`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`PARKERVISION,INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`HISENSECO., LTD., and HISENSE
`VISUAL TECHNOLOGYCO., LTD. (F/K/A
`QINGDAO HISENSE ELECTRONICS CO.),
`LTD. and HISENSE ELECTRIC Co., LTD.
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 6:20-cv-870-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`AMENDED DISCOVERY ORDER
`
`Before the Court is the parties’ dispute jointly submitted via email. The Court held a
`
`hearing in front of Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland on May 17, 2022, on this issue. The Court
`
`heard this dispute in conjunction with a related case, ParkerVision v. TCL Industries Holdings Co.,
`
`et al., Case No. 6:20-CV-00945.
`
`Plaintiff ParkerVision, Inc. (“ParkerVision”) complains that Defendants violated the
`
`Protective Orderin this case by using Plaintiff's infringement contentions (which were designated
`
`as Confidential) in an inter partes review proceedings (the “IPRs’’) in front of the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board (the “PTAB”). The PTAB ordered ParkerVision to produce the contentions in the
`
`IPRs. ParkerVision notes, however,
`
`that the PTAB did not require Defendants to use the
`
`contentionsin anyfilings.
`
`The Court finds that Defendants did not violate the Protective Order in this case.
`
`Defendants, however, should not be allowed to use the contentions in the IPRs because they were
`
`TCL & Hisense
`
`Ex. 1019
`
`Page 1
`
`TCL & Hisense
`Ex. 1019
`Page 1
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00870-ADA Document 67 Filed 05/24/22 Page 2 of 2
`
`designated as Confidential in this case. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants are prohibited
`
`from using the infringement contentionsin this case in any filings in any related IPR proceedings
`
`(including IPR2021-00990 and IPR2021-00985).
`
`SIGNEDthis 24th day of May, 2022.
`
`DEREK T. GILLILAND
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`TCL & Hisense
`
`Ex. 1019
`
`Page 2
`
`TCL & Hisense
`Ex. 1019
`Page 2
`
`
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
