`PARKERVISION, INC.
`
`
`vs.
`
`INTEL CORPORATION
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`C.A. No. 6:20-cv-00108-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT INTEL CORPORATION’S
`PRELIMINARY INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`ParkerVision Ex. 2006
`Intel Corp. v. ParkerVision, Inc.
`IPR No. 2020-01265
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1
`I.
`II. RESERVATIONS .................................................................................................................. 2
`III. INVALIDITY BASED ON PRIOR ART ............................................................................ 4
`A. Identification of Prior Art References ............................................................................. 4
`B. Anticipation Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and/or “Single Reference” Obviousness Under
`35 U.S.C. § 103........................................................................................................................... 7
`C. Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................. 9
`1. Motivations to Combine............................................................................................... 13
`IV. INVALIDITY BASED ON 35 U.S.C. § 112 ...................................................................... 51
`
`
`
`
`ParkerVision Ex. 2006
`Intel Corp. v. ParkerVision, Inc.
`IPR No. 2020-01265
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Scheduling Order (D.I. 34), Defendant Intel Corporation (“Intel”)
`
`hereby provides the following Preliminary Invalidity Contentions with respect to 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”),
`
`which Plaintiff ParkerVision Inc. (“ParkerVision”) has asserted against Intel.
`
`Intel has petitioned for Inter Partes Review of claims 1, 3, and 5 of the ’444 patent (Case
`
`IPR2020-01265) and claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 9-12 of the ’474 patent (Case IPR2020-01302), and
`
`hereby incorporates those petitions, including the declarations supporting those petitions, and any
`
`subsequent proceedings before the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board related to those petitions
`
`herein by reference.
`
`In ParkerVision’s Preliminary Infringement Contentions served on June 26, 2020 and
`
`Amended Disclosure of Preliminary Contentions served on August 27, 2020, ParkerVision
`
`provided infringement contentions for the forty-nine claims identified below (the “Asserted
`
`Claims”):
`
`Patent
`6,266,518
`6,580,902
`7,110,444
`7,539,474
`8,588,725
`8,660,513
`9,118,528
`9,246,736
`9,444,673
`
`Asserted Claims
`50, 67
`1, 2, 4, 5
`2, 3, 4
`1, 6, 10, 11
`1, 6, 7, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19
`19, 24, 27, 28
`1, 5, 9, 14, 15, 17
`1, 11, 15, 19, 21, 26, 27
`1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19
`
`See ParkerVision’s Preliminary Infringement Contentions (June 26, 2020) (“Preliminary
`
`Infringement Contentions”) at 2; ParkerVision’s Amended Disclosure of Preliminary Infringement
`
`
`
`1
`
`ParkerVision Ex. 2006
`Intel Corp. v. ParkerVision, Inc.
`IPR No. 2020-01265
`
`
`
`Pages 258 Omitted for Relevance.
`
`
`
`
`
`does not disclose a combination of these three variations or how such a combination could be
`
`accomplished. The patent fails to teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope
`
`of the claimed feature and fails to disclose an invention understandable to a skilled artisan or show
`
`that the inventor actually invented the alleged invention claimed.
`
`Claim 2 of the ’673 patent is invalid for lack of written description. Claim 2 requires that
`
`the “voltage of the input modulated carrier signal is not reproduced or approximated at the
`
`capacitor during the apertures or outside of the apertures.” The claim, when read in light of the
`
`specification and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in
`
`the art about the scope of the invention. For example, it is unclear what voltage would “reproduce”
`
`or “approximate” an input signal. For at least these same reasons, the patent specification fails to
`
`disclose, support, or enable such a feature, and the patent fails to show that the inventor actually
`
`invented the alleged invention claimed.
`
`
`Dated: September 11, 2020
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By:
`
`
`
`/s/ Jason 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
`
`
`
`59
`
`ParkerVision Ex. 2006
`Intel Corp. v. ParkerVision, Inc.
`IPR No. 2020-01265
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 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
`
`
`
`60
`
`ParkerVision Ex. 2006
`Intel Corp. v. ParkerVision, Inc.
`IPR No. 2020-01265
`
`