ParkerVision, Inc. v. NXP Semiconductors N.V.
6:23-cv-00389
W.D. Tex.May 27, 2025Background
- ParkerVision sued NXP Semiconductors for allegedly infringing three patents: the ’686, ’177, and ’528 Patents.
- Related lawsuits were also filed by ParkerVision against Realtek and Texas Instruments, implicating overlapping patents and witnesses.
- IPR petitions challenging the ’177 and ’528 Patents were filed by Texas Instruments and later NXP, with the PTAB granting institution and joinder.
- The Court’s trial schedule set trial for February 2026, while the PTAB is due to issue final written decisions by November 2025.
- NXP moved to stay the case pending completion of the IPRs; ParkerVision opposed, citing prejudice and advanced stages of litigation.
Issues
| Issue | ParkerVision’s Argument | NXP’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to stay the case pending IPRs | Stay is speculative in impact, would cause prejudice by delaying enforcement and risking loss of evidence. | Stay will simplify issues; PTAB’s decision imminent; minimal prejudice due to timing and ParkerVision's own delay. | Stay granted; simplification of issues from IPRs outweighs prejudice and stage-of-litigation concerns. |
Key Cases Cited
- Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (district court has broad discretion to stay proceedings)
- Gould v. Control Laser Corp., 705 F.2d 1340 (explains benefit of PTO proceedings in clarifying patent validity)
- Kahn v. GMC, 889 F.2d 1078 (recognizes public policy favoring expeditious resolution of litigation)
- Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien LP, 826 F.3d 1366 (describes PTAB’s role in providing quick patent dispute resolution)
- Cal. Inst. v. Broadcom Ltd., 25 F.4th 976 (interprets scope of statutory IPR estoppel clause)