UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
`
` Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00108-ADA
`
` JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`PARKERVISION, INC.,
`
`vs.
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT INTEL CORPORATION’S PROPOSED CLAIM TERMS
`
`Pursuant to the August 7, 2020 Scheduling Order entered in this case, D.I. 34 at 2,
`
`Defendant Intel Corporation (“Intel”) hereby submits its proposed claim terms for construction to
`
`Plaintiff ParkerVision, Inc. (“ParkerVision”).
`
`Intel proposes the following terms for construction from the following asserted patents:
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,266,518 (“’518 patent”); 6,580,902 (“’902 patent”); 7,110,444 (“’444 patent”);
`
`7,539,474 (“’474 patent”); 8,588,725 (“’725 patent”); 8,660,513 (“’513 patent”); 9,118,528 (“’528
`
`patent”); 9,246,736 (“’736 patent”) and 9,444,673 (“’673 patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted
`
`Patents”). Intel reserves the right, consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the
`
`Local Rules of this Court, as well as any other applicable rule, to revise its list of proposed claim
`
`terms in view of ParkerVision’s forthcoming proposed claim terms, including the right to adopt
`
`any claim terms proposed by ParkerVision, and the right to add additional terms if, in view of
`
`ParkerVision’s infringement allegations, the parties have further disputes regarding claim scope.
`
`See O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`Intel v. ParkerVision
`IPR2020-01265
`Intel 1035
`
`
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
`
` Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00108-ADA
`
` JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`PARKERVISION, INC.,
`
`vs.
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT INTEL CORPORATION’S PROPOSED CLAIM TERMS
`
`Pursuant to the August 7, 2020 Scheduling Order entered in this case, D.I. 34 at 2,
`
`Defendant Intel Corporation (“Intel”) hereby submits its proposed claim terms for construction to
`
`Plaintiff ParkerVision, Inc. (“ParkerVision”).
`
`Intel proposes the following terms for construction from the following asserted patents:
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,266,518 (“’518 patent”); 6,580,902 (“’902 patent”); 7,110,444 (“’444 patent”);
`
`7,539,474 (“’474 patent”); 8,588,725 (“’725 patent”); 8,660,513 (“’513 patent”); 9,118,528 (“’528
`
`patent”); 9,246,736 (“’736 patent”) and 9,444,673 (“’673 patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted
`
`Patents”). Intel reserves the right, consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the
`
`Local Rules of this Court, as well as any other applicable rule, to revise its list of proposed claim
`
`terms in view of ParkerVision’s forthcoming proposed claim terms, including the right to adopt
`
`any claim terms proposed by ParkerVision, and the right to add additional terms if, in view of
`
`ParkerVision’s infringement allegations, the parties have further disputes regarding claim scope.
`
`See O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`Intel v. ParkerVision
`IPR2020-01265
`Intel 1035
`
`
`
`Intel’s Proposed Terms
`“coupled to a [] reference potential”
`
`“under-samples”
`
`Down-Converter Terms:
`
`“frequency down-conversion module”
`
`“universal frequency down-converter”
`
`“energy transfer module”
`
`“aliasing module”
`
`“system for frequency down-converting”
`
`“apparatus for down-converting”
`
`“sample”, “sampling”, “sampled”
`
`“a capacitor that reduces a DC offset voltage in
`said first-down converted signal and said second
`down-converted signal”
`
`“the energy discharged during any given
`discharge cycle is not completely discharged”
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`Asserted Claim(s)
`’474 patent, claim 1
`
`’444 patent, claim 2
`’474 patent, claim 6
`
`Down-Converter Terms:
`
`“frequency down-conversion module”
`(cid:120)
`’444 patent, claims 2 and 3
`(cid:120)
`’474 patent, claim 1
`(cid:120)
`’673 patent, claim 1
`
`
`“universal frequency down-converter”
`(cid:120)
`’518 patent, claim 50
`
`
`“energy transfer module”
`(cid:120)
`’902 patent, claim 1
`
`
`“aliasing module”
`(cid:120)
`’725 patent, claim 1
`
`
`“system for frequency down-converting”
`(cid:120)
`’513 patent, claim 19
`(cid:120)
`’528 patent, claim 1
`(cid:120)
`’736 patent, claim 1
`
`
`“apparatus for down-converting”
`(cid:120)
`’673 patent, claim 13
`
`
`’518 patent, claim 50
`’902 patent, claim 1
`’725 patent, claim 1
`’513 patent, claim 19
`’528 patent, claim 1
`’736 patent, claims 1 and 11
`’673 patent, claims 1, 13, 17, and 19
`
`’444 patent, claim 4
`
`’528 patent, claim 9
`’736 patent, claims 1 and 11
`
`
`
`Asserted Claim(s)
`’444 patent, claim 4
`
`’528 patent, claim 17
`
`’528 patent, claim 1
`
`’902 patent, claim 5
`
`
`’518 patent, claim 50
`
`Energy Discharge Percentage Terms:
`
`“between six and fifty percent of the
`energy transferred from the RF
`information signal to the storage module
`is discharged from the storage module”
`(cid:120)
`’725 patent, claim 17
`
`
`“between six and twenty-five percent of
`the energy transferred from the RF
`information signal to the storage module
`when is discharged from the storage
`module”
`(cid:120)
`’725 patent, claim 18
`
`
`“between ten and twenty percent of the
`energy transferred from the RF
`information signal to the storage module
`discharged from the storage module”
`(cid:120)
`’725 patent, claim 19
`
`
`
`Intel’s Proposed Terms
`“DC offset voltage”
`
`“separate integration module”
`
`“a portion of energy that is distinguishable from
`noise”
`
`“substantially the same size”
`
`
`“reactive structure”
`
`Energy Discharge Percentage Terms:
`
`“between six and fifty percent of the energy
`transferred from the RF information signal to the
`storage module is discharged from the storage
`module”
`
`“between six and twenty-five percent of the
`energy transferred from the RF information signal
`to the storage module when is discharged from
`the storage module”
`
`“between ten and twenty percent of the energy
`transferred from the RF information signal to the
`storage module discharged from the storage
`module”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Jason F. Choy
`J. Stephen Ravel
`Texas State Bar No. 16584975
`KELLY HART & HALLMAN LLP
`303 Colorado Street, Suite 2000
`Austin, TX 78701
`Telephone: (512) 495-6429
`Facsimile: (512) 495-6401
`steve.ravel@kellyhart.com
`
`James E. Wren
`Texas State Bar No. 22018200
`1 Bear Place, Unit 97288
`Waco, Texas 76798
`Telephone: (254) 710-7670
`james.wren@baylor.edu
`
`Michael J. Summersgill (pro hac vice)
`Massachusetts State Bar No. 632816
`Sarah B. Petty (pro hac vice)
`Massachusetts State Bar No. 666485
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE AND DORR LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109
`Telephone: (617) 526-6000
`Facsimile: (617) 526-5000
`michael.summersgill@wilmerhale.com
`sarah.petty@wilmerhale.com
`
`Jason F. Choy (pro hac vice)
`California State Bar No. 277583
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE AND DORR LLP
`350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2400
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: (213) 443-5300
`Facsimile: (213) 443-5400
`jason.choy@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`Dated: September 25, 2020
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of Intel Corporation’s
`
`Proposed Claim Terms was served on September 25, 2020 by electronic mail to all counsel of
`
`record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service in accordance with Local Rule CV-
`
`5. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
`
`
`
`Executed on September 25, 2020.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Jason F. Choy
`Jason F. Choy
`
`
`
`5
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
