Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 32-18 Filed 02/23/22 Page 1 of 47
`Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 32-18 Filed 02/23/22 Page 1 of 47
`
`EXHIBIT 19
`EXHIBIT 19
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00870-ADA Document 34 Filed 08/23/21 Page 1 of 46Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 32-18 Filed 02/23/22 Page 2 of 47
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`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
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00870-ADA Document 34 Filed 08/23/21 Page 2 of 46Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 32-18 Filed 02/23/22 Page 3 of 47
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`I.
`II.
`
`I.
`J.
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS ............................................................................................. 2
`A. “Low Impedance Load” ...................................................................................................... 2
`The Patents Fail To Provide Any Objective Boundary for Determining What
`1.
`Constitutes a “Low” Impedance Load .................................................................... 3
`Additional References In the Patent Specifications Do Not Provide the
`Needed Clarity ........................................................................................................ 5
`The Prosecution History Does Not Resolve the Uncertainty Over the
`Meaning of “Low Impedance Load” ...................................................................... 6
`The Court Should Reject ParkerVision’s Argument That “Low Impedance
`Load” Should Be Given an Unspecified “Plain-and-Ordinary Meaning” .............. 6
`B. “Said Energy Discharged From Said Capacitor Provides Sufficient Power to Drive
`the Low Impedance Load” .................................................................................................. 7
`C. “Storage” Terms................................................................................................................ 10
`1.
`The Express Definition in the Patents Governs .................................................... 10
`2.
`ParkerVision’s Construction Is Barred by Collateral Estoppel ............................ 11
`3.
`ParkerVision’s Proposed Construction Contradicts the Express Claim
`Language of the ’736 and ’637 Patent Claims ...................................................... 15
`D. “Voltage of the Input Modulated Carrier Signal is Not Reproduced or Approximated
`at the Capacitor During the Apertures or Outside of the Apertures” ................................ 16
`E. “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” ................................................................................................................... 18
`F. “Delay Module” Terms ..................................................................................................... 20
`G. “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” ............................................................................................................. 21
`H. “Means for Under-Sampling an Input Signal to Produce an Input Sample of a Down-
`Converted Image of Said Input Signal” ............................................................................ 22
`“First Delaying Means for Delaying Said Input Sample” ................................................ 24
`“A Frequency Translator To Produce a Sample of a Down-Converted Image of an
`Input Signal, and To Delay Said Sample” ........................................................................ 26
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00870-ADA Document 34 Filed 08/23/21 Page 3 of 46Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 32-18 Filed 02/23/22 Page 4 of 47
`
`K. “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” ....................... 27
`L. “Establishing Apertures” Terms ....................................................................................... 29
`M. “Frequency Down-Conversion Module” .......................................................................... 30
`N. “Under-Sample” / “Under-Samples” / “Under-Sampling” ............................................... 31
`O. “Harmonic” / “Harmonics” ............................................................................................... 31
`P. “Integral Filter/Frequency Translator to Filter and Down-Convert an Input Signal” ...... 32
`Q. “Modulated Signal” / “Modulated Carrier Signal” ........................................................... 32
`R. “Universal Frequency Downconverter (UFD)” ................................................................ 33
`[Wherein Said Storage Elements Comprises] “a Capacitor That Reduces a DC Offset
`S.
`Voltage in Said First-Down Converted Signal and Second Down Converted Signal” .... 34
`T. “DC Offset Voltage” ......................................................................................................... 34
`U. “Sampling Aperture” ........................................................................................................ 35
`V. “Switch” / “Switching Device” / “Switching Module” / “Switch Module” ..................... 36
`W. “A Down-Converted Signal Being Generated From Said Sampled Energy” ................... 37
`III.
`AGREED CLAIM TERM ................................................................................................ 39
`A. “The [] Switch Is Coupled to the [] Storage Element at a [] Node and Coupled to a []
`Reference Potential” (’474 patent, claim 1) ...................................................................... 39
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 39
`
`IV.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00870-ADA Document 34 Filed 08/23/21 Page 4 of 46Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 32-18 Filed 02/23/22 Page 5 of 47
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Eon Corp. IP Holdings v. Silver Spring Networks,
`815 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..............................................................................................7, 9
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. ESET, LLC,
`No. 3:17-cv-0183-CAB-BGS, 2021 WL 1241143 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2021) ..........................7
`
`Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC,
`514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..........................................................................................4, 5, 8
`
`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, 28
`
`Jack Guttman, Inc. v. Kopykake Enter., Inc.,
`302 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2002)................................................................................................32
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 898 (2014) ...............................................................................................................3, 8
`
`Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc.,
`675 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................19
`
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..............................................................................................7, 9
`
`ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc.,
`621 F. App’x 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................13, 15, 38
`
`ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc.,
`No. 3:11-cv-719-J-37-TEM, 2013 WL 633077 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 20, 2013) .............................12
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F. 3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)...............................................................................15
`
`Princeton Digit. Image Corp. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. 13-237-LPS, 2019 WL 351258 (D. Del. Jan. 29, 2019) .....................................................6
`
`Semcon IP Inc. v. Huawei Device USA Inc.,
`No. 2:16-cv-00437-JRG-RSP, 2017 WL 2972193 (E.D. Tex. July 12, 2017) ..........................3
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00870-ADA Document 34 Filed 08/23/21 Page 5 of 46Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 32-18 Filed 02/23/22 Page 6 of 47
`
`Signal IP v. Am. Honda Motor Co.,
`No. LA CV-14-02454-JAK, 2015 WL 5768344 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2015) .............................6
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) ....................................................................... passim
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2) ..................................................................................................................14
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00870-ADA Document 34 Filed 08/23/21 Page 6 of 46Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 32-18 Filed 02/23/22 Page 7 of 47
`
`Defendants 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 Moka Manufacturing S.A. De C.V. (collectively “TCL”) and Defendants
`
`Hisense Co., Ltd. and Hisense Visual Technology Co., Ltd. (f/k/a Qingdao Hisense Electronics
`
`Co., Ltd. and Hisense Electric Co., Ltd.) (collectively “Hisense”) (TCL and Hisense are
`
`collectively referred to as “Defendants”) submit their opening claim construction brief.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiff ParkerVision, Inc. (“ParkerVision”) asserts the same ten patents in the TCL and
`
`Hisense cases: USP 6,049,706 (“the ’706 patent”)(Ex. 1); USP 6,266,518 (the ’518 patent) (Ex.
`
`2); USP 6,580,902 (the ’902 patent) (Ex. 3); USP 7,110,444 (the ’444 patent) (Ex. 4); USP
`
`7,292,835 (the ’835 patent) (Ex. 5); USP 8,588,725 (the ’725 patent) (Ex. 6); USP 8,660,513
`
`(the ’513 patent) (Ex. 7); USP 9,118,528 (the ’528 patent) (Ex. 8); USP 9,246,736 (the ’736
`
`patent) (Ex. 9); USP 9,444,673 (the ’673 patent) (Ex. 10) (collectively, “Asserted Patents”). This
`
`Court previously construed several of the disputed terms in ParkerVision’s cases against Intel,
`
`and the associated Orders are attached as Exs. 11 and 12.1 While Defendants here seek
`
`construction of several terms not previously construed by this Court, Defendants also ask the
`
`Court to adopt a number of constructions that differ from the constructions entered by the Court
`
`in the prior Orders. Given that Defendants were not parties in the prior cases,2 and for the
`
`
`1 Terms that this Court construed in the ParkerVision v. Intel cases are discussed in this brief at
`Sections II.C, II.E, II.F, II.G, II.H, II.I, II.J, II.N, II.O, II.P, II.Q, II.R, II.S, II.T, II.U, II.V, II.W.
`2 ParkerVision, in contrast, was a full participant in the proceedings leading to the Court’s prior
`Orders, and as such should not be heard to seek reconsideration here of constructions from the
`Court’s prior Orders with which it apparently continues to disagree (e.g., “storage module”). See
`Section II.C, infra. (ParkerVision asking to modify the Court’s previous order as to many claim
`terms across numerous patents by reading in “for driving a low impedance load”).
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00870-ADA Document 34 Filed 08/23/21 Page 7 of 46Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 32-18 Filed 02/23/22 Page 8 of 47
`
`reasons set forth in this brief, Defendants nonetheless respectfully request full consideration of
`
`their arguments on those previously construed terms.
`
`II.
`
`DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS
`
`The earliest alleged priority date for any Asserted Patent is October 21, 1998, but some of
`
`the Asserted Patents claim a later priority date in 1999 or 2000. A person having ordinary skill
`
`in the relevant art at the time of the purported inventions of the Asserted Patents would have
`
`been someone with at least an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering or a related subject
`
`and two or more years of experience in the fields of communication systems, signal processing
`
`and/or RF circuit design. Less work experience may be compensated by a higher level of
`
`education, such as a master’s degree. See Declaration of Matthew B. Shoemake, Ph.D.
`
`(referenced herein as “Shoemake Decl.”) ¶¶ 29-34.
`
`A.
`
`“Low Impedance Load”
`
`Claim Term
`
`Defendants’
`Construction
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`
`“low impedance load”
`(’736 claims 26 and 27; ’673 claim 5)
`
`Indefinite
`
`Plain-and-ordinary meaning
`
`The intrinsic evidence does not provide an objective boundary for determining what is a
`
`“low impedance load.” The specification describes a “low impedance load” as “one that is
`
`significant relative to the output drive impedance of the system for a given output frequency.”
`
`Ex. 9 (’736 patent) at 73:52-58 and Ex. 10 (’673 patent) at 67:52-58 (emphasis added). Yet this
`
`description merely shifts the uncertainty as to what is considered “low” to a different subjective
`
`term of degree (i.e., “significantly relevant”), and does nothing to resolve it. Further, this
`
`description indicates that whether an impedance is “low” also depends on the “output frequency”
`
`of a given system at some indeterminate time. As such, in order to determine whether a given
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00870-ADA Document 34 Filed 08/23/21 Page 8 of 46Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 32-18 Filed 02/23/22 Page 9 of 47
`
`device infringes, not only must one of ordinary skill somehow divine what is “significant relative
`
`to the output drive impedance,” she must also predict the output frequencies with which the
`
`system ultimately will be utilized. Reasonable certainty regarding claim scope is impossible for
`
`one of ordinary skill under such a regime, and this term is therefore indefinite. Nautilus, Inc. v.
`
`Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 901 (2014) (holding that a patent is indefinite “if its
`
`claims, read in light of the specification delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to
`
`inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.”).
`
`1.
`
`The Patents Fail To Provide Any Objective Boundary for
`Determining What Constitutes a “Low” Impedance Load
`
`The patents describe what is “low impedance” or “high impedance” in purely subjective
`
`ways. Both specifications instruct that a “low impedance load” is “one that is significant
`
`relative to the output drive impedance of the system for a given output frequency.” Ex. 9 (’736
`
`patent) at 73:52-58 and Ex. 10 (’673 patent) at 67:52-58; see also ’736 patent at 76:34-40
`
`and ’673 patent at 70:34-40 (“Recall from the overview of under-sampling that loads can be
`
`classified as high impedance loads or low impedance loads. A high impedance load is one that is
`
`relatively insignificant to an output drive impedance of the system for a given output frequency.
`
`A low impedance load is one that is relatively significant.”) (emphasis added in both cases). But
`
`defining “low impedance” as one that is “relatively significant” to an output drive impedance
`
`“just shifts the uncertainty, it does not resolve it.” Semcon IP Inc. v. Huawei Device USA Inc.,
`
`No. 2:16-cv-00437-JRG-RSP, 2017 WL 2972193, at *25 (E.D. Tex. July 12, 2017) (finding
`
`“relatively short messages” indefinite). See Shoemake Decl. ¶¶ 40-52.
`
`Likewise, the described dependency of “low impedance” on a “given output frequency”
`
`renders it indeterminate. Shoemake Decl. ¶¶ 45-47. Electrical “impedance” measures the degree
`
`to which a circuit resists the flow of current. Id. In an alternating current circuit, the current
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00870-ADA Document 34 Filed 08/23/21 Page 9 of 46Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 32-18 Filed 02/23/22 Page 10 of 47
`
`varies with frequency, and so does the impedance. Id. Thus, the impedance of a load in circuit
`
`can be made much lower or much higher simply by changing the circuit’s frequency. Id. As
`
`such, it makes no sense to refer to the measure of a load impedance without specifying an
`
`operating frequency. Id.
`
`Again, the specification merely discloses that “low impedance” is a function of “a given
`
`output frequency”; it entirely fails to specify what frequency (or range of frequencies) would
`
`make it “low.” 3 Ex. 9 (’736 patent) at 73:52-58 (defining a low impedance load as “one that is
`
`significant relative to the output drive impedance of the system for a given output frequency”);
`
`Ex. 10 (’673 patent) at 67:52-58 (same). And no other claims in the ’736 patent or the ’673
`
`patent specify the requisite frequency (or range of frequencies). Further, whether a load is “low
`
`impedance” could change depending on the actual output frequency used by a given operator,
`
`making infringement impermissibly contingent on the set of circumstances in which the circuit
`
`may be used. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
`
`(finding a term indefinite when it requires one of ordinary skill to“ make a separate infringement
`
`determination for every set of circumstances in which the [circuit] may be used,” and “such
`
`determinations are likely to result in differing outcomes (sometimes infringing and sometimes
`
`not)”). Given this ambiguity, one of ordinary skill in the art would have no hope of determining
`
`whether a given system falls within the scope of the claims, and the claim is indefinite. See
`
`Shoemake Decl. ¶¶ 45-47.
`
`
`3 Notably, ParkerVision itself contends that its purported invention is useful for generating a
`“down converted output signal from an input signal from a wide range of … frequencies.” See
`Section II.R, infra.
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00870-ADA Document 34 Filed 08/23/21 Page 10 of 46Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 32-18 Filed 02/23/22 Page 11 of 47
`
`2.
`
`Additional References In the Patent Specifications Do Not Provide the
`Needed Clarity
`
`The other statements in the specification also do not provide the requisite objective
`
`boundary for determining “low impedance.” For example, the specification states
`
`“When the load 7812 is a low impedance load, the holding capacitance 7808 is
`significantly discharged by the 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 seen in the case of FIG. 79D. Instead, the
`charge appears as the output illustrated in FIG. 80D.”
`
`Ex. 9 (’736 patent) at 74:10-16; Ex. 10 (’673 patent) at 68:10-16 (emphasis added). The phrase
`
`“significantly discharged” fares no better than the description “significant relative to the output
`
`drive impedance” discussed previously and does nothing to cure the frequency-dependent
`
`ambiguity in the term “low impedance.” Shoemake Decl. ¶¶ 48-49. And whether something is
`
`“significantly discharged” also will vary by application of the circuit, again demonstrating that
`
`the scope of the circuit claim is impermissibly circumstance-dependent. Halliburton, 514 at 1255.
`
`The patents’ shared figures also do not resolve the uncertainty. For example, figure 79D
`
`shows a circuit where the voltage on the capacitor is perfectly held while the switch is open—as
`
`indicated by the perfectly horizontal “stair step” shape:
`
`This scenario illustrates a circuit having a very “high” (effectively infinite) impedance load.
`
`Shoemake Decl. ¶ 50. Figure 80D illustrates a capacitor discharging to a load having a lower
`
`impedance—as indicated by the droop in the signal between times when the switch is closed:
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00870-ADA Document 34 Filed 08/23/21 Page 11 of 46Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 32-18 Filed 02/23/22 Page 12 of 47
`
`
`
`Shoemake Decl. ¶ 50. But where is the boundary between these two scenarios? When does the
`
`droop cross over from a “low” to a “high” impedance load? And is there some neutral ground in
`
`between the two that is neither “low” nor “high”? The patent provides no guidance, leaving the
`
`determination to the unpredictable vagaries of any one person’s opinion. See, e.g., Signal IP v.
`
`Am. Honda Motor Co., No. LA CV-14-02454-JAK (JEMx), 2015 WL 5768344, at *55 (C.D. Cal.
`
`Apr. 17, 2015) (finding claim indefinite that recited a “relatively low vehicle torque demand”
`
`where examples in the specification “describe positions at the extremely high and extremely low
`
`ends of the spectrum, but do not help define the boundaries of ‘relatively high’ and ‘relatively
`
`low’” (citation omitted)); Princeton Digit. Image Corp. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 13-237-LPS,
`
`2019 WL 351258, at *9 (D. Del. Jan. 29, 2019) (finding claim reciting “significantly smaller”
`
`indefinite).
`
`3.
`
`The Prosecution History Does Not Resolve the Uncertainty Over the
`Meaning of “Low Impedance Load”
`
`Neither prosecution history—the ’736 or ’637—provides any clarification of what
`
`qualifies or does not qualify as a “low impedance load.”
`
`4.
`
`The Court Should Reject ParkerVision’s Argument That “Low
`Impedance Load” Should Be Given an Unspecified “Plain-and-
`Ordinary Meaning”
`
`ParkerVision’s proposed construction does nothing to remedy the ambiguity in the term
`
`“low impedance load.” See Shoemake Decl. ¶ 51. ParkerVision simply argues that “low
`
`impedance load” should be given its “plain-and-ordinary meaning,” with no explanation of what
`
`that is, or how one of ordinary skill could determine what constitutes a “low impedance load” in
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00870-ADA Document 34 Filed 08/23/21 Page 12 of 46Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 32-18 Filed 02/23/22 Page 13 of 47
`
`the context of these patents. See Finjan, Inc. v. ESET, LLC, No. 3:17-cv-0183-CAB-BGS, 2021
`
`WL 1241143, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2021) (finding term indefinite where plaintiff “never
`
`offered evidence of a reasonable range for the size of a small executable or interpretable
`
`application program …based on examples provided in the patent specification”). This is not
`
`surprising, as the patents provide no such guidance, and the term is indefinite. Nonetheless, even
`
`if the Court does not agree with Defendants, at a minimum the Court should provide a
`
`substantive construction that does not leave the “question of claim scope unanswered.” Eon Corp.
`
`IP Holdings v. Silver Spring Networks, 815 F.3d 1314, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“By determining
`
`only that the terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning, the court left this question
`
`of claim scope unanswered, leaving it for the jury to decide. This was legal error.”); O2 Micro
`
`Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`B.
`
`“Said Energy Discharged From Said Capacitor Provides Sufficient Power to
`Drive the Low Impedance Load”
`
`Claim Term
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`
`Indefinite
`
`Plain-and-ordinary meaning
`
`“said energy discharged from
`said capacitor provides
`sufficient power to drive the
`low impedance load”
`(’673 claim 5)
`
`The phrase “said energy discharged from said capacitor provides sufficient power to
`
`drive the low impedance load” is indefinite because the claims, specification, and prosecution
`
`history of the ’673 patent provide no objective boundary for determining what is a “low
`
`impedance load” as discussed in the prior section. See Section I.A, supra. Additionally,
`
`the ’673 patent fails to inform one of ordinary skill with “reasonable certainty” how much power
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00870-ADA Document 34 Filed 08/23/21 Page 13 of 46Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 32-18 Filed 02/23/22 Page 14 of 47
`
`is “sufficient” to drive a low impedance load. See Nautilus, 572 U.S. at 901. See Shoemake Decl.
`
`¶¶ 53-58.
`
`As an initial matter, the ’673 patent uses the phrase “sufficient power” only once—in
`
`claim 5. The phrase is absent from the rest of the specification. Instead, the specification merely
`
`proffers that “the storage module should have an impedance at the desired output frequencies
`
`that is preferably greater than or equal to the load that is intended to be driven (for example, in
`
`an embodiment, storage module impedance at a desired 1 MHZ output frequency is 2K ohm and
`
`the desired load to be driven is 50 ohms).” Ex. 10 (’673 patent) at 120:1-9 (emphasis added). It
`
`says nothing about how to determine what is “sufficient power” to drive the load under this
`
`embodiment (or any scenario for that matter). Shoemake Decl. ¶¶ 54-56. Compounding the
`
`uncertainty, as discussed previously, impedance is a function of frequency, but the claims do not
`
`specify any operating frequency. Id. An amount of energy may be “sufficient” to drive a load at
`
`some frequencies, but insufficient at other frequencies. Id. The claims thus impermissibly
`
`require an artisan to “make a separate infringement determination for every set of circumstances
`
`in which the [circuit] may be used,” and “such determinations are likely to result in differing
`
`outcomes (sometimes infringing and sometimes not).” Halliburton, 514 F.3d at 1255.
`
`The specification provides an example where energy can “efficiently drive lower
`
`impedance loads.” But “efficiently” driving a load and having “sufficient power” to drive a load
`
`are different concepts. See Ex. 10 (’673 patent) at 71:4-17 (“The down-converted signal 8312 is
`
`similar to the down-converted signal illustrated in FIG. 79F, except that the down-converted
`
`signal 8312 has substantially more power (e.g.: V2/R; approximately (˜) 2 mV and 2K Ohms)
`
`than the down-converted signal illustrated in FIG. 79F (e.g.: V2/R; ˜5 mV and 1M Ohms). As a
`
`result, the down-converted signals 8310 and 8312 can efficiently drive lower impedance loads,
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00870-ADA Document 34 Filed 08/23/21 Page 14 of 46Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 32-18 Filed 02/23/22 Page 15 of 47
`
`given the input EM signal 8204 would typically have a driving impedance, in an RF environment,
`
`of 50 Ohms (V2/R; ˜5 mV and 50 Ohms).” (emphasis added); Shoemake Decl. ¶ 57.
`
`Similarly, the specification describes embodiments where an energy transfer system can
`
`“drive lower impedance loads unassisted.” Ex. 10 (’673 patent) at 65:61-67 (emphasis added).
`
`And while such examples presumably have “sufficient power,” such examples fail to inform one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art how to determine with reasonable certainty whether a given circuit has
`
`“sufficient power.” Shoemake Decl. ¶ 58. And, again, given that impedance changes with
`
`frequency, a quantity of energy may be able to drive a load unassisted at some frequencies but
`
`not others, making the term even less determinate. Id.
`
`And for the same reasons discussed previously for “low impedance load,” the Court
`
`should reject ParkerVision’s request to punt this term to the jury by adopting the unspecified
`
`“plain and ordinary meaning.” Eon Corp. IP Holdings, 815 F.3d at 1319 (“By determining only
`
`that the terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning, the court left this question of
`
`claim scope unanswered, leaving it for the jury to decide. This was legal error.”); O2 Micro Int’l
`
`Ltd., 521 F.3d at 1361 (“A determination that a claim term ‘needs no construction’ or has the
`
`‘plain and ordinary meaning’ may be inadequate when a term has more than one ‘ordinary’
`
`meaning or when reliance on a term’s ‘ordinary’ meaning does not resolve the parties’ dispute.”).
`
`//
`
`//
`
`//
`
`//
`
`//
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00870-ADA Document 34 Filed 08/23/21 Page 15 of 46Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 32-18 Filed 02/23/22 Page 16 of 47
`
`C.
`
`“Storage” Terms
`
`Claim Term
`
`Defendants’
`Construction
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`
`“an apparatus that stores
`non-negligible amounts
`of energy from the carrier
`signal.”
`(All terms are indefinite
`under ParkerVision’s
`proposed constructions.)
`
`“Energy Storage Element” /
`“Storage Element”; “Energy
`Storage Module” / “Storage
`Module”; “Energy Storage
`Device”
`(’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)
`
`Energy storage element / storage
`element: “an element of an energy
`transfer system that stores non-
`negligible 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 non-
`negligible 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.”
`
`Defendants propose the verbatim definition provided in the intrinsic record for all of the
`
`energy “storage” terms. Indeed, ParkerVision previously admitted that this construction is
`
`correct. Nonetheless, ParkerVision now seeks to re-write the claims by importing two additional
`
`limitations: (1) “of an energy transfer system” and (2) “for driving a low impedance load.” The
`
`Court should reject ParkerVision’s arguments.
`
`1.
`
`The Express Definition in the Patents Governs
`
`In distinguishing between “storage” and “holding” modules, the patents expressly define
`
`what constitutes a “storage module”:
`
`The term storage module and storage capacitance, as used herein, are
`distinguishable from the terms holding module and holding capacitance,
`respectively. Holding modules … identify systems that store negligible amounts
`of energy from an under sampled input EM signal with the intent of “holding” a
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00870-ADA Document 34 Filed 08/23/21 Page 16 of 46Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 32-18 Filed 02/23/22 Page 17 of 47
`
`voltage value. Storage modules … on the other hand, refer to systems that store
`non-negligible amounts of energy from an input EM signal.
`
`Ex. 8 (‘528 patent) at 73:14-22; see also Ex. 10 (’673 patent) at 69:61-70:2; Ex. 9 (’736 patent)
`
`at 75:61-76:2; Ex. 3 (’902 patent) at 69:65-70:6. Defendants ask the Court to adopt this
`
`definition verbatim.
`
`In fact, in a prior proceeding, ParkerVision itself told the PTAB that “the term ‘a storage
`
`module’ … should be construed to mean ‘an apparatus that stores non-negligible amounts of
`
`energy from the carrier signal’” (Ex. 13 (IPR2014-00948 Patent Owner Preliminary Response) at
`
`37), and that its patents “explicitly” define the term in this manner (Id. at 21 (emphasis added)).
`
`And the PTAB relied upon ParkerVision’s statements in its Institution Decision. Ex. 14
`
`(IPR2014-00948 Institution Decision) at 10 (“Both parties agree that ‘storage module’ is … a
`
`system that stores ‘non-negligible amounts of energy from an input EM signal.’”).4 The Court
`
`should hold ParkerVision to its prior representation.
`
`2.
`
`ParkerVision’s Construction Is Barred by Collateral Estoppel
`
`Moreover, due to final decisions by the Federal Circuit and the PTAB, ParkerVision is
`
`collaterally estopped from arguing that a “storage” module is “of an energy transfer system” and
`
`store