Case 3:11-cv-00719-RBD-TEM Document 269 Filed 05/22/13 Page 1 of 35 PageID 8500
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
`
`
`PARKERVISION, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Case No. 3:11-cv-719-J-37-TEM
`
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,
`
`Defendant.
`
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,
`
`Counterclaim Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`PARKERVISION, INC. AND STERNE,
`KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX PLLC,
`
`Counterclaim Defendants.
`
`
`
`PARKERVISION’S MOTION FOR
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO INVALIDITY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RPX-Farmwald Ex. 1007, p 1
`
`

`
`Case 3:11-cv-00719-RBD-TEM Document 269 Filed 05/22/13 Page 2 of 35 PageID 8501
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`ISSUES TO BE DECIDED .................................................................................................2
`
`STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ..................................................3
`
`LEGAL STANDARD..........................................................................................................5
`
`ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES..................................................................................6
`
`A.
`
`Qualcomm Cannot Meet Its Burden To Prove That Any
`Asserted Claim Of The ’551, ’518, Or ’371 Patents Is
`Invalid As Anticipated Or Obvious. ........................................................................6
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Qualcomm Has No Evidence That The Prior Art
`Meets The “Generating” Limitation Of The
`Asserted Claims Of The ’551, ’518, And ’371
`Patents..........................................................................................................7
`
`The Patents-In-Suit, Like The Court’s Claim
`Construction Order, Recognize That The
`“Generating” Limitation May Be Satisfied By
`Discharging The Transferred Energy From The
`Storage Device...........................................................................................11
`
`Any Voltage Differential Across The Poles Of The
`Storage Device Does Not Show “Generating” The
`Lower Frequency Signal From The Transferred
`Energy........................................................................................................14
`
`Qualcomm’s Lack Of Expert Testimony And
`Evidence As To The “Generating” Limitation
`Entitles PakerVision To Summary Judgment Of No
`Anticipation Or Obviousness.....................................................................15
`
`B.
`
`Qualcomm’s Enablement Challenge Fails As A Matter Of
`Law. .......................................................................................................................17
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Dr. Razavi Fails To Apply The Legally Correct Test
`For Enablement..........................................................................................17
`
`The Patents-in-Suit Provide Examples Operable At
`The Ninth Sub-Harmonic...........................................................................19
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`McKool 885776
`McKool 885776v7
`
`ii
`
`RPX-Farmwald Ex. 1007, p 2
`
`

`
`Case 3:11-cv-00719-RBD-TEM Document 269 Filed 05/22/13 Page 3 of 35 PageID 8502
`
`3.
`
`Dr. Razavi Admits That Undue Experimentation Is
`Not Required To Make Embodiments Of The
`Invention Operable At The Ninth Sub-harmonic.......................................19
`
`C.
`
`Qualcomm Fails To Show That Any Asserted Claim Is
`Indefinite................................................................................................................19
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The Term “Substantial” Does Not Result In The
`Indefiniteness Of Claims 113, 161, 202, and 203 of
`the ’551 Patent—The Court Construed This Term....................................20
`
`The Term “Accurate” Does Not Result In The
`Indefiniteness Of Claims 113, 202, and 203 of the
`’551 Patent and Claims 81 and 91 of the ’518
`Patent..........................................................................................................21
`
`Claims 4 And 7 Of The ’845 Patent Are Not
`Indefinite Due To Minor Typographical Errors.........................................22
`
`D.
`
`Despite The Broad Assertions In Its Counterclaim,
`Qualcomm Provides No Evidence That The Patents-In-Suit
`Are Otherwise Invalid............................................................................................24
`
`VI.
`
`CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................25
`
`
`
`McKool 885776
`McKool 885776v7
`
`iii
`
`RPX-Farmwald Ex. 1007, p 3
`
`

`
`Case 3:11-cv-00719-RBD-TEM Document 269 Filed 05/22/13 Page 4 of 35 PageID 8503
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................16
`
`Alexsam, Inc. v. Idt Corp.,
`Nos. 2012-1063, -1064, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 10009 (Fed. Cir. May 20, 2013).............7, 16
`
`Andrew Corp. v. Gabriel Elecs., Inc.,
`847 F.2d 819 (Fed. Cir. 1988)..................................................................................................21
`
`Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
`477 U.S. 317 (1986).........................................................................................................5, 6, 25
`
`Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc.,
`417 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................20
`
`Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog, LLC,
`703 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................21
`
`Emcore Corp. v. Optium Corp.,
`No. 6-1202, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59794 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 5, 2008).....................................22
`
`Energizer Holdings, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`435 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................................22
`
`Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp.,
`599 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................................22
`
`Exxon Research & Eng’g Co. v. United States,
`265 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2001)................................................................................................20
`
`Green Edge Enters., LLC v. Rubber Mulch etc., LLC,
`620 F.3d 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..........................................................................................18, 19
`
`In re Wands,
`858 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1988)............................................................................................17, 19
`
`Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs.,
`512 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..................................................................................................7
`
`Invitrogen Corp. v. Clontech Labs., Inc.,
`429 F.3d 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2005)....................................................................................17, 18, 19
`
`McKool 885776
`McKool 885776v7
`
`iv
`
`RPX-Farmwald Ex. 1007, p 4
`
`

`
`Case 3:11-cv-00719-RBD-TEM Document 269 Filed 05/22/13 Page 5 of 35 PageID 8504
`
`Isco Int’l, Inc. v. Conductus, Inc.,
`No. 01-847 GMS, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1880 (D. Del. Feb. 10, 2003) ...............................23
`
`John Hopkins Univ. v. Cellpro, Inc.,
`152 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 1998)................................................................................................18
`
`Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. v. CIBA Vision Corp.,
`648 F. Supp. 2d 1294 (M.D. Fla. 2009).............................................................................23, 24
`
`K-Tec, Inc. v. Vita-Mix Corp.,
`696 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..............................................................................................6, 7
`
`Koito Mfg. Co. v. Turn-Key-Tech, LLC,
`381 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2004)................................................................................................16
`
`Krippelz v. Ford Motor Co.,
`667 F.3d 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................16
`
`LNP Eng’g Plastics, Inc. v. Miller Waste Mills, Inc.,
`275 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2001)................................................................................................21
`
`Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L.,
`353 F.3d 928 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..............................................................................................7, 16
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P’ship,
`131 S. Ct. 2238 (2011)...............................................................................................................5
`
`Motorola, Inc. v. Interdigital Tech. Corp.,
`121 F.3d 1461 (Fed. Cir. 1997)................................................................................................16
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................23
`
`Proveris Sci. Corp. v. Innovasystems, Inc.,
`536 F.3d 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2008)............................................................................................7, 16
`
`Schumer v. Lab. Computer Sys.,
`308 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2002)................................................................................................16
`
`Seattle Box Co. v. Indus. Crating & Packing, Inc.,
`731 F.2d 818 (Fed. Cir. 1984)..................................................................................................20
`
`Titan Tire Corp. v. Case New Holland, Inc.,
`566 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..................................................................................................5
`
`Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co.,
`642 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................................................................................................20
`
`McKool 885776
`McKool 885776v7
`
`v
`
`RPX-Farmwald Ex. 1007, p 5
`
`

`
`Case 3:11-cv-00719-RBD-TEM Document 269 Filed 05/22/13 Page 6 of 35 PageID 8505
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112.....................................................................................1, 5, 25
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ...........................................................................................................................7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112..................................................................................................................17, 24, 25
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(2) ...................................................................................................................19, 21
`
`35 U.S.C. § 282................................................................................................................................5
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 .......................................................................................................................5, 25
`
`McKool 885776
`McKool 885776v7
`
`vi
`
`RPX-Farmwald Ex. 1007, p 6
`
`

`
`Case 3:11-cv-00719-RBD-TEM Document 269 Filed 05/22/13 Page 7 of 35 PageID 8506
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`EXHIBIT A-1 – Expert Report of Dr. Behzad Razavi (the “Razavi Report”)
`
`EXHIBIT A-2 – Appendix C and Addendum to Razavi Report1
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT B – Excerpts from Rebuttal Report of Paul Prucnal (the “Prucnal Rebuttal”)
`
`EXHIBIT C – Excerpts from Deposition Testimony of Dr. Behzad Razavi (dated May 1, 2013)
`
`EXHIBIT D – Excerpts from Deposition Testimony of Joseph Hanna (dated April 30, 2013)
`
`EXHIBIT E – Excerpts from Deposition Testimony of Gregory Leonard (dated April 26, 2013)
`
`EXHIBIT F – Excerpts from Deposition Testimony of Dr. Tim Williams (dated May 02, 2013)
`
`EXHIBIT G – Excerpts from Deposition Testimony of Dr. Robert Fox (dated May 03, 2013)
`
`EXHIBIT H – Excerpts from Deposition Testimony of David Sorrells (dated May 10, 2013)
`
`EXHIBIT I – Rebuttal Expert Report of Peter Weisskopf (the “Weisskopf Rebuttal”)
`
`EXHIBIT J – Excerpts from Deposition Testimony of Peter Weisskopf (dated May 10, 2013)
`
`
`1 ParkerVision has attached as exhibits the body of the Razavi Report and Appendix C (with its Addendum),
`containing Dr. Razavi’s simulations. Appendices A-B and D-K are voluminous and are not included as exhibits to
`ParkerVision’s motion. A copy of these other appendices, including Dr. Razavi’s claim charts contained in
`Appendices D-I, can be delivered to the Court if desired.
`
`McKool 885776
`McKool 885776v7
`
`vii
`
`RPX-Farmwald Ex. 1007, p 7
`
`

`
`Case 3:11-cv-00719-RBD-TEM Document 269 Filed 05/22/13 Page 8 of 35 PageID 8507
`
`I.
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`ParkerVision, Inc. (“ParkerVision”) hereby moves for summary judgment of no
`
`invalidity. Qualcomm Incorporated (“Qualcomm”) submits that the Asserted Claims of the
`
`Patents-in-Suit1 are invalid under one or more of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112. Dr.
`
`Behzad Razavi, Qualcomm’s only expert on validity, opines on anticipation, obviousness,
`
`enablement, and indefiniteness.
`
`Issued patents are presumed valid and a party challenging the validity of a patent must
`
`establish invalidity of each claim by clear and convincing evidence. Here, Qualcomm failed to
`
`provide evidence sufficient to establish an allegation of invalidity of any Asserted Claim.
`
`Therefore, summary judgment in favor of ParkerVision is appropriate on each of the four
`
`grounds set forth herein.
`
`First, with respect to anticipation and obviousness of the Asserted Claims of the ’551,
`
`’518, and ’371 Patents, Dr. Razavi fails to set forth any evidence that any of the prior art meets
`
`the “generating” limitation of each Asserted Claim of these patents. As a result, Qualcomm has
`
`failed as a matter of law to set forth any evidence, let alone clear and convincing evidence,
`
`proving that any of the prior art identified by Qualcomm anticipates and/or renders obvious the
`
`Asserted Claims of the ’551, ’518, and ’371 Patents. Second, Dr. Razavi’s enablement opinion
`
`is premised on an incorrect application of the law. Therefore, Qualcomm has failed as a matter
`
`of law to set forth any evidence, let alone clear and convincing evidence, that the Asserted
`
`Claims of the ’551, ’518, and ’371 Patents are invalid for lack of enablement. Third, neither
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. 6,061,551 (“the ’551 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 6,266,518 (“the ’518 Patent”), U.S. Patent No.
`6,370,371 (“the ’371 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 6,963,734 (“the ’734 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,496,342 (“the ’342
`Patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 7,724,845 (“the ’845 Patent”) (collectively the “Patents-in-Suit”). The “Asserted
`Claims” are: (a) the ’551 Patent Claims 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 12, 16, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 31, 32, 39, 41, 50, 54, 55, 57, 92,
`108, 113, 126, 135, 161, 192, 193, 195, 196, 198, 202, and 203; (b) the ’518 Patent Claims 1, 2, 3, 12, 17, 24, 27, 77,
`81, 82, 90, and 91; (c) the ’371 Patent Claims 1, 2, 22, 23, 25, and 31; (d) the ‘734 Patent Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13,
`14, and 15; (e) the ’342 Patent Claims 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23; and (f) the ’845 Patent Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,
`12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, and 24.
`
`McKool 885776
`McKool 885776v7
`
`1
`
`RPX-Farmwald Ex. 1007, p 8
`
`

`
`Case 3:11-cv-00719-RBD-TEM Document 269 Filed 05/22/13 Page 9 of 35 PageID 8508
`
`Qualcomm nor Dr. Razavi have identified clear and convincing evidence that the Asserted
`
`Claims of the ’551, ’518 and ’845 Patents—some of which have already been construed by the
`
`Court—are indefinite. Finally, Qualcomm has provided no evidence of invalidity of any
`
`Asserted Claim of the Patents-in-Suit under § 101 for failure to claim patentable subject matter
`
`or double patenting; under § 102 for abandonment, prior foreign filing, or derivation; or under
`
`§ 112 for failure to set forth the best mode or written description. Because each of the foregoing
`
`grounds is a purely legal question or rests upon a failure of proof, no genuine issues of fact
`
`preclude summary judgment.
`
`II.
`
`ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`
`1.
`
`Does Qualcomm’s failure to set forth any evidence that the “generating”
`
`limitation of each Asserted Claim of the ’551, ’518, and ’371 Patents is met by any of
`
`Qualcomm’s prior art, coupled with its failure to correctly apply the claim language as construed
`
`by the Court, entitle ParkerVision to summary judgment of no invalidity as to paragraph 13 of
`
`Qualcomm’s Counterclaim with respect to the Asserted Claims of the ’551, ’518 and ’371
`
`Patents (Dkt. 248 at ¶ 13 (alleged anticipation/obviousness under §§ 102 and 103))?
`
`2.
`
`Does Qualcomm’s failure to apply the correct legal standard to its enablement
`
`opinions, coupled with its failure to provide evidence as to the alleged non-enablement of each
`
`Asserted Claim of the ’551 Patent; Claims 1, 2, 3, 12, 17, 24, 27, and 82 of the ’518 Patent; and
`
`Claims 1, 2, 22, 23, 25, and 31 of the ’371 Patent, entitle ParkerVision to summary judgment of
`
`no invalidity as to paragraph 12 of Qualcomm’s Counterclaim (Dkt. 248 at ¶ 12 (alleged non-
`
`enablement under § 112))?
`
`3.
`
`Does Qualcomm’s failure to apply the correct legal standard to its indefiniteness
`
`opinions, coupled with the fact that the Court has already construed some of the allegedly
`
`McKool 885776
`McKool 885776v7
`
`2
`
`RPX-Farmwald Ex. 1007, p 9
`
`

`
`Case 3:11-cv-00719-RBD-TEM Document 269 Filed 05/22/13 Page 10 of 35 PageID 8509
`
`indefinite terms, entitle ParkerVision to summary judgment of no invalidity as to paragraph 14 of
`
`Qualcomm’s Counterclaim (Dkt. 248 at ¶ 14 (alleged indefiniteness under § 112))?
`
`4.
`
`Does Qualcomm’s failure to provide any evidence that any Asserted Claim of any
`
`Patent-in-Suit is invalid under: (i) § 101 for failure to claim patentable subject matter and/or
`
`double patenting, (ii) § 102 for abandonment, prior foreign filing, and/or derivation; or (iii) § 112
`
`for failure to set forth the best mode or failure to provide an adequate written description, entitle
`
`ParkerVision to summary judgment of no invalidity as to paragraph 12 of Qualcomm’s
`
`Counterclaim (Dkt. 248 at ¶ 12 (as to §§ 101, 102, and 112))?
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
`
`1.
`
`ParkerVision has asserted the Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit against
`
`Qualcomm. Dkt. 158 at 2-3. The Patents-in-Suit relate to methods, systems, and apparatuses
`
`used to down-convert electromagnetic signals from higher frequencies to lower frequencies.
`
`Such down-conversion is used in cellular communications. Dkt. 243 at 1-2.
`
`2.
`
`To effectuate the down-conversion of an input signal, the Patents-in-Suit teach the
`
`use of a switching device that facilitates the transfer of energy from the input signal to a storage
`
`device, such as a capacitor. See, e.g., ’551 Patent at 66:55-67, 67:14-22. The switching device is
`
`controlled by a control signal (“energy transfer signal”) and the duration (“width” or “aperture”)
`
`of the control signal determines the length of time the switching device is closed. See, e.g., ’551
`
`Patent at 67:1-13. The storage device stores non-negligible amounts of energy from the input
`
`signal. See, e.g., ’551 Patent at 66:65-67, 67:14-22, 85:51-55. The energy stored in the storage
`
`device “is the source of the energy used to generate the down-converted signal.” Dkt. 243 at 40.
`
`3.
`
`The Patents-in-Suit claim “aliasing” an input signal and the parties have agreed to
`
`construe “aliasing rate” to mean a “sampling rate that is less than or equal to twice the frequency
`
`McKool 885776
`McKool 885776v7
`
`3
`
`RPX-Farmwald Ex. 1007, p 10
`
`

`
`Case 3:11-cv-00719-RBD-TEM Document 269 Filed 05/22/13 Page 11 of 35 PageID 8510
`
`of the carrier signal.” Dkt. 110-1. Both aliasing rate and sampling rate refer generally to the rate
`
`at which the switching device opens and closes. See, e.g., ’551 Patent at 67:1-5, 74:17-21.
`
`4.
`
`The ’551 and ’518 Patents refer to the aliasing rate of the switching device by
`
`referring to a harmonic or sub-harmonic of the input signal. See, e.g., id. at 29:36 - 30:36. If the
`
`carrier signal’s frequency was 901 MHz and the lower frequency signal’s frequency was 1 MHz,
`
`then the aliasing rate would be 900 MHz for the first harmonic (or “fundamental frequency,” n =
`
`1) and 100 MHz for the ninth sub-harmonic (n = 9). See, e.g., id. at 29:10, 30:5.
`
`5.
`
`On July 24, 2012, the Court held a non-adversarial tutorial regarding the
`
`underlying technology of the Patents-in-Suit. See Dkt. 146 at 1-4. At the tutorial, inventor
`
`David Sorrells made a presentation illustrating how some prior methods of down-conversion
`
`worked and how certain embodiments of the invention worked. See id. at 43-46.
`
`6.
`
`On February 20, 2013, the Court issued its claim construction order. Dkt. 243.
`
`Therein, and in construing the “generating” limitation, the Court stated:
`
`The claims here do not clearly denote a temporal relationship. Rather, one could
`understand the claim language identified by Qualcomm as referring to the fact
`that transferred energy is the source of the energy used to generate the down-
`converted signal.
`to adopt Qualcomm’s proposed
`the Court declines
`
`Accordingly,
`construction of the “generating a lower frequency signal” terms. The Court also
`finds that no construction of these terms is necessary in view of the terms’ use of
`plain and direct language.
`
`Id. at 40.
`
`7.
`
`On March 4, 2013, Qualcomm submitted the Expert Report of Dr. Behzad Razavi
`
`(the “Razavi Report”) concerning the validity of the Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit. See
`
`Ex. A. Qualcomm has no other expert opinion on validity. See Ex. D (Dep. of J. Hanna) at 34:7-
`
`14; Ex. E (Dep. of G. Leonard) at 35:13-16; Ex. F (Dep. of T. Williams) at 7:20 - 8:5; Ex. G
`
`(Dep. of R. Fox) at 9:25 - 10:9.
`
`McKool 885776
`McKool 885776v7
`
`4
`
`RPX-Farmwald Ex. 1007, p 11
`
`

`
`Case 3:11-cv-00719-RBD-TEM Document 269 Filed 05/22/13 Page 12 of 35 PageID 8511
`
`8.
`
`On April 5, 2013, ParkerVision submitted the Rebuttal Expert Report of Dr. Paul
`
`Prucnal (the “Prucnal Rebuttal”) (Ex. B) and the Rebuttal Expert Report of Peter Weisskopf (the
`
`“Weisskopf Rebuttal”) (Ex. I) responding to the opinions set forth by Dr. Razavi.
`
`9.
`
`On April 11, 2013, Qualcomm filed its Answer to ParkerVision’s Third Amended
`
`Complaint and Counterclaim and Demand for Jury Trial (“Answer and Counterclaim”). In its
`
`Answer and Counterclaim, Qualcomm contends that each Asserted Claim of the Patents-in-Suit
`
`is invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112. Dkt. 248 at ¶¶ 11-14.
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Summary judgment is appropriate where no genuine issues of material fact exist. Fed. R.
`
`Civ. P. 56(a) (“The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no
`
`genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
`
`law.”); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322–23 (1986). Summary judgment is mandated
`
`by Rule 56 “against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of
`
`an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at
`
`trial.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322.
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 282, the Patents-in-Suit are presumed valid and “[t]he burden of
`
`establishing invalidity of a patent or any claim thereof shall rest on the party asserting such
`
`invalidity.” Under this presumption, any invalidity assertion on any statutory basis must be
`
`proved by clear and convincing evidence. Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P’ship, 131 S. Ct. 2238,
`
`2242 (2011). The party asserting invalidity has “the initial burden of going forward with
`
`evidence to support its invalidity allegation.” Titan Tire Corp. v. Case New Holland, Inc., 566
`
`F.3d 1372, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
`
`McKool 885776
`McKool 885776v7
`
`5
`
`RPX-Farmwald Ex. 1007, p 12
`
`

`
`Case 3:11-cv-00719-RBD-TEM Document 269 Filed 05/22/13 Page 13 of 35 PageID 8512
`
`V. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES
`
`Under the appropriate legal authority and as set forth below, the Court should grant
`
`summary judgment in favor of ParkerVision on each ground set forth herein. Qualcomm has
`
`failed as a matter of law to satisfy its burden to present clear and convincing evidence as to each
`
`of the invalidity allegations discussed herein. No issues of fact remain. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322.
`
`A. Qualcomm Cannot Meet Its Burden To Prove That Any Asserted Claim
`Of The ’551, ’518, Or ’371 Patents Is Invalid As Anticipated Or Obvious.
`
`In its Answer and Counterclaim, Qualcomm contends that each Asserted Claim of the
`
`’551, ’518, and ’371 Patents (along with the Asserted Claims of the other Patents-in-Suit not at
`
`issue here) are invalid as anticipated or obvious in light of certain prior art. Dkt. 248 at 3-4, 9-
`
`11. In his report, Dr. Razavi purports to compare the prior art to the Asserted Claims of the
`
`Patents-in-Suit as construed by the Court.2 Dr. Razavi’s invalidity analysis falls short because he
`
`fails to offer any opinion or set forth any evidence establishing that any prior art reference meets
`
`the “generating” limitation of each Asserted Claim of the ’551, ’518, or ’371 Patents.3
`
`To prove anticipation, Qualcomm “must show by clear and convincing evidence that a
`
`single prior art reference discloses each and every element of a claimed invention.” K-Tec, Inc. v.
`
`Vita-Mix Corp., 696 F.3d 1364, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quotation and citation omitted). To prove
`
`obviousness, Qualcomm must show that the subject matter of the Asserted Claims of the Patents-
`
`in-Suit “would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary
`
`
`2 Like Qualcomm’s Answer and Counterclaim, Dr. Razavi opines that the ’551, ’518 and ’371 Patents are
`anticipated or rendered obvious by: (i) ’551 Patent: Weisskopf, Estabrook, Nozawa, van Graas, Tayloe, Shahani,
`Traylor, MDS-2000, Crols, and Gordy references; (ii) ’518 Patent: Weisskopf, Estabrook, Nozawa, van Graas,
`Tayloe, Traylor, and Crols references; and (iii) ’371 Patent: Weisskopf, Shahani, Estabrook, and Nozawa references.
`3 While Dr. Razavi purports to provide an obviousness analysis, except for asserting that the “impedance matching”
`limitation of independent Claims 77 and 90 of the ’518 Patent is obvious (see Ex. A (Razavi Report) at ¶¶ 427, 496
`(“it would be obvious to add . . .”), Dr. Razavi does not offer any opinion that any of the other independent claims
`have limitations that are obvious. More specifically, Dr. Razavi offers no opinion that the “generating” limitation of
`each Asserted Claim of the ’551, ’518, and ’371 Patents is obvious. Nonetheless, and even if he were to offer such
`an opinion, ParkerVision is still entitled to summary judgment for the reasons set forth herein.
`
`McKool 885776
`McKool 885776v7
`
`6
`
`RPX-Farmwald Ex. 1007, p 13
`
`

`
`Case 3:11-cv-00719-RBD-TEM Document 269 Filed 05/22/13 Page 14 of 35 PageID 8513
`
`skill in the art to which the subject matter of the invention pertains.” 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`Indeed, proving obviousness requires more than conclusory statements: “there must be some
`
`articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
`
`obviousness.” Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs., 512 F.3d 1363, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
`
`(citations and quotations omitted). Both anticipation and obviousness involve two steps:
`
`(i) construction of the claims by the court as a matter of law; and (ii) a comparison of the
`
`construed claims to the prior art. Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 353 F.3d 928, 933 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2003). The second step requires expert testimony, where, as here, the technology is complex.
`
`Alexsam, Inc. v. Idt Corp., Nos. 2012-1063, -1064, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 10009, at *28-29
`
`(Fed. Cir. May 20, 2013) (because “the technology was complex and the prior-art references
`
`were not easily understandable without expert testimony, . . . [e]xpert testimony was required not
`
`only to explain what the prior-art references disclosed, but also to show that a person skilled in
`
`the art would have been motivated to combine them in order to achieve the claimed invention”);
`
`Proveris Sci. Corp. v. Innovasystems, Inc., 536 F.3d 1256, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`1. Qualcomm Has No Evidence That The Prior Art Meets The “Generating”
`Limitation Of The Asserted Claims Of The ’551, ’518, And ’371 Patents.
`
`Each Asserted Claim of the ’551, ’518, and ’371 Patents requires not only the transfer of
`
`energy from a carrier signal to a storage device, but also the use of that transferred energy to
`
`generate a lower frequency or baseband signal. See, e.g., ’551 Patent, Claim 1; see also ’551
`
`Patent at 85:48-58. The “transfer” and “generating” limitations are separate and distinct.
`
`Therefore, to prove invalidity, Qualcomm must show by clear and convincing evidence that both
`
`limitations are present in the prior art. K-Tec, Inc., 696 F.3d at 1377.
`
`McKool 885776
`McKool 885776v7
`
`7
`
`RPX-Farmwald Ex. 1007, p 14
`
`

`
`Case 3:11-cv-00719-RBD-TEM Document 269 Filed 05/22/13 Page 15 of 35 PageID 8514
`
`At least the following claims of the ’551, ’518, and ’371 Patents recite as limitations, in
`
`addition to the transfer of energy from the carrier signal, generating the lower frequency or
`
`baseband signal from the transferred energy:
`
` “generating a lower frequency signal from the transferred energy” (as required by ’551
`independent Claim 1, and its dependents, Claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 12, 16, 20, 39, 41, 50, 54, 55,
`57, 92, 108, 113, and 126);
`
` “wherein a lower frequency signal is generated from the transferred energy” (as required
`by ’551 independent Claim 23, and its dependents, Claims 24, 25, 26, 31, 32, 135, 161,
`192, 193, 195, 196, 198, 202, and 203);
`
` “generating the baseband signal from the integrated energy” (as required by ’518
`independent Claim 1, and its dependents, Claims 2, 3, 12, 17, 24, and 27);4
`
` “generating the second signal from the integrated energy” (as required by ’518
`independent Claim 77, as its dependent, Claim 81);
`
` “means for generating the baseband signal from the integrated energy” (as required by
`’518 independent Claim 82);
`
` “means for generating the second signal from the integrated energy” (as required by ’518
`independent Claim 90, and its dependent Claim 91);
`
` “wherein the lower frequency signal is generated from the transferred energy” (as
`required by ’371 independent Claim 1); and
`
` “wherein the lower frequency signal is generated from the transferred energy” (as
`required by ’371 independent Claim 2, and its dependents, Claims 22, 23, 25, and 31).
`
`Thus, each Asserted Claim of the ’551, ’518, and ’371 Patents requires both (i) transferring
`
`energy; and (ii) generating the lower frequency or baseband signal from that transferred energy.
`
`Rather than set forth evidence or opinion as to how both the “transfer” and “generating”
`
`limitations are met by the prior art, Dr. Razavi conflates the two limitations. For each piece of
`
`prior art, Dr. Razavi first opines that the reference discloses the “transfer” limitation. Then,
`
`rather than identifying anything in the reference that separately satisfies the “generating”
`
`
`4 The Court construed the term “the integrated energy” as “the accumulated energy.” Dkt. 243 at 18, 20. This
`construction “clearly contemplates the accumulation of energy from more than one aperture period.” Dkt. 243 at 20.
`
`McKool 885776
`McKool 885776v7
`
`8
`
`RPX-Farmwald Ex. 1007, p 15
`
`

`
`Case 3:11-cv-00719-RBD-TEM Document 269 Filed 05/22/13 Page 16 of 35 PageID 8515
`
`limitation, Dr. Razavi asserts that because the prior art satisfies the “transfer” limitation, it
`
`necessarily also satisfies the “generating” limitation. As Dr. Razavi (incorrectly) explains in his
`
`report for each prior art reference he analyzed, the “generating step” is necessarily satisfied
`
`because it “can happen simultaneously with the transferring of energy from the carrier signal.”
`
`Ex. A (Razavi Report) at ¶¶ 166, 175-76, 188-90, 199-01, 207-08, 220-21, 231-33, 239-41, 273-
`
`74, 362-63, 370-71, 377-78, 384-85, 391-92, 398-99, 405-06, 432, 438-39, 445, 451, 457, 463,
`
`486-92, 495, 521-24, 529-36, 538-45, and 546-52. Under Dr. Razavi’s view of the claims, the
`
`“transfer” and “generating” limitations are both satisfied by transferring energy from the carrier
`
`signal. But that view is belied by the plain language of the Asserted Claims, which