Note 12 - Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2026
Notes to Financial Statements
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	12. Commitments and Contingencies Legal Proceedings From time to time, we are subject to legal proceedings and claims which arise in the ordinary course of our business. These proceedings include patent enforcement actions initiated by us against others for the infringement of our technologies, as well as proceedings brought by others against us at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTAB”) in an attempt to invalidate certain of our patent claims. The majority of our litigation, including our PTAB proceedings, is being paid for through contingency fee arrangements with our litigation counsel as well as third-party litigation financing. In general, litigation counsel is entitled to recoup on a priority basis, from litigation proceeds, any out-of-pocket expenses incurred. Following reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses, litigation counsel is generally entitled to a percentage of remaining proceeds based on the terms of the specific arrangement between us, counsel and our third-party litigation funder. ParkerVision v. Qualcomm (Middle District of Florida-Orlando Division) - Appealed to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ParkerVision v. Qualcomm currently has a second appeal underway at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("CAFC") with respect to this case. In September 2024, the CAFC issued its opinion on the first appeal of pre-trial rulings in this case, ruling in our favor on all issues and remanding the case back to district court. Upon reopening the case, the district court granted on reconsideration, Qualcomm's motion for a third claim construction briefing with respect to two previously undisputed claim terms that were critical to the September 2024 appellate court decision. In May 2025, following briefing by both parties, the district court issued a claim construction order adopting Qualcomm's proposed constructions for the two claim terms. This decision, in essence, precluded us, once again, from asserting our receiver claims in the case. In June 2025, we filed a Rule 54(b) motion requesting that the court enter a final judgment of noninfringement on our receiver claims, based on the court's claim construction, and sever and stay the remaining transmit claims in the case to allow us to immediately appeal the most recent claim construction order and avoid the inefficiency of potentially two separate trials. The district court granted this motion in August 2025, and we immediately filed an appeal with the CAFC, requesting an expedited schedule. Qualcomm filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of proper jurisdiction. The CAFC granted the expedited schedule and ordered the parties to brief the jurisdictional issue in their briefs along with the basis for the appeal. Oral argument was held on June 1, 2026, and we are currently awaiting a decision from the CAFC. ParkerVision v. MediaTek (Western District of Texas) We filed three patent infringement actions in the Western District of Texas against MediaTek Inc. and MediaTek USA Inc. (collectively, "MediaTek"), alleging infringement of an aggregate of ten of our patents. A jury trial for the first MediaTek action was scheduled to commence on March 20, 2026. However, on March 16, 2026, at a pretrial conference, the court postponed the trial date pending requested updates to the expert reports and related briefings. We submitted our supplemental expert reports in May 2026. The current schedule provides for all final pre-trial motions to be submitted by October 12, 2026. A new trial date has not yet been set, and it is expected that Judge Albright's replacement will preside over the trial given Albright's pending departure from the bench. The second MediaTek action was stayed pending the PTAB's final written decisions on IPRs that could impact the patents in this case. The PTAB issued an unfavorable decision in May 2026 which we appealed to the CAFC (see MediaTek v. ParkerVision (PTAB) below). The third MediaTek action currently has a trial date tentatively scheduled for April 2027, although we anticipate this date will be extended based on the current case status. ParkerVision v. Realtek (Western District of Texas) We filed two patent infringement actions in the Western District of Texas against Realtek Semiconductor Corp. ("Realtek"), alleging infringement of an aggregate of seven of our patents. One of the seven patents was dropped from the litigation in August 2024. The two Realtek cases were scheduled for trial in January 2026 and April 2026, respectively. In December 2025, the court combined the two cases into a single trial scheduled to commence April 27, 2026, and the parties agreed to narrow the combined case to an aggregate of three patents. In April 2026, as a result of the amended expert reports requested in ParkerVision v. MediaTek, the court postponed the April 27, 2026 trial date. In April 2026, the court issued an order vacating all dates in this case following Judge Albright's announcement of his intent to step down from the bench. A new judge has been assigned to this case, but no trial date or other deadlines have been set yet in this case. ParkerVision v. Texas Instruments (Western District of Texas) We filed a patent infringement action in the Western District of Texas against Texas Instruments ("TI") in 2023, alleging infringement of three of our patents. This case was stayed in 2025 pending the PTAB's final written decisions on IPRs for the three patents in this case. The PTAB has issued unfavorable decisions for each of the three IPRs, and we are seeking appeal of these decisions (see Texas Instruments and NXP v. ParkerVision (PTAB) below). ParkerVision v. NXP Semiconductors (Western District of Texas) We filed a patent infringement action in the Western District of Texas against NXP Semiconductors ("NXP") in 2023, alleging infringement of three of our patents. This case was stayed in 2025 pending the PTAB's final written decisions on IPRs for the three patents in this case. The PTAB has issued unfavorable decisions for each of the three IPRs, and we are seeking appeal of these decisions (see Texas Instruments and NXP v. ParkerVision (PTAB) below). MediaTek v. ParkerVision (PTAB) MediaTek filed a petition for IPR in May 2024 against the '686 patent, one of the patents asserted in the second MediaTek infringement action. The PTAB instituted this IPR in November 2024, and in May 2026, the PTAB issued its final written decision determining that the challenged claims in this petition were unpatentable. We appealed this decision to the CAFC in July 2026. In October 2024, MediaTek filed a petition for IPR against the '593 patent, one of the patents asserted in the third MediaTek action. The PTAB instituted this IPR in March 2025. On March 31, 2026, the PTAB issued its decision, ruling that the challenged claims in this petition were unpatentable. In June 2026, we filed an appeal with the CAFC with respect to this PTAB decision. Texas Instruments and NXP v. ParkerVision (PTAB) Texas Instruments filed three petitions for IPR in May 2024 against each of the patents asserted in the TI action. All three IPRs were instituted by the PTAB in November 2024 and in December 2024, the PTAB granted a motion by NXP to join two of the IPRs for patents also asserted against NXP. In November 2025, the PTAB issued its final written decision in one of the IPRs filed by TI, deeming the challenged claims of our '342 patent to be unpatentable. We filed a request for review of this decision by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") director and that request was denied in March 2026. In May 2026, we filed an appeal with the CAFC. In May 2026, the PTAB issued its final written decisions with respect to the joint TI/NXP IPRs against our '528 and '177 patents, finding the challenged claims of each of these patents to be unpatentable. We filed a request for review of the '528 patent decision by the USPTO director in June 2026 and filed an appeal with the CAFC with respect to the '177 patent in July 2026. Other Patent-Related Actions In addition to the actions discussed above, we have additional patent infringement actions against Qualcomm, Apple, Inc., LG, LG Electronics, and TCL that have been stayed pending the outcomes of other active cases. There have been no material changes to these outstanding legal proceedings during the six months ended June 30, 2026. Other Non-Patent Legal Actions We are currently in arbitration proceedings with a former litigation firm, Goldberg Segalla LLP ("Goldberg") for disputed amounts due upon termination of that firm's engagement in 2021. We have been indemnified by our subsequent litigation firm for the costs of these proceedings. Our litigation funder, Brickell, filed a lawsuit against Goldberg for alleged amounts owed by Goldberg to Brickell under a lending agreement. Goldberg countersued Brickell and also named our litigation counsel, Daignault Iyer ("DI") and our chief executive officer, Jeffrey Parker, alleging that the attorney contingency fees from our 2023 litigation settlement were improperly disbursed. We have been indemnified for legal fees related to these actions.

Note 12 - Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2026

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]

12. Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

From time to time, we are subject to legal proceedings and claims which arise in the ordinary course of our business. These proceedings include patent enforcement actions initiated by us against others for the infringement of our technologies, as well as proceedings brought by others against us at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTAB”) in an attempt to invalidate certain of our patent claims. The majority of our litigation, including our PTAB proceedings, is being paid for through contingency fee arrangements with our litigation counsel as well as third-party litigation financing. In general, litigation counsel is entitled to recoup on a priority basis, from litigation proceeds, any out-of-pocket expenses incurred. Following reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses, litigation counsel is generally entitled to a percentage of remaining proceeds based on the terms of the specific arrangement between us, counsel and our third-party litigation funder.

ParkerVision v. Qualcomm (Middle District of Florida-Orlando Division) - Appealed to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

ParkerVision v. Qualcomm currently has a second appeal underway at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("CAFC") with respect to this case. In September 2024, the CAFC issued its opinion on the first appeal of pre-trial rulings in this case, ruling in our favor on all issues and remanding the case back to district court. Upon reopening the case, the district court granted on reconsideration, Qualcomm's motion for a third claim construction briefing with respect to two previously undisputed claim terms that were critical to the September 2024 appellate court decision. In May 2025, following briefing by both parties, the district court issued a claim construction order adopting Qualcomm's proposed constructions for the two claim terms. This decision, in essence, precluded us, once again, from asserting our receiver claims in the case. In June 2025, we filed a Rule 54(b) motion requesting that the court enter a final judgment of noninfringement on our receiver claims, based on the court's claim construction, and sever and stay the remaining transmit claims in the case to allow us to immediately appeal the most recent claim construction order and avoid the inefficiency of potentially two separate trials. The district court granted this motion in August 2025, and we immediately filed an appeal with the CAFC, requesting an expedited schedule. Qualcomm filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of proper jurisdiction. The CAFC granted the expedited schedule and ordered the parties to brief the jurisdictional issue in their briefs along with the basis for the appeal. Oral argument was held on June 1, 2026, and we are currently awaiting a decision from the CAFC.

ParkerVision v. MediaTek (Western District of Texas)

We filed three patent infringement actions in the Western District of Texas against MediaTek Inc. and MediaTek USA Inc. (collectively, "MediaTek"), alleging infringement of an aggregate of ten of our patents. A jury trial for the first MediaTek action was scheduled to commence on March 20, 2026. However, on March 16, 2026, at a pretrial conference, the court postponed the trial date pending requested updates to the expert reports and related briefings. We submitted our supplemental expert reports in May 2026. The current schedule provides for all final pre-trial motions to be submitted by October 12, 2026. A new trial date has not yet been set, and it is expected that Judge Albright's replacement will preside over the trial given Albright's pending departure from the bench.

The second MediaTek action was stayed pending the PTAB's final written decisions on IPRs that could impact the patents in this case. The PTAB issued an unfavorable decision in May 2026 which we appealed to the CAFC (see MediaTek v. ParkerVision (PTAB) below).

The third MediaTek action currently has a trial date tentatively scheduled for April 2027, although we anticipate this date will be extended based on the current case status.

ParkerVision v. Realtek (Western District of Texas)

We filed two patent infringement actions in the Western District of Texas against Realtek Semiconductor Corp. ("Realtek"), alleging infringement of an aggregate of seven of our patents. One of the seven patents was dropped from the litigation in August 2024. The two Realtek cases were scheduled for trial in January 2026 and April 2026, respectively. In December 2025, the court combined the two cases into a single trial scheduled to commence April 27, 2026, and the parties agreed to narrow the combined case to an aggregate of three patents. In April 2026, as a result of the amended expert reports requested in ParkerVision v. MediaTek, the court postponed the April 27, 2026 trial date. In April 2026, the court issued an order vacating all dates in this case following Judge Albright's announcement of his intent to step down from the bench. A new judge has been assigned to this case, but no trial date or other deadlines have been set yet in this case.

ParkerVision v. Texas Instruments (Western District of Texas)

We filed a patent infringement action in the Western District of Texas against Texas Instruments ("TI") in 2023, alleging infringement of three of our patents. This case was stayed in 2025 pending the PTAB's final written decisions on IPRs for the three patents in this case. The PTAB has issued unfavorable decisions for each of the three IPRs, and we are seeking appeal of these decisions (see Texas Instruments and NXP v. ParkerVision (PTAB) below).

ParkerVision v. NXP Semiconductors (Western District of Texas)

We filed a patent infringement action in the Western District of Texas against NXP Semiconductors ("NXP") in 2023, alleging infringement of three of our patents. This case was stayed in 2025 pending the PTAB's final written decisions on IPRs for the three patents in this case. The PTAB has issued unfavorable decisions for each of the three IPRs, and we are seeking appeal of these decisions (see Texas Instruments and NXP v. ParkerVision (PTAB) below).

MediaTek v. ParkerVision (PTAB)

MediaTek filed a petition for IPR in May 2024 against the '686 patent, one of the patents asserted in the second MediaTek infringement action. The PTAB instituted this IPR in November 2024, and in May 2026, the PTAB issued its final written decision determining that the challenged claims in this petition were unpatentable. We appealed this decision to the CAFC in July 2026.

In October 2024, MediaTek filed a petition for IPR against the '593 patent, one of the patents asserted in the third MediaTek action. The PTAB instituted this IPR in March 2025. On March 31, 2026, the PTAB issued its decision, ruling that the challenged claims in this petition were unpatentable. In June 2026, we filed an appeal with the CAFC with respect to this PTAB decision.

Texas Instruments and NXP v. ParkerVision (PTAB)

Texas Instruments filed three petitions for IPR in May 2024 against each of the patents asserted in the TI action. All three IPRs were instituted by the PTAB in November 2024 and in December 2024, the PTAB granted a motion by NXP to join two of the IPRs for patents also asserted against NXP. In November 2025, the PTAB issued its final written decision in one of the IPRs filed by TI, deeming the challenged claims of our '342 patent to be unpatentable. We filed a request for review of this decision by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") director and that request was denied in March 2026. In May 2026, we filed an appeal with the CAFC.

In May 2026, the PTAB issued its final written decisions with respect to the joint TI/NXP IPRs against our '528 and '177 patents, finding the challenged claims of each of these patents to be unpatentable. We filed a request for review of the '528 patent decision by the USPTO director in June 2026 and filed an appeal with the CAFC with respect to the '177 patent in July 2026.

Other Patent-Related Actions

In addition to the actions discussed above, we have additional patent infringement actions against Qualcomm, Apple, Inc., LG, LG Electronics, and TCL that have been stayed pending the outcomes of other active cases. There have been no material changes to these outstanding legal proceedings during the six months ended June 30, 2026.

Other Non-Patent Legal Actions

We are currently in arbitration proceedings with a former litigation firm, Goldberg Segalla LLP ("Goldberg") for disputed amounts due upon termination of that firm's engagement in 2021. We have been indemnified by our subsequent litigation firm for the costs of these proceedings. Our litigation funder, Brickell, filed a lawsuit against Goldberg for alleged amounts owed by Goldberg to Brickell under a lending agreement. Goldberg countersued Brickell and also named our litigation counsel, Daignault Iyer ("DI") and our chief executive officer, Jeffrey Parker, alleging that the attorney contingency fees from our 2023 litigation settlement were improperly disbursed. We have been indemnified for legal fees related to these actions.