Press Release

Cooley Obtains Summary Judgment for Qualcomm in Patent Infringement Lawsuit

Firm’s IP litigation team has successfully defended Qualcomm against 22 ParkerVision patents spread across four cases
April 5, 2022
Lily Bowen

Washington, DC – April 5, 2022 – Cooley achieved a significant victory for longtime client Qualcomm when US District Judge Paul G. Byron of the US District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted the firm’s motion for summary judgment in a contested patent infringement lawsuit, ParkerVision v. Qualcomm. Lawyers Stephen Smith, Matthew Brigham, Eamonn Gardner, Dena Chen, Jeffrey Karr, Priya Viswanath and Benjamin Lin led the Cooley team advising Qualcomm. Brigham and Gardner argued the motion for summary judgment, with assistance from the larger team.

The case was the latest of several infringement lawsuits filed over a 10-year span by ParkerVision against Qualcomm involving chips found in most smartphones sold in the US. The lawsuit initially alleged infringement of 11 patents, but over the course of eight years, Cooley defeated eight of the patents, and prevailed in a separate US International Trade Commission investigation involving four more patents. These results are in addition to Cooley previously obtaining a motion for judgment as a matter of law of noninfringement, as well as a favorable ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on noninfringement and invalidity for four other ParkerVision patents in the first lawsuit between the parties. Including this most recent ruling, Cooley has successfully defended Qualcomm against 22 ParkerVision patents spread across four cases.

The last three patents in this case fell on March 23 after Judge Byron issued two orders granting summary judgment of noninfringement of all remaining patents and striking key testimony of ParkerVision’s technical expert. Instead of a trial later this year, judgment was entered in Qualcomm’s favor on all causes of action.

With 60+ litigators across the US and Europe, Cooley’s intellectual property litigation practice group routinely handles IP disputes involving core technologies, products and brands. The team is renowned for its ability to win bet-the-company competitor cases with billions of dollars at stake, and has unprecedented experience representing clients in technology and life sciences matters. Some of Cooley’s recent and notable IP litigation victories include securing a summary judgment win for longtime client Facebook, now known as Meta Platforms, in a patent infringement lawsuit involving customer engagement technology, which earned runner-up distinction from The American Lawyer’s Litigation Daily Litigator of the Week list, as well as defeating a motion for preliminary injunction filed by seeking to ban Cooley client Birdeye’s leading business-to-business reputation management products.

About Cooley LLP

Clients partner with Cooley on transformative deals, complex IP and regulatory matters, and high-stakes litigation, where innovation meets the law.

Cooley has 1,500 lawyers across 17 offices in the United States, Asia and Europe.

This content is provided for general informational purposes only, and your access or use of the content does not create an attorney-client relationship between you or your organization and Cooley LLP, Cooley (UK) LLP, or any other affiliated practice or entity (collectively referred to as “Cooley”). By accessing this content, you agree that the information provided does not constitute legal or other professional advice. This content is not a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified attorney licensed in your jurisdiction and you should not act or refrain from acting based on this content. This content may be changed without notice. It is not guaranteed to be complete, correct or up to date, and it may not reflect the most current legal developments. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Do not send any confidential information to Cooley, as we do not have any duty to keep any information you provide to us confidential. This content may be considered Attorney Advertising and is subject to our legal notices.