Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 38 Filed 09/23/21 Page 1 of 50
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`PARKERVISION, INC.,
`
`
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`
`
` v.
`
`TCL INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS CO.,
`LTD., TCL ELECTRONICS HOLDINGS
`LTD., SHENZHEN TCL NEW
`TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., TCL KING
`ELECTRICAL APPLIANCES
`(HUIZHOU) CO., LTD., TCL MOKA
`INT’L LTD., and TCL MOKA
`MANUFACTURING S.A. DE C.V.,
`
`HISENSE CO., LTD. and HISENSE
`VISUAL TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. (F/K/A
`QINGDAO HISENSE ELECTRONICS CO.),
`LTD. and HISENSE ELECTRIC CO., LTD.
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:20-cv-00945-ADA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:20-cv-00870-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`[CORRECTED] PARKERVISION, INC.’S RESPONSIVE
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 38 Filed 09/23/21 Page 2 of 50
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND .................................................................................... 1
`
`THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT .................................................................................................. 2
`
`DISPUTED TERMS ........................................................................................................... 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“Low Impedance Load” (’736 patent, claims 26, 27; ’673 patent, claim 5)........... 2
`
`“said energy discharged from said capacitor provides sufficient power to drive the
`low impedance load” (’673 patent, claim 5) ........................................................... 6
`
`“Storage” Terms (’706 claims 105, 114, 115, 164, 166, 168, 175, 179, 186, 190;
`’902 claim 1; ’444 claim 3; ’835 claims 1, 18, 20; ’725 claims 1, 6, 17, 18, 19;
`’513 claim 19; ’528 claims 1, 9; ’736 claims 1, 11, 21, 26, 27; ’673 claims 13, 17,
`18) ........................................................................................................................... 8
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Defendants’ collateral estoppel argument is a red herring........................ 13
`
`Defendants’ claim differentiation argument is fatally flawed. ................. 15
`
`“voltage of the input modulated carrier signal is not reproduced or approximated
`at the capacitor during the apertures or outside of the apertures” (’673 patent,
`claim 2) ................................................................................................................. 16
`
`“a down-convert and delay module to under-sample an input signal to produce an
`input sample of a down-converted image of said input signal, and to delay said
`input sample” (’706 patent, claims 1, 7) ............................................................... 19
`
`“delay module” terms (’706 patent, claims 1, 7, 34, 140) .................................... 20
`
`“said control signal comprises a train of pulses having pulse widths that are
`established to improve energy transfer from said input signal to said down-
`converted image” (’706 patent, claim 2)............................................................... 21
`
`“means for under-sampling an input signal to produce an input sample of a down-
`converted image of said input signal” (’706 patent, claim 6) ............................... 24
`
`“first delaying means for delaying said input sample” (’706 patent, claim 6) ..... 26
`
`“a frequency translator to produce a sample of a down-converted image of an
`input signal, and to delay said sample” (’706 patent, claim 34) ........................... 29
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 38 Filed 09/23/21 Page 3 of 50
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“wherein said energy transfer signal generator in widening said apertures of said
`pulses by a non-negligible amount that tends away from zero time in duration to
`extend the time that said switch is closed for the purpose of increasing energy
`transferred from said input signal does so at the expense of reproducing said input
`signal, such that said increased energy transferred from said input signal when
`said switch is closed in response to said energy transfer signal prevents substantial
`voltage reproduction of said input signal” (’706 patent, claim 111) .................... 30
`
`“establishing apertures” terms (’706 patent, claims 165, 107, 176, 187) ............. 31
`
`“frequency down-conversion module” (’444 patent, claims 2, 3) ........................ 32
`
`“Under-Sample” / “Under-Samples” / “Under-Sampling” (’706 patent, claims 1,
`6, 7, 28; ’444 patent, claim 2) ............................................................................... 33
`
`“harmonic” / “harmonics” (’706 patent, claims 1, 6-7, 28, 34; ’518 patent, claim
`1) ........................................................................................................................... 34
`
`“Integral Filter/Frequency Translator to Filter and Down-Convert an Input
`Signal” (’706 patent, claim 28) ............................................................................. 36
`
`“Modulated Signal” / “Modulated Carrier Signal” (’706 patent, claim 127; ’513
`patent, claim 19; ’528 patent, claims 1, 5; ’736 patent, claims 1, 11, 15; ’673
`patent, claims 1, 2, 7, 13, 19) ................................................................................ 37
`
`“universal frequency downconverter (UFD)” (’518 patent, claim 50) ................. 38
`
`[wherein said storage elements comprises] “a capacitor that reduces a DC offset
`voltage in said first-down converted signal and second down converted signal”
`(’444 patent, claim 4) ............................................................................................ 40
`
`“DC offset voltage” (’444 patent, claim 4) ........................................................... 41
`
`“sampling aperture” (’513 patent, claim 19; ’528 patent, claim 1; ’736 patent,
`claims 1, 11; ’673 patent, claims 13, 17, 19) ........................................................ 42
`
`“Switch” / “Switching Device” / “Switching Module” / “Switch Module” (’706
`patent, claims 105, 107, 109, 111, 114, 115, 164, 165, 166, 168, 175, 176, 179,
`186, 187, 190; ’518 patent, claim 50; ’902 patent, claim 1; ’444 patent, claim 3;
`’835 patent, claims 18, 19, 20; ’725 patent, claim 1;’513 patent, claim 19; ’528
`patent, claims 1, 5, 8, 17; ’736 patent, claims 1, 11, 15, 21, 26, 27; ’673 patent,
`claims 1, 6, 7, 13, 17, 18) ...................................................................................... 43
`
`
`
`“a down-converted signal being generated from said sampled energy” (’902
`patent, claim 1)...................................................................................................... 44
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 45
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 38 Filed 09/23/21 Page 4 of 50
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Asyst Techs., Inc. v. Empak, Inc.,
`268 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001)....................................................................................24, 27, 28
`
`Hemphill v. Proctor & Gamble Co.,
`85 F.App’x 765 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .............................................................................................14
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................22
`
`Northrop Grumman Corp. v. Intel Corp.,
`325 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2003)....................................................................................24, 25, 27
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................15
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................33
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. 112 .................................................................................................................................33
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 38 Filed 09/23/21 Page 5 of 50
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`For most of the terms at issue, Defendants propose constructions identical to the
`
`constructions Intel proposed in its two litigations with ParkerVision and, without saying so, just
`
`reiterate Intel’s same arguments. There is nothing new. The Court already rejected Intel’s
`
`arguments and constructions, and Defendants do not show how the Court supposedly got it
`
`wrong. The Court should stand behind its constructions and re-adopt them for this case. For
`
`those few terms where Defendants take a different approach and argue plain and ordinary
`
`meaning, Defendants have no support in the specification and do not explain what those
`
`meanings are. Instead, Defendants make bare statements and hope to create ambiguity to protect
`
`their invalidity or non-infringement defenses. But again, the Court’s constructions are entirely
`
`consistent with the specification, the plain language in the claims, and the patented technology.
`
`Indeed, like Intel, Defendants obscure the differences between the patented energy sampling
`
`technology and sample and hold/voltage sampling. That is the case with Defendants’
`
`indefiniteness arguments, which they must prove with clear and convincing evidence. The claim
`
`terms that Defendants attack are not indefinite. Defendants ignore the disclosures in the
`
`specification regarding the claimed technology and the plain meaning to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art.
`
`II.
`
`TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`
`Several concepts form the background for the technology in this case, which are
`
`described in the declaration of Dr. Steer, who has been working in the area of radio frequency
`
`design since 1983, when the first commercial cell phone became available. Steer Decl. ¶¶ 5-10.
`
`These concepts include wired communications, wireless communications, frequency, up-
`
`conversion, and down-conversion. Steer Decl. ¶¶ 21-30. Down-conversion is the subject of the
`
`patents-in-suit. Steer Decl. ¶ 30.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 38 Filed 09/23/21 Page 6 of 50
`
`III. THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`The patents-in-suit1 disclose two systems for down-conversion: (1) energy transfer (i.e., energy
`
`sampling) and (2) sample and hold (i.e., voltage sampling).2 But the claims of the patents are
`
`directed to energy transfer because they use terms (i.e. “storage” modules/devices/elements) the
`
`patentees reserved specifically to connote energy transfer. The patents sharply contrast “storage”
`
`modules/devices/elements, which connote energy transfer, from “holding”
`
`modules/devices/elements, which connote sample and hold. Steer Decl. ¶ 31; see also Steer Decl.
`
`¶¶ 32-48; ’518 patent, 66:15-23.
`
`IV. DISPUTED TERMS
`
`
`
`“Low Impedance Load” (’736 patent, claims 26, 27; ’673 patent, claim 5)
`
`ParkerVision’s Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Contrary to Defendants’ position, the term is not indefinite and should be given its plain
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`Indefinite
`
`
`
`and ordinary meaning. Steer Decl. ¶49. The terms “load,” “impedance,” and “low impedance
`
`load” were well-known within the field of electrical engineering at the time of the invention.
`
`After reading ParkerVision’s patents, one of ordinary skill in the art would easily understand that
`
`a “low impedance load” in the context of the patents is a load that provides a path for the
`
`discharge of energy from a storage capacitor. Steer Decl. ¶50.
`
`The specifications and figures relating to direct down-conversion provide guidance to a
`
`skilled person as to the type of values that would allow or prevent discharge. Steer Decl. ¶63.
`
`
`1 The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 6,049,706; 6,266,518; 6,580,902; 7,110,444;
`7,292,835; 8,588,725; 8,660,513; 9,118,528; 9,246,736; and 9,444,673.
`2 Since the ’518, ’902, ’513, ’528, ’736 and ’673 patents have the same disclosure regarding
`down-conversion and the ’444, and ’725 patents specifically incorporate such disclosure by
`reference, all citations in this brief will reference the ’518 patent unless otherwise noted.
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 38 Filed 09/23/21 Page 7 of 50
`
`
`
`
`
`For example, as shown in Figure 78B (above left), when discussing a direct down-
`
`conversion voltage sampling embodiment, the specification uses the term “high impedance load”
`
`(red) and shows 1 megohm (1,000,000 Ω) resistor as a high impedance load. On the other hand,
`
`as shown in FIG. 82B (above right), when discussing a direct down-conversion energy transfer
`
`embodiment, the specification uses the term “low impedance load” (green) and shows a 2 kOhms
`
`(2,000 Ω) resistor as a low impedance load. From these figures and values, a skilled person
`
`would understand the load values to use that would constitute a “low” impedance load, which
`
`would allow energy to be discharged from the storage capacitance 8208 when the switch is
`
`opened (OFF). Steer Decl. ¶64.
`
`An electrical load is a device in a circuit upon which work is done. Steer Decl. ¶51.
`
`Whereas a power source supplies energy, a load absorbs power and converts it into a desired
`
`form. Steer Decl. ¶¶51-52. The specifications explain that with regards to load, it is a binary
`
`choice – it is either high or low impedance. See, e.g., ’673 patent, 70:35-36 (“Recall from the
`
`overview of under-sampling that loads can be classified as high impedance loads or low
`
`impedance loads.”).
`
`A high impedance load inhibits current from moving in a circuit and absorbs very little
`
`electrical energy. But a low impedance load, on the other hand, provides little constraint to
`
`current moving in a circuit and absorbs electrical energy. This is consistent with the use of the
`
`term in the patents-in-suit. Steer Decl. ¶54.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 38 Filed 09/23/21 Page 8 of 50
`
`
`
`The patent specification discloses two systems – an energy transfer/sampling system and
`
`a voltage sampling system. As discussed in Section III and the accompanying Steer declaration,
`
`and illustrated in FIG. 82B above, a voltage sampling system uses a high impedance load to
`
`down-convert a high frequency input EM signal 7804 (e.g., modulated carrier signal (red)) to a
`
`baseband signal. As shown in Figure 78B above, when the switch is ON (closed) (during the
`
`aperture), the EM signal 8204 (blue) is sent to the “holding” capacitor 7808. When the pulse
`
`7810 (green) stops, the switch is turned OFF (opened). Since voltage sampling uses a high
`
`impedance load, when the switch is OFF (opened), there is high resistance to the flow of current
`
`and, thus, the “holding” capacitor holds a constant voltage value. Because there is no significant
`
`energy discharge between pulses, the terminal 7816 maintains a constant voltage value until the
`
`next pulse. As a result, the voltage sampling system produces a voltage wave with a stair step
`
`pattern, as shown in FIG. 79E below. Steer Decl. ¶¶55-56.
`
`
`
`The specification further clarifies that the high impedance load prevents discharge of the
`
`“holding” capacitance into the load when the switch is OFF in order to accurately represent the
`
`voltage of the input signal. See ’673 patent, 64:58-67; see also Steer Decl. ¶56.
`
`Unlike a high impedance load, a low impedance load causes the capacitor to discharge
`
`the stored energy between the pulses of the energy transfer signal (i.e., when the switch is open).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 38 Filed 09/23/21 Page 9 of 50
`
`Notably, the specification provides clear guidance as to the effects of lowering the impedance of
`
`the load in a voltage sampling system (the voltage sampling system shown in FIG. 78) by
`
`replacing the high impedance load with a low impedance load. Steer Decl. ¶57.
`
`
`
`As shown in FIG. 80D, when the load 7812 is a low impedance load, there is a
`
`discernible droop in the signal between apertures of pulses 8004. In other words, the holding
`
`capacitance 7808 is significantly discharged by the low impedance load between pulses 8004
`
`(FIG. 80C). As a result, the holding capacitance 7808 cannot reasonably attain or “hold” the
`
`voltage of the original EM input signal 7804, as was the case in FIG. 79E (above, using a high
`
`impedance load). Instead, the charge appears as the output shown in FIG. 80D. Steer Decl. ¶58.
`
`Defendants assert that a skilled person could not ascertain what it means for a load to be a
`
`“low impedance load” because of “the described dependency of ‘low impedance’ on a ‘given
`
`output frequency.” See, e.g., Op. Br., 3-4. In particular, Defendants point to a single sentence in
`
`the specifications that describes a low impedance load as “one that is significant relative to the
`
`output drive impedance of the system for a given output frequency.” Id., 2. But Defendants fail
`
`to analyze the term in the context of the full claim language and in view of the specification.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’736 patent (from which claim 5 depends) recites a “system for frequency
`
`down-converting a modulated carrier signal to a demodulated baseband signal.” Claim 1 of the
`
`’673 patent (from which claims 26 and 27 depend) recites an “apparatus for down-converting an
`
`input modulated carrier signal to a demodulated baseband signal.” The claims of the ’673 and
`
`’736 patents, therefore, relate to direct down-conversion of an input modulated carrier signal to
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 38 Filed 09/23/21 Page 10 of 50
`
`demodulated baseband signal. A POSITA would understand that the claim language itself
`
`defines the “given output frequency” as a baseband frequency. At baseband frequencies, the load
`
`impedance is a resistance as shown, e.g., in FIGS. 78B and 82B. Steer Decl. ¶60. A POSITA
`
`would also understand “significant relative to the output drive impedance of the system” refers to
`
`the loading effect of a low impedance load. Id., ¶¶60-62.3 For the foregoing reasons, the term is
`
`not indefinite and should be given its plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`
`
`“said energy discharged from said capacitor provides sufficient power to
`drive the low impedance load” (’673 patent, claim 5)
`
`ParkerVision’s Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`Indefinite
`
`
`
`Contrary to Defendants’ position, the term is not indefinite and should be given its plain
`
`and ordinary meaning. In an an energy transfer system, a down-converted signal is formed from
`
`both: (1) energy from the input EM carrier signal (carrier (RF) signal) when the switch is ON
`
`(closed) and (2) energy discharged from the energy “storage” module (capacitor) when the
`
`switch is OFF (open). Steer Decl. ¶¶66-72.
`
`As shown in FIG. 82B above (left), when the switch is ON (during the aperture), energy
`
`from the input EM signal 8204 (blue) transfers directly to a low impedance load, where the
`
`
`
`
`3 The parties’ definitions of a POSITA are different, and it appears that Dr. Shoemake,
`Defendants’ expert, is not a POSITA. Steer Decl. ¶¶ 12-18.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 38 Filed 09/23/21 Page 11 of 50
`
`down-converted signal having non-negligible energy is formed, and to a “storage” capacitor
`
`8208. When the switch is turned OFF (opened), the input EM signal is prevented from passing
`
`through the switch. Since the load is low impedance, when the switch is OFF (opened), as shown
`
`in FIG. 82B above (right), energy (orange) stored in the “storage” capacitor 8208 is discharged
`
`to the low impedance load 8218. Steer Decl. ¶67.
`
`The ’673 patent claims track the energy transfer system shown in FIG. 82B. In particular,
`
`claim 1 recites “the demodulated baseband signal [i.e., the down-converted signal] is generated
`
`from (i) the accumulating of the energy transferred to the capacitor each time the switch is closed
`
`and (ii) the discharging of said some of the previously accumulated energy into the load circuitry
`
`each time the switch is opened.” Claim 5, which depends from claim 1, recites that the “the load
`
`circuitry comprises a low impedance load, and wherein said energy discharged from said
`
`capacitor provides sufficient power to drive the low impedance load.” See Steer Decl. ¶68.
`
`
`
`The specification provides a clear explanation of how a down-converted signal is created.
`
`FIG. 57E (above) shows a segment 5712 of the down-converted signal 5716 of FIG. 57F. The
`
`down-converted signal of FIG. 57E is made up of two portions 5710A (blue, from the switch
`
`when the switch is ON (closed)) and 5710B (orange, from the storage capacitor when the switch
`
`is OFF (open)):
`
`The demodulated baseband signal 5712 includes portions 5710A . . . and portions
`5710B. . . . Portions 5710A represent energy transferred from the analog AM
`carrier signal 516 to a storage device, while simultaneously driving an output load.
`The portions 5710A occur when a switching module is closed by the energy transfer
`pulses 5707. Portions 5710B represent energy stored in a storage device continuing
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 38 Filed 09/23/21 Page 12 of 50
`
`to drive the load. Portions 5710B occur when the switching module is opened after
`energy transfer pulses 5707.
`
`
`’673 patent, 88:37-47. The down-converted signal must have both the blue and orange portions
`
`to be a complete signal that can be processed to recreate e.g., the low frequency audio signal.
`
`Steer Decl. ¶69.
`
`In context, the term “said energy discharged from said capacitor provides sufficient
`
`power to drive the low impedance load” simply means that the capacitor provides a non-
`
`negligible amount of energy (sources current) to the low impedance load for the duration of time
`
`the switch is open. Otherwise, (i.e., if the capacitor did not supply sufficient power to the low
`
`impedance load for the duration of time the switch is open), information would be lost in the
`
`down-converted signal, thereby producing a degraded and/or unusable signal that could not be
`
`properly processed by a receiving wireless device. Steer Decl. ¶70.
`
`This understanding is also consistent with the specification’s description of the down-
`
`converted signal being “distinguishable from noise,” having “sufficient energy to drive lower
`
`impedance circuits without buffering,” and “driv[ing] lower impedance loads unassisted.” ’673
`
`patent, 66: 29-36; 65:61-65; see also Steer Decl. ¶71.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the term is not indefinite and should be given its plain and
`
`ordinary meaning.
`
`
`
`“Storage” Terms (’706 claims 105, 114, 115, 164, 166, 168, 175, 179, 186, 190;
`’902 claim 1; ’444 claim 3; ’835 claims 1, 18, 20; ’725 claims 1, 6, 17, 18, 19;
`’513 claim 19; ’528 claims 1, 9; ’736 claims 1, 11, 21, 26, 27; ’673 claims 13, 17,
`18)
`
`ParkerVision’s Construction
`
`Defendants’
`Construction
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 38 Filed 09/23/21 Page 13 of 50
`
`Energy storage element / storage
`element: “an element of an energy transfer system that stores
`nonnegligible amounts of energy from an input electromagnetic signal
`for driving a low impedance load.”
`
`Energy storage module / storage
`module: “a module of an energy transfer system that stores
`nonnegligible amounts of energy from an input electromagnetic signal
`for driving a low impedance load.”
`
`Energy storage device: “a device of an energy transfer system that
`stores non-negligible amounts of energy from an input
`electromagnetic signal for driving a low impedance load.”
`
`
`“an apparatus that
`stores
`non-negligible
`amounts
`of energy from the
`carrier
`signal.”
`
`(alleges all terms
`are indefinite
`under
`ParkerVision’s
`proposed
`constructions.)
`
`
`
`The Court has twice considered “storage” terms in ParkerVision’s litigations against Intel
`
`involving the same patents. In Case No. 6:20-cv-00108 (“the -108 case”), this Court construed
`
`all of the “storage” terms as “a [module/device/element] of an energy transfer system that stores
`
`nonnegligible amounts of energy from an input electromagnetic signal.” ParkerVision v. Intel
`
`Corp., Case No. 6:20-cv-00108, ECF No. 75 (1/28/2021)4 at 4-5. More recently, in Case No.
`
`6:20-cv-00562 (“the -562 case”), this Court construed “storage module” to be “a module of an
`
`energy transfer system that stores nonnegligible amounts of energy from an input
`
`electromagnetic signal for driving a low impedance load.” See ParkerVision v. Intel Corp., Case
`
`No. 6:20-cv-00562, ECF No. 61 (7/22/2021)5 at 2. Notably, the second time it considered the
`
`issue, the Court included the additional language “for driving a low impedance load.”
`
`ParkerVision’s construction for the “storage” terms adopts the Court’s prior construction
`
`in the Intel -562 case. The language “driving a low impedence load” provides clarity as to what it
`
`means to be a “storage” module/device/element of an energy transfer system.
`
`
`
`4 Hereinafter “Ex. 1.”
`5 Hereinafter “Ex. 2.”
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 38 Filed 09/23/21 Page 14 of 50
`
`Defendants provide no reason why the Court got it wrong. Instead, Defendants propose
`
`the same construction6 and advance the same arguments7 that Intel raised – positions this Court
`
`has twice consider and rejected. Compare Defendants’ Opening Brief8 at 10-11, with
`
`ParkerVision v. Intel Corp., Case No. 6:20-cv-00108, ECF No. 53 (11/3/2020)9 at 33-36.
`
`As ParkerVision argued in the Intel -108 case, an energy “storage”
`
`module/element/device10 is a term reserved exclusively for a component of an energy transfer
`
`(energy sampling) system, and a “holding” module/element/device11 is a term reserved
`
`exclusively for a component of a sample and hold (voltage sampling) system. See ParkerVision
`
`v. Intel Corp., Case No. 6:20-cv-00108, ECF No. 51 (10/30/2020)12 at 13-16. As such, an energy
`
`“storage” module must be construed in a way that distinguishes it from a “holding” module. See
`
`Apple Inc. v. Andrea Elecs. Corp., 949 F.3d 697, 708, (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“As we have held,
`
`‘[when] the patent describes multiple embodiments, every claim does not need to cover every
`
`embodiment. This is particularly true [when] the plain language of a limitation of the claim does
`
`
`6 In the chart on page 10 of their brief, Defendants propose the construction “an apparatus that
`stores non-negligible amounts of energy from the carrier signal.” See Def. Op.Br. at 10. But on
`the next page, Defendants include the quote “[s]torage modules…on the other hand, refer to
`systems that store non-negligible amounts of energy from an input EM signal,” and “ask the
`Court to adopt this definition verbatim.” See Def. Op.Br. at 10. This ambiguity in Defendants’
`argument makes it unclear as to which construction Defendants are proposing. For the sake of
`efficiency, ParkerVision assumes that Defendants propose the construction that they have
`expressly asked the Court to “adopt…verbatim” (i.e. storing non-negligible amounts of energy
`from “an input EM signal”).
`7 Defendants also broadly allege in their construction that “all terms are indefinite under
`ParkerVision’s proposed constructions.” Def. Op.Br. at 10. But Defendants offer no evidence or
`additional arguments to support that bare assertion, and therefore it has no weight. See generally
`Def. Op.Br. at 10-15.
`8 Hereinafter “Def. Op.Br.”
`9 Hereinafter “108-Intel OpBr.”
`10 “Storage module” is used as shorthand for a “storage” element, module, or device.
`11 “Holding module” is used as shorthand for a “holding” element, module, or device.
`12 Hereinafter “108-PV OpBr.”
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 38 Filed 09/23/21 Page 15 of 50
`
`not appear to cover that embodiment.’”); see also Baran v. Med. Device Techs., Inc., 616 F.3d
`
`1309, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“It is not necessary that each patent claim read on every
`
`embodiment. It is often the case that different claims are directed to and cover different disclosed
`
`embodiments”). And as discussed below, the distinctions between a “storage” module in an
`
`energy transfer system and a “holding” module in a sample and hold system are spelled out in
`
`the patent specification.
`
`The parties agree that an energy “storage” module “stores non-negligible amounts of
`
`energy from an input electromagnetic (EM) signal.” But this feature alone does not distinguish a
`
`“storage” module of an energy transfer system from a “holding” module of a sample and hold
`
`system. There are two additional key distinguishing features – (1) the “storage” module is part of
`
`an energy transfer system, and (2) the “storage” module discharges energy to drive a low
`
`impedance load. ParkerVision’s construction accounts for both of these features.
`
`With regard to feature (1), the specification is clear that the term “storage” module is
`
`specific to an “energy transfer system” and a “holding” module, as the name implies, is specific
`
`to a sample and hold system. Whereas a “storage” module stores and transfers/discharges
`
`energy, a “holding” module is “holding a voltage value.”
`
`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.13
`
`
`
`13 Unless otherwise indicated, all emphasis has been added.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 38 Filed 09/23/21 Page 16 of 50
`
`’518 patent, 66:12-23. See also id. at 53:24 – 58:29 (discussing sample and hold systems); 65:56
`
`– 67:39, 97:14 – 101:67 (discussing energy transfer systems).
`
`
`
`This difference between “storage” and “holding” modules is also apparent in the figures.
`
`For example, as shown in Figures 68G and 82B above, when discussing an energy transfer
`
`system, the specification uses the term “storage” module/capacitance (green). See also id. at
`
`Figs. 65, 68A-G, 74, 82A, 82B, 95. On the other hand, as shown in Figures 29G and 78B above,
`
`when discussing a sample and hold system, the specification uses the term “holding”
`
`module/capacitance (yellow). See also id. at Figs. 24A, 27, 29A-G, 42, 65, 78A, 78B. As such,
`
`ParkerVision’s construction recites that the energy “storage” module is part of an “energy
`
`transfer system.”
`
`With regard to feature (2), the specification is clear that a low impedance load is
`
`fundamental to the operation of an energy transfer system. Indeed, a low impedance load is what
`
`makes a module a “storage” module as opposed to a “holding” module. As discussed in Section
`
`III above, a low impedance load provides little resistance to electrical current and, thus, energy
`
`can be transferred/discharged from a “storage” module. This unique feature of an energy transfer
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 38 Filed 09/23/21 Page 17 of 50
`
`system is what enables the “storage” module to drive a low impedance load. But if a load is high
`
`impedance, there would be high resistance to current and the module would “hold” a voltage. In
`
`other words, with a high impedance load, the module would be a “holding” module, not a
`
`“storage” module. Indeed, the specification specifically calls out driving a low impedance load
`
`as a “benefit” of an energy transfer system.
`
`Another benefit of the energy transfer system 8202 is that the non-negligible
`amounts of transferred energy permit the energy transfer system 8202 to
`effectively drive loads that would otherwise be classified as low impedance loads
`in under-sampling systems and conventional sampling systems. In other words,
`the non-negligible amounts of transferred energy ensure that, even for lower
`impedance loads, the storage capacitance 8208 accepts and maintains sufficient
`energy or charge to drive the load 8202.
`
`Id. at 66:61 – 67:3. Without a “storage” module driving a low impedance load, sufficient energy
`
`could not be transferred/discharged from the “storage” module in order to recover a down-
`
`converted signal from an input EM signal. In such a case, the module would be a “holding”
`
`m