Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-10 Filed 03/16/22 Page 1 of 59
`Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-10 Filed 03/16/22 Page 1 of 59
`
`EXHIBIT 4-2
`EXHIBIT 4-2
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00562-ADA Document 37-2 Filed 02/15/21 Page 1 of 58Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-10 Filed 03/16/22 Page 2 of 59
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`ORLANDO DIVISION
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`PARKERVISION, INC.,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,
`QUALCOMM ATHEROS, INC., HTC
`CORPORATION and HTC AMERICA,
`INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No: 6:14-cv-687-Orl-40LRH
`
`/
`
`ORDER
`
`This cause comes before the Court on the following:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff’s Motion for Claim Construction (Doc. 148), filed June 15, 2015;
`
`Defendant’s Claim Construction Brief (Doc. 171), filed July 15, 2015;
`
`Plaintiff’s Additional Claim Construction Brief (Doc. 317), filed September
`
`27, 2019; and
`
`4.
`
`Defendant’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief (Doc. 324), filed October
`
`11, 2019.
`
`The Court held Markman hearings on August 12, 2015 (Doc. 198), and November 12,
`
`2019 (Doc. 333).1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 See generally Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996).
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00562-ADA Document 37-2 Filed 02/15/21 Page 2 of 58Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-10 Filed 03/16/22 Page 3 of 59
`
`Contents
`
`I. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................... 3
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARDS FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................ 5
`
`III.
`
`AGREED TERMS .................................................................................................. 8
`
`IV. DISPUTED TERMS ............................................................................................. 10
`
`A. matched filtering/correlating module ................................................................ 10
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`The First Markman Hearing .......................................................................... 11
`
`The Second Markman Hearing ..................................................................... 12
`
`The ‘177 Patent............................................................................................. 16
`
`The Prosecution History ................................................................................ 18
`
`The Structural Details ................................................................................... 20
`
`B.
`
`switch/switch module ....................................................................................... 24
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Broadest Reasonable Interpretation compared with Phillips Standard ......... 26
`
`Construction of Switch/Switch Module: First Markman Hearing .................... 29
`
`Second Markman Hearing ............................................................................ 30
`
`C.
`
`to gate/gating ................................................................................................... 32
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`“to gate/gating” .............................................................................................. 34
`
`“gating means” .............................................................................................. 38
`
`D.
`
`“summer” .......................................................................................................... 40
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`Second Markman Hearing ............................................................................ 42
`
`Construction of Summer ............................................................................... 44
`
`“summing means” ............................................................................................ 45
`
`“bias signal” ...................................................................................................... 46
`
`The Board’s Construction ............................................................................. 47
`
`Construction of Bias Signal ........................................................................... 49
`
`“desired harmonics” and “desired signal” ......................................................... 51
`
`“said input signal” ............................................................................................. 53
`
`V. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 58
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00562-ADA Document 37-2 Filed 02/15/21 Page 3 of 58Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-10 Filed 03/16/22 Page 4 of 59
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`This litigation has a complex history, beginning with Plaintiff ParkerVision, Inc.’s
`
`(“ParkerVision”), Complaint alleging the infringement of seven patents. (Doc. 1). In the
`
`First Amended Complaint, ParkerVision added four patents. (Doc. 26). 2 As is customary,
`
`the parties provided the Court with a technology tutorial (Doc. 157), and the Court held
`
`the initial claim construction hearing (Doc. 198). Following the claim construction hearing,
`
`the parties filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss Certain Claims and Covenant not to Sue (Doc.
`
`228), which the Court granted (Doc. 246). The Motion to Dismiss informed the Court that
`
`certain terms discussed at the claim construction hearing no longer required interpretation
`
`by the Court. (Doc. 228). As the case progressed, the parties stipulated to the dismissal
`
`of the Samsung Defendants (Doc. 255), and the Court granted the dismissal (Doc. 256).
`
`The litigation was ultimately stayed pending Inter Partes Review (“IPR”). (Docs. 255, 256).
`
`ParkerVision appealed three final written decisions of the U.S. Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board in which the Board held certain claims of the ‘940 patent unpatentable.
`
`ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm, Inc., 903 F.3d 1354, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Qualcomm
`
`had challenged the apparatus and method claims of the ‘940 patent as obvious. Id. at
`
`1358. The Board agreed that the apparatus claims would have been obvious. Id. at 1359.
`
`The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s finding that claims 4, 21, 22, 23, 100, 113–16,
`
`118, 119, 281, 283–86, 288, 289, 293, 309–12, 314–15, and 319 are unpatentable. Id. at
`
`1362. The Federal Circuit also affirmed the Board’s determination that claims 1, 2, 18,
`
`
`2
`ParkerVision has elected to proceed with the ‘940, ‘372, ‘907, and ‘177 patents,
`which were disclosed in the First Amended Complaint and Plaintiff’s Claim
`Construction Brief. (Doc. 284, pp. 2–3; Docs. 124, 148).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00562-ADA Document 37-2 Filed 02/15/21 Page 4 of 58Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-10 Filed 03/16/22 Page 5 of 59
`
`81–84, 86, 88–91, 93, 94, 251–54, 256, 258–61, 263, and 264 are unpatentable. Id. at
`
`1364.
`
`As for the method claims, the Federal Circuit agreed with the Board’s
`
`determination that Qualcomm’s petitions were deficient because “they ‘d[id] not speak to
`
`whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have any reason to’ operate” the prior
`
`art in a manner that generates a plurality of integer-multiple harmonics. Id. at 1363.
`
`Accordingly, the court affirmed the Board’s determination that claims 25, 26, 363–66, 368,
`
`369, and 373 were not proven unpatentable. Id. As noted above, ParkerVision stipulated
`
`in its briefing and at oral argument that claims 88–92 of the ‘372 patent are abandoned.
`
` After the Federal Circuit issued its opinion, ParkerVision served Qualcomm with
`
`Supplemental Infringement Contentions, including updated infringement contention
`
`charts, that included each of the ‘940, ‘372, ‘907, and ‘177 patents and each claim
`
`identified for those four patents. (Doc. 284, p. 4).3 Litigation ensued over whether
`
`ParkerVision had abandoned some of the claims included in the infringement contention
`
`chart. (Docs. 284, 285, 289). The Court determined that ParkerVision had not abandoned
`
`the claims and held ParkerVision may proceed with the following patents and claims:
`
`’940 Patent (10 claims): 24, 25, 26, 331, 364, 365, 366, 368, 369, 373
`
`’372 Patent (12 claims): 95, 96, 99, 100, 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110, 126, 127
`
`’907 Patent (7 claims): 1, 2, 10, 13, 14, 15, 23
`
`’177 Patent (11 claims): 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14
`
`
`3
`The case was stayed for three years due to the IPR and subsequent appeal
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00562-ADA Document 37-2 Filed 02/15/21 Page 5 of 58Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-10 Filed 03/16/22 Page 6 of 59
`
`(Doc. 297).4
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`The Court construes a patent claim as a matter of law. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
`
`F.3d 1303, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). The Federal Circuit directs district courts
`
`construing claim terms to focus on the intrinsic evidence–that is, the claims, specification,
`
`and prosecution histories–because intrinsic evidence is “the most significant source of
`
`the legally operative meaning of disputed claim language.” Vitronics Corp. v.
`
`Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Markman v. Westview
`
`Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996).
`
`Generally, the Court accords the words of a claim “their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning,” which is “the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art in question at the time of the invention.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13. Persons of
`
`ordinary skill in the art do not read the claim term in isolation, but in the context of the
`
`entire patent. Id. at 1313. If the ordinary meaning of claim language is “readily apparent
`
`even to lay judges,” then claim construction requires “little more than the application of
`
`the widely accepted meaning of commonly understood words.” Id. at 1314. But because
`
`the meaning of a claim term as understood by a person skilled in the art is often not
`
`immediately apparent, the Court looks to both intrinsic evidence (the words of the claims
`
`themselves, the specification, and the prosecution history) and extrinsic evidence
`
`
`4
`The parties jointly moved for dismissal of the following patents: U.S. Patent Nos.
`6,580,902; 6,704,549; 6,873,836; 7,050,508; 7,194,246; and 7,966,012. (Doc.
`228). They agreed the Court need not construe the following terms: sub-sample or
`sub-sampling; string of multiple pulses; repeater; sensing or sensing said protocol;
`modulation and frequency selection module; and pulse shaper. (Id.).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00562-ADA Document 37-2 Filed 02/15/21 Page 6 of 58Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-10 Filed 03/16/22 Page 7 of 59
`
`(sources such as dictionaries and expert testimony). Id.; Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp.,
`
`Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`The patent’s specification is “the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed
`
`term,” as it may reveal that the patentee intended a special definition to apply to a claim
`
`term that differs from its ordinary meaning or that the patentee intentionally disclaimed or
`
`disavowed the claim’s scope. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315–16 (internal quotation marks
`
`omitted). The Court also considers the prosecution history, which is created by the
`
`patentee to explain and obtain the patent. Id. at 1317. The prosecution history consists of
`
`the complete record of proceedings before the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) and
`
`the prior art cited during the examination of the patent. Id. Unlike the specification, which
`
`is a final product, the prosecution history is less useful in claim construction because it
`
`represents the ongoing negotiations between the PTO and applicant. Id.
`
`The Court also looks at the prosecution history “to determine whether the applicant
`
`clearly and unambiguously ‘disclaimed or disavowed’” an interpretation of claim scope in
`
`order to obtain the patent grant. Middleton, Inc. v. Minn. Mining and Mfg. Co., 311 F.3d
`
`1384, 1388 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Standard Oil Co. v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d
`
`448, 452 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). A patentee disclaims an interpretation by “clearly
`
`characterizing the invention in a way to try to overcome rejections based on prior art,” as
`
`opposed to simply describing features of the prior art without distinguishing the claimed
`
`invention based on those features. Comput. Docking Station Corp. v. Dell, Inc., 519 F.3d
`
`1366, 1374–75 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Thus, the Court protects the public’s reliance on the
`
`definitive statements made during the prosecution by precluding the patentee from
`
`“recapturing” an interpretation disclaimed during prosecution through claim construction.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00562-ADA Document 37-2 Filed 02/15/21 Page 7 of 58Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-10 Filed 03/16/22 Page 8 of 59
`
`Id. at 1374 (quoting Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2003)). However,
`
`[I]f the specification expressly defines a claim term and
`remarks made to distinguish claims from the prior art are
`broader than necessary to distinguish the prior art, the full
`breadth of the remark is not a clear and unambiguous
`disavowal of claim scope as required to depart from the
`meaning of the term provided in the written description.
`
`Id. at 1375 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting 3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Avery
`
`Dennison Corp., 350 F.3d 1365, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
`
`Although “less significant than the intrinsic record,” extrinsic evidence is helpful.
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (internal quotation marks omitted). However, expert testimony
`
`about claim terms that is conclusory, unsupported, or “clearly at odds” with the intrinsic
`
`evidence is not useful. Id. at 1318 (internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, while
`
`dictionaries and treatises are relevant, the Court must ensure that the dictionary definition
`
`does not contradict a definition “found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent
`
`documents.” Id. at 1322–23 (quoting Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1584 n.6). “In sum, extrinsic
`
`evidence may be useful to the court, but it is unlikely to result in a reliable interpretation
`
`of patent claim scope unless considered in the context of the intrinsic evidence.” Phillips,
`
`415 F.3d at 1319. In the instant case, the parties agree that the Court need not consider
`
`extrinsic evidence to construe the claim terms in dispute, and neither party has presented
`
`extrinsic for the Court’s consideration.
`
`Several other principles guide the Court’s construction of claim terms. First, the
`
`Court presumes that the same terms appearing in different portions of the claims have
`
`the same meaning, unless the specification and prosecution history clearly demonstrate
`
`otherwise. Fin Control Sys. Pty, Ltd. v. OAM, Inc., 265 F.3d 1311, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00562-ADA Document 37-2 Filed 02/15/21 Page 8 of 58Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-10 Filed 03/16/22 Page 9 of 59
`
`While the “[i]nterpretation of a disputed claim term requires reference to the other claims,”
`
`Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 195 F.3d 1322, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ), “the
`
`presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation raises a presumption that
`
`the limitation in question is not found in the independent claim,” Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v.
`
`Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 910 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Courts are further cautioned that “a
`
`construction that renders the claimed invention inoperable should be viewed with extreme
`
`skepticism.” Talbert Fuel Sys. Patents Co. v. Unocal Corp., 275 F.3d 1371, 1376 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2002) (citation omitted), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 537 U.S. 802
`
`(2002).
`
`Finally, district courts have an obligation to construe terms when it is necessary to
`
`resolve a genuine and material legal dispute between the parties. See O2 Micro Int’l Ltd.
`
`v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., Ltd., 521 F.3d 1351, 1361–62 (Fed. Cir. 2008); E-Pass
`
`Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 473 F.3d 1213, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[A]ny articulated
`
`definition of a claim term ultimately must relate to the infringement questions that it is
`
`intended to answer.”). The party asking the Court to construe a claim term must
`
`demonstrate that the construction is both necessary and correct; that is, construction of
`
`the claim term must be fundamental to issues of infringement or invalidity, and the Court
`
`may not issue an advisory opinion. IP Cleaning S.p.A. v. Annovi Reverberi S.p.A., No.
`
`08-cv-147, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102312, at *3 (W.D. Wis. Dec. 17, 2008).
`
`III.
`
`AGREED TERMS
`
`The parties have reached agreement as to the proper construction of the following
`
`terms:
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00562-ADA Document 37-2 Filed 02/15/21 Page 9 of 58Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-10 Filed 03/16/22 Page 10 of 59
`
`Claim Term
`
`Agreed Construction
`
`“a shaping means”
`
`‘372 Patent
`
`“harmonically rich signal”
`
`‘940 and ‘372 Patents
`“inversion means”
`
`‘371 Patent
`
`
`
`
`
`“dynamically varied based on a measurement
`of one or more circuit parameters using digital
`
`
`
`9
`
`Function: shaping said first control
`signal so as to have a plurality of
`pulses.
`
`Structure: ‘372 Patent at Figures
`39A, 40A, 41 and equivalents
`thereof
`
`A signal comprised of a plurality of
`harmonics
`
`Function:
`
`Inverting the information signal and
`outputting an inverted information
`signal (claim 88)
`
`Inverting said combined signal and
`outputting an inverted combined
`signal (claim 95)
`
`Inverting the first information signal
`and outputting a first inverted
`information signal (claim 99)
`
`Inverting the second information
`signal and outputting a second
`inverted information signal (claim
`99)
`
`Inverting said first combined signal
`and outputting a first inverted
`combined signal (claim 103)
`
`Inverting said second combined
`signal and outputting a second
`inverted combined signal (claim
`103)
`
`Structure: ‘372 Patent at Figures
`39A, 67, 68, 70, and 72A and
`equivalents thereof
`“dynamically varied, based on a
`measurement of one or more circuit
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00562-ADA Document 37-2 Filed 02/15/21 Page 10 of 58Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-10 Filed 03/16/22 Page 11 of 59
`
`circuitry”
`
`‘177 Patent
`“harmonic”/”harmonics”
`
`‘940 Patent: Claims 24, 25, 26, 331, 364, 365,
`366, 368, 369, 373
`
`‘372 Patent: Claims 95, 96, 99, 100, 103, 104,
`107, 108, 109, 110, 126, 127
`IV.
`DISPUTED TERMS
`
`parameters, using digital circuitry”
`
`“frequency or tone that, when
`compared to its fundamental or
`reference frequency or tone, is an
`integer multiple of it and including
`the fundamental frequency as the
`first harmonic”
`
`The parties have identified ten (10) disputed claim terms. (Doc. 341). Some of the
`
`disputed claim terms were briefed in conjunction with the second Markman hearing (Id.
`
`Ex. A) and others were briefed for the first Markman hearing. (Id. Ex C). The Court will
`
`address the disputed claim terms in the order presented by the parties at the Markman
`
`hearings.
`
`A. matched filtering/correlating module
`
`Claim Term
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`
`Defendant’s Construction
`
`“a multiplier, that multiplies
`the input signal by a time-
`delayed version of
`itself,
`followed by a switch and an
`integrator”
`
`“matched filtering/
`correlating module”
`
`‘177 Patent: Claims 1, 2, 3,
`5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14
`
`“substantially linear time-
`variant
`circuitry
`that
`samples a modulated RF
`(radio
`frequency) carrier
`signal at an aliasing rate
`using a switch with an
`independent control input
`driven by a control signal
`with
`a
`non-negligible,
`periodic aperture, such that
`the samples, having non-
`negligible available energy,
`are
`accumulated
`and
`transferred to a significant
`load while the switch is
`closed and discharged
`through the load while the
`switch
`is open,
`thereby
`transferring
`substantial
`available real power from
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00562-ADA Document 37-2 Filed 02/15/21 Page 11 of 58Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-10 Filed 03/16/22 Page 12 of 59
`
`the modulated RF carrier
`signal
`to
`the
`load and
`producing
`a
`down-
`converted
`signal with
`enhanced signal-to-noise
`power ratio”
`
`
`
`1.
`
`The First Markman Hearing
`
`
`
`ParkerVison’s original proposed construction of this term is as follows: “operating
`
`on an EM (electromagnetic) signal with a matched filtering and/or correlating process or
`
`processor to produce an enhanced signal to noise ratio for the processed signal.” (Doc.
`
`148, p. 23). At the original Markman hearing, ParkerVision framed the dispute as follows:
`
`“should this term be limited to the embodiment disclosed in the specification as the
`
`defendant asserts, or is the term actually broader than the one disclosed embodiment?”
`
`(Doc. 211, 21:13–15).
`
`
`
`Qualcomm defended their proposed construction by dissecting the language of the
`
`single embodiment:
`
`the matched
`describes
`specification
`‘177
`the
`filtering/correlating module (14900) as a system that includes
`a multiplier (14902) that multiplies the input signal (S,(t)) by a
`time-delayed version of itself (S,(t-τ), followed by a switch
`(14904) and an
`integrator (14906). The specification
`describes no other embodiments of a matched
`filtering/correlating module.
`
`(Doc. 171, p. 3). Additionally, Qualcomm relied upon Williamson v. Citrix Oneline, LLC,
`
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015), for the proposition that 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 applies and
`
`limits the term to the structure described in the ‘177 patent. (Doc. 171, p. 4). 5 Qualcomm
`
`
`5
`Williamson was decided after ParkerVision filed their claim construction brief.
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00562-ADA Document 37-2 Filed 02/15/21 Page 12 of 58Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-10 Filed 03/16/22 Page 13 of 59
`
`argued ParkerVision was urging the Court to give the claimed device a purely functional
`
`construction, without any structure. (Id.). Defendant contended “[t]he claimed “matched
`
`filtering/correlating module” is a device, not an operation.” (Id. at pp. 4–5). Accordingly,
`
`Qualcomm contends “the claim in the ‘177 patent is a structural or apparatus claim.6 And
`
`the term matched filter/correlating module is a structural term.” (Doc. 211, 28:12–14).
`
`Thus, the term is construed as a structure, not as a function. (Id. at 28:15-17).7
`
`2.
`
`The Second Markman Hearing
`
`a.
`
`ParkerVision’s Position on Embodiments
`
`The second Markman hearing occurred approximately three years after the first
`
`hearing. Counsel for ParkerVision, while contesting the applicability of Williamson,
`
`explained that the revised claim construction is long because ParkerVision has attempted
`
`to cover the range of embodiments disclosed in the patent. (Doc. 334, 105:7–10).
`
`ParkerVision argued that even if § 112, ¶ 6 did apply, the construction would be broader
`
`to capture all embodiments and not confined to a single embodiment as Qualcomm
`
`
`6
`Process claims are typically drafted in terms of a set of actions to be performed.
`See, e.g., Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d
`1293, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In contrast, product or apparatus claims are usually
`drafted in terms of a set of physical structures connected in a way that performs
`some action.
`
`When § 112, ¶ 6 is found to apply to claim language, then the claim term is
`construed identifying the “function” associated with the claim language, and then
`identifying the corresponding “structure” in the specification associated with that
`function. The claim is construed to be limited to those corresponding structures
`and their equivalents. Thus, parties frequently attempt to invoke § 112, ¶ 6 as a
`way to narrow the scope of a patent to the particular technologies disclosed in the
`specification.
`
`12
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00562-ADA Document 37-2 Filed 02/15/21 Page 13 of 58Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-10 Filed 03/16/22 Page 14 of 59
`
`suggests. (Id. at 106:4–5).8 They contend that Defendant’s proposed construction, by
`
`focusing on one embodiment (FIG. 149), improperly excludes other embodiments that
`
`can reasonably be interpreted to be included in the claim. (Doc. 317, p. 22); see also
`
`Oatey Co. v. IPS Corp., 514 F.3d 1271, 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`ParkerVision avers Qualcomm’s proposed construction impermissibly reads
`
`limitations from one embodiment (FIG. 149) into the claims. See Hill-Rom Servs. v.
`
`Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014). That is, the patent provides that
`
`Figure 149 “illustrates an example gated matched filtering/correlating system” and is “an
`
`embodiment.” (‘177, col. 131:53–64) (emphasis added). Therefore, it is error to read the
`
`limitations found in Figure 149 into the claims. ParkerVision supports this point by
`
`examining the other embodiments.
`
`For example, ParkerVision concedes that Figure 151 is an approximation of Figure
`
`149, but they contend Figures 151 and 153 are examples of a matched filter/correlator:
`
`FIG. 151 illustrates an example finite time integrating
`system 15100, which can be used to implement method
`15000” (Ex. 13 (’177 Patent) at 133:22–23), where method
`15000 is “an example method . . . for down-converting an
`electromagnetic signal using a matched filtering/correlating
`operation” (Id. at 132:51–53)
`. . .
`
`FIG. 153 illustrates an example RC processing system
`15300, which can be used to implement method 15200” (Ex.
`13 (’177 Patent) at 134:31–32), where method 15200 is an
`“example method . . . for down-converting an electromagnetic
`signal using a matched filtering/correlating operation.” Id.
`at 133:59–61.
`
`
`8
`The Court is not persuaded that § 112, ¶ 6 applies. However, even if it does,
`ParkerVision is correct that Figure 149 is not the only embodiment of the invention.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00562-ADA Document 37-2 Filed 02/15/21 Page 14 of 58Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-10 Filed 03/16/22 Page 15 of 59
`
`(Doc. 317, pp. 22, 24) (emphasis added). The embodiments depicted in Figures 151 and
`
`153 lack a multiplier and time-delayed version of the input signal–limitations contained in
`
`Qualcomm’s proposed construction.9 (Id. at pp. 23–24). Thus, Plaintiff argues their
`
`proposed construction takes into consideration the multiple embodiments of matched
`
`filtering/correlating modules. (Doc. 317, p. 24).
`
`b.
`
`Qualcomm’s Position on Embodiments
`
`Qualcomm submits that ParkerVision is urging the Court to re-write the four words
`
`“matched filter/correlator module” to impermissibly cover a finite time integrator and RC
`
`processing system. (Doc. 324, p. 17); see K-2 v. Salomon, 191 F.3d 1356, 1364 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1999) (“Courts do not rewrite claims; instead we give effect to the terms chosen by
`
`the patentee.”). That is, Figure 151 depicts a “finite time integrating system,” and Figure
`
`153 depicts a “RC processing system,” and Qualcomm contends that both depict different
`
`unclaimed embodiments, “not the ‘matched filtering/correlating module’ recited in the ‘177
`
`patent claim.” (Id. at p. 16). Qualcomm asserts that “the patent consistently distinguishes
`
`between ‘matched filter/correlator’ and alternatives like the ‘RC processing system’ and
`
`‘a finite time integrator.’” (Id. at p. 17).
`
`Qualcomm reminds ParkerVision of the position they took before Judge Dalton in
`
`ParkerVision I. In the earlier case, ParkerVision stated, “the inventors of the patents-in-
`
`suit coined the term ‘finite time integrating operation’ as an alternative solution to
`
`matched filtering/correlating processors.” (Doc. 324, p. 18) (emphasis in original),
`
`ParkerVision v. Qualcomm, No. 3:11-CV-719, 2013 WL 633077, at *11 (M.D. Fla. Feb.
`
`
`9
`Doc. 26-11, pp. 200-201.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00562-ADA Document 37-2 Filed 02/15/21 Page 15 of 58Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-10 Filed 03/16/22 Page 16 of 59
`
`20, 2013).10 At the claim construction hearing in ParkerVision I, Plaintiff distinguished
`
`Figures 151 and 149 by defining finite time integration operation as using an
`
`approximation of the carrier whereas the matched filtering/correlating operation uses the
`
`carrier itself. (Id. at p. 19); ParkerVision, 2013 WL 633077, at *12.
`
`In ParkerVision I Judge Dalton made the following distinction:
`
`The ′845 Patent teaches those skilled in the art that the
`disclosed invention can be implemented using, among other
`things, a “matched filtering/correlating operation” and a “finite
`time integrating operation.” ′845 Patent col. 128 ll. 44–48.
`Both of these embodiments operate by accumulating the
`energy of a carrier signal and using the accumulated energy
`to form a down-converted signal. Id. at col. 128 ll. 26–51.
`
`
`
`
`
`. . .
`
` The “matched filtering/correlating” operation and “finite time
`integrating operation” differ in that the first operation involves
`“convolving an approximate half cycle of the carrier signal with
`a representation of itself,” Id. at col. 129 ll. 30–34
`
`. . .
`
`A “finite time integrating operation,” on the other hand,
`involves convolving the carrier signal with a “half sine impulse
`response,” a “rectangular impulse response,” or a “step
`function having a duration that is substantially equal to the
`time interval defined for the waveform, typically a half cycle of
`the electromagnetic signal.” See id. at col. 137 ll. 60–65; see
`also id. at col. 130 ll. 35–40; id. at col. 131 ll. 28–30.
`
`. . .
`
`The ′845 Patent therefore teaches that a finite time integrating
`operation involves convolving the carrier signal with a half
`sine impulse response, a rectangular impulse response, a
`step function, a triangular response, or a nearly sinusoidal
`response.
`
`
`10
`ParkerVision I involved U.S. Patent No. 7,724,845, and it included the same
`description of Figures 148–153 as are found in the ‘177 patent. (Doc. 324, p. 18).
`The parties disputed the construction of “finite time integrating.” (Id.).
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00562-ADA Document 37-2 Filed 02/15/21 Page 16 of 58Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-10 Filed 03/16/22 Page 17 of 59
`
`ParkerVision, 2013 WL 633077, at *12–13 (emphasis added). Judge Dalton found both
`
`are embodiments of the invention and rejected Qualcomm's proposed construction which
`
`limited a “‘finite time integrating operation’ to energy that is transferred during a single
`
`aperture period.” Id. at *13. claim. Judge Dalton also declined to import a list of electrical
`
`components suggested by Qualcomm into the construction. Id.
`
`Notably, ParkerVision argued at the second Markman hearing held in the instant
`
`case that the ‘845 patent at issue in ParkerVision I is not at issue here. (Doc. 334, 110:8–
`
`13). The issue in ParkerVision I was very narrow: Qualcomm argued Plaintiff’s
`
`construction of finite time integrating cannot be correct because it would render the terms
`
`matched filter/correlation operation and finite time integrating operation identical. (Id. at
`
`110:14–19). ParkerVision responded by demonstrating the difference between Figures
`
`149 and 151. (Id. at 110:20–24). Judge Dalton’s ruling addressed a different patent and
`
`a different issue than is involved here. Accordingly, the Court will turn its attention to the
`
`‘177 patent.11
`
`3.
`
`The ‘177 Patent
`
`The ‘177 patent provides the following overview of the invention:
`
`Embodiments of the present invention down-convert an
`electromagnetic signal by repeatedly performing a matched
`filtering or correlating operation on a received carrier signal.
`Embodiments of the invention operate on or near approxi(cid:173)
`mate half cycles (e.g.,½, 1½, 2½, etc.) of the received signal.
`The results of each matched filtering/correlating process are
`accumulated, for example using a capacitive storage device,
`and used to form a down-converted version of the electro(cid:173)
`magnetic signal. In accordance with embodiments of the
`invention, the matched filtering/correlating process can be
`performed at a sub-harmonic or fundamental rate.
`
`
`11
`For the same reasons, judicial estoppel is inapplicable.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00562-ADA Document 37-2 Filed 02/15/21 Page 17 of 58Case 6:21-cv-00520