Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37-10 Filed 03/30/22 Page 1 of 24
`Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37-10 Filed 03/30/22 Page 1 of 24
`
`EXHIBIT 32-9
`EXHIBIT 32-9
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37-10 Filed 03/30/22 Page 1 of 24
`
`EXHIBIT 32-9
`EXHIBIT 32-9
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 117-9 Filed 03/21/22 Page 1 of 23Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37-10 Filed 03/30/22 Page 2 of 24
`
`(cid:40)(cid:59)(cid:43)(cid:44)(cid:37)(cid:44)(cid:55)(cid:3)(cid:27)(cid:3)
`
`(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)
`
`(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)
`
`(cid:3)(cid:3)
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 117-9 Filed 03/21/22 Page 2 of 23Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37-10 Filed 03/30/22 Page 3 of 24
`
`
`
`HearingHearing
`
`·1· · · · IPR2020-01302
`
`·2· · · · U.S. PATENT NO. 7,539,474
`
`·3
`
`·4
`
`
`Intel Corporation vs.Intel Corporation vs.
`
`ParkerVision, Inc.ParkerVision, Inc.
`
`·5· · · · · · ·UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`·6· · · · · · · · · · ____________________________
`
`·7· · · · · · · BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`·8· · · · · · · · · · ____________________________
`
`·9· · · · · · · · · · · · · INTEL CORPORATION
`
`10· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·PETITIONER
`
`11· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·V.
`
`12· · · · · · · · · · · · ·PARKERVISION, INC.
`
`13· · · · · · · · · · · · · · PATENT OWNER
`
`14· · · · · · · · · · · U.S. PATENT NO. 7,539,474
`
`15· · · · · · · · · · · ISSUE DATE:· MAY 26, 2009
`
`16· · · · ·TITLE:· DC OFFSET, RE-RADIATION, AND I/Q SOLUTIONS
`
`17· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·USING
`
`18· · · · · · ·UNIVERSAL FREQUENCY TRANSLATION TECHNOLOGY
`
`19· · · · ·___________________________________________________
`
`20· · · · · · · · · · · · · _______________
`
`21· · · · · · · ·INTER PARTES REVIEW NO. IPR2020-01302
`
`22
`
`23· · · · APPEARANCES:· ·(SEE NEXT PAGE)
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26· · · · REPORTED BY:· · · · TANYA ROGERS, CSR 10178, RPR
`
`27· · · · · · · · · · · · · · OFFICIAL REPORTER, PRO TEMPORE
`
`28· · · · JOB NO. 10091134
`
`
`
`www.aptusCR.comwww.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 1
`ParkerVision Ex. 2031
`Intel Corp. v. ParkerVision, Inc.
`IPR No. 2020-01302
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 117-9 Filed 03/21/22 Page 3 of 23Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37-10 Filed 03/30/22 Page 4 of 24
`
`
`
`HearingHearing
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · · · · · APPEARANCES
`
`
`Intel Corporation vs.Intel Corporation vs.
`
`ParkerVision, Inc.ParkerVision, Inc.
`
`·2
`
`·3
`
`·4· · · · FOR INTEL CORPORATION
`· · · · · PETITIONER:
`·5
`· · · · · · · · · · · · ·WILMERHALE
`·6· · · · · · · · · · · ·BY:· MICHAEL J. SUMMERSGILL, ESQ.
`· · · · · · · · · · · · ·BY:· TODD ZUBLER, ESQ.
`·7· · · · · · · · · · · ·BY:· HAIXIA LIN, ESQ.
`· · · · · · · · · · · · ·60 STATE STREET
`·8· · · · · · · · · · · ·BOSTON, MA 02109 USA
`· · · · · · · · · · · · ·+1 617 526 6261 (T)
`·9· · · · · · · · · · · ·+1 617 526 5000 (F)
`· · · · · · · · · · · · ·MICHAEL.SUMMERSGILL@WILMERHALE.COM
`10
`
`11
`
`12· · · · FOR PARKERVISION, INC.
`· · · · · PATENT OWNER:
`13
`· · · · · · · · · · · · ·DAIGNAULT IYER, LLP
`14· · · · · · · · · · · ·BY:· JASON CHARKOW, ESQ.
`· · · · · · · · · · · · ·BY:· STEPHANIE MANDIR, ESQ.
`15· · · · · · · · · · · ·8618 WESTWOOD CENTER DR
`· · · · · · · · · · · · ·SUITE 150
`16· · · · · · · · · · · ·VIENNA, VA 22182-2285
`· · · · · · · · · · · · ·(202) 330-1666
`17· · · · · · · · · · · ·JCHARKOW@DAIGNAULTIYER.COM
`· · · · · · · · · · · · ·TODD.ZUBLER@WILMERHALE.COM
`18· · · · · · · · · · · ·HAIXIA.LIN@WILMERHALE.COM
`
`19
`
`20· · · · ALSO PRESENT:
`
`21· · · · · · · · · · · ·HON. BART GERSTENBLITH
`· · · · · · · · · · · · ·HON. MICHAEL R. ZECHER
`22· · · · · · · · · · · ·HON. IFTIKHAR AHMED
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`www.aptusCR.comwww.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 2
`ParkerVision Ex. 2031
`Intel Corp. v. ParkerVision, Inc.
`IPR No. 2020-01302
`
`YVer1f
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 117-9 Filed 03/21/22 Page 4 of 23Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37-10 Filed 03/30/22 Page 5 of 24
`
`
`
`HearingHearing
`
`
`Intel Corporation vs.Intel Corporation vs.
`
`ParkerVision, Inc.ParkerVision, Inc.
`
`·1· · · · VENTURA, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2021
`
`·2· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·6:00 A.M.
`
`·3· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·---OOO---
`
`·4
`
`·5· · · · · · · · MR. SUMMERSGILL:· MICHAEL SUMMERSGILL ON
`
`·6· · · · BEHALF OF INTEL, PETITIONER.· I'VE GOT TODD ZUBLER
`
`·7· · · · AND HAIXIA LIN ALSO ON BEHALF OF INTEL.
`
`·8· · · · · · · · JUDGE GERSTENBLITH:· GOOD MORNING,
`
`·9· · · · EVERYONE.· THIS IS JUDGE GERSTENBLITH.· WITH ME ON
`
`10· · · · THE LINE ARE JUDGES ZECHER AND AHMED.· THIS IS A
`
`11· · · · CONFERENCE CALL FOR IPR2020-01302.
`
`12· · · · · · · · · · · WHO DO WE HAVE -- AND THAT'S INTEL
`
`13· · · · VERSE PARKERVISION -- WHO DO WE HAVE ON THE LINE
`
`14· · · · FOR PETITIONER, PLEASE?
`
`15· · · · · · · · MR. SUMMERSGILL:· GOOD MORNING, YOUR
`
`16· · · · HONORS.· THIS IS MICHAEL SUMMERSGILL ON BEHALF OF
`
`17· · · · PETITIONER, INTEL, AND JOINING ME TODAY ARE TODD
`
`18· · · · ZUBLER AND HAIXIA LIN.
`
`19· · · · · · · · JUDGE GERSTENBLITH:· GOOD MORNING.
`
`20· · · · · · · · · · · AND WHO DO WE HAVE ON THE LINE FOR
`
`21· · · · PATENT OWNER, PLEASE?
`
`22· · · · · · · · MR. CHARKOW:· GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.
`
`23· · · · THIS IS JASON CHARKOW OF DAIGNAULT IYER FIRM ON
`
`24· · · · BEHALF OF PARKERVISION.· AND I HAVE STEPHANIE
`
`25· · · · MANDIR WITH ME AS WELL FROM THE SAME FIRM.
`
`26· · · · · · · · · · · WE ALSO E-MAILED TO THE COURT -- TO
`
`27· · · · THE BOARD LAST WEEK, WE ALSO HAVE PROVIDED A COURT
`
`28· · · · REPORTER WHO IS ALSO CURRENTLY ON THE LINE AND, YOU
`
`
`
`www.aptusCR.comwww.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 3
`ParkerVision Ex. 2031
`Intel Corp. v. ParkerVision, Inc.
`IPR No. 2020-01302
`
`YVer1f
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 117-9 Filed 03/21/22 Page 5 of 23Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37-10 Filed 03/30/22 Page 6 of 24
`
`
`
`HearingHearing
`
`
`Intel Corporation vs.Intel Corporation vs.
`
`ParkerVision, Inc.ParkerVision, Inc.
`
`·1· · · · KNOW, TAKING NOTES.· I DON'T KNOW IF THE BOARD HAS
`
`·2· · · · ANY ISSUES WITH THAT.
`
`·3· · · · · · · · JUDGE GERSTENBLITH:· GREAT.· THANK YOU VERY
`
`·4· · · · MUCH, MR. CHARKOW, FOR ARRANGING THAT.· YOU
`
`·5· · · · PROBABLY ALREADY KNOW THIS BUT ONCE YOU GET THE
`
`·6· · · · DRAFT OF THE TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE SHARE IT WITH
`
`·7· · · · PETITIONER.· ONCE EVERYBODY CONFIRMS THAT IT'S
`
`·8· · · · ACCURATE, PLEASE FILE IT AS AN EXHIBIT IN THE 1302
`
`·9· · · · CASE.
`
`10· · · · · · · · MR. CHARKOW:· YES, YOUR HONOR.
`
`11· · · · · · · · · · · AND, TANYA, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE
`
`12· · · · THAT YOU'RE OKAY AND YOU HEAR EVERYBODY OKAY AND
`
`13· · · · YOU ARE STARTING.
`
`14· · · · · · · · THE COURT REPORTER:· YES.· GOOD MORNING,
`
`15· · · · YOUR HONOR.· TANYA ROGERS, COURT REPORTER.
`
`16· · · · · · · · JUDGE GERSTENBLITH:· GOOD MORNING.· THANK
`
`17· · · · YOU.· YOU GOT ALL THAT THAT WHAT WE JUST DISCUSSED?
`
`18· · · · · · · · THE COURT REPORTER:· YES.· I'VE BEEN ON THE
`
`19· · · · RECORD SINCE I HEARD YOUR VOICE, YOUR HONOR.
`
`20· · · · · · · · JUDGE GERSTENBLITH:· PERFECT.· OKAY.
`
`21· · · · · · · · · · · SO PATENT OWNER REQUESTED THE CALL.
`
`22· · · · SO, MR. CHARKOW, I AM GOING TO GIVE YOU THE FLOOR.
`
`23· · · · · · · · MR. CHARKOW:· THANK YOU, YOUR HONORS.
`
`24· · · · · · · · · · · I JUST WANTED TO BRIEFLY ADDRESS ONE
`
`25· · · · ISSUE ABOUT -- I THINK IT WAS TWO WEEKS AGO ON A
`
`26· · · · FRIDAY WE HAD A CALL WITH RESPECT TO THE 1302 CASE.
`
`27· · · · AND AT THE END OF THAT DISCUSSION, INTEL ASKED FOR
`
`28· · · · A WRITTEN DECISION, AND I JUST WANTED TO BRIEFLY
`
`
`
`www.aptusCR.comwww.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 4
`ParkerVision Ex. 2031
`Intel Corp. v. ParkerVision, Inc.
`IPR No. 2020-01302
`
`YVer1f
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 117-9 Filed 03/21/22 Page 6 of 23Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37-10 Filed 03/30/22 Page 7 of 24
`
`
`
`HearingHearing
`
`
`Intel Corporation vs.Intel Corporation vs.
`
`ParkerVision, Inc.ParkerVision, Inc.
`
`·1· · · · RESPOND TO THAT REQUEST AND CLARIFY ONE ISSUE JUST
`
`·2· · · · SO THINGS ARE CLEAR FOR THE RECORD.
`
`·3· · · · · · · · · · · SO INTEL REQUESTS THAT A WRITTEN
`
`·4· · · · DECISION INCLUDES PARKERVISION'S REPRESENTATION
`
`·5· · · · REGARDING SAMPLING, AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE
`
`·6· · · · THAT ARE PARKERVISION'S REPRESENTATION IS CLEAR AND
`
`·7· · · · INTEL CHARACTERIZES PARKERVISION'S --
`
`·8· · · · · · · · · ·(TECHNOLOGICAL INTERRUPTION)
`
`·9· · · · · · · · MR. CHARKOW:· I WILL JUST BACK UP AND
`
`10· · · · RESTATE WHAT I SAID.
`
`11· · · · · · · · · · · INTEL REQUESTED A WRITTEN DECISION TO
`
`12· · · · INCLUDE WHAT INTEL SAYS IS PARKERVISION'S
`
`13· · · · REPRESENTATION REGARDING SAMPLING.· AND I JUST WANT
`
`14· · · · TO MAKE SURE PARKVISION'S REPRESENTATION IS CLEAR
`
`15· · · · FOR THE RECORD.
`
`16· · · · · · · · · · · INTEL CHARACTERIZES PARKERVISION'S
`
`17· · · · POSITION, AT LEAST AS THEY DID IN THE LAST PAPER
`
`18· · · · THAT THEY FILED, ARE MIXERS THAT MULTIPLIED SIGNALS
`
`19· · · · ARE NOT SAMPLERS.
`
`20· · · · · · · · · · · TO BE CLEAR THAT'S NOT PARKERVISION'S
`
`21· · · · POSITION.· THAT'S INTEL'S VIEW OF OUR POSITION.
`
`22· · · · · · · · · · · OUR POSITION OR PARKERVISION'S
`
`23· · · · POSITION IN THE POR, AND TODAY, IS THAT THE CLAIMED
`
`24· · · · SAMPLERS CAN BE MODELED TO MULTIPLY A SINE WAVE
`
`25· · · · WITH A RECTANGULAR PULSE RESULTING IN A TRANSISTOR
`
`26· · · · ACTING AS A SWITCH THAT SAMPLES.
`
`27· · · · · · · · · · · THIS IS DIFFERENT THAN MIXERS OF THE
`
`28· · · · PRIOR ART MARKED IN THE LARSON/BUTLER REFERENCES,
`
`
`
`www.aptusCR.comwww.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 5
`ParkerVision Ex. 2031
`Intel Corp. v. ParkerVision, Inc.
`IPR No. 2020-01302
`
`YVer1f
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 117-9 Filed 03/21/22 Page 7 of 23Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37-10 Filed 03/30/22 Page 8 of 24
`
`
`
`HearingHearing
`
`
`Intel Corporation vs.Intel Corporation vs.
`
`ParkerVision, Inc.ParkerVision, Inc.
`
`·1· · · · WHICH MULTIPLIED TWO SINE WAVES RESULTING IN NO
`
`·2· · · · SAMPLING BECAUSE THE TRANSISTOR ACTS AS A
`
`·3· · · · CONTINUOUS TIME VARYING RESISTOR.· OUR POINT WAS
`
`·4· · · · THAT MULTIPLYING DIFFERENT SIGNALS RESULTS IN
`
`·5· · · · TRANSISTORS OPERATING DIFFERENTLY, NOT THAT MIXERS
`
`·6· · · · MULTIPLY AND ENERGY SAMPLERS DO NOT.
`
`·7· · · · · · · · · · · INTEL FOCUSES ON A SINGLE SENTENCE IN
`
`·8· · · · THEIR REPLY, AND THIS IS WHAT THEY WANT TO
`
`·9· · · · REPRESENT -- TO SAY ABOUT REPRESENTATION, WHICH
`
`10· · · · IT'S NOT.· ENERGY SAMPLERS, UNLIKE MIXERS, DO NOT
`
`11· · · · MIX, I.E., MULTIPLY TWO SIGNALS TOGETHER IN ORDER
`
`12· · · · TO DOWN CONVERT A SIGNAL.
`
`13· · · · · · · · · · · BUT INTEL IGNORES THE CONTEXT THAT
`
`14· · · · PARKERVISION WAS REFERRING TO THAT END AND
`
`15· · · · PARKERVISION'S POINT, WHICH DEALS WITH MIXERS THAT
`
`16· · · · MULTIPLY TWO SINE WAVES.
`
`17· · · · · · · · · · · REGARDLESS, AS WE DISCUSSED WITH THE
`
`18· · · · BOARD ABOUT TWO WEEKS AGO, PARKERVISION'S ONLY
`
`19· · · · REPRESENTATION IS THAT THE CLAIMS REQUIRE SAMPLING.
`
`20· · · · AND AS THE BOARD IS AWARE, BOTH PARTIES AGREE THAT
`
`21· · · · SAMPLING IS IN THE CLAIMS, AND THE CLAIMS ARE NOT
`
`22· · · · INVALID IN VIEW OF ALL THE CITED PRIOR ART; AND,
`
`23· · · · THEREFORE, IT'S PARKERVISION'S POSITION THAT
`
`24· · · · INTEL'S PETITION SHOULD BE DISMISSED.
`
`25· · · · · · · · · · · AND I JUST WANTED THAT -- THAT'S ALL
`
`26· · · · I WANTED TO CLARIFY FOR THE RECORD, YOUR HONOR,
`
`27· · · · WHEN WE TALKED LAST TIME AT THE OTHER HEARING.
`
`28· · · · · · · · JUDGE GERSTENBLITH:· SO -- THANK YOU.· SO
`
`
`
`www.aptusCR.comwww.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 6
`ParkerVision Ex. 2031
`Intel Corp. v. ParkerVision, Inc.
`IPR No. 2020-01302
`
`YVer1f
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 117-9 Filed 03/21/22 Page 8 of 23Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37-10 Filed 03/30/22 Page 9 of 24
`
`
`
`HearingHearing
`
`
`Intel Corporation vs.Intel Corporation vs.
`
`ParkerVision, Inc.ParkerVision, Inc.
`
`·1· · · · FIRST LET ME SAY A COUPLE OF THINGS, AND THEN I
`
`·2· · · · DON'T THINK WE NEED TO BELABOR THE POINT.
`
`·3· · · · · · · · · · · BUT THE FIRST THING IS THE NOTION --
`
`·4· · · · THE EXPLANATION THAT YOU JUST GAVE, IS THAT IN THE
`
`·5· · · · SUR REPLY, PATENT OWNER'S SUR REPLY IN THIS CASE?
`
`·6· · · · · · · · MR. CHARKOW:· IT'S DEFINITELY IN OUR POR,
`
`·7· · · · AND I BELIEVE IT'S IN OUR SUR REPLY, BUT THIS IS
`
`·8· · · · ALL SUPPORTED BY WHAT'S IN OUR DOCUMENTS.
`
`·9· · · · · · · · MR. SUMMERSGILL:· YOUR HONOR, THIS IS
`
`10· · · · MICHAEL SUMMERSGILL.· MAY I JUMP IN?· IT IS NOT IN
`
`11· · · · THEIR POR OR THEIR SUR REPLY.
`
`12· · · · · · · · JUDGE GERSTENBLITH:· OKAY.· SO I'M JUST
`
`13· · · · GOING TO GO ONE AT A TIME.
`
`14· · · · · · · · · · · MR. CHARKOW, IN THE SUR REPLY, YOU'RE
`
`15· · · · SAYING -- LET ME EXPLAIN HOW I SEE WHAT HAPPENED IN
`
`16· · · · THIS CASE, AND YOU GUYS TELL ME WHAT I'M MISSING,
`
`17· · · · PLEASE.
`
`18· · · · · · · · · · · THE PETITION SETS FORTH ITS THEORIES
`
`19· · · · FOR INVALIDATING THE CLAIMS BASED ON THESE
`
`20· · · · REFERENCES.· PATENT OWNER'S RESPONSE SETS FORTH A
`
`21· · · · CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND NOTES THE INCORPORATION OF
`
`22· · · · THE '551 PATENT AND ITS EFFECT WITH RESPECT TO
`
`23· · · · SAMPLING.
`
`24· · · · · · · · · · · PETITIONER'S REPLY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT
`
`25· · · · THIS CLAIM CONSTRUCTION -- THAT PATENT OWNER
`
`26· · · · PRESENTED A CLAIM CONSTRUCTION THAT REFLECTS THE
`
`27· · · · '551 PATENT'S INFLUENCE IN SOME WAY.· AND
`
`28· · · · PETITIONER AGREES, IN LIGHT OF PATENT OWNER'S
`
`
`
`www.aptusCR.comwww.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 7
`ParkerVision Ex. 2031
`Intel Corp. v. ParkerVision, Inc.
`IPR No. 2020-01302
`
`YVer1f
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 117-9 Filed 03/21/22 Page 9 of 23Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37-10 Filed 03/30/22 Page 10 of 24
`
`
`
`HearingHearing
`
`
`Intel Corporation vs.Intel Corporation vs.
`
`ParkerVision, Inc.ParkerVision, Inc.
`
`·1· · · · RESPONSE, PETITIONER AGREES THAT THE CLAIMS REQUIRE
`
`·2· · · · SAMPLING.
`
`·3· · · · · · · · · · · AND PETITIONER AGREES THAT IF THE
`
`·4· · · · CLAIMS REQUIRE SAMPLING, THEN THE ART THAT IS
`
`·5· · · · PRESENTED IN THE PETITION DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE
`
`·6· · · · CLAIMS THAT WE HAVE BEFORE US.
`
`·7· · · · · · · · · · · PETITIONER ALSO NOTES IN THE REPLY
`
`·8· · · · THAT WE NEED NOT DECIDE WHICH TERM IN WHICH CLAIM
`
`·9· · · · BRINGS IN THE SAMPLING REQUIREMENT BECAUSE,
`
`10· · · · WHICHEVER ONE IT IS, THE PARTIES AGREE THAT IT'S
`
`11· · · · THERE SOMEHOW AND THAT THE ART DOESN'T TEACH
`
`12· · · · SAMPLING IN THE WAY THAT IT WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR
`
`13· · · · THESE CLAIMS.
`
`14· · · · · · · · · · · IN PATENT OWNER'S SUR REPLY IN
`
`15· · · · RESPONSE TO THIS, I ONLY SEE DISCUSSION FROM WHAT I
`
`16· · · · CAN TELL IN THE VERY FIRST PARAGRAPH ON PAGE 1 THAT
`
`17· · · · SPEAKS TO THE AGREEMENT THAT WAS MADE I GUESS IN
`
`18· · · · PETITIONER'S REPLY THAT THE CLAIMS REQUIRE SAMPLING
`
`19· · · · AND THAT THE REFERENCES NO LONGER -- PETITIONER NO
`
`20· · · · LONGER ASSERTS THAT THOSE REFERENCES INVALIDATE THE
`
`21· · · · CLAIMS.
`
`22· · · · · · · · · · · I DON'T SEE ANYTHING ELSE IN THE SUR
`
`23· · · · REPLY SPEAKING TO THIS ISSUE, AND I DON'T SEE
`
`24· · · · ANYTHING IN THE SUR REPLY REQUESTING THAT THE
`
`25· · · · PETITION BE DISMISSED OR IN THE PATENT OWNER
`
`26· · · · RESPONSE REQUESTING THAT THE PETITIONER -- THAT THE
`
`27· · · · PETITION BE DISMISSED.
`
`28· · · · · · · · · · · SO, MR. CHARKOW, CAN YOU POINT ME TO
`
`
`
`www.aptusCR.comwww.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 8
`ParkerVision Ex. 2031
`Intel Corp. v. ParkerVision, Inc.
`IPR No. 2020-01302
`
`YVer1f
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 117-9 Filed 03/21/22 Page 10 of 23Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37-10 Filed 03/30/22 Page 11 of 24
`
`
`
`HearingHearing
`
`
`Intel Corporation vs.Intel Corporation vs.
`
`ParkerVision, Inc.ParkerVision, Inc.
`
`·1· · · · SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY IN THE RECORD, AS THE
`
`·2· · · · BRIEFING IN THIS CASE IS CLOSED, WHAT DO WE HAVE IN
`
`·3· · · · THE RECORD THAT'S SETTING FORTH WHAT YOU'RE SEEKING
`
`·4· · · · TO PUT ON THE RECORD NOW WITH THIS PHONE CALL?
`
`·5· · · · · · · · MR. CHARKOW:· SO, YOUR HONOR, WHAT I'M JUST
`
`·6· · · · TRYING TO DO IS CLARIFY WHAT'S ALREADY IN THE POR
`
`·7· · · · AND WHAT IS IN THE SUR REPLY, WHICH IS THAT INTEL
`
`·8· · · · HAS AGREED THAT THERE'S NOTHING, YOU KNOW, LEFT IN
`
`·9· · · · THE CASE WITH REGARD -- SAMPLING IS IN --
`
`10· · · · CONSIDERED TO BE IN THE CLAIMS.
`
`11· · · · · · · · · · · THERE'S NOTHING LEFT OF THEIR PRIOR
`
`12· · · · ART.· THEIR PRIOR ART IS DONE.
`
`13· · · · · · · · · · · AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, WE -- NOTHING I
`
`14· · · · SAID IS DISAGREEING THAT SAMPLING IS IN THE CLAIMS,
`
`15· · · · RIGHT?· AGAIN, AS YOUR HONOR STATED ACCURATELY,
`
`16· · · · IT'S JUST WHERE IT IS IN THE CLAIMS BUT ULTIMATELY
`
`17· · · · IT DOESN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE.· SO WE ARE NOT
`
`18· · · · CHANGING OUR POSITION.
`
`19· · · · · · · · · · · WHAT I WAS JUST CLARIFYING IS THAT
`
`20· · · · INTEL IN THEIR BRIEFING HAS RELIED ON A VERY
`
`21· · · · SPECIFIC SENTENCE AND FOCUSED ON THAT SENTENCE AND
`
`22· · · · APPEARS TO BE SEEKING THAT TO BE PARKERVISION'S
`
`23· · · · REPRESENTATION.
`
`24· · · · · · · · · · · AND THAT SENTENCE IS NOT -- THERE'S A
`
`25· · · · LOT OF PARAGRAPHS AND PROBABLY PAGES AND PAGES OF
`
`26· · · · DISCUSSION AROUND THAT SINGLE SENTENCE.· AND WE
`
`27· · · · JUST WANTED TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THAT IS NOT, YOU
`
`28· · · · KNOW, CONTRARY TO INTEL'S POSITION, THAT IS NOT
`
`
`
`www.aptusCR.comwww.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 9
`ParkerVision Ex. 2031
`Intel Corp. v. ParkerVision, Inc.
`IPR No. 2020-01302
`
`YVer1f
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 117-9 Filed 03/21/22 Page 11 of 23Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37-10 Filed 03/30/22 Page 12 of 24
`
`
`
`HearingHearing
`
`
`Intel Corporation vs.Intel Corporation vs.
`
`ParkerVision, Inc.ParkerVision, Inc.
`
`·1· · · · OUR -- YOU KNOW, OUR, QUOTE/UNQUOTE, REPRESENTATION
`
`·2· · · · OR, YOU KNOW, INTEL WANTS THAT TO BE OUR
`
`·3· · · · REPRESENTATION, BUT THAT'S NOT OUR REPRESENTATION.
`
`·4· · · · · · · · · · · AND SO THAT -- THAT WAS ONLY -- THE
`
`·5· · · · ONLY POINT OF THIS CALL, YOUR HONOR.· IN TERMS OF,
`
`·6· · · · YOU KNOW, SPECIFICS THAT I GAVE IS ALL STUFF -- IS
`
`·7· · · · ALL MATERIAL THAT'S IN THE RECORD.· I'M NOT ADDING
`
`·8· · · · ANYTHING.· IT'S IN THE RECORD.
`
`·9· · · · · · · · JUDGE GERSTENBLITH:· OKAY.· SO WHERE DOES
`
`10· · · · PATENT OWNER REQUEST DISMISSING THE PETITION IN THE
`
`11· · · · RECORD?
`
`12· · · · · · · · MR. CHARKOW:· IN THE POR, IN THE FIRST
`
`13· · · · BRIEF WE FILED AT THE CONCLUSION.· I BELIEVE WE
`
`14· · · · SAID THAT WE REQUEST DISMISSAL OF THE -- OF THE
`
`15· · · · PETITION.· JUST -- GIVE ME A SECOND, YOUR HONOR.
`
`16· · · · · · · · · · · STEPHANIE, DO YOU HAVE THE ORIGINAL
`
`17· · · · POR THAT WE FILED?· STEPHANIE?
`
`18· · · · · · · · MS. MANDIR:· YEAH.· LET ME PULL THAT UP.
`
`19· · · · · · · · · · · (PAUSE IN PROCEEDINGS.)
`
`20· · · · · · · · JUDGE GERSTENBLITH:· SO AS I LOOK AT THE
`
`21· · · · PATENT OWNER RESPONSE I WILL JUST MENTION THAT IT
`
`22· · · · SAYS "THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED" AT THE END.
`
`23· · · · I'M NOT EVEN SURE, TO BE COMPLETELY HONEST, WHAT
`
`24· · · · THAT MEANS BECAUSE WE INSTITUTED THE CASE ALREADY
`
`25· · · · SO THE PETITION WARRANTED, IN OUR VIEW, INSTITUTING
`
`26· · · · THE CASE.
`
`27· · · · · · · · · · · ONCE WE DO THAT, THE QUESTION IS
`
`28· · · · WHETHER THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE OR PATENTABLE
`
`
`
`www.aptusCR.comwww.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 10
`ParkerVision Ex. 2031
`Intel Corp. v. ParkerVision, Inc.
`IPR No. 2020-01302
`
`YVer1f
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 117-9 Filed 03/21/22 Page 12 of 23Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37-10 Filed 03/30/22 Page 13 of 24
`
`
`
`HearingHearing
`
`
`Intel Corporation vs.Intel Corporation vs.
`
`ParkerVision, Inc.ParkerVision, Inc.
`
`·1· · · · OR ARE SHOWN TO BE UNPATENTABLE OR NOT SHOWN TO BE
`
`·2· · · · UNPATENTABLE.
`
`·3· · · · · · · · · · · IF THAT'S WHAT -- IF THE PETITION
`
`·4· · · · SHOULD BE DENIED IS MEANT TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS THE
`
`·5· · · · PETITION SHOULD BE DISMISSED, THEN THAT'S A VERY
`
`·6· · · · UNUSUAL WAY OF STATING IT AND A VERY UNUSUAL PLACE
`
`·7· · · · TO PUT IT; AT THE END OF A PATENT OWNER RESPONSE,
`
`·8· · · · WHICH IS TALKING ABOUT THE MERITS OF THE CASE.· SO
`
`·9· · · · I WILL JUST LEAVE IT LIKE THAT.
`
`10· · · · · · · · · · · IS THERE ANY REASON ASSUMING THAT WE
`
`11· · · · DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE PATENT OWNER RESPONSE TO BE
`
`12· · · · ASKING FOR THE PETITION TO BE DISMISSED, IS THERE
`
`13· · · · ANY REASON THAT -- WELL, LET ME ASK THIS.
`
`14· · · · · · · · · · · IS PATENT OWNER ASKING SOMETHING FOR
`
`15· · · · DIFFERENT THAN US WRITING A FINAL WRITTEN DECISION?
`
`16· · · · · · · · MR. CHARKOW:· NO, YOUR HONOR.· WE ARE NOT.
`
`17· · · · I MEAN, WE CLEARLY SEEK THE PETITION TO BE
`
`18· · · · DISMISSED, BUT WE ARE NOT ASKING ANYTHING -- NO. I
`
`19· · · · MEAN, WE ARE NOT ASKING THAT A WRITTEN DECISION NOT
`
`20· · · · BE ISSUED.· WE ARE JUST SAYING WE WANT TO MAKE IT
`
`21· · · · CLEAR WHAT OUR POSITION IS, AND INTEL SEEMS TO HAVE
`
`22· · · · A DIFFERENT VIEW OF OUR POSITION.
`
`23· · · · · · · · JUDGE GERSTENBLITH:· OKAY.· OKAY.· WELL,
`
`24· · · · THAT ACTUALLY CLARIFIES A LOT.
`
`25· · · · · · · · · · · SO YOU'RE NOT LOOKING FOR SOMETHING
`
`26· · · · DIFFERENT THAN A FINAL WRITTEN DECISION?
`
`27· · · · · · · · MR. CHARKOW:· CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.· I'M NOT
`
`28· · · · LOOKING FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE FINAL WRITTEN
`
`
`
`www.aptusCR.comwww.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 11
`ParkerVision Ex. 2031
`Intel Corp. v. ParkerVision, Inc.
`IPR No. 2020-01302
`
`YVer1f
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 117-9 Filed 03/21/22 Page 13 of 23Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37-10 Filed 03/30/22 Page 14 of 24
`
`
`
`HearingHearing
`
`
`Intel Corporation vs.Intel Corporation vs.
`
`ParkerVision, Inc.ParkerVision, Inc.
`
`·1· · · · DECISION.· I JUST DIDN'T WANT INTEL'S
`
`·2· · · · CHARACTERIZATION OF OUR POSITION TO SOMEHOW, YOU
`
`·3· · · · KNOW, BECOME OUR POSITION.
`
`·4· · · · · · · · JUDGE GERSTENBLITH:· UNDERSTOOD.
`
`·5· · · · · · · · MR. CHARKOW:· THAT WAS KIND OF THE REASON
`
`·6· · · · FOR THIS CALL.· AND I DON'T WANT ANYTHING -- I'M
`
`·7· · · · NOT SEEKING ANYTHING OTHER THAN A WRITTEN DECISION.
`
`·8· · · · · · · · · · · SO WE DON'T DISAGREE THAT THE BOARD
`
`·9· · · · SHOULD DO WHATEVER THE BOARD DOES, WHETHER IT'S A
`
`10· · · · WRITTEN DECISION, WHATEVER THE BOARD DEEMS TO BE
`
`11· · · · APPROPRIATE.· WE ARE NOT SAYING -- THAT'S NOT OUR
`
`12· · · · POSITION.· YOU KNOW, THAT'S NOT OUR PLACE TO SAY
`
`13· · · · WHAT THE BOARD SHOULD OR SHOULDN'T DO.· WE JUST
`
`14· · · · WANTED TO MAKE SURE OUR POSITION WAS CLEAR AND THAT
`
`15· · · · IT WASN'T MISCHARACTERIZED IN ANY WAY.
`
`16· · · · · · · · JUDGE GERSTENBLITH:· OKAY.· I'M NOT GOING
`
`17· · · · TO GET INTO THE DIFFERENCES, BUT THERE IS A TERM
`
`18· · · · "DISMISSING THE PETITION" WHICH MAY BE DIFFERENT
`
`19· · · · THAN WRITING A FINAL WRITTEN DECISION.· WE DON'T
`
`20· · · · NEED TO GET INTO IT BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE NOT
`
`21· · · · ASKING FOR THAT.· THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING THE
`
`22· · · · QUESTIONS THAT I WAS ASKING, JUST -- JUST FOR FULL
`
`23· · · · CLARIFICATION.
`
`24· · · · · · · · · · · ON THE -- WHAT IS PATENT OWNER'S
`
`25· · · · POSITION ON THE CLAIMS AND HOW PETITIONER HAS
`
`26· · · · PRESENTED IT OR PATENT OWNER HAS PRESENTED IT, THE
`
`27· · · · BRIEFS SPEAK TO ALL THOSE ISSUES.· WE ARE NOT
`
`28· · · · TAKING ARGUMENT ON TODAY'S CALL ABOUT POSITIONS
`
`
`
`www.aptusCR.comwww.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 12
`ParkerVision Ex. 2031
`Intel Corp. v. ParkerVision, Inc.
`IPR No. 2020-01302
`
`YVer1f
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 117-9 Filed 03/21/22 Page 14 of 23Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37-10 Filed 03/30/22 Page 15 of 24
`
`
`
`HearingHearing
`
`
`Intel Corporation vs.Intel Corporation vs.
`
`ParkerVision, Inc.ParkerVision, Inc.
`
`·1· · · · THAT ARE ALREADY SET FORTH IN THE BRIEFING.
`
`·2· · · · · · · · · · · TO THAT END, BECAUSE, MR. CHARKOW,
`
`·3· · · · YOU'VE GOT TO EXPLAIN YOUR POSITION, I'M NOT
`
`·4· · · · LOOKING TO HAVE A BACK-AND-FORTH HERE, BUT TO THE
`
`·5· · · · EXTENT MR. SUMMERSGILL OR SOMEONE FROM PETITIONER'S
`
`·6· · · · SIDE WANTS A VERY EXTREMELY SHORT RESPONSE, YOU MAY
`
`·7· · · · DO THAT NOW.
`
`·8· · · · · · · · MR. SUMMERSGILL:· THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. I
`
`·9· · · · WILL KEEP IT BRIEF.
`
`10· · · · · · · · · · · IN ITS PAPERS, THE PATENT OWNER
`
`11· · · · DISTINGUISHED THE CLAIMS OVER THE PRIOR ART ON AN
`
`12· · · · EXPRESS BASIS THAT THE CLAIMS REQUIRE SAMPLED, AND
`
`13· · · · THE CITED MIXER ART DOES NOT PERFORM SAMPLING.· THE
`
`14· · · · SUGGESTION THAT WE SOMEHOW MISCHARACTERIZED THEIR
`
`15· · · · POSITION IS JUST WRONG.
`
`16· · · · · · · · · · · WE QUOTED VERBATIM ON SLIDES 21
`
`17· · · · AND 22 OF OUR DEMONSTRATIVE WHAT THEY SAID AND ON
`
`18· · · · PAGE 1 OF OUR REPLY BRIEF.· FOR INSTANCE, WE QUOTED
`
`19· · · · THEIR POR AT PAGE 22.
`
`20· · · · · · · · · · · WE'D SUGGEST THAT THEY ARE NOW TRYING
`
`21· · · · TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD WITH ARGUMENTS THAT THEY
`
`22· · · · DID NOT MAKE IN THEIR POR OR THEIR SUR REPLY, AND
`
`23· · · · THAT NOTHING THAT MR. CHARKOW IS TRYING TO ADD TO
`
`24· · · · THE RECORD TODAY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED PROPERLY PART
`
`25· · · · OF THE RECORD FOR THREE QUICK REASONS.
`
`26· · · · · · · · · · · FIRST, AS YOUR HONOR HAS SUGGESTED
`
`27· · · · AND NOTED, AWARE OF THE RULE PROHIBIT PATENT OWNER
`
`28· · · · FROM MAKING NEW ARGUMENTS AT THIS STAGE.
`
`
`
`www.aptusCR.comwww.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 13
`ParkerVision Ex. 2031
`Intel Corp. v. ParkerVision, Inc.
`IPR No. 2020-01302
`
`YVer1f
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 117-9 Filed 03/21/22 Page 15 of 23Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37-10 Filed 03/30/22 Page 16 of 24
`
`
`
`HearingHearing
`
`
`Intel Corporation vs.Intel Corporation vs.
`
`ParkerVision, Inc.ParkerVision, Inc.
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · · SECOND, WE HAVE REPEATEDLY RELIED ON
`
`·2· · · · THEIR REPRESENTATIONS IN THEIR PAPERS, IN OUR
`
`·3· · · · BRIEFING, IN THE DEPOSITIONS AND FOR THE, YOU KNOW,
`
`·4· · · · FOR THE CONCLUSIONS THAT WE'VE REACHED.
`
`·5· · · · · · · · · · · AND, THIRD, IT WOULD OF COURSE CREATE
`
`·6· · · · A PERVERSE INCENTIVE FOR FUTURE LITIGANTS.· IF A
`
`·7· · · · PATENT OWNER'S NOT HELD TO THE REPRESENTATIONS IN
`
`·8· · · · THEIR PAPERS, IT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO SAY ONE THING
`
`·9· · · · IN ORDER TO PRESERVE VALIDITY AND THEN WALK AWAY
`
`10· · · · FROM THOSE STATEMENTS LATER.
`
`11· · · · · · · · · · · SO FOR THESE REASONS, YOUR HONORS, WE
`
`12· · · · RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE BOARD NOT CONSIDER
`
`13· · · · PATENT OWNER'S NEW ARGUMENTS, MAKE CLEAR THAT THEY
`
`14· · · · ARE NOT PROPERLY PART OF THE RECORD, AND ISSUE A
`
`15· · · · FINAL WRITTEN DECISION THAT REFLECTS WHAT BOTH THE
`
`16· · · · PARTIES STATED IN THEIR PAPERS WITH RESPECT TO THE
`
`17· · · · SCOPE OF THE CLAIMS AND THE DISTINCTIONS OVER THE
`
`18· · · · CITED ART.
`
`19· · · · · · · · · · · THANK YOU.
`
`20· · · · · · · · JUDGE GERSTENBLITH:· OKAY.· LET ME PUT
`
`21· · · · EVERYBODY ON HOLD JUST FOR A SECOND SO I CAN CONFER
`
`22· · · · WITH THE PANEL, PLEASE.
`
`23· · · · · · · · ·(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.)
`
`24· · · · · · · · JUDGE GERSTENBLITH:· OKAY.· THANK YOU ALL
`
`25· · · · FOR HOLDING.
`
`26· · · · · · · · · · · I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANYTHING ELSE.
`
`27· · · · I WILL JUST SAY THAT WE APPRECIATE THE PATENT OWNER
`
`28· · · · CLARIFYING ITS POSITION ON WHETHER IT WAS
`
`
`
`www.aptusCR.comwww.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 14
`ParkerVision Ex. 2031
`Intel Corp. v. ParkerVision, Inc.
`IPR No. 2020-01302
`
`YVer1f
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 117-9 Filed 03/21/22 Page 16 of 23Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37-10 Filed 03/30/22 Page 17 of 24
`
`
`
`HearingHearing
`
`
`Intel Corporation vs.Intel Corporation vs.
`
`ParkerVision, Inc.ParkerVision, Inc.
`
`·1· · · · REQUESTING DISMISSAL OF THE PETITION OR REACHING A
`
`·2· · · · FINAL WRITTEN DECISION.
`
`·3· · · · · · · · · · · WE HAVE ALL THE POSITIONS AS SET
`
`·4· · · · FORTH IN THE BRIEFING, AND WE DON'T SEE ANY OTHER
`
`·5· · · · ISSUES FOR TODAY.
`
`·6· · · · · · · · · · · JUST BEFORE WE HANG UP, SINCE
`
`·7· · · · EVERYBODY IS HERE, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE FROM
`
`·8· · · · PETITIONER'S SIDE THAT WE SHOULD BE TALKING ABOUT?
`
`·9· · · · · · · · MR. SUMMERSGILL:· NOTHING, YOUR HONORS.
`
`10· · · · · · · · JUDGE GERSTENBLITH:· OKAY.· AND ANYTHING
`
`11· · · · ELSE FROM --
`
`12· · · · · · · · MR. SUMMERSGILL:· THANK YOU.
`
`13· · · · · · · · JUDGE GERSTENBLITH:· YOU'RE WELCOME.
`
`14· · · · · · · · · · · IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE FROM PATENT'S
`
`15· · · · SIDE, MR. CHARKOW?
`
`16· · · · · · · · MR. CHARKOW:· NOT IN THIS CASE, YOUR HONOR,
`
`17· · · · BUT I HAVE ANOTHER UPDATE.· WE CAN GO OFF THE
`
`18· · · · RECORD ON THIS CASE, AND I CAN UPDATE YOU ON THE
`
`19· · · · OTHER CASE IN TERMS OF SOME OTHER STUFF THAT WE
`
`20· · · · TALKED ABOUT.· SO WE CAN STAY ON THE RECORD AND
`
`21· · · · TALK ABOUT THE 1265.· I JUST -- I CAN UPDATE YOU ON
`
`22· · · · SOMETHING THERE, OR WE COULD GO OFF THE RECORD.
`
`23· · · · · · · · JUDGE GERSTENBLITH:· OKAY.· THANK YOU.
`
`24· · · · · · · · · · · LET'S GO OFF THE RECORD THEN.· WE
`
`25· · · · DON'T NEED THE TRANSCRIPT OF THIS PORTION.
`
`26· · · · · · · · ·(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.)
`
`27· · · · · · · · · · · · ·END TIME 6:20 A.M.
`
`28
`
`
`
`www.aptusCR.comwww.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 15
`ParkerVision Ex. 2031
`Intel Corp. v. ParkerVision, Inc.
`IPR No. 2020-01302
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 117-9 Filed 03/21/22 Page 17 of 23Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37-10 Filed 03/30/22 Page 18 of 24
`
`
`
`HearingHearing
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · · REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
`
`
`Intel Corporation vs.Intel Corporation vs.
`
`ParkerVision, Inc.ParkerVision, Inc.
`
`·2
`
`·3· · · · IPR2020-01302
`
`·4· · · · U.S. PATENT NO. 7,539,474
`
`·5
`
`·6· · · · · · ·UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`·7· · · · · · · · · · ____________________________
`
`·8· · · · · · · BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`·9· · · · · · · · · · ____________________________
`
`10· · · · · · · · · · · · · INTEL CORPORATION
`
`11· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·PETITIONER
`
`12· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·V.
`
`13· · · · · · · · · · · · ·PARKERVISION, INC.
`
`14· · · · · · · · · · · · · · PATENT OWNER
`
`15· · · · · · · · · · · U.S. PATENT NO. 7,539,474
`
`16· · · · · · · · · · · ISSUE DATE:· MAY 26, 2009
`
`17· · · · ·TITLE:· DC OFFSET, RE-RADIATION, AND I/Q SOLUTIONS
`
`18· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·USING
`
`19· · · · · · ·UNIVERSAL FREQUENCY TRANSLATION TECHNOLOGY
`
`20· · · · ·___________________________________________________
`
`21· · · · · · · · · · · · · _______________
`
`22· · · · · · · · INTER PARTES REVIEW NO. IPR2020-01302
`
`23
`
`24· · · · · · · · I, TANYA ROGERS, CSR 10178, RPR, OFFICIAL
`
`25· · · · REPORTER OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FOR THE COUNTY
`
`26· · · · OF VENTURA, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING
`
`27· · · · PAGES NUMBERED 1 THROUGH 17, INCLUSIVE, ARE A FULL,
`
`28· · · · TRUE AND CORRECT TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS HELD
`
`
`
`www.aptusCR.comwww.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 16
`ParkerVision Ex. 2031
`Intel Corp. v. ParkerVision, Inc.
`IPR No. 2020-01302
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 117-9 Filed 03/21/22 Page 18 of 23Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37-10 Filed 03/30/22 Page 19 of 24
`
`
`
`HearingHearing
`
`
`Intel Corporation vs.Intel Corporation vs.
`
`ParkerVision, Inc.ParkerVision, Inc.
`
`·1· · · · ON NOVEMBER 10, 2021, IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED CAUSE.
`
`·2· · · · · · · · · DATED AT VENTURA, CALIFORNIA, THIS 18TH
`
`·3· · · · DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021.
`
`·4
`
`·5
`
`·6
`
`·7· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·____________________________
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·TANYA ROGERS, CSR 10178, RPR
`·8· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·OFFICIAL REPORTER, PRO TEMPORE
`
`·9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`www.aptusCR.comwww.aptusCR.com
`
`Page 17
`ParkerVision Ex. 2031
`Intel Corp. v. ParkerVision, Inc.
`IPR No. 2020-01302
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 117-9 Filed 03/21/22 Page 19 of 23Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37-10 Filed 03/30/22 Page 20 of 24
`
`Hearing
`Hearing
`
`-
`
`---OOO--- 3:3
`
`1
`
`1 8:16 13:18
`10 3:1
`1265 15:21
`1302 4:8,26
`
`2
`
`2021 3:1
`21 13:16
`22 13:17,19
`
`5
`
`551 7:22,27
`
`6
`
`6:00 3:2
`6:20 15:27
`
`A
`
`A.M. 3:2 15:27
`ACCURATE 4:8
`ACCURATELY 9:15
`ACKNOWLEDGES
` 7:24
`ACTING 5:26
`ACTS 6:2
`ADD 13:23
`
`ADDING 10:7
`ADDRESS 4:24
`AGO 4:25 6:18
`AGREE 6:20 8:10
`AGREED 9:8
`AGREEMENT 8:17
`AGREES 7:28 8:1,3
`AHMED 3:10
`ALLOW 14:8
`APPEARS 9:22
`APPRECIATE 14:27
`APPROPRIATE
` 12:11
`ARGUMENT 12:28
`ARGUMENTS 13:21,
` 28 14:13
`ARRANGING 4:4
`ART 5:28 6:22 8:4,11
` 9:12 13:11,13 14:18
`ASKED 4:27
`ASKING 11:12,14,18,
` 19 12:21,22
`ASSERTS 8:20
`ASSUMING 11:10
`AWARE 6:20 13:27
`
`B
`
`BACK 5:9
`BACK-AND-FORTH
` 13:4
`BASED 7:19
`BASIS 13:12
`BEHALF 3:6,7,16,24
`
`BELABOR 7:2
`BELIEVE 7:7 10:13
`BOARD 3:27 4:1
` 6:18,20 12:8,9,10,13
` 14:12
`BRIEF 10:13 13:9,18
`BRIEFING 9:2,20
` 13:1 14:3 15:4
`BRIEFLY 4:24,28
`BRIEFS 12:27
`BRINGS 8:9
`
`C
`
`CALIFORNIA 3:1
`CALL 3:11 4:21,26
` 9:4 10:5 12:6,28
`CASE 4:9,26 7:5,16
` 9:2,9 10:24,26 11:8
` 15:16,18,19
`CHANGING 9:18
`CHARACTERIZATIO
`N 12:2
`CHARACTERIZES
` 5:7,16
`CHARKOW 3:22,23
` 4:4,10,22,23 5:9 7:6,
` 14 8:28 9:5 10:12
` 11:16,27 12:5 13:2,
` 23 15:15,16
`CITED 6:22 13:13
` 14:18
`CLAIM 7:21,25,26 8:8
`CLAIMED 5:23
`CLAIMS 6:19,21 7:19
` 8:1,4,6,13,18,21
` 9:10,14,16 10
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
