IPR2021-00990 (Patent No. 7,110,444)
`TCL, HISENSE, AND LG ELECTRONICS v. PARKERVISION
`Petitioners’ Demonstrative Exhibits
`September 8, 2022
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`TCL & Hisense
`Ex. 1024
`
`
`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
`
`
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
