Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 33 Filed 02/24/22 Page 1 of 36
`
`
`PARKERVISION, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:21-cv-00520-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`DEFENDANT’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 33 Filed 02/24/22 Page 2 of 36
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 2 
`
`A. 
`
`Storage Terms (Term 1) .......................................................................................... 2 
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`LGE’s Proposed Construction Adopts the Inventors’ Express
`Lexicography for the Storage Terms .......................................................... 3 
`
`ParkerVision Tries to Re-Write Its Express Definition .............................. 5 
`
`B. 
`
`The Term “Cable Modem” in the Preamble is Not Limiting (Term 2) .................. 8 
`
`III. 
`
`TERMS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE FROM BRIEFING IN PRIOR
`LITIGATIONS ................................................................................................................. 12 
`
`IV. 
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 25 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 33 Filed 02/24/22 Page 3 of 36
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS AND EXHIBITS
`Abbreviation
`Description
`LGE
`ParkerVision
`’706 patent
`’518 patent
`’902 patent
`’444 patent
`’835 patent
`’725 patent
`’513 patent
`’528 patent
`’736 patent
`’673 patent
`Asserted Patents
`
`LG Electronics Inc.
`ParkerVision, Inc.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,049,706 to Cook et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,266,518 to Sorrells et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,580,902 to Sorrells et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,110,444 to Sorrells et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,292,835 to Sorrells et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,588,725 to Sorrells et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,660,513 to Sorrells et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 9,118,528 to Sorrells et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 9,246,736 to Sorrells et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 9,444,673 to Sorrells et al.
`The ’706, ’518, ’902, ’444, ’835,’725,’513, ’528,’736,’673
`patents
`February 17, 2022 Email from Jeff Melsheimer, Law
`Clerk to the Honorable Alan D. Albright
`Claim Construction Order in ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel
`Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108, Dkt. No. 75 (W.D. Tex. Jan.
`26, 2021)
`Amended Claim Construction Order, ParkerVision, Inc. v.
`Intel Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00562, Dkt. No. 66 (W.D. Tex.
`Oct. 22, 2021)
`Special Master’s Recommended Claim Constructions,
`ParkerVision, Inc. v. Hisense Co., No. 6:20-cv-00870,
`Dkt. No. 51 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 29, 2021); Special Master’s
`Recommended Claim Constructions, ParkerVision, Inc. v.
`TCL Indus. Holdings Co., No. 6:20-cv-00945, Dkt. No. 49
`(W.D. Tex. Oct. 29, 2021)
`Final Written Decision, Intel Corp. v. ParkerVision, Inc.,
`IPR2020-01265, Pap. 44 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 21, 2022)
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response, Farmwald v.
`ParkerVision, Inc., IPR2014-00948, Pap. 7 (P.T.A.B.
`Sept. 24, 2014)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,061,551 to Sorrells et al.
`’551 patent
`U.S. Patent No. 6,370,371 to Sorrells et al.
`’371 patent
`TCL/Hisense Op. Br. Defendants’ Opening Claim Construction Brief,
`ParkerVision, Inc. v. Hisense Co., No. 6:20-cv-00870,
`Dkt. No. 34 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 23, 2021)
`Declaration of Edward J. Mayle in Support of Defendants’
`Opening Claim Construction Brief (ParkerVision, Inc. v.
`Hisense Co., No. 6:20-cv-00870, Dkt. No. 34-1)
`Exhibit 1 to TCL/Hisense Op. Br. (ParkerVision, Inc. v.
`Hisense Co., No. 6:20-cv-00870, Dkt. No. 34-2)
`
`Exhibit
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`18
`19
`
`19-1
`
`19-2
`
`Court’s Permission
`
`Intel 108 CC Or.
`
`Intel 562 CC Or.
`
`TCL/Hisense Special
`Master’s Rec. CC
`
`’444 FWD
`
`IPR2014-00948
`POPR
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 33 Filed 02/24/22 Page 4 of 36
`
`Abbreviation
`
`Exhibit
`19-3
`
`19-4
`
`19-5
`
`19-6
`
`19-7
`
`19-8
`
`19-9
`
`19-10
`
`19-11
`
`19-12
`
`19-13
`
`19-14
`
`19-15
`
`19-16
`
`19-17
`
`19-18
`
`19-19
`
`19-20
`
`19-21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Description
`Exhibit 2 to TCL/Hisense Op. Br. (ParkerVision, Inc. v.
`Hisense Co., No. 6:20-cv-00870, Dkt. No. 34-3)
`Exhibit 3 to TCL/Hisense Op. Br. (ParkerVision, Inc. v.
`Hisense Co., No. 6:20-cv-00870, Dkt. No. 34-4)
`Exhibit 4 to TCL/Hisense Op. Br. (ParkerVision, Inc. v.
`Hisense Co., No. 6:20-cv-00870, Dkt. No. 34-5)
`Exhibit 5 to TCL/Hisense Op. Br. (ParkerVision, Inc. v.
`Hisense Co., No. 6:20-cv-00870, Dkt. No. 34-6)
`Exhibit 6 to TCL/Hisense Op. Br. (ParkerVision, Inc. v.
`Hisense Co., No. 6:20-cv-00870, Dkt. No. 34-7)
`Exhibit 7 to TCL/Hisense Op. Br. (ParkerVision, Inc. v.
`Hisense Co., No. 6:20-cv-00870, Dkt. No. 34-8)
`Exhibit 8 to TCL/Hisense Op. Br. (ParkerVision, Inc. v.
`Hisense Co., No. 6:20-cv-00870, Dkt. No. 34-9)
`Exhibit 9 to TCL/Hisense Op. Br. (ParkerVision, Inc. v.
`Hisense Co., No. 6:20-cv-00870, Dkt. No. 34-10)
`Exhibit 10 to TCL/Hisense Op. Br. (ParkerVision, Inc. v.
`Hisense Co., No. 6:20-cv-00870, Dkt. No. 34-11)
`Exhibit 11 to TCL/Hisense Op. Br. (ParkerVision, Inc. v.
`Hisense Co., No. 6:20-cv-00870, Dkt. No. 34-12)
`Exhibit 12 to TCL/Hisense Op. Br. (ParkerVision, Inc. v.
`Hisense Co., No. 6:20-cv-00870, Dkt. No. 34-13)
`Exhibit 13 to TCL/Hisense Op. Br. (ParkerVision, Inc. v.
`Hisense Co., No. 6:20-cv-00870, Dkt. No. 34-14)
`Exhibit 14 to TCL/Hisense Op. Br. (ParkerVision, Inc. v.
`Hisense Co., No. 6:20-cv-00870, Dkt. No. 34-15)
`Exhibit 15 to TCL/Hisense Op. Br. (ParkerVision, Inc. v.
`Hisense Co., No. 6:20-cv-00870, Dkt. No. 34-16)
`Exhibit 16 to TCL/Hisense Op. Br. (ParkerVision, Inc. v.
`Hisense Co., No. 6:20-cv-00870, Dkt. No. 34-17)
`Exhibit 17 (Corrected) to TCL/Hisense Op. Br.
`(ParkerVision, Inc. v. Hisense Co., No. 6:20-cv-00870,
`Dkt. No. 36-1)
`Exhibit 18 (Corrected) to TCL/Hisense Op. Br.
`(ParkerVision, Inc. v. Hisense Co., No. 6:20-cv-00870,
`Dkt. No. 36-2)
`Declaration of Matthew Shoemake B. Shoemake in
`Support of Defendants’ Opening Claim Construction Brief
`(ParkerVision, Inc. v. Hisense Co., No. 6:20-cv-00870,
`Dkt. No. 34-20)
`Appendix 1 to Declaration of Matthew Shoemake B.
`Shoemake in Support of Defendants’ Opening Claim
`Construction Brief (ParkerVision, Inc. v. Hisense Co., No.
`6:20-cv-00870, Dkt. No. 34-21)
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 33 Filed 02/24/22 Page 5 of 36
`
`Abbreviation
`
`Exhibit
`19-22
`
`19-23
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`20-1
`
`20-2
`
`21
`
`21-1
`
`21-2
`
`21-3
`
`21-4
`
`21-5
`
`21-6
`
`21-7
`
`21-8
`
`21-9
`
`TCL/Hisense Rep.
`Br.
`
`
`
`
`
`Intel 562 Resp. Br.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`Intel 562 Rep. Br.
`
`Description
`Appendix 2 to Declaration of Matthew Shoemake B.
`Shoemake in Support of Defendants’ Opening Claim
`Construction Brief (ParkerVision, Inc. v. Hisense Co., No.
`6:20-cv-00870, Dkt. No. 34-22)
`Appendix 3 to Declaration of Matthew Shoemake B.
`Shoemake in Support of Defendants’ Opening Claim
`Construction Brief (ParkerVision, Inc. v. Hisense Co., No.
`6:20-cv-00870, Dkt. No. 34-23)
`Defendants’ Reply Claim Construction Brief,
`ParkerVision, Inc. v. Hisense Co., No. 6:20-cv-00870,
`Dkt. No. 42 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 4, 2021)
`Declaration of Edward J. Mayle in Support of Defendants’
`Reply Claim Construction Brief (ParkerVision, Inc. v.
`Hisense Co., No. 6:20-cv-00870, Dkt. No. 42-1)
`Exhibit 1 to TCL/Hisense Rep. Br. (ParkerVision, Inc. v.
`Hisense Co., No. 6:20-cv-00870, Dkt. No. 42-2)
`Intel Corporation’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief
`in ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00562,
`Dkt. No. 41 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 2, 2021)
`Declaration of Marissa A. Lalli in Support of Defendant
`Intel Corporation’s Opening Claim Construction Brief
`(ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00562, Dkt.
`No. 41-1)
`Exhibit 1 to Intel 562 Resp. Br. (ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel
`Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00562, Dkt. No. 41-2)
`Exhibit 2 to Intel 562 Resp. Br. (ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel
`Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00562, Dkt. No. 41-3)
`Exhibit 3 to Intel 562 Resp. Br. (ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel
`Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00562, Dkt. No. 41-4)
`Exhibit 4 to Intel 562 Resp. Br. (ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel
`Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00562, Dkt. No. 41-5)
`Exhibit 5 to Intel 562 Resp. Br. (ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel
`Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00562, Dkt. No. 41-6)
`Exhibit 6 to Intel 562 Resp. Br. (ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel
`Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00562, Dkt. No. 41-7)
`Exhibit 7 to Intel 562 Resp. Br. (ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel
`Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00562, Dkt. No. 41-8)
`Declaration of Dr. Daniel W. van der Weide in Support of
`Intel Corporation’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief
`(ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00562, Dkt.
`No. 41-9)
`Intel Corporation’s Reply Claim Construction Brief,
`ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00562, Dkt.
`No. 44 (W.D. Tex. May 12, 2021)
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 33 Filed 02/24/22 Page 6 of 36
`
`Exhibit
`22-1
`
`
`
`Abbreviation
`
`23
`
`Intel 108 Op. Br.
`
`23-1
`
`23-2
`
`23-3
`
`23-4
`
`23-5
`
`23-6
`
`23-7
`
`23-8
`
`23-9
`
`23-10
`
`23-11
`
`23-12
`
`23-13
`
`23-14
`
`23-15
`
`23-16
`
`23-17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Description
`Declaration of Dr. Daniel W. van der Weide in Support of
`Intel Corporation’s Reply Claim Construction Brief
`(ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00562, Dkt.
`No. 44-1)
`[SEALED] Intel Corporation’s Opening Claim
`Construction Brief, ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel Corp., No.
`6:20-cv-00108, Dkt. No. 53 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 2, 2020)
`Defendant Intel Corporation’s Supplement to Opening
`Claim Construction Brief in ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel
`Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108, Dkt. No. 54 (W.D. Tex. Nov.
`2, 2020)
`Appendix A to Intel 108 Op. Br. (ParkerVision, Inc. v.
`Intel Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108, Dkt. No. 54-1)
`Declaration of Sarah B. Petty in Support of Defendant
`Intel Corporation’s Opening Claim Construction Brief
`(ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108, Dkt.
`No. 54-2)
`[SEALED] Exhibit 1 to Intel 108 Op. Br. (ParkerVision,
`Inc. v. Intel Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108, Dkt. No. 53-1)
`Exhibit 2 to Intel 108 Op. Br. (ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel
`Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108, Dkt. No. 54-3)
`Exhibit 3 to Intel 108 Op. Br. (ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel
`Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108, Dkt. No. 54-4)
`Exhibit 4 to Intel 108 Op. Br. (ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel
`Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108, Dkt. No. 54-5)
`Exhibit 5 to Intel 108 Op. Br. (ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel
`Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108, Dkt. No. 54-6)
`Exhibit 6 to Intel 108 Op. Br. (ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel
`Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108, Dkt. No. 54-7)
`Exhibit 7 to Intel 108 Op. Br. (ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel
`Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108, Dkt. No. 54-8)
`Exhibit 8 to Intel 108 Op. Br. (ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel
`Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108, Dkt. No. 54-9)
`Exhibit 9 to Intel 108 Op. Br. (ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel
`Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108, Dkt. No. 54-10)
`Exhibit 10 to Intel 108 Op. Br. (ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel
`Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108, Dkt. No. 54-11)
`Exhibit 11 to Intel 108 Op. Br. (ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel
`Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108, Dkt. No. 54-12)
`Exhibit 12 to Intel 108 Op. Br. (ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel
`Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108, Dkt. No. 54-13)
`Exhibit 13 to Intel 108 Op. Br. (ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel
`Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108, Dkt. No. 54-14)
`Exhibit 14 to Intel 108 Op. Br. (ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel
`Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108, Dkt. No. 54-15)
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 33 Filed 02/24/22 Page 7 of 36
`
`Exhibit
`23-18
`
`23-19
`
`23-20
`
`23-21
`
`23-22
`
`23-23
`
`23-24
`
`23-25
`
`23-26
`
`23-27
`
`23-28
`
`23-29
`
`23-30
`
`23-31
`
`23-32
`
`23-33
`
`23-34
`
`23-35
`
`23-36
`
`24
`
`Abbreviation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Intel 108 Resp. Br.
`
`24-1
`
`
`
`Description
`Exhibit 15 to Intel 108 Op. Br. (ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel
`Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108, Dkt. No. 54-16)
`Exhibit 16 to Intel 108 Op. Br. (ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel
`Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108, Dkt. No. 54-17)
`Exhibit 17 to Intel 108 Op. Br. (ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel
`Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108, Dkt. No. 54-18)
`Exhibit 18 to Intel 108 Op. Br. (ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel
`Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108, Dkt. No. 54-19)
`Exhibit 19 to Intel 108 Op. Br. (ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel
`Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108, Dkt. No. 54-20)
`Exhibit 20 to Intel 108 Op. Br. (ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel
`Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108, Dkt. No. 54-21)
`Exhibit 21 to Intel 108 Op. Br. (ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel
`Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108, Dkt. No. 54-22)
`Exhibit 22 to Intel 108 Op. Br. (ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel
`Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108, Dkt. No. 54-23)
`Exhibit 23 to Intel 108 Op. Br. (ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel
`Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108, Dkt. No. 54-24)
`Exhibit 24 to Intel 108 Op. Br. (ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel
`Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108, Dkt. No. 54-25)
`[SEALED] Exhibit 25 to Intel 108 Op. Br. (ParkerVision,
`Inc. v. Intel Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108, Dkt. No. 53-2)
`[SEALED] Exhibit 26 to Intel 108 Op. Br. (ParkerVision,
`Inc. v. Intel Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108, Dkt. No. 53-3)
`Exhibit 27 to Intel 108 Op. Br. (ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel
`Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108, Dkt. No. 54-26)
`Exhibit 28 to Intel 108 Op. Br. (ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel
`Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108, Dkt. No. 54-27)
`Exhibit 29 to Intel 108 Op. Br. (ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel
`Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108, Dkt. No. 54-28)
`Exhibit 30 to Intel 108 Op. Br. (ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel
`Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108, Dkt. No. 54-29)
`Exhibit 31 to Intel 108 Op. Br. (ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel
`Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108, Dkt. No. 54-30)
`Exhibit 32 to Intel 108 Op. Br. (ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel
`Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108, Dkt. No. 54-31)
`Exhibit 33 to Intel 108 Op. Br. (ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel
`Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108, Dkt. No. 54-32)
`Intel Corporation’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief,
`ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108, Dkt.
`No. 58 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 20, 2020)
`Declaration of Sarah B. Petty in Support of Defendant
`Intel Corporation’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief
`(ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108, Dkt.
`No. 58-1)
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 33 Filed 02/24/22 Page 8 of 36
`
`Exhibit
`24-2
`
`24-3
`
`24-4
`
`24-5
`
`24-6
`
`25
`
`25-1
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`29
`
`30
`
`31
`
`
`
`
`Abbreviation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Description
`Exhibit 34 to Intel 108 Resp. Br. (ParkerVision, Inc. v.
`Intel Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108, Dkt. No. 58-2)
`Exhibit 35 to Intel 108 Resp. Br. (ParkerVision, Inc. v.
`Intel Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108, Dkt. No. 58-3)
`Exhibit 36 to Intel 108 Resp. Br. (ParkerVision, Inc. v.
`Intel Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108, Dkt. No. 58-4)
`Declaration of Dr. Daniel W. van der Weide in Support of
`Intel Corporation’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief
`(ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108, Dkt.
`No. 58-5)
`Appendix A to Intel 108 Resp. Br. (ParkerVision, Inc. v.
`Intel Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108, Dkt. No. 58-6)
`Intel Corporation’s Claim Construction Reply Brief,
`ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108, Dkt.
`No. 66 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 11, 2020)
`Declaration of Dr. Daniel W. van der Weide in Support of
`Intel Corporation’s Reply Claim Construction Brief
`(ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108, Dkt.
`No. 66-1)
`Transcript of Markman Hearing in ParkerVision, Inc. v.
`Hisense Co., No. 6:20-cv-00870, Dkt. No. 49 (W.D. Tex.
`Oct. 31, 2021)
`Transcript of Markman Hearing in ParkerVision, Inc. v.
`Intel Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00562, Dkt. No. 57 (W.D. Tex.
`June 27, 2021)
`Transcript of Markman Hearing in ParkerVision, Inc. v.
`Intel Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00562, Dkt. No. 63 (W.D. Tex.
`Aug. 9, 2021)
`Intel 108 Hearing Tr. Transcript of Markman Hearing in ParkerVision, Inc. v.
`Intel Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108, Dkt. No. 77 (W.D. Tex.
`Jan. 29, 2021)
`Joint Claim Construction Statement in ParkerVision, Inc.
`v. Hisense Co., No. 6:20-cv-00870, Dkt. No. 46 (W.D.
`Tex. Oct. 15, 2021)
`Joint Claim Construction Statement in ParkerVision, Inc.
`v. Intel Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00562, Dkt. No. 45 (W.D. Tex.
`May 17, 2021)
`
`Intel 108 Rep. Br.
`
`
`
`TCL/Hisense
`Hearing Tr.
`
`Intel 562 Hearing Tr.
`I
`
`Intel 562 Hearing Tr.
`II
`
`TCL/Hisense JCCS
`
`Intel 562 JCCS
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 33 Filed 02/24/22 Page 9 of 36
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Advanced Electrolyte Techs. LLC v. Samsung SDI Co.,
`No. A:17-CV-0030, 2018 WL 2770648 (W.D. Tex. June 8, 2018) ..........................................5
`
`American Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc.,
`618 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..................................................................................................9
`
`Ancora Techs., Inc. v. LG Elec. Inc.,
`No. 1-20-CV-00034, 2020 WL 4825716 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2020) ................................9, 10
`
`C.W. Zumbiel Co. v. Kappos,
`702 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................10
`
`Continental Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp.,
`915 F. 3d 788 (Fed. Cir. 2019)...................................................................................................4
`
`Fairfield Indus., Inc. v. Wireless Seismic, Inc.,
`No. 4:14-CV-1972, 2015 WL 1034275 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 10, 2015) ..........................................6
`
`In re Fought,
`941 F.3d 1175 (Fed. Cir. 2019)................................................................................................10
`
`GREE, Inc. v. Supercell Oy,
`No. 2:19-CV-00071, 2020 WL 2476497 (E.D. Tex. May 12, 2020) .........................................6
`
`In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.,
`496 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007)..................................................................................................4
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F. 3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .........................................................................4, 5, 8
`
`TomTom, Inc. v. Adolph,
`790 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2015)......................................................................................9, 10, 11
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Final Written Decision, Intel Corp. v. ParkerVision, Inc.,
`IPR2020-01265, Pap. 44 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 21, 2022) .......................................................... passim
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 33 Filed 02/24/22 Page 10 of 36
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s authorization and the Parties’ agreement, Defendant LGE
`
`respectfully submits this Opening Claim Construction brief to address three categories of disputed
`
`terms. These disputed terms, comprising a total of 30 terms across Plaintiff ParkerVision’s ten
`
`Asserted Patents, are (1) the Storage Terms (Section II.A); (2) the preamble of the ’835 patent
`
`(Section II.B); and (3) terms previously briefed and considered by the Court in related proceedings,
`
`and for which LGE and ParkerVision will rely exclusively on the prior briefing (Section III).1
`
`For the Storage Terms, the patentees acted as their own lexicographers, expressly defining
`
`storage modules as “systems that store non negligible amounts of energy from an input EM signal.”
`
`LGE’s proposed construction is nearly verbatim to this express definition. ParkerVision, in
`
`contrast, seeks to inject additional language—“driving a low impedance load” and “of an energy
`
`transfer system”—into the patents’ express definition. This Court has thrice rejected
`
`ParkerVision’s attempt to inject “driving a low impedance load” into the construction and should
`
`do so again here for a fourth time. And, although the Court previously included “of an energy
`
`transfer system” in its construction in other proceedings, the Court did not have the benefit of the
`
`PTAB’s recent final written decision from IPR2020-01265 challenging the ’444 patent (Ex. 15,
`
`“’444 FWD”). The ’444 FWD found the challenged claims invalid and, in so doing, firmly rejected
`
`ParkerVision’s proposed construction that limited “storage element” to “energy transfer systems.”
`
`
`1 The Court approved the parties’ agreement to collectively brief 30 terms. Ex. 11 (Court’s
`Permission). In an effort to streamline the Markman proceedings, the parties agreed for 28 of these
`terms to incorporate by reference and rely upon the same proposed constructions, arguments, and
`positions previously presented to and considered by this Court in ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel Corp.,
`No. 6:20-cv-00108 (W.D. Tex.); ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00562 (W.D. Tex.);
`ParkerVision, Inc. v. TCL Indus. Holdings Co., No. 6:20-cv-00945 (W.D. Tex.); and/or
`ParkerVision, Inc. v. Hisense Co., No. 6:20-cv-00870 (W.D. Tex.) (collectively, the “Prior
`Litigations”).
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 33 Filed 02/24/22 Page 11 of 36
`
`LGE respectfully submits that the Court should follow in the PTAB’s footsteps and reject
`
`ParkerVision’s proposed construction.
`
`For the ’835 patent preamble, the parties agree that the portion of the preamble that
`
`provides antecedent basis for the claims—“an electromagnetic signal having complex
`
`modulations”—is limiting. The parties disagree, however, as to whether the term “cable modem”
`
`in the preamble is limiting. It is not. The term “cable modem” is not a limitation because it merely
`
`states an intended use of the claims and does not breathe life, meaning, or vitality to the structurally
`
`complete device defined in the claims.
`
`For the remaining terms, LGE sets forth in Section III a table that includes the proposed
`
`constructions and citations to the prior briefing that had been previously submitted to and
`
`considered by the Court.
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`A.
`
`Storage Terms (Term 1)
`
`Storage Terms
`“storage module”
`(’706 patent, cls. 105, 114,
`115, 164, 166, 168, 175, 179,
`186, 190;
`’835 patent, cls. 1, 18;
`’725 patent, cls. 1, 6, 17-19)
`“energy storage module”
`(’902 patent, cl. 1)
`“storage element”
`(’444 patent, cls. 3, 4)
`“storage device”
`(’835 patent, cl. 20)
`“energy storage element”
`(’513 patent, cl. 19;
`’528 patent, cls. 1, 9;
`’736 patent, cls. 1, 11, 21,
`26, 27)
`“energy storage device”
`(’673 patent, cls. 13, 17, 18)
`
`ParkerVision’s Construction
`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.”
`
`2
`
`LGE’s Construction
`
`“a module that stores a
`non-negligible amount of
`energy from an input
`electromagnetic (EM)
`signal”
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 33 Filed 02/24/22 Page 12 of 36
`
`LGE’s proposed construction is consistent with the express definition found in the patents’
`
`specifications. ParkerVision’s proposed constructions, in contrast, improperly inject two
`
`limitations not found in or supported by the patentee’s express lexicography for the Storage Terms:
`
`(1) that the storage module/element/device’s purpose is for “driving a low impedance load” and
`
`(2) that the storage modules/elements/devices are “of an energy transfer system.” The Court
`
`should reject ParkerVision’s invitation to graft these two limitations into the patents’ express
`
`definition and adopt LGE’s construction.
`
`1.
`
`LGE’s Proposed Construction Adopts the Inventors’ Express
`Lexicography for the Storage Terms
`
`The patents expressly define “storage modules”:2
`
`The terms 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
`voltage value. Storage modules ... on the other hand, refer to systems that store
`non-negligible amounts of energy from an input EM signal.
`
`Ex. 2 (’518 patent) at 66:15-23 (emphasis added); see also Ex. 1 (’706 patent) at 1:10-11
`
`(incorporating by reference the Ex. 17 (’551 patent),3 which includes the same quote); Ex. 3 (’902
`
`patent) at 69:65-70:6; Ex. 4 (’444 patent) at 9:30-42 (incorporating by reference the Ex. 17 (’551
`
`patent)); Ex. 5 (’835 patent) at 6:54-65 (same); Ex. 6 (’725 patent) at 7:28-42; Ex. 7 (’513 patent)
`
`at 72:61-73:2; Ex. 8 (’528 patent) at 73:14-22; Ex. 9 (’736 patent) at 75:61-76:2 Ex. 10 (’673
`
`patent) at 69:61-70:2. Consistent with this express definition, the specifications further state that
`
`the “goal of the storage modules” is “to store non-negligible amounts of energy transferred from
`
`
`2 The parties agree that all of the Storage Terms are synonymous and that the terms “storage
`module,” “energy storage module,” “storage element,” “energy storage element,” “storage device”
`and “energy storage device” should be construed the same.
`3 The ’551 patent is in the priority chain of, and incorporated by reference into, all Asserted Patents.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 33 Filed 02/24/22 Page 13 of 36
`
`the EM signal.” Ex. 2 (’518 patent) at 99:51-53; Ex. 3 (’902 patent) at 104:56-58; Ex. 7 (’513
`
`patent) at 105:54-56; Ex. 8 (’528 patent) at 106:8-10; Ex. 9 (’736 patent) at 108:49-51; Ex. 10
`
`(’673 patent) at 103:12-14; Ex. 17 (’551 patent) at 100:4-6.
`
`“When the patentee acts as its own lexicographer, that definition governs.” Continental
`
`Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp., 915 F. 3d 788, 796 (Fed. Cir. 2019). LGE’s proposed construction is
`
`consistent with the patentee’s lexicography and is the same construction the PTAB recently
`
`adopted in the ’444 FWD.
`
`ParkerVision previously agreed with LGE’s proposed construction in another proceeding.
`
`In IPR2014-00948, relying on the same express definition above from the ’551 patent,
`
`ParkerVision argued that the term “storage module” should “be construed to mean ‘an apparatus
`
`that stores non-negligible amounts of energy from the carrier signal.’”4 Ex. 16 (IPR2014-00948
`
`POPR) at 21-26, 37.5 In doing so, ParkerVision unequivocally stated that the PTAB should adopt
`
`the patent’s express definition: “[t]he Specification provides an explicit definition that supports
`
`this construction” and “[t]he incorporated ’551 Specification explicitly defines a storage module
`
`and draws the distinction between storage modules and holding modules.” Id. at 21 (emphasis
`
`added). The Court should find that ParkerVision acted as its own lexicographer and adopt this
`
`“explicit definition.”
`
`
`4 IPR2014-00948 challenged U.S. Patent No. 6,370,371 (Ex. 18), which is related to the ’551 patent
`and the ’902 patent. In arguing that its patents “explicitly” define “storage module,” ParkerVision
`relied on material incorporated from the ’551 patent.
`5 It is irrelevant that the PTAB used the broadest reasonable interpretation standard when
`construing the term in IPR2014-00948, whereas the Court will use the Phillips standard here. Both
`standards recognize that patentees can be lexicographers and define terms themselves. In re ICON
`Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (using the broadest reasonable
`interpretation standard to analyze whether “the specification ... provides a definition for claim
`terms”); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F. 3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (stating “the
`specification may reveal a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from
`the meaning it would otherwise possess. In such cases, the inventor’s lexicography governs.”).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 33 Filed 02/24/22 Page 14 of 36
`
`2.
`
`ParkerVision Tries to Re-Write Its Express Definition
`
`Despite previously acknowledging and advocating for the express definition of “storage
`
`module” in the Asserted Patents, ParkerVision is now improperly attempting to inject two
`
`extraneous limitations into this definition.
`
`“Driving a low impedance load.” ParkerVision for the fourth time tries to limit the
`
`Storage Terms to a specific purpose—driving a low impedance load. As the Court recognized the
`
`three other times ParkerVision attempted to do so, the patentees’ definition does not limit the
`
`function of the storage module/element/device to this or any purpose. Moreover, because driving
`
`a low impedance load is a requirement of certain dependent claims, it cannot under the doctrine of
`
`claim differentiation be a limitation of the broader independent claims. Cf. ’736 Independent
`
`Claim 1 and Dependent Claim 26; ’637 Patent Claim 1 and Dependent Claim 5; Phillips v. AWH
`
`Corp., 415 F. 3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“[T]he presence of a dependent claim that
`
`adds a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present
`
`in the independent claim.”). Thus, consistent with the Court’s constructions in the Prior
`
`Litigations, the Court should reject—for the fourth time—ParkerVision’s proposal to read this
`
`purpose into the Storage Terms. Ex. 12 (Intel 108 CC Or.) at 4-5; Ex. 13 (Intel 562 CC Or.) at 2;
`
`Ex. 14 (TCL/Hisense Special Master’s Rec. CC) at 5.
`
`“Of an energy transfer system.” LGE acknowledges that this Court previously included
`
`this phrase in its prior constructions. The Court, however, did not have the benefit of the PTAB’s
`
`recent ’444 FWD, where the PTAB fully considered and rejected the same construction
`
`ParkerVision proposes here in favor of the patentee’s express definition. Ex. 15 (’444 FWD) at
`
`32, 41. The PTAB’s decision and its detailed analysis is part of the patent’s public record and can
`
`be (and should be) considered by this Court as part of its claim construction analysis. See
`
`Advanced Electrolyte Techs. LLC v. Samsung SDI Co., No. A:17-CV-0030, 2018 WL 2770648, at
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 33 Filed 02/24/22 Page 15 of 36
`
`*4 (W.D. Tex. June 8, 2018) (“This court’s claim construction is informed and aided by the
`
`additional evidence of the PTAB’s construction.”); GREE, Inc. v. Supercell Oy, No. 2:19-CV-
`
`00071, 2020 WL 2476497, at *7 (E.D. Tex. May 12, 2020) (“The Court treats patent-owner and
`
`PTAB submissions in an Inter Partes Review or Post Grant Review as intrinsic evidence.”)
`
`(emphasis added); Fairfield Indus., Inc. v. Wireless Seismic, Inc., No. 4:14-CV-1972, 2015 WL
`
`1034275, at *5 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 10, 2015) (holding that the PTAB’s claim construction analysis in
`
`an IPR “serves as further intrinsic evidence”). LGE respectfully submits that, with the benefit of
`
`the PTAB’s analysis, the Court should modify its prior constructions to exclude “of an energy
`
`transfer system.”
`
`In the ’444 FWD, the PTAB found the same paragraph quoted above “critical” because it
`
`“provides a lexicographic definition of the systems to which the terms refer.” ’444 FWD at 35-
`
`36. That paragraph is reproduced again below:
`
`The terms 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
`voltage value. Storage modules ... on the other hand, refer to systems that store
`non-negligible amounts of energy from an input EM signal.
`
`E.g., Ex. 2 (’518 patent) at 66:15-23 (emphasis added).
`
`The PTAB adopted this lexicography as its construction for storage module. Ex. 15 (’444
`
`FWD) at 36. In doing so, the PTAB specifically rejected ParkerVision’s attempt to include “of an
`
`energy transfer system” into the construction, stating:
`
`We do not agree with Patent Owner that “system” should be limited to “energy
`transfer system.” Critically, if the patentees wanted to limit the term “storage
`element” beyond the express definition of the systems to which the term refers, it
`was incumbent upon the patentees to do so; and they did not. The aspect chos