Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 45 Filed 04/20/22 Page 1 of 8
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:21-cv-00520-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`PARKERVISION, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S OPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SUR-SUR-REPLY
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF TO RESPOND TO NEW ARGUMENT RAISED IN
`PARKERVISION’S SUR-REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 45 Filed 04/20/22 Page 2 of 8
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................ 1
`
`LEGAL STANDARD .................................................................................................... 2
`
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................. 2
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 3
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 45 Filed 04/20/22 Page 3 of 8
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`CreAgri, Inc. v. Pinnaclife Inc.,
`No. 11:CV-06635-LHK, 2013 WL 1663611 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2013) ...................................3
`
`Enpat, Inc. v. Shannon,
`No. 6:11-CV-00084-GAP, 2011 WL 6010441 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 30, 2011) ...............................3
`
`Interactive Graphic Sols. LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`No. 6:21-CV-00462-ADA, D.I. 67 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 14, 2022) ................................................2
`
`Jones v. Cain,
`600 F.3d 527 (5th Cir. 2010) .....................................................................................................2
`
`Mission Toxicology, LLC v. Unitedhealthcare Ins. Co.,
`499 F. Supp. 3d 350 (W.D. Tex. 2020) ......................................................................................2
`
`SEVEN Networks, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 2:19-CV-00115-JRG, 2020 WL 1536152 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2020) ................................3
`
`TQ Delta, LLC v. 2WIRE, Inc.,
`No. 1:13-CV-01835-RGA, 2018 WL 4062617 (D. Del. Aug. 24, 2018) ..................................3
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 45 Filed 04/20/22 Page 4 of 8
`
`Defendant LG Electronics Inc. (“LGE”) respectfully moves for leave to file a short, two-
`
`page sur-sur-reply in response to Plaintiff ParkerVision, Inc.’s (“ParkerVision”) Sur-Reply Claim
`
`Construction Brief (Dkt. 40). ParkerVision’s Sur-Reply raises a new argument concerning
`
`whether the preamble of claim 1 of the ’835 patent is limiting that could have and should have
`
`been presented in ParkerVision’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. 36). LGE
`
`respectfully requests a fair opportunity to respond to this new argument and has attached its
`
`proposed sur-sur-reply brief at Exhibit A.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`ParkerVision first informed LGE on February 2, 2022, that it planned to assert that the
`
`“cable modem” term in the preamble of claim 1 of the ’835 patent is limiting. Ex. B. Pursuant to
`
`the Agreed Scheduling Order (Dkt. 35), LGE filed its Opening Claim Construction Brief on
`
`February 23, 2022, arguing that the “cable modem” term was not limiting. Dkt. 31 at 8-11.
`
`ParkerVision filed its Responsive Claim Construction Brief on March 16, 2022, responding to
`
`LGE’s arguments and arguing that the “cable modem” term was limiting. Dkt. 36 at 9-12. LGE
`
`filed its Reply Claim Construction Brief, addressing ParkerVision’s arguments concerning the
`
`“cable modem” term. Dkt. 37 at 5-7. ParkerVision filed its Sur-Reply Claim Construction Brief
`
`on April 15, 2022.1
`
`In its Sur-Reply Claim Construction Brief, ParkerVision argues that “cable modem” in the
`
`preamble of claim 1 is limiting because it provides antecedence for “cable modem” in dependent
`
`claims 16 and 17. Dkt. 40 at 6. This argument was not raised in ParkerVision’s initial claim
`
`construction brief. See Dkt. 36 at 9-12.
`
`
`1 ParkerVision’s Sur-Reply Claim Construction Brief was due on April 13, 2022, pursuant to the
`Agreed Scheduling Order. Dkt. 35 at 3. ParkerVision requested and LGE agreed to a two-day
`extension, moving the deadline to April 15, 2022.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 45 Filed 04/20/22 Page 5 of 8
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`This Court generally “will not consider new arguments or evidence in a reply brief.”
`
`Interactive Graphic Sols. LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 6:21-CV-00462-ADA, D.I. 67 (W.D. Tex.
`
`Apr. 14, 2022) (J. Albright); see also Jones v. Cain, 600 F.3d 527, 541 (5th Cir. 2010) (“Arguments
`
`raised for the first time in a reply brief are generally waived.”). When new arguments are raised
`
`for the first time in a reply or sur-reply brief, courts have the discretion to grant leave to file a brief
`
`to respond to the new arguments. Mission Toxicology, LLC v. Unitedhealthcare Ins. Co., 499 F.
`
`Supp. 3d 350, 359 (W.D. Tex. 2020) (citing Warrior Energy Servs. Corp. v. ATP Titan M/V, 551
`
`F. App’x 749, 751 n.2 (5th Cir. 2014)). “[G]ranting leave to file a surreply in extraordinary
`
`circumstances ‘on a showing of good cause’ is a viable alternative to the general practice to
`
`summarily deny or exclude ‘all arguments and issues first raised in reply briefs.’” Id.
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`In its Sur-Reply, ParkerVision argues for the first time that “the term ‘cable modem’ [in
`
`the preamble of claim 1] provides antecedent basis for the term ‘the cable modem’ in claims 16
`
`and 17 of the ’835 patent.” Dkt. 40 (PV Sur-Reply) at 6 (emphasis in original). ParkerVision
`
`asserts, without supporting authority, that “[t]his ends the inquiry” and the term “cable modem” in
`
`the preamble of claim 1 must be limiting. Id. This new argument should not be considered by the
`
`Court because it is untimely, improper, and could have been raised in ParkerVision’s first claim
`
`construction brief. Mission Toxicology, 499 F. Supp. 3d at 359 (“it is improper for the movant to
`
`sandbag and raise wholly new issues in a reply memorandum” (citation omitted)).
`
`To the extent that the Court will consider ParkerVision’s untimely argument, good cause
`
`exists to permit LGE fair opportunity to respond. ParkerVision’s argument assumes, incorrectly,
`
`that antecedent basis for a dependent claim is always sufficient to render a preamble limiting.
`
`There is no such “bright line rule”—rather, “a preamble of an independent claim need not be found
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 45 Filed 04/20/22 Page 6 of 8
`
`limiting merely because it appears in the body of a dependent claim.” SEVEN Networks, LLC v.
`
`Apple Inc., No. 2:19-CV-00115-JRG, 2020 WL 1536152, at *32 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2020).
`
`Indeed, courts consistently find that the preamble in an independent claim is not limiting as to that
`
`claim simply because it provides antecedence for a dependent claim. See, e.g., TQ Delta, LLC v.
`
`2WIRE, Inc., No. 1:13-CV-01835-RGA, 2018 WL 4062617, at *4 (D. Del. Aug. 24, 2018) (finding
`
`that the preamble of an independent claim was limiting only as to a dependent claim, because the
`
`preamble provided antecedent basis to terms in the body of the dependent claim); CreAgri, Inc. v.
`
`Pinnaclife Inc., No. 11:CV-06635-LHK, 2013 WL 1663611, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2013)
`
`(“[T]he Court is not persuaded that the preamble ‘a dietary supplement’ should be construed as
`
`limiting Claims 1 and 5 (or the Patent as a whole) simply because it appears in the preamble and
`
`the body of dependent Claim 3.”); Enpat, Inc. v. Shannon, No. 6:11-CV-00084-GAP, 2011 WL
`
`6010441, at *8 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 30, 2011) (finding preamble of independent claim limiting only
`
`as to its dependent claim).
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`LGE has not had any opportunity to challenge ParkerVision’s new argument that the
`
`preamble of claim 1 of the ’835 patent is limiting because it provides antecedent basis for terms in
`
`two dependent claims, and ParkerVision’s unsupported conclusion that this fact should “end the
`
`inquiry.” Assuming that the Court is inclined to consider ParkerVision’s untimely and improper
`
`argument, LGE requests that it be granted leave to file its proposed, concise, two-page Sur-Sur-
`
`Reply Claim Construction Brief, attached as Exhibit A.
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Local Rule CV-7(g), counsel for LGE certifies that they conferred with counsel
`
`for ParkerVision on April 20, 2022, and ParkerVision is opposed to the relief sought in this motion.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 45 Filed 04/20/22 Page 7 of 8
`
`Dated: April 20, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Melissa R. Smith
`Melissa R. Smith
`GILLAM & SMITH, LLP
`TX State Bar No. 24001351
`303 S. Washington Avenue
`Marshall, Texas 75670
`Telephone: (903) 934-8450
`Facsimile: (903) 934-9257
`melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com
`
`Steven Pepe
`Matthew Shapiro
`James Stevens
`Michael Morales
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`1211 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036-8704
`Tel: 212.596.9000
`Fax: 212.596.9090
`Steven.Pepe@ropesgray.com
`Matthew.Shapiro@ropesgray.com
`James.Stevens@ropesgray.com
`Michael.Morales@ropesgray.com
`
`David S. Chun
`Stepan Starchenko
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`1900 University Ave., 6th Floor
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2284
`Tel: 650.617.4000
`Fax: 650.617.4090
`David.Chun@ropesgray.com
`Stepan.Starchenko@ropesgray.com
`
`Scott Taylor
`(Admission application forthcoming)
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`Prudential Tower
`800 Boylston Street
`Boston, MA 02199-3600
`Tel: 617.951.7000
`Fax: 617.951.7050
`Scott.Taylor@ropesgray.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant LG Electronics Inc.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 45 Filed 04/20/22 Page 8 of 8
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that, on April 20, 2022, all counsel of record who are deemed
`
`to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document.
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Melissa R. Smith
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`