Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 46 Filed 04/21/22 Page 1 of 6
`Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 46 Filed 04/21/22 Page 1of6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`

`

`
`PARKERVISION, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:21-cv-00520-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 46 Filed 04/21/22 Page 2 of 6
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S SUR-SUR-REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 46 Filed 04/21/22 Page 3 of 6
`
`I.
`
`“CABLE MODEM” IN DEPEDNENT CLAIMS 16 AND 17 DOES NOT RENDER
`THE PREAMBLE’S “CABLE MODEM” LIMITING
`
`ParkerVision argues—belatedly and incorrectly—that “cable modem” in the preamble of
`
`claim 1 must be limiting because it serves as antecedent basis for “cable modem” in dependent
`
`claims 16 and 17 and improperly concludes that this “end[s] the inquiry.” Dkt. 40 (PV Sur-Reply)
`
`at 6. ParkerVision is incorrect.
`
`“[A] preamble of an independent claim need not be found 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 have consistently
`
`rejected any attempt to impose a “bright-line rule that antecedent basis for a dependent claim is
`
`always sufficient to render a preamble limiting.” TQ Delta, LLC v. 2WIRE, Inc., No. 1:13-CV-
`
`01835-RGA, 2018 WL 4062617, at *4 (D. Del. Aug. 24, 2018) (cleaned up; distinguishing Pacing
`
`Technologies, LLC v. Garmin Int’l, Inc., which found a preamble limiting where the preamble
`
`provided antecedent basis for a limitation in a dependent claim, 778 F.3d 1021, 1024 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2015)); see also 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 dependent claim). “[S]uch a bright-line rule would create
`
`tension with the Federal Circuit’s earlier observation that ‘[n]o litmus test defines when a preamble
`
`limits claim scope.’” PersonalWeb Techs. LLC v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., No. 16-CV-01266-
`
`EJD, 2017 WL 2180980, at *13 n.15 (N.D. Cal. May 18, 2017) (quoting Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc.
`
`v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 46 Filed 04/21/22 Page 4 of 6
`
`Here, the mere fact that independent claim 1’s preamble term “cable modem” appears in
`
`the body of two dependent claims does not render the preamble of claim 1 limiting. ParkerVision’s
`
`new argument, predicated only on a misunderstanding of law, does not change the conclusion that
`
`the “cable modem” portion of the preamble is not limiting, for the reasons explained in LGE’s
`
`Opening Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. 31 at 8-11) and Reply Construction Brief (Dkt. 37 at 5-
`
`7).
`
`
`
`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
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 46 Filed 04/21/22 Page 5 of 6
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 46 Filed 04/21/22 Page 6 of 6
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`