Note 12 - Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 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 On September 30, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("CAFC") ruled that it did not have proper jurisdiction over the issues set forth in the Company's expedited appeal filed in October 2025 with respect to the district court's claim construction for the Company's receiver technology claims that resulted in summary judgment dismissal of the receiver portion of the case. As a result of this CAFC decision, the case will be reopened in district court for a trial on the transmitter-only portion of the case. Following the district court's final judgment on the transmitter technology case, the Company will be able to refile its appeal for the receiver claim construction. The damages asserted by our expert in the transmitter-only case are estimated at $440 million, with the remaining $860 million in damages being represented by the receiver claims. These amounts represent damages sought, not awards, and there can be no assurance that we will recover any damages. 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 and briefings on these reports have been completed. In August 2026, Judge Albright, the assigned judge in this case, retired from the bench. We are currently awaiting assignment of our case to a new judge and the establishment of a revised trial schedule. 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 was also stayed in October 2026, pending a decision by the CAFC on a PTAB ruling on one of the patents in this case, the '593 patent (see MediaTek v. ParkerVision (PTAB) below). 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. The court then 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 which was denied in August 2026. We have filed appeals with the CAFC with respect to both of these patents. 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 nine months ended September 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. 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. A motion to dismiss Mr. Parker from the litigation was filed in September 2026. We have been indemnified for the disputed amounts and defense costs related to these actions. On August 31, 2026, working with The Oversight Project, formerly part of the Heritage Foundation, we filed a complaint and request for declaratory and injunctive relief against the National Archives and Records Administration (“NARA”) under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) to compel the production of records from 2014 regarding our prior patent infringement case against Qualcomm. The complaint was filed in the Middle District of Florida following our December 2025 request for documents and our subsequent unsuccessful attempts to obtain any of the thousands of documents that NARA identified as responsive to our request. To date, NARA has not produced any responsive documents or indicated why the documents have not been produced. NARA has a deadline of November 13, 2026 to respond to our complaint.

Note 12 - Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 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

On September 30, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("CAFC") ruled that it did not have proper jurisdiction over the issues set forth in the Company's expedited appeal filed in October 2025 with respect to the district court's claim construction for the Company's receiver technology claims that resulted in summary judgment dismissal of the receiver portion of the case. As a result of this CAFC decision, the case will be reopened in district court for a trial on the transmitter-only portion of the case. Following the district court's final judgment on the transmitter technology case, the Company will be able to refile its appeal for the receiver claim construction. The damages asserted by our expert in the transmitter-only case are estimated at $440 million, with the remaining $860 million in damages being represented by the receiver claims. These amounts represent damages sought, not awards, and there can be no assurance that we will recover any damages.

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 and briefings on these reports have been completed. In August 2026, Judge Albright, the assigned judge in this case, retired from the bench. We are currently awaiting assignment of our case to a new judge and the establishment of a revised trial schedule.

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 was also stayed in October 2026, pending a decision by the CAFC on a PTAB ruling on one of the patents in this case, the '593 patent (see MediaTek v. ParkerVision (PTAB) below).

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. The court then 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 which was denied in August 2026. We have filed appeals with the CAFC with respect to both of these patents.

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 nine months ended September 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. 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. A motion to dismiss Mr. Parker from the litigation was filed in September 2026. We have been indemnified for the disputed amounts and defense costs related to these actions.

On August 31, 2026, working with The Oversight Project, formerly part of the Heritage Foundation, we filed a complaint and request for declaratory and injunctive relief against the National Archives and Records Administration (“NARA”) under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) to compel the production of records from 2014 regarding our prior patent infringement case against Qualcomm. The complaint was filed in the Middle District of Florida following our December 2025 request for documents and our subsequent unsuccessful attempts to obtain any of the thousands of documents that NARA identified as responsive to our request. To date, NARA has not produced any responsive documents or indicated why the documents have not been produced. NARA has a deadline of November 13, 2026 to respond to our complaint.