American Marconi Wireless News - Patently Strategic Podcast Highlights Consensus of Two Former Federal Judges Supporting Grant of ParkerVision's Petition to US Supreme Court

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.
[email protected]

Media Contact:
[email protected]

View the original press release on ACCESS Newswire

O.Norris--AMWN