`TCL, HISENSE, AND LG ELECTRONICS v. PARKERVISION
`Petitioners’ Demonstrative Exhibits
`September 8, 2022
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`TCL & Hisense
`Ex. 1024
`
`
`
`SUMMARY
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`TCL & Hisense
`Ex. 1024
`
`
`
`The alleged invention
`
`Ex. 1001 (’444 Patent) at Fig. 70A
`
`Ex. 1001 (’444 Patent) at Fig. 20A, 20B
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`TCL & Hisense
`Ex. 1024
`
`
`
`Tayloe in view of TI Datasheet
`
`Ex. 1004 (Tayloe) at Fig. 3
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`Combined Teaching (Petition at 44)
`
`TCL & Hisense
`Ex. 1024
`
`
`
`Lam in view of Enz and Tayloe
`
`Ex. 1007 (Enz) at Fig. 29
`
`Ex. 1006 (Lam) at Fig. 3 and 5:50-60
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`5
`
`TCL & Hisense
`Ex. 1024
`
`
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6
`
`TCL & Hisense
`Ex. 1024
`
`
`
`“storage element”
`Petitioner’s Construction
`“an element that stores non-
`negligible amounts of energy from
`an input electromagnetic signal”
`
`•
`
`“non-negligible” means
`“distinguishable from noise”
`• successful down-conversion is
`proof of non-negligible energy
`
`ParkerVision’s Construction
`“an element of an energy transfer
`system that stores non-negligible
`amounts of energy from an input
`electromagnetic signal”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`7
`
`TCL & Hisense
`Ex. 1024
`
`
`
`The inventors defined “storage module”
`
`FIG. 82A illustrates an exemplary energy transfer system 8202 for down-
`converting an input EM signal 8204. The energy transfer system 8202 includes
`a switching module 8206 and a storage module illustrated as a storage
`capacitance 8208. The terms storage module and storage capacitance, as used
`herein, are distinguishable from the terms holding module and holding
`capacitance, respectively. Holding modules and holding capacitances, as used
`above, identify systems that store negligible amounts of energy from an under-
`sampled input EM signal with the intent of "holding" a voltage value. Storage
`modules and storage capacitances, on the other hand, refer to systems
`that store non-negligible amounts of energy from an input EM signal.
`
`Patent No. 6,061,551 at 66:55-67 (quoted and analyzed in Ex. 2016 (IPR2020-01265 FWD) at 20, 36-41)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`8
`
`TCL & Hisense
`Ex. 1024
`
`
`
`The IPR2020-01265 construction applies here
`
`Ex. 2016 (FWD in IPR2020-01265) at 36, 37
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`TCL & Hisense
`Ex. 1024
`
`
`
`ParkerVision’s previous position supports Petitioners
`
`IPR2014-00948, Patent Owner Preliminary Response at 21 (cited at Ex. 2016 (FWD in IPR2021-00985) at 24)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`10
`
`TCL & Hisense
`Ex. 1024
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00948 construction not “broadest reasonable”
`
`“Of course, giving claims their broadest reasonable
`interpretation ... does not include giving claims a
`legally incorrect interpretation.” …
`
`“Here the specification twice defines the term …
`That is a binding lexicography …”
`
`Nestle USA, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc., 686 F. App'x 917, 918-919 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`(emphasis added) (using lexicography in spite of applicable BRI standard)
`
`IPR2014-00948, Institution Decision at 6 and 10 (cited
`at Ex. 2019 (FWD in IPR2021-00985) at 24-25))
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`11
`
`TCL & Hisense
`Ex. 1024
`
`
`
`ParkerVision’s litigation position supports Petitioners
`
`Paper 25 at 9 (denying motion to strike portions of Reply)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`12
`
`TCL & Hisense
`Ex. 1024
`
`
`
`“non-negligible” means “distinguishable from noise”
`
` The Middle District of Florida adopted
`ParkerVision’s own proposed construction
`that non-negligible energy is
`“distinguishable from noise.” ParkerVision,
`Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., 2013 WL 633077, at
`*5-*7 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 20, 2013)
` “That construction is not disputed on
`appeal.” ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm
`Inc., 621 F. App’x 1009, 1018 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`13
`
`TCL & Hisense
`Ex. 1024
`
`
`
`Successful down-conversion is “proof” that energy is
`non-negligible
`
` Sorrells: “transferring a non-negligible
`amount of energy” means “you have to
`transfer enough energy to overcome the
`noise in the system to be able to meet your
`specifications.” 621 F. App’x at 1019.
` If “a circuit successfully down-converts,
`that is proof that enough energy is
`transferred to overcome the noise in the
`system.” 621 F. App’x at 1019.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`14
`
`TCL & Hisense
`Ex. 1024
`
`
`
`Two issues resolved by operation of collateral estoppel
`
`“non-negligible” means “distinguishable from noise”
`successful down-conversion is proof of non-negligible energy
`
`Importantly, our precedent makes clear that collateral
`estoppel is not limited to patent claims that are identical.
`Rather it is the identity of the issues that were litigated
`that determines whether collateral estoppel should apply.
`
`Nestle USA, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc., 884 F.3d 1350, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`15
`
`TCL & Hisense
`Ex. 1024
`
`
`
`Attempts to avoid collateral estoppel fall short
` Sorrells testified “years after the patent issued” (Sur-Reply at 8-9)
` Sorrells tried “to prove infringement at trial” in Qualcomm (Id. at
`10 n.11).
` Sorrells testified only as to “one of the 19 accused products” in
`Qualcomm (Id.)
` Sorrells also mentioned “cellular/cellphone specifications” (Id. at
`11-12)
` Sorrells method is “one way (not the only way)” (Id. at 12).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`16
`
`TCL & Hisense
`Ex. 1024
`
`
`
`Anything above 0.10% is “non-negligible”
`
`1. A method for down-converting a carrier signal to a lower frequency signal, comprising the steps
`of:
`(1) receiving a carrier signal;
`(2) transferring non-negligible amounts of energy from the carrier signal, …
`
`41. The method according to claim 1, wherein step (2) comprises the steps of:
`(a) transferring a non-negligible portion of energy contained in a portion of the carrier signal …
`
`42. The method according to claim 41, wherein step (2)(a) comprises the step of transferring at
`least one tenth of one percent of the energy contained in a half period of the carrier signal.
`
`’551 patent claims 1, 41, 42, (incorporated by reference in the ’835 and ’444 patents)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`17
`
`TCL & Hisense
`Ex. 1024
`
`
`
`WDTX rejected “for driving a low impedance load”
`
`Ex. 1013 at 5 (Jan. 26, 2021 claim construction order in ParkerVision v. Intel WDTX litigation)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`TCL & Hisense
`Ex. 1024
`
`
`
`ParkerVision abandoned “low impedance load”
`
`Patent Owner Response at 38
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`19
`
`TCL & Hisense
`Ex. 1024
`
`
`
`“wireless modem apparatus”
`
`Petitioner’s Construction
`Not limiting
`
`ParkerVision’s Construction
`Preamble is limiting
`
`See Reply at 10-12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`20
`
`TCL & Hisense
`Ex. 1024
`
`
`
`The preamble is not limiting
` Board found claim 3 obvious in IPR2020-01265
`• ParkerVision never argued that the preamble was limiting
`• Claim 2 has identical preamble as claim 3
` Presumption that preamble is not limiting has not been rebutted
`• The preamble indicates a mere intended use
`• Claim body recites structurally-complete invention
`• Preamble does not provide antecedent basis for claim body
`• ParkerVision did not ask district court to find the preamble limiting
`
`See Reply at 10-12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`
`TCL & Hisense
`Ex. 1024
`
`
`
`GROUND 1: Tayloe + TI
`Datasheet
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`22
`
`TCL & Hisense
`Ex. 1024
`
`
`
`Tayloe in view of TI Datasheet
`
`Ex. 1004 (Tayloe) at Fig. 3
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`23
`
`Combined Teaching (Petition at 44)
`
`TCL & Hisense
`Ex. 1024
`
`
`
`Tayloe’s capacitors 72-78 are “storage elements”
` In the underlying litigation, ParkerVision alleges that “capacitors”
`constitute “storage elements”
`• “one or more capacitors” (Ex. 1022 at ¶¶ 127-131, 138-140, 150)
` Decided in IPR2020-01265; see Ex. 2016 at 57-58
` Store “non-negligible” energy under Fed. Cir.’s Qualcomm opinion
` 0.193% of “available energy” as “calculated” by ParkerVision’s own
`expert is “non-negligible”; see ’551 patent claim 42:
`• “at least one tenth of one percent [0.10%] of the energy contained in a half
`period of the carrier signal” is a “non-negligible” amount of energy
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`24
`
`TCL & Hisense
`Ex. 1024
`
`
`
`GROUND 2: Lam / Enz + TI
`Datasheet
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`25
`
`TCL & Hisense
`Ex. 1024
`
`
`
`Lam in view of Enz and Tayloe
`
`Ex. 1007 (Enz) at Fig. 29
`
`Ex. 1006 (Lam) at Fig. 3 and 5:50-60
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`26
`
`TCL & Hisense
`Ex. 1024
`
`
`
`Lam / Enz disclose “storage elements”
`
` In the underlying litigation, ParkerVision alleges that
`“capacitors” constitute “storage elements”
`• “one or more capacitors” (Ex. 1022 at ¶¶ 127-131, 138-140, 150)
` Store “non-negligible” energy under Fed. Cir.’s Qualcomm
`opinion
` ParkerVision did not calculate percent of stored “available
`energy”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`27
`
`TCL & Hisense
`Ex. 1024
`
`
`
`ParkerVision attacks Enz “individually”
` Petitioner does not rely on Enz alone for “down-conversion” function
` In isolation, voltage of Enz’s input is irrelevant
`
`In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1019, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`28
`
`TCL & Hisense
`Ex. 1024
`
`
`
`Enz expressly motivates “reduce dc offset”
`
`Ex. 1007 (Enz) at 22
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`29
`
`TCL & Hisense
`Ex. 1024
`
`
`
`Claim 4 not limited to “charge injection” embodiment
`
`Ex. 1001 (‘444 patent) at claim 4 and 36:14-18
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`30
`
`TCL & Hisense
`Ex. 1024
`
`
`
`Lam not limited to “high frequency” sampling
` Lam’s sub-sampling at “substantially lower than the carrier frequency”
`
`Ex. 2038 (Steer Decl.) at ¶292; see also Ex. 1021 at 44:13-25
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`31
`
`TCL & Hisense
`Ex. 1024
`
`
`
`“WIRELESS MODEM
`APPARATUS”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`32
`
`TCL & Hisense
`Ex. 1024
`
`
`
`“Wireless modem apparatus”
`
`The preambles of claims 2 and 3 are not limiting
`Alternatively, use of the disclosed receivers as part of a
`“wireless modem apparatus” was obvious
`• See Petition at 35-37, 57 (Ground 1; Tayloe)
`• See Petition at 60, 74 (Ground 2; Lam)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`33
`
`TCL & Hisense
`Ex. 1024
`
`
`
`SECONDARY
`CONSIDERATIONS
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`34
`
`TCL & Hisense
`Ex. 1024
`
`
`
`The Board rejected ParkerVision’s “very weak” evidence
` IPR2020-01265 FWD: “neither Patent Owner nor Dr. Steer makes any
`attempt to establish nexus” with the claims. Ex. 2016 at 64.
` IPR2020-01265 FWD: ParkerVision’s evidence “is very weak.” Id. at 65.
` Dr. Steer now makes “the same” arguments. Ex. 1021 at 46:3-47:17:
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`35
`
`TCL & Hisense
`Ex. 1024
`
`
`
`Thank you
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`36
`
`TCL & Hisense
`Ex. 1024
`
`