The U.S. Supreme Court as expected denied ParkerVision Inc.’s (PRKR) petition for a writ of certiorari requesting a review of the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit throwing out a $173 million award ParkerVision won against Qualcomm Inc.

Jacksonville, Florida-based ParkerVision filed its petition on Feb. 29, saying the key issue it wanted the high court to rule on was “whether and under what circumstances an inconsistency in expert testimony permits a court to set aside a jury verdict and grant the losing party judgment as a matter of law.”

Supreme court observers including Lisa Larrimore Ouelette, an assistant professor at Stanford Law School and an expert on the high court’s patent rulings, had said the high court might take up the case because of its penchant for overturning the Federal Circuit.

ParkerVision had been represented in the petition by Thomas C. Goldstein, a partner with Goldstein & Russell P.C.

Even if the high court does take the case up, Ouelette had said it may decide that the petition is just attempting to turn a factual dispute into a legal one.

ParkerVision said the high court’s decision has no impact on the ongoing International Trade Commission (ITC) investigation against Qualcomm, Apple, LG and Samsung initiated in January.

“We are disappointed that the Supreme Court decided not to hear and weigh-in on this important matter,” CEO Jeffrey Parker said in a statement. “The Federal Circuit's lack of respect for jury verdicts, especially those that find in favor of patent holders, undermines the property rights that innovators depend on when investing significant amounts of resources to create new inventions.”

Parker said patent owners should be entitled to trial by jury under the Seventh Amendment, and jury verdicts are entitled to deference.

“The Federal Circuit's disregard for a jury's factual findings in arriving at a verdict allows infringers to arbitrarily and unfairly capitalize on those inventions after the jury has found infringement.”

Parker said the company remains optimistic about its recently instituted ITC investigation, which focuses on different patent claims and inventions than those that were asserted in the earlier litigation.

He also noted that U.S. Patent and Trademark Office recently denied institution of petitions for inter pares review of certain of its patent claims which are similar to claims asserted in the ITC investigation.

“Based on the quality of the patents we asserted at the ITC, and the availability of injunctive relief, we are confident the ITC investigation will demonstrate the foundational significance and value of our patented innovations.”

—To reach the reporter responsible for this story, please contact Dan Lonkevich at 707 318-7899 or at