QUALCOMM INCORPORATED and

Before the Court is an Unopposed Motion for Order Authorizing Withdrawal of Kyle N. Ryman as Counsel for ParkerVision, Inc. Doc. No. 791.

On review, the motion (Doc. No. 791) is GRANTED, and Attorney Kyle N. Ryman is TERMINATED as counsel for Plaintiff.

Plaintiff remains represented by other counsel of record.

DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on April 2, 2025.

Based on the representations in the motion, having considered Local Rule 1.11 and the Eleventh Circuit’s standard for sealing, and for reasons similar to those previously set forth in prior Orders, see Doc. Nos. 466, 771, 774, the Court finds good cause to allow ParkerVision to file the reply and related exhibits under seal.

On or before March 25, 2025, ParkerVision shall separately file the documents described in the motion under seal.

Upon review, the Court may require that some or all of the information filed under seal be filed in the public record, if it determines that the information is not properly subject to sealing.

Otherwise, this seal shall not extend beyond ninety (90) days after the case is closed and all appeals exhausted.

Copies furnished to: Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-LHP Document 789 Filed 03/24/25 Page 3 of 3 PageID 76038

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED and

Before the Court are the following motions: • Unopposed Motion of Benjamin Lin to Withdraw as Counsel for Qualcomm Incorporated and Qualcomm Atheros, Inc. (Doc. No. 782) • Unopposed Motion of Howard Wizenfeld to Withdraw as Counsel for Qualcomm Incorporated and Qualcomm Atheros, Inc. (Doc. No. 783) • Unopposed Motion of Stephen C. Neal to Withdraw as Counsel for Qualcomm Incorporated and Qualcomm Atheros, Inc. (Doc. No. 784) Upon review, the motions (Doc. Nos. 782–84) are GRANTED, and Attorneys Benjamin Lin, Howard Wizenfeld, and Stephen C. Neal are hereby TERMINATED as counsel for Defendants.

DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on March 11, 2025.

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties

Defendants, without opposition from Plaintiff, seek to file under seal their unredacted response to Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and related exhibits, which address the medical information and health of an expert witness and include portions of a sealed Order.

Based on the representations in the motion, having considered Local Rule 1.11 and the Eleventh Circuit’s standard for sealing, and for reasons similar to those previously set forth in prior Orders, see Doc. Nos. 466, 771, the Court finds good

On or before March 3, 2025, Defendants shall separately file the documents described in the motion under seal.

Otherwise, this seal shall not extend beyond ninety (90) days after the case is closed and all appeals exhausted.

Copies furnished to: Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-LHP Document 774 Filed 02/25/25 Page 3 of 3 PageID 75904

Plaintiff, without opposition from Defendants, seeks to file under seal a motion for reconsideration, as well as two supporting declarations and related exhibits, which address the medical information and health of an expert witness, to include medical records.

Based on the representations in the motion, having considered Local Rule 1.111 and the Eleventh Circuit’s standard for sealing, and for reasons similar to those previously set forth in prior Orders, see Doc. No. 466, the Court finds good cause to allow Plaintiff to file these materials under seal.

Although the present motion fails to comply in full with Local Rule 1.11, specifically subsection (b)(8), the Court has addressed the motion on the merits for the sake of judicial efficiency and in the absence of objection from Defendants.

Going forward, however, Plaintiff is cautioned that future filings that fail to comply in full with all applicable Local Rules may be stricken or summarily denied without further notice.

Otherwise, this seal shall not extend beyond ninety (90) days after the case is closed and all appeals exhausted.

Qualcomm avers that ParkerVision recently began a media blitz to poison the jury “A trial court has managerial power that has been described as ‘the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.’” In re Air Crash Disaster at Fla. Everglades on Dec. 29, 1972, 549 F.2d 1006, 1012 (5th Cir. 1977) (quoting Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)); see Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (adopting as binding precedent all Fifth Circuit decisions prior to October 1, 1981).

Qualcomm predicates this contention on ParkerVision’s admission that “Our goal is to ... shed light on the facts of our case ... [which] will provide valuable insight for ... the broader public as we hope to schedule a trial in 2025.” (Id. at p. 1) (emphasis added).

However, it is unclear whether ParkerVision’s media campaign will pollute the jury pool in the Middle District of Florida or that the Court cannot fashion an appropriate remedy to cure any taint that may arise.

The Court will painstakingly question potential jurors to identify those who may have been Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-LHP Document 768 Filed 02/07/25 Page 5 of 6 PageID 75778 exposed to ParkerVision’s media campaign and may have formed a negative opinion of Qualcomm.

For this reason, Qualcomm’s Motion fails to satisfy each prong of the test for imposing a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, regardless of which standard is applied to restricting ParkerVision’s extrajudicial statements.3 That said, if Qualcomm produces more substantial evidence, such as data obtained by canvassing a representative sample of citizens residing in the counties that comprise the Orlando Division, showing ParkerVision’s media campaign has tainted the potential jury pool, the Court may revisit this ruling.