harvard Law School. Bemerkenswert ist, dass die Beklagten (TCL und LGE) die Meriten der Petition von ParkerVision in ihrem Widerspruchsschreiben nicht bestritten haben.
Der Oberste Gerichtshof wird voraussichtlich am 21. März 2025 über die Petition beraten. Das Ergebnis könnte erhebliche Auswirkungen darauf haben, wie Patentberufungen behandelt werden, und möglicherweise eine größere Transparenz und Verantwortlichkeit im US-Patentsystem gewährleisten.
- Strong support from two former Federal Circuit judges adds credibility to the petition
- Significant backing with thirteen amici across nine briefs supporting Supreme Court review
- Opponents (TCL and LGE) did not dispute the petition's core argument
- Ongoing legal uncertainty pending Supreme Court decision
- Current patent rights remain at risk under Federal Circuit's Rule 36 practice
JACKSONVILLE, FL / ACCESS Newswire / March 17, 2025 / ParkerVision, Inc. (OTCQB:PRKR), a leader in advanced wireless solutions, today announced that the Patently Strategic podcast features ParkerVision's petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in a high-stakes patent case against TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. ("TCL") and LG Electronics Inc. ("LGE"). The petition, No. 24-518, shows that the Federal Circuit's use of one-word affirmances under their local Rule 36 in Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) appeals, violates Section 144 of the Patent Act, which requires the court to issue an "opinion" in such appeals.
The Patently Strategic podcast released today highlights the strong and growing consensus for why ParkerVision's petition should be granted:
Former Federal Circuit Judges Have Come Out in Favor
Retired Judges Paul Michel and Kathleen O'Malley have even weighed in, expressly supporting ParkerVision's position. Judge Michel proclaimed: "The Federal Circuit's regular practice of issuing judgments without opinions in appeals from PTAB reviews contravenes the literal terms of Section 144, which contains no exceptions and warrants immediate Supreme Court scrutiny." And Judge O'Malley explained "the ParkerVision case is of particular concern" because the "guardrails against unduly depriving a party of property rights break down." The Patently Strategic podcast noted that support from former judges concerning their former court is very rare and signals the importance of the ParkerVision cert petition.
Consensus from a Federalist Society Debate
Earlier this month, Amit Vora, an appellate litigator at Kasowitz Benson & Torres and lead counsel for ParkerVision, participated in a Federalist Society webinar debate and all participants agreed that the Court should grant the petition.
Strong Amicus Support
The case has garnered widespread support from inventors' groups, patent holders, and other stakeholders in the patent system, with thirteen amici across nine briefs calling for Supreme Court review. Professor Mary Ann Glendon of Harvard Law School was also among the amici, arguing that opinion-writing is an essential check on judicial power.
Juliette Fassett, CEO of Happy Products, Inc., participated in the podcast and discussed why the Fair Inventing Fund, where she is a board member, filed an amicus brief in support. "The Fair Inventing team," said Juliette, "thought the ParkerVision case perfectly embodies an element of what we're trying to correct in the current system. The US is destroying its homegrown innovations without even clearly explaining why. It's like we incubated our own autoimmune disorder and now we have to heal ourselves."
Opponents Concede Main Argument
The Patently Strategic podcast took note of the fact that ParkerVision's reply brief underscored how the brief in opposition filed by respondents (TCL and LGE) did not dispute the merits of ParkerVision's petition. They did not even address the core issue of how 35 USC Sec. 144 requires the Federal Circuit to write opinions in PTO appeals.
"Respondents were right to concede the question presented. Section 144 means what it says," said Amit Vora, an appellate litigator at Kasowitz and lead counsel for ParkerVision. "That statutory concession, coupled with the mounting criticism of the Federal Circuit's Rule 36-ing patent holders who have been deprived of property rights in issued patents through IPRs, demonstrates the need for review. The issue is important and not going away."
The Supreme Court's decision in this case could reshape how patent appeals are handled, ensuring greater transparency, accountability, and due process in the U.S. patent system.
Jeffrey Parker, CEO of Parker Vision, shared in the podcast that this is a compelling situation. "The Supreme Court could show some respect and love to our innovators. And provide the dignity that we've talked about to those people who are hardworking and really make up a lot of our country." This reinforces Mr. Parker's previous observation: "Requiring the Federal Circuit to state its reasons will help ensure accountability, transparency, and accuracy and thereby secure the rights of inventors, patent holders, and innovators-the fundamental purpose of U.S. patent law."
During the podcast Mr. Vora discussed the important history of written opinions in patent appeals and how for the first time this history has been provided to the Supreme Court.
Ms. Fassett provided a colorful analogy to put this case into an everyday person perspective: "I got a parking ticket recently in the city of Portland, Oregon. The city of Portland gave me more reason and justification for dinging me 70 than Mr. Parker got for the justification for losing his entire patent right and wiping out his business."
A copy of the reply may be found online here and Messrs. Vora and Parker are available to discuss the petition's implications for inventors and the innovation landscape.
The Court is scheduled to consider the petition on March 21st.
About the Patently Strategic Podcast
The Patently Strategic podcast is a monthly series designed for inventors, founders, and intellectual property professionals, focusing on the intricacies of patent strategy, particularly for startups. Hosted by Dr. Ashley Sloat, President and Director of Patent Strategy at Aurora Consulting, each episode features round-table discussions with experts delving into topics such as patent quality, prosecution strategies, and case law reviews. For more information, please visit https://www.aurorapatents.com/patently-strategic-podcast.html .
About ParkerVision
ParkerVision, Inc. (OTCQB:PRKR) invents, develops, and licenses advanced, proprietary radio-frequency (RF) technologies that empower wireless solution providers to create and market state-of-the-art wireless communication products. ParkerVision is actively involved in multiple patent enforcement actions in the U.S. to safeguard its patented technologies, which it believes are being broadly infringed upon by others. For more information, please visit www.parkervision.com.
Safe Harbor Statement
This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Act of 1934, as amended. All statements, other than statements of historical fact, included or incorporated in this press release are forward-looking statements. The Company does not guarantee that it will actually achieve the plans, intentions or expectations disclosed in its forward-looking statements and you should not place undue reliance on the Company's forward-looking statements.
Forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties, and actual results could vary materially from these forward-looking statements. There are a number of important factors that could cause the Company's actual results to differ materially from those indicated or implied by its forward-looking statements, including those important factors set forth under the caption "Risk Factors" in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2023 and disclosures in the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarters ended March 31, 2024, June 30, 2024, and September 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Although the Company may elect to do so at some point in the future, the Company does not assume any obligation to update any forward-looking statement and it disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise.
Contact:
Tony Vignieri
Communications Director
ParkerVision, Inc.
tvignieri@parkervision.com
Media Contact:
media@parkervision.com
SOURCE: ParkerVision, Inc.
View the original press release on ACCESS Newswire
FAQ
What is ParkerVision's Supreme Court petition No. 24-518 challenging?
How many amicus briefs support ParkerVision's (PRKR) Supreme Court petition?
When will the Supreme Court consider ParkerVision's (PRKR) petition?
Which former Federal Circuit judges support ParkerVision's Supreme Court petition?
How did TCL and LGE respond to ParkerVision's (PRKR) Supreme Court petition?
