`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`PARKERVISION, INC.,
`
`
`
` v.
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:20-cv-00562
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff ParkerVision, Inc. (“ParkerVision”), by and through its undersigned
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`counsel, files this Complaint against Defendant Intel Corporation (“Intel”) for patent
`
`infringement of United States Patent No. 6,049,706 (“the ’706 patent”) and alleges as
`
`follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of
`
`the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq.
`
`PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff ParkerVision is a Florida corporation with its principal place of
`
`business at 9446 Philips Highway, Jacksonville, Florida 32256.
`
`3.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Intel is a Delaware corporation with
`
`a place of business at 2200 Mission College Boulevard, Santa Clara, California 95054.
`
`
`
`ParkerVision Ex. 2002
`Intel Corp. v. ParkerVision, Inc.
`IPR No. 2020-01265
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00562 Document 1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 2 of 12
`
`
`
`4.
`
`On information and belief, Intel has places of business in this judicial
`
`district: 1300 S Mopac Expressway, Austin, Texas 78746; 6500 River Place Blvd, Bldg
`
`7, Austin, Texas 78730 and 5113 Southwest Parkway, Austin, Texas 78735 (collectively,
`
`“Austin Offices”). https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/location/usa.html.
`
`5.
`
`Intel can be served with process through its registered agent for service in
`
`Texas: CT Corporation System, 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201.
`
`6.
`
`On information and belief, since April 1989, Intel has been registered to do
`
`business in the State of Texas under Texas Taxpayer Number 19416727436.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`7.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant
`
`to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) because the action arises under the patent laws of the
`
`United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq.
`
`8.
`
`Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b),
`
`(c), (d) and/or 1400(b).
`
`9.
`
`Intel is subject to this Court’s personal jurisdiction, in accordance with due
`
`process and/or the Texas Long Arm Statute because Intel “[r]ecruits Texas residents,
`
`directly or through an intermediary located in this state, for employment inside or
`
`outside this state.” See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 17.042.
`
`10.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Intel because Intel has sufficient
`
`minimum contacts with this forum as a result of business conducted within the State of
`
`Texas and this judicial district. In particular, this Court has personal jurisdiction over
`
`Intel because, inter alia, Intel, on information and belief: (1) has substantial, continuous,
`
`2
`
`ParkerVision Ex. 2002
`Intel Corp. v. ParkerVision, Inc.
`IPR No. 2020-01265
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00562 Document 1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 3 of 12
`
`
`
`and systematic business contacts in this judicial district; (2) owns, manages and
`
`operates facilities in this judicial district; (3) enjoys substantial income from its
`
`operations in this judicial district, and (4) employs Texas residents in this judicial
`
`district.
`
`11.
`
`Intel has purposefully availed itself of the privileges of conducting
`
`business within this judicial district; has established sufficient minimum contacts with
`
`this judicial district such that it should reasonably and fairly anticipate being hauled
`
`into court in this judicial district; has purposefully directed activities at residents of this
`
`judicial district; and at least a portion of the patent infringement claims alleged in this
`
`Complaint arise out of or are related to one or more of the foregoing activities.
`
`12.
`
`This Court also has personal jurisdiction over Intel because Intel, directly
`
`and/or through its subsidiaries, affiliates, or intermediaries, makes, uses, offers for sale,
`
`sells, imports, advertises, makes available and/or markets infringing products in the
`
`United States, the State of Texas and/or this judicial district, as described more
`
`particularly below.
`
`13. On information and belief, Intel maintains a significant physical presence
`
`in this judicial district.
`
`14. On information and belief, Intel uses its Austin Office as a regular and
`
`established place of business. On information and belief, Intel has employed over 1700
`
`employees in the Austin area. https://www.linkedin.com/company/intel-
`
`corporation/people/?facetGeoRegion=us%3A64.
`
`3
`
`ParkerVision Ex. 2002
`Intel Corp. v. ParkerVision, Inc.
`IPR No. 2020-01265
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00562 Document 1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 4 of 12
`
`
`
`15.
`
`Intel describes its operations in Austin on its website: “Located in the
`
`capitol city of Texas, Intel Austin is an important research and development center for
`
`the Intel technology that is changing the way we live, work, and play. Among the
`
`innovations developed in Austin are core technologies for next-generation
`
`microprocessors, platforms and base software; groundbreaking silicon solutions for
`
`computing and communications devices, which include handheld computing and
`
`cellular communications; and cutting-edge network storage products.”
`
`https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/jobs/locations/united-
`
`states/sites/austin.html.
`
`16. On information and belief, Intel has hundreds of H-1B labor condition
`
`applications for people employed in Austin, Texas. https://h1bsalary.online/search?%
`
`20searchtext=INTEL+CORPORATION&year=&minsalary=&state=&worksite_city=AU
`
`STIN&job_title=. Employees holding an H-1B visa are employed in a specialty
`
`occupation that requires “theoretical and practical application of a body of highly
`
`specialized knowledge . . . and attainment of a bachelor’s or higher degree in the
`
`specific specialty.” See generally 8 U.S.C. § 1184. As such, Intel employees in Austin,
`
`Texas are highly specialized and important to the operation of Intel.
`
`17.
`
`Intel lists job openings on its website for positions in Austin, Texas.
`
`4
`
`ParkerVision Ex. 2002
`Intel Corp. v. ParkerVision, Inc.
`IPR No. 2020-01265
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00562 Document 1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 5 of 12
`
`
`
` https://jobs.intel.com/ListJobs/All/Search/state/tx/ (visited on 1/7/2020).
`
`18. On information and belief, Intel has litigated/is litigating cases before this
`
`Court in which it admitted that venue was proper, did not contest personal jurisdiction,
`
`and/or filed counterclaims. See, e.g., Flash-Control, LLC v. Intel Corp., Case No. 1:19-cv-
`
`01107 (W.D. Tex.); VLSI Tech. LLC v. Intel Corp., Case No. 1:19-cv-00977 (W.D. Tex.).
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`19.
`
`In 1989, Jeff Parker and David Sorrells started ParkerVision in
`
`Jacksonville, Florida. Through the mid-1990s, ParkerVision focused on developing
`
`5
`
`ParkerVision Ex. 2002
`Intel Corp. v. ParkerVision, Inc.
`IPR No. 2020-01265
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00562 Document 1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 6 of 12
`
`
`
`commercial video cameras, e.g., for television broadcasts. The cameras used radio
`
`frequency (RF) technology to automatically track the camera’s subject.
`
`20. When developing consumer video cameras, however, ParkerVision,
`
`encountered a problem – the power and battery requirements for RF communications
`
`made a cost effective, consumer-sized product impractical. So, Mr. Sorrels and
`
`ParkerVision’s engineering team began researching ways to solve this problem.
`
`21. At the time, a decade’s-old RF technology called super-heterodyne
`
`dominated the consumer products industry. But this technology was not without its
`
`own problems – the circuity was large and required significant power.
`
`22.
`
`From 1995 through 1998, ParkerVision engineers developed an innovative
`
`method of RF direct conversion by a process of sampling a RF carrier signal and
`
`transferring energy to create a down-converted baseband signal.
`
`23. After creating prototype chips and conducting tests, ParkerVision soon
`
`realized that its technology led to improved RF receiver performance, lower power
`
`consumption, reduced size and integration benefits. In other words, RF receivers could
`
`be built smaller, cheaper and with greater improved performance.
`
`24.
`
`ParkerVision’s innovations did not stop there. ParkerVision went on to
`
`develop additional RF down-conversion technologies, RF up-conversion technologies
`
`and other related direct-conversion technologies. ParkerVision also developed
`
`complementary wireless communications technologies that involved interactions,
`
`processes, and controls between the baseband processor and the transceiver, which
`
`improved and enhanced the operation of transceivers that incorporate ParkerVision’s
`
`6
`
`ParkerVision Ex. 2002
`Intel Corp. v. ParkerVision, Inc.
`IPR No. 2020-01265
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00562 Document 1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 7 of 12
`
`
`
`down-converter and up-converter technologies. To date, ParkerVision has been granted
`
`over 200 patents related to its innovations including, the ’706 patent.
`
`25. After spending millions of dollars developing RF technologies,
`
`ParkerVision sought to partner with larger, well-established companies who could use
`
`ParkerVision’s innovations to manufacture highly integrated circuits on a large scale for
`
`the consumer market. In the late 1990s, ParkerVision began meeting with companies
`
`such as Qualcomm, an industry leader in RF chip technology.
`
`26. Qualcomm quickly recognized the significance of ParkerVision’s direct-
`
`conversion technology. In internal communications, Qualcomm engineers and senior
`
`executives lauded ParkerVision’s technology: “This is virtually the holy grail of RF
`
`receiver designs –- achievable and within practical limits!”; “[w]e are very impressed
`
`with the performance! We can make a phone with [ParkerVision’s] parts with higher
`
`dynamic range than today’s phones” and “[t]he truth is Parker Vision have [sic]
`
`stumbled on something revolutionary.” After testing ParkerVision’s technology, a
`
`Qualcomm senior executive and former engineer stated “[t]o tell you the truth, I am
`
`more of a believer now than when I started talking with [ParkerVision]” and
`
`Qualcomm’s then-division President stated “this is critical technology that we must
`
`land based on what we have seen so far. It offers revolutionary rf versus power
`
`performa[n]ce based on early te[s]t resul[t]s.”
`
`27. Qualcomm and ParkerVision never entered into an agreement.
`
`28.
`
`Then, in the mid-2000s, with the rise in popularity of smartphones, there
`
`became a critical need for smaller, more efficient receivers capable of supporting
`
`7
`
`ParkerVision Ex. 2002
`Intel Corp. v. ParkerVision, Inc.
`IPR No. 2020-01265
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00562 Document 1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 8 of 12
`
`
`
`multiple frequency bands. ParkerVision’s technology addressed this need.
`
`29.
`
`In 2011, a ParkerVision engineer found a Qualcomm conference paper
`
`describing Qualcomm’s then-current RF technology. The technology was strikingly
`
`similar to the technology that ParkerVision disclosed to Qualcomm years earlier.
`
`Through reverse engineering of Qualcomm’s RF chips, ParkerVision confirmed that
`
`Qualcomm had been using ParkerVision’s patented technology. And, Qualcomm has
`
`enjoyed great financial success by doing so. ParkerVision sued Qualcomm and its
`
`customers for patent infringement and has been locked in litigation ever since.
`
`30.
`
`The damage to ParkerVision, however, was already done. On information
`
`and belief, seeing Qualcomm’s success, other chip manufacturers such as Intel shifted to
`
`using ParkerVision’s technology. This shift in the industry ultimately led to the
`
`abandonment of super-heterodyne technology.
`
`31.
`
`ParkerVision’s technology helped make today’s mobile devices, such as
`
`smart phones and tablets, a reality by enabling RF chips used in these devices to be
`
`smaller, cheaper, and more efficient, and with higher performance.
`
`INTEL CHIPS
`
`32. Until recently, Intel (or those acting on its behalf) made, used, sold,
`
`offered to sell and/or imported RF transceiver chips/modems, for example, for use in
`
`smartphones. These chips include, without limitation, the Intel PMB 5750, PMB 5757
`
`and PMB 5762 (each an “Intel Chip”; collectively, the “Intel Chips”).
`
`33.
`
`Intel Chips provide cellular connectivity for devices such as Apple
`
`iPhones.
`
`8
`
`ParkerVision Ex. 2002
`Intel Corp. v. ParkerVision, Inc.
`IPR No. 2020-01265
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00562 Document 1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 9 of 12
`
`
`
`34. On information and belief, the PMB 5750 was incorporated into devices
`
`including, without limitation, the Apple iPhone 7 and 7 Plus.1 On information and
`
`belief, the PMB 5757 was incorporated into devices including, without limitation, the
`
`Apple iPhone 8, 8 Plus and X.2 On information and belief, the PMB 5762 was
`
`incorporated into devices including, without limitation, the Apple iPhone XR, XS and
`
`XS Max.3
`
`35. On information and belief, in December 2019, Apple acquired Intel’s
`
`smartphone modem business for $1 billion. https://www.engadget.com/2019-12-02-
`
`apple-owns-intel-modem-business.html.
`
`THE ASSERTED PATENT
`
`United States Patent No. 6,049,706
`
`36. On April 11, 2000, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly
`
`and legally issued United States Patent No. 6,049,706 (“the ’706 patent”) entitled
`
`“Integrated Frequency Translation and Selectivity” to inventor Robert W. Cook et al.
`
`
`1 See Wegner et al., Apple iPhone 7 Teardown, TechInsights (Sept. 15, 2016),
`https://techinsights.com/blog/apple-iphone-7-teardown; see also Srivatsan Sridhar, Apple iPhone
`7 and 7 Plus teardown confirms bigger battery, Intel LTE modem in some models and more,
`FoneArena (Sept. 16, 2016), https://www.fonearena.com/blog/197580/apple-iphone-7-and-7-plus-
`teardown-confirms-bigger-battery-intel-lte-modem-in-some-models-and-more.html.
`
`2 See Yang et al., Apple iPhone X Teardown, TechInsights (last modified Nov. 8, 2017),
`https://www.techinsights.com/blog/apple-iphone-x-teardown.
`
`3 See iPhone XS and XS Max Teardown, iFixit (Sept. 21, 2018),
`https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPhone+XS+and+XS+Max+Teardown/113021; iPhone XR
`Teardown, iFixit (Oct. 26, 2018),
`https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPhone+XR+Teardown/114123.
`
`9
`
`ParkerVision Ex. 2002
`Intel Corp. v. ParkerVision, Inc.
`IPR No. 2020-01265
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00562 Document 1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 10 of 12
`
`
`
`37.
`
`The ’706 patent is presumed valid under 35 U.S.C. § 282.
`
`38.
`
`ParkerVision owns all rights, title, and interest in the ’706 patent.
`
`CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
`
`COUNT I - Infringement of United States Patent No. 6,049,706
`
`39.
`
`The allegations set forth above are re-alleged and incorporated by
`
`reference as if they were set forth fully here.
`
`40.
`
`Intel directly infringes (literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents)
`
`the ’706 patent by making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing into the
`
`United States products covered by at least claim 1 of the ’706 patent.
`
`41.
`
`Intel products that infringe one or more claims of the ’706 patent include,
`
`but are not limited to, the Intel Chips, and any other Intel device that is capable of
`
`filtering and down-converting a higher-frequency signal to a lower-frequency signal as
`
`claimed in the ’706 patent. On information and belief, Intel uses the Intel Chips at least
`
`by testing the Intel Chips in the United States.
`
`42.
`
`Each Intel Chip is/includes an apparatus for filtering and down-
`
`converting (e.g., a higher frequency RF signal to a lower frequency signal). Each Intel
`
`Chip includes a frequency translator, comprising a down-convert and delay module to
`
`under-sample an input signal (e.g., high frequency RF signal) to produce an input
`
`sample of a down-converted image of said input signal, and to delay said input sample.
`
`Each Intel Chip also includes a filter, comprising at least a portion of said down-convert
`
`and delay module, at least one delay module to delay instances of an output signal, and
`
`an adder (e.g., operational amplifier with parallel resistor-capacitor feedback) to
`
`10
`
`ParkerVision Ex. 2002
`Intel Corp. v. ParkerVision, Inc.
`IPR No. 2020-01265
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00562 Document 1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 11 of 12
`
`
`
`combine at least said delayed input sample with at least one of said delayed instances of
`
`said output signal to generate an instance of said output signal.
`
`43.
`
`The down-convert and delay module under-samples (e.g., at a sample rate
`
`below the Nyquist rate) said input signal according to a control signal (e.g., local
`
`oscillator (LO) signal), wherein a frequency of said control signal is equal to a frequency
`
`of said input signal plus or minus a frequency of said down-converted image, divided
`
`by n, where n represents a harmonic or sub-harmonic of said input signal.
`
`44.
`
`ParkerVision has been damaged by the direct infringement of Intel and is
`
`suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable harm and damages as a result of this
`
`infringement.
`
`JURY DEMANDED
`
`Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, ParkerVision
`
`hereby requests a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, ParkerVision respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment
`
`in its favor and against Intel as follows:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`finding that Intel directly infringes one or more claims of the ’706 patent;
`
`awarding ParkerVision damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284, or otherwise
`
`permitted by law, including supplemental damages for any continued
`
`post-verdict infringement;
`
`c.
`
`awarding ParkerVision pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the
`
`damages award and costs;
`
`11
`
`ParkerVision Ex. 2002
`Intel Corp. v. ParkerVision, Inc.
`IPR No. 2020-01265
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00562 Document 1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 12 of 12
`
`
`
`d.
`
`awarding cost of this action (including all disbursements) and attorney fees
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, or as otherwise permitted by the law; and
`
`e.
`
`awarding such other costs and further relief that the Court determines to be
`
`just and equitable.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`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.
`
`Dated: June 24, 2020
`
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`Ronald M. Daignault*
`Chandran B. Iyer*
`Jason S. Charkow*
`GOLDBERG SEGALLA
`rdaignault@goldbergsegalla.com
`ciyer@goldbergsegalla.com
`jcharkow@goldbergsegalla.com
`711 Third Avenue, Suite 1900
`New York, New York 10017
`Telephone: (646) 292-8700
`
`Stephanie R. Mandir*
`GOLDBERG SEGALLA
`smandir@goldbergsegalla.com
`Reston Tower Center, 11921 Freedom Dr.
`Reston, VA 20190
`Telephone: (646) 292-8700
`
`
`
`
`
`*pro hac vice motion to be filed
`
`
`12
`
`ParkerVision Ex. 2002
`Intel Corp. v. ParkerVision, Inc.
`IPR No. 2020-01265
`
`