Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37 Filed 03/30/22 Page 1 of 20
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
`PARKERVISION, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:21-cv-00520-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37 Filed 03/30/22 Page 2 of 20
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`STORAGE TERMS (TERM 1) ..................................................................................... 1
`
`THE TERM “CABLE MODEM” IN THE PREAMBLE IS NOT LIMITING
`(TERM 2) ....................................................................................................................... 5
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37 Filed 03/30/22 Page 3 of 20
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS AND EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`18
`19
`
`19-1
`
`19-2
`
`Description
`
`Abbreviation
`LGE
`ParkerVision
`’706 patent
`’518 patent
`’902 patent
`’444 patent
`’835 patent
`’725 patent
`’513 patent
`’528 patent
`’736 patent
`’673 patent
`Asserted Patents
`
`Court’s Permission
`
`Intel 108 CC Or.
`
`Intel 562 CC Or.
`
`TCL/Hisense Special
`Master’s Rec. CC
`
`’444 FWD
`
`IPR2014-00948
`POPR
`
`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)
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37 Filed 03/30/22 Page 4 of 20
`
`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 37 Filed 03/30/22 Page 5 of 20
`
`Exhibit
`19-22
`
`19-23
`
`20
`
`20-1
`
`20-2
`
`Abbreviation
`
`
`
`
`
`TCL/Hisense Rep.
`Br.
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`Intel 562 Resp. Br.
`
`21-1
`
`21-2
`
`21-3
`
`21-4
`
`21-5
`
`21-6
`
`21-7
`
`21-8
`
`21-9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 37 Filed 03/30/22 Page 6 of 20
`
`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 37 Filed 03/30/22 Page 7 of 20
`
`Abbreviation
`
`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
`
`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 37 Filed 03/30/22 Page 8 of 20
`
`Exhibit
`24-2
`
`24-3
`
`24-4
`
`24-5
`
`24-6
`
`25
`
`25-1
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`29
`
`30
`
`31
`
`
`
`
`
`32
`
`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)
`ParkerVision, Inc. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 6:21-cv-520, Dkt.
`No. 32 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 16, 2022) and exhibits thereto
`ParkerVision, Inc. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 6:21-cv-520, Dkt.
`No. 36 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 16, 2022) and exhibits thereto
`Intel Corporation’s Opposed Motion for Further Claim
`Construction in Light of ParkerVision’s Representations in
`IPR Proceedings, ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel Corp., No.
`6:20-cv-00108, Dkt. No. 117 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 21, 2022)
`
`Intel 108 Rep. Br.
`
`
`
`TCL/Hisense
`Hearing Tr.
`
`Intel 562 Hearing Tr.
`I
`
`Intel 562 Hearing Tr.
`II
`
`TCL/Hisense JCCS
`
`Intel 562 JCCS
`
`LGE Op. Br.
`
`PV Resp. Br.
`
`Intel Mot. for Further
`Claim Construction
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37 Filed 03/30/22 Page 9 of 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`32-1
`
`32-2
`
`32-3
`
`32-4
`
`32-5
`
`32-6
`
`32-7
`
`32-8
`
`32-9
`
`32-10
`
`32-11
`
`32-12
`
`32-13
`
`33
`
`
`
`Abbreviation
`
`Description
`Declaration of Sarah B. Petty in Support of Defendant
`Intel Corporation’s Opposed Motion for Further Claim
`Construction (ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel Corp., No. 6:20-
`cv-00108, Dkt. No. 117-1)
`Exhibit 1 to Intel Mot. for Further Claim Construction
`(ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108, Dkt.
`No. 117-2)
`Exhibit 2 to Intel Mot. for Further Claim Construction
`(ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108, Dkt.
`No. 117-3)
`Exhibit 3 to Intel Mot. for Further Claim Construction
`(ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108, Dkt.
`No. 117-4)
`Exhibit 4 to Intel Mot. for Further Claim Construction
`(ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108, Dkt.
`No. 117-5)
`Exhibit 5 to Intel Mot. for Further Claim Construction
`(ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108, Dkt.
`No. 117-6)
`Exhibit 6 to Intel Mot. for Further Claim Construction
`(ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108, Dkt.
`No. 117-7)
`Exhibit 7 to Intel Mot. for Further Claim Construction
`(ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108, Dkt.
`No. 117-8)
`Exhibit 8 to Intel Mot. for Further Claim Construction
`(ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108, Dkt.
`No. 117-9)
`Exhibit 9 to Intel Mot. for Further Claim Construction
`(ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108, Dkt.
`No. 117-10)
`Exhibit 10 to Intel Mot. for Further Claim Construction
`(ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108, Dkt.
`No. 117-11)
`Exhibit 11 to Intel Mot. for Further Claim Construction
`(ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108, Dkt.
`No. 117-12)
`Exhibit 12 to Intel Mot. for Further Claim Construction
`(ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108, Dkt.
`No. 117-13)
`[SEALED] Compilation of excerpted claim charts to
`ParkerVision’s Disclosure of Preliminary Infringement
`Contentions
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37 Filed 03/30/22 Page 10 of 20
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Ancora Techs., Inc. v. LG Elecs. Inc.,
`No. 1-20-CV-00034, 2020 WL 4825716 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2020) ......................................7
`
`Arctic Cat Inc. v. GEP Power Prods., Inc.,
`919 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019)..............................................................................................5, 7
`
`Baxalta Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.,
`972 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2020)..................................................................................................4
`
`Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc.,
`289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002)................................................................................................6, 7
`
`Georgetown Rail Equip. Co. v. Holland L.P.,
`867 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..............................................................................................5, 7
`
`In re Imes,
`778 F.3d 1250 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..................................................................................................1
`
`Linear Tech. Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`566 F.3d 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..................................................................................................2
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`731 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2013)..................................................................................................1
`
`Multiform Dessicants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd.,
`133 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998)..................................................................................................2
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F. 3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .................................................................................4
`
`Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ Per Azioni,
`158 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 1998)..................................................................................................3
`
`Seagen Inc. v. Daiichi Sankyo Co.,
`No. 2:20-cv-337, 2021 WL 4168660 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 14, 2021)..............................................3
`
`Sinorgchem Co., Shandong v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`511 F.3d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 2007)..................................................................................................2
`
`TomTom, Inc. v. Adolph,
`790 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..................................................................................................7
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37 Filed 03/30/22 Page 11 of 20
`
`I.
`
`STORAGE TERMS (TERM 1)
`
`The parties appear to agree that the Storage Terms should be construed based on
`
`lexicography and even rely on the same passage in the specification for that lexicography. See
`
`LGE Op. Br. at 3; PV Resp. Br. at 6. The parties’ dispute turns on how that passage, which is
`
`reproduced below, defines the Storage Terms:
`
`FIG. 82A illustrates an exemplary energy transfer system 8202 for down-
`converting an input EM signal 8204. The energy transfer system 8202 includes a
`switching module 8206 and a storage module illustrated as a storage capacitance
`8208. The terms storage module and storage capacitance, as used herein, are
`distinguishable from the terms holding module and holding capacitance,
`respectively. Holding modules and holding capacitances, as used above, identify
`systems that store negligible amounts of energy from an under-sampled input EM
`signal with the intent of ‘holding’ a voltage value. Storage modules and storage
`capacitances, on the other hand, refer to systems that store non-negligible
`amounts of energy from an input EM signal.
`
`LGE Op. Br. at 3; PV Resp. Br. at 3 (emphasis added).
`
`LGE’s construction is the explicit definition of “storage module” that is emphasized in the
`
`last sentence of the quoted passage.1 LGE Op. Br. at 3-4. ParkerVision’s construction, in contrast,
`
`improperly modifies this express definition to include “of an energy transfer system” based on the
`
`supposed teachings of the rest of the paragraph and the remainder of the specification. PV Resp.
`
`Br. at 6-8. LGE’s construction is the correct one.
`
`ParkerVision’s use of “refer to” is an express and unambiguous intent to invoke
`
`lexicography. See In re Imes, 778 F.3d 1250, 1252-53 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that the patentee
`
`“expressly and unambiguously” defined a term by using “refers to” in the specification); Microsoft
`
`Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 731 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (finding that “refers to” in the
`
`
`1 “Module” is interchangeable with “element” and “device,” such that LGE’s use of “module” in
`its construction of the Storage Terms is not “incorrect on its face,” as ParkerVision contends (see
`PV Resp. Br. at 2 n.4). Should the Court disagree, “module” in LGE’s construction can be replaced
`with “element” or “device” as appropriate.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37 Filed 03/30/22 Page 12 of 20
`
`specification was used to define a claim term); Linear Tech. Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 566
`
`F.3d 1049, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (finding that “refers to” in the specification was used to define a
`
`claim term). Because the sentence defines “storage modules” as systems that “store non-negligible
`
`amounts of energy,” this sentence alone provides a complete definition. And “[w]hen the
`
`specification explains and defines a term used in the claims, without ambiguity or incompleteness,
`
`there is no need to search further for the meaning of the term.” Multiform Dessicants, Inc. v.
`
`Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1998). That is precisely the case here and the Court
`
`need not look elsewhere in the specification to construe the Storage Terms. See also Sinorgchem
`
`Co., Shandong v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 511 F.3d 1132, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (because “the express
`
`definition is neither ambiguous nor incomplete,” the Court “need look no further for its meaning”).
`
`ParkerVision argues incorrectly that LGE’s construction is erroneous because it “cast[s]
`
`aside the distinction . . . between a ‘storage module’ and a ‘holding module.’” PV Resp. Br. at 6.
`
`But this distinction is already inherent in LGE’s proposed construction. The lexicography of
`
`“storage module” by its very words distinguishes storage modules (i.e., modules that store non-
`
`negligible amounts of energy) from “holding module” (i.e., modules that store negligible amounts
`
`of energy). This is how ParkerVision chose to distinguish storage and holding modules, and it did
`
`so in clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal language. No further distinction is necessary.
`
`ParkerVision next relies improperly on the “on the other hand” and “refer to systems”
`
`language in the above-quoted passage to justify inclusion of an “energy transfer system”
`
`requirement in its construction. PV Resp. Br. at 6-7. The “on the other hand” and “refer to
`
`systems” language is used to distinguish “storage modules” from “holding modules”—not to
`
`distinguish energy transfer systems from sample and hold/voltage sampling systems as argued by
`
`ParkerVision. Indeed, the quoted passage does not even include the terms “sample and hold” or
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37 Filed 03/30/22 Page 13 of 20
`
`“voltage sampling.” And ParkerVision’s argument that “[a]n energy transfer system is the only
`
`[disclosed] system that has a ‘storage’ module” (id.) is irrelevant. Just because the disclosed
`
`“energy transfer system[s]” have storage modules does not mean that storage modules can only be
`
`part of an energy storage system. The PTAB agreed with this in its recent ’444 FWD (now part
`
`of the intrinsic record) when it held that “system” should not be limited to “energy transfer
`
`system.” Ex. 15 (’444 FWD) at 37.
`
`Hypothetically, even assuming a storage module can only be part of an energy transfer
`
`system, the patent’s express definition of “storage module” would still control and should not be
`
`rewritten during claim construction. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ Per Azioni, 158 F.3d
`
`1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“[W]here a patent applicant has elected to be his own lexicographer
`
`by providing an explicit definition in the specification for a claim term . . . the definition selected
`
`by the patent applicant controls.”); Seagen Inc. v. Daiichi Sankyo Co., No. 2:20-cv-337, 2021 WL
`
`4168660, at *16-17 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 14, 2021) (rejecting “an attempt to make [a lexicographical
`
`definition] more focused on the parties’ dispute” because “any modification or rearrangement of
`
`the lexicographical definition may intentionally or unintentionally alter the scope of the term”);
`
`see also Ex. 15 (’444 FWD) at 37 (“It is not appropriate to re-write a definition expressly set forth
`
`in the patent simply because an assignee complains that the definition does not focus on ‘how the
`
`technology actually works.’”). ParkerVision could have chosen to define storage module to be
`
`limited to energy transfer systems but it did not.
`
`ParkerVision also does not dispute that it previously agreed with LGE’s construction in a
`
`prior IPR proceeding (see LGE Op. Br. at 4 (referring to IPR2014-00948)). Instead, ParkerVision
`
`argues that its prior position should be ignored because a different claim construction standard, the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) standard, applied in that proceeding. PV Resp. Br. at
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37 Filed 03/30/22 Page 14 of 20
`
`9. But the standard for lexicography under BRI or Phillips is the same and when the patentee uses
`
`lexicography to define a term, that lexicography controls under both BRI and Phillips. See LGE
`
`Op. Br. at 4, n.5 (citing In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007);
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F. 3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)).
`
`ParkerVision also points out that in that prior IPR it quoted the entire passage from the
`
`specification set forth above in its claim construction argument. See PV Resp. Br. at 9. But this
`
`does not change that it ultimately relied on the same lexicography to reach a construction for
`
`“storage module” that is substantially identical as LGE’s:
`
`The term “a storage module” of claim 2 should be construed to mean
`“an apparatus that stores non-negligible amounts of energy from the
`carrier signal.”
`
`Ex. 16 (IPR2014-00948 POPR) at 2; see also id. at 23 (“the Specification supports Patent Owner’s
`
`construction that ‘a storage module’ means ‘an apparatus that stores non-negligible amounts of
`
`energy from the carrier signal.’”); id. at 37 (“‘a storage module’ of claim 2 should be construed to
`
`mean ‘an apparatus that stores non-negligible amounts of energy from the carrier signal . . . .’”).
`
`Lastly, ParkerVision’s reliance on Baxalta Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 972 F.3d 1341 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2020) is misplaced. PV Resp. Br. at 7-8. In Baxalta, the district court’s construction of an
`
`independent claim term (antibody) would exclude antibodies disclosed in the written description
`
`and would read out “explicitly claimed embodiments” from its dependent claims. Baxalta, 972
`
`F.3d at 1345-46. Here, LGE’s proposed construction does not exclude storage modules disclosed
`
`in the written description and no dependent claim “falls outside [LGE’s] construction” such that
`
`LGE’s construction “is inconsistent with the plain language of the claims.” Id. at 1346. If anything
`
`the reasoning in Baxalta cuts against ParkerVision’s construction, as the “plain language” of the
`
`patent claims weighs “in favor of adopting [LGE’s] broader claim construction.” Id.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37 Filed 03/30/22 Page 15 of 20
`
`Because all of ParkerVision’s arguments were recently considered and rejected by the
`
`PTAB, ParkerVision attempts to frame LGE’s argument as asking this court to blindly defer to the
`
`PTAB’s analysis. PV Resp. Br. at 1. That is not the case. LGE is asking the Court to reconsider
`
`its prior constructions in view of LGE’s arguments (including its lexicography arguments and
`
`supporting case law that appear not to have been raised in the past) and the entire intrinsic record
`
`which includes, for the first time, the PTAB’s detailed analysis. ParkerVision’s lexicography
`
`controls and, in view of this, LGE respectfully submits that its construction should be adopted.
`
`II.
`
`THE TERM “CABLE MODEM” IN THE PREAMBLE IS NOT LIMITING
`(TERM 2)
`
`To argue cable modem is a limitation, ParkerVision primarily argues that cable modem is
`
`an essential structure underscored as important by the specification. PV Resp. Br. at 10. It is not.
`
`ParkerVision first points to the specification’s unremarkable disclosure that a “cable
`
`modem” is configured to communicate over cable lines while a “data modem” communicates over
`
`phone lines and the specification’s disclosure that a “modem” can both receive and transmit
`
`signals. Id. at 10-11. The mere fact that the specification includes generalized background
`
`information about “modems,” “data modems,” and “cable modems” does not mean that “cable
`
`modem” is an essential structure or is otherwise underscored as important. Indeed, nothing in
`
`these generalized discussions remotely suggests that “cable modem” is essential or important to
`
`the claimed invention. Arctic Cat Inc. v. GEP Power Prods., Inc., 919 F.3d 1320, 1329 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2019) (“not every preamble reference to additional structure is limiting, even when the structure
`
`is noted in the specification.”). To the contrary, the specification’s teaching of other uses for the
`
`claimed receiver, including as a conventional data modem, shows that “cable modem” is not
`
`essential and is just one example of many embodiments for the claimed receiver. Georgetown Rail
`
`Equip. Co. v. Holland L.P., 867 F.3d 1229, 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (finding preamble phrase not
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37 Filed 03/30/22 Page 16 of 20
`
`underscored as important when specification stated that claimed invention could be used in settings
`
`other than what preamble phrase indicated); LGE Op. Br. at 11; Ex. 5