`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
`
`
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
