UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`PARKERVISION, INC.,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`
` Defendant.
`
`Case No. 6:20-cv-00108
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`PARKERVISION, INC.’S DISCLOSURE OF
`PRELIMINARY INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`Pursuant
`
`to
`
`the Court’s Scheduling Order, Plaintiff ParkerVision, Inc.
`
`(“ParkerVision”) hereby makes the following disclosure of asserted claims, infringement
`
`contentions, and document production to Defendant Intel Corporation (“Intel”).
`
`These infringement contentions (“ICs”) are based on ParkerVision’s current
`
`interpretation of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,266,518 (the “’518 patent”); 6,580,902 (the “’902
`
`patent”); 7,110,444 (the “’444 patent”); 7,539,474 (the “’474 patent”); 8,588,725 (the “’725
`
`patent”); 8,660,513 (the “’513 patent”); 9,118,528 (the “’528 patent”); 9,246,736 (the “’736
`
`patent”); and 9,444,673 (the “’673 patent”) (collectively, the “patents-in-suit”),
`
`teardowns, circuit extractions, and public information describing Intel’s products.
`
`Pursuant to the Scheduling Order, ParkerVision reserves the right to amend its ICs and
`
`the asserted claims based on claim construction proceedings and this Court’s claim
`
`construction rulings or rulings by other courts in related cases, information obtained
`
`INTEL 1018
`
`
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`PARKERVISION, INC.,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`
` Defendant.
`
`Case No. 6:20-cv-00108
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`PARKERVISION, INC.’S DISCLOSURE OF
`PRELIMINARY INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`Pursuant
`
`to
`
`the Court’s Scheduling Order, Plaintiff ParkerVision, Inc.
`
`(“ParkerVision”) hereby makes the following disclosure of asserted claims, infringement
`
`contentions, and document production to Defendant Intel Corporation (“Intel”).
`
`These infringement contentions (“ICs”) are based on ParkerVision’s current
`
`interpretation of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,266,518 (the “’518 patent”); 6,580,902 (the “’902
`
`patent”); 7,110,444 (the “’444 patent”); 7,539,474 (the “’474 patent”); 8,588,725 (the “’725
`
`patent”); 8,660,513 (the “’513 patent”); 9,118,528 (the “’528 patent”); 9,246,736 (the “’736
`
`patent”); and 9,444,673 (the “’673 patent”) (collectively, the “patents-in-suit”),
`
`teardowns, circuit extractions, and public information describing Intel’s products.
`
`Pursuant to the Scheduling Order, ParkerVision reserves the right to amend its ICs and
`
`the asserted claims based on claim construction proceedings and this Court’s claim
`
`construction rulings or rulings by other courts in related cases, information obtained
`
`INTEL 1018
`
`
`
`
`
`through discovery and/or otherwise as this case progresses. ParkerVision reserves the
`
`right to amend its infringement contentions and asserted claims based on any
`
`proceedings before the United States Patent and Trademark Office in connection with
`
`ParkerVision’s patents.
`
`A.
`
`Identification of infringed claims.
`
`The asserted claims of the patents-in-suit include those claims identified in the
`
`attached claim charts. ParkerVision identified these asserted claims based on its current
`
`and preliminary understanding and reserves the right to supplement its identification of
`
`infringed claims as discovery proceeds, including identifying additional claims.
`
`ParkerVision accuses Intel of directly infringing the following claims of the
`
`patents-in-suit:
`
`(cid:120) At a minimum, claims 50 and 67 of the ‘518 patent.
`
`(cid:120) At a minimum, claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 of the ‘902 patent.
`
`(cid:120) At a minimum, claims 2-5 of the ‘444 patent.
`
`(cid:120) At a minimum, claims 1, 6, 10, and 11 of the ‘474 patent.
`
`(cid:120) At a minimum, claims 1, 6, 7, 13, 14, and 16-19 of the ‘725 patent.
`
`(cid:120) At a minimum, claims 19, 24, 27, and 28 of the ‘513 patent.
`
`(cid:120) At a minimum, claims 1, 5, 9, 14, 15, and 17 of the ‘528 patent.
`
`(cid:120) At a minimum, claims 1, 11, 15, 19, 21, 26, and 27 of the ‘736 patent.
`
`(cid:120) At a minimum, claims 1, 2, 5-7, 13, and 16 – 19 of the ‘673 patent.
`
`Intel directly infringes one or more claims of the asserted patents by making,
`
`using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing in or into the United States products
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`covered (either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents) one or more claims of the
`
`patents-in-suit (including, but not limited to, the Intel products identified in the attached
`
`claim charts).
`
`B.
`
`Identification of accused instrumentalities.
`
`ParkerVision identifies the accused instrumentalities based on its preliminary
`
`understanding of information currently available to ParkerVision. This preliminary
`
`understanding is obtained at least through ParkerVision’s independent investigation of
`
`Intel’s transceivers, examination of teardowns and circuit extractions, and review of
`
`relevant literature and manuals.
`
`ParkerVision reserves the right to supplement its infringement contentions as
`
`discovery proceeds and Intel produces documents/information that are either required
`
`under the Court’s local rules or responsive to ParkerVision’s discovery requests,
`
`including identifying additional accused instrumentalities, which have features similar
`
`to the products set forth below. In due course, after receiving discovery of products made,
`
`used, sold, offered for sale and/or imported by Intel in the United States, ParkerVision
`
`will supplement these IC’s as applicable.
`
`In addition to the Intel products specifically charted in Exhibits 1-27, the accused
`
`instrumentalities include Intel products that operate and/or are structurally the same as
`
`the products identified in the attached claim charts. Intel products that operate and/or
`
`are structurally the same as the products in the attached claim charts infringe for the same
`
`reasons as those charted products.
`
`The accused instrumentalities also include Intel products that are considered sold
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`in the United States according to the Federal Circuit’s decision in Carnegie Mellon Univ. v.
`
`Marvell Tech. Group. Ltd., No. 2014-1492 (Aug. 4. 2015).
`
`Subject to the foregoing and based on the information currently available,
`
`ParkerVision identifies the following accused instrumentalities, including all reasonably
`
`similar variants or improvements, as the accused instrumentalities. Specifically,
`
`ParkerVision identifies that the manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale, and/or importation
`
`in or into the United States by Intel of products including or embodying the following
`
`Intel products directly infringe each of the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit:
`
`(cid:120)
`
`(cid:120)
`
`(cid:120)
`
`Intel PMB5750 transceiver;
`
`Intel PMB5757 transceiver; and
`
`Intel PMB5762 transceiver.
`
`C.
`
`Chart identifying accused instrumentalities.
`
`ParkerVision provides the attached claim charts (attached as Exhibits 1-27), which
`
`identify where to find each element of each asserted claim within the accused
`
`instrumentalities. Pursuant to the Court’s Scheduling Order, these claim charts provide
`
`Intel with the requisite notice by identifying instrumentalities that incorporate or reflect
`
`the recited claim elements. As such, these charts serve a notice function, and they do not
`
`present every possible permutation or theory of ParkerVision’s case.
`
`The claim charts are not intended to be an expert report on infringement or
`
`provide detailed analysis of the claim terms or infringement. ParkerVision will disclose
`
`and produce an expert report regarding infringement with appropriate analysis pursuant
`
`to the Court’s Scheduling Order. These charts include evidence of infringement by Intel,
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`including diagrams, teardowns, circuit extractions, and images of the accused products,
`
`and other publicly available documentary evidence by way of example and not by way
`
`of limitation.
`
`The asserted claims include elements that are implemented, at least in part, by
`
`Intel confidential information. In some instances, the information used in them are, at
`
`least in part, not publicly available. An analysis of Intel’s (or other third parties’) technical
`
`information may be necessary to more fully identify all infringing features and
`
`functionality. Accordingly, pursuant to the Court’s Scheduling Order, ParkerVision
`
`reserves the right to supplement these charts once such information is made available to
`
`ParkerVision.
`
`Furthermore, ParkerVision reserves the right to revise these charts, as appropriate,
`
`upon issuance of the Court’s claim construction Order, including the identification of
`
`whether any such differences between the accused instrumentalities and the claims are
`
`insubstantial and whether the accused instrumentalities read on the claim elements
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`D.
`
`Literal infringement and infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`ParkerVision presently contends that the accused instrumentalities literally
`
`infringe the above-asserted claims of the patents-in-suit as more specifically explained in
`
`the attached claim charts. Further, ParkerVision asserts infringement under the doctrine
`
`of equivalents, to the extent that the difference between any component of any product
`
`and any claim element is insubstantial. In other words, to the extent literal infringement
`
`is purportedly absent, Intel products identified in the attached claim charts perform
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`substantially the same function of the invention recited in the claims, in substantially the
`
`same way to achieve substantially the same result. ParkerVision reserves the right to add
`
`allegations of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents or amend its doctrine of
`
`equivalents allegations to change in response to discovery, Intel’s claim construction and
`
`non-infringement positions, claim construction proceedings, this Court’s claim
`
`construction rulings, rulings by other courts in related cases or any proceedings before
`
`the United States Patent and Trademark Office regarding ParkerVision’s patents.
`
`E.
`
`Patent priority dates.
`
`The priority dates to which the asserted claims of the ParkerVision patents are
`
`entitled, respectively, as reflected on the face of each of the ParkerVision patents, are
`
`identified below:
`
`(cid:120) The asserted claims of the ‘518 patent are entitled to a priority date at least
`
`as early as October 21, 1998.
`
`(cid:120) The asserted claims of the ‘902 patent are entitled to a priority date at least
`
`as early as October 21, 1998.
`
`(cid:120) The asserted claims of the ’444 patent are entitled to a priority date at least
`
`as early as August 4, 1999.
`
`(cid:120) The asserted claims of the ‘474 patent are entitled to a priority date at least
`
`as early as April 16, 1999.
`
`(cid:120) The asserted claims of the ‘725 patent are entitled to a priority date at least
`
`as early as April 14, 2000.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`F.
`
`
`
`(cid:120) The asserted claims of the ’513 patent are entitled to a priority date at least
`
`as early as October 21, 1998.
`
`(cid:120) The asserted claims of the ‘528 patent are entitled to a priority date at least
`
`as early as October 21, 1998.
`
`(cid:120) The asserted claims of the ‘736 patent are entitled to a priority date at least
`
`as early as October 21, 1998.
`
`(cid:120) The asserted claims of the ‘673 patent are entitled to a priority date at least
`
`as early as October 21, 1998.
`
`All documents evidencing conception and reduction to practice for each claimed
`invention.
`
`Subject to ongoing discovery and investigation, and based on available
`
`information to date, at least the patents-in-suit evidence conception and/or reduction to
`
`practice for the claimed inventions.
`
`G.
`
`Document production.
`
`Documents bearing production numbers PV_000001-PV_011927 are provided
`
`herewith.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: June 26, 2020
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Ronald M. Daignault
`Chandran Iyer
`Jason Charkow
`Stephanie Mandir
`GOLDBERG SEGALLA
`rdaignault@goldbergsegalla.com
`ciyer@goldbergsegalla.com
`jcharkow@goldbergsegalla.com
`smandir@goldbergsegalla.com
`711 Third Avenue, Suite 1900
`New York, New York 10017
`Telephone: (646) 292-8700
`
`
`
`
`THE MORT LAW FIRM, PLLC
`
`/s/ Raymond W. Mort, III
`Raymond W. Mort, III
`Texas State Bar No. 00791308
`raymort@austinlaw.com
`100 Congress Avenue, Suite 2000
`Austin, Texas 78701
`Tel/Fax: 512-865-7950
`
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff ParkerVision, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
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
