Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 61 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 7
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
`PARKERVISION, INC.,
`
`
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` v.
`
`Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-00520-ADA
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF LETTERS ROGATORY
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h)(2) and 4(f)(2)(B), Plaintiff
`
`ParkerVision, Inc. (“ParkerVision”) respectfully requests that this Court issue Letters
`
`Rogatory in the form attached as Exhibit 1 to the Appropriate Judicial Authority of
`
`Taiwan, compelling the production of documents and testimony from third party
`
`MediaTek Inc. (“MediaTek”). ParkerVision brings this motion in order to obtain
`
`relevant evidence not available to it by any other means.
`
`I.
`
`Background.
`
`To support its infringement claims in this case, ParkerVision had chip-level
`
`extractions of the accused chips used in LGE’s accused products such as its smart
`
`televisions. The asserted patents in this case are U.S. patent nos. 6,049,706; 6,266,518;
`
`6,580,902; 7,110,444; 7,292,835; 8,588,725; 8,660,513; 9,118,528; 9,246,736 and 9,444,673
`
`(the “Asserted Patents”). The technology described and claimed in the Asserted Patents
`
`1
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
`PARKERVISION, INC.,
`
`
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` v.
`
`Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-00520-ADA
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF LETTERS ROGATORY
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h)(2) and 4(f)(2)(B), Plaintiff
`
`ParkerVision, Inc. (“ParkerVision”) respectfully requests that this Court issue Letters
`
`Rogatory in the form attached as Exhibit 1 to the Appropriate Judicial Authority of
`
`Taiwan, compelling the production of documents and testimony from third party
`
`MediaTek Inc. (“MediaTek”). ParkerVision brings this motion in order to obtain
`
`relevant evidence not available to it by any other means.
`
`I.
`
`Background.
`
`To support its infringement claims in this case, ParkerVision had chip-level
`
`extractions of the accused chips used in LGE’s accused products such as its smart
`
`televisions. The asserted patents in this case are U.S. patent nos. 6,049,706; 6,266,518;
`
`6,580,902; 7,110,444; 7,292,835; 8,588,725; 8,660,513; 9,118,528; 9,246,736 and 9,444,673
`
`(the “Asserted Patents”). The technology described and claimed in the Asserted Patents
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 61 Filed 07/12/22 Page 2 of 7
`
`relates to, among other things, integrated circuit chips used for wi-fi, Bluetooth and
`
`cellular communications. MediaTek is the manufacturer and supplier of the chips that
`
`LGE uses in certain of its products, including televisions, and those chips read on the
`
`Asserted Patents (“MediaTek Chips”).
`
`
`
`On May 26, 2022, ParkerVision served document requests and interrogatories on
`
`LGE, including documents and interrogatories relating to the circuit level design,
`
`operation and functionality of the MediaTek Chips and other technical details about the
`
`MediaTek Chips. Subject to LGE’s various general and specific objections to the
`
`document requests, it stated that “to the extent such documents exist, are in the custody
`
`and/or control of LGE, and have not already been produced, LGE will produce
`
`documents sufficient to show information responsive to [the] Request[s].” In recent
`
`subsequent meet-and-confers regarding ParkerVision’s written discovery, however,
`
`LGE stated that it is not in possession, custody or control of documents relating to the
`
`technical details of the MediaTek Chips and therefore ParkerVision may only obtain
`
`that discovery from MediaTek.
`
`Accordingly, ParkerVision has reason to believe that MediaTek is in possession
`
`of information that is relevant to ParkerVision’s infringement claims. Specifically,
`
`ParkerVision has reason to believe that MediaTek has schematics, chip design
`
`documents and other technical documents relating to the operation and functionality of
`
`the MediaTek Chips and to the values and specifications of certain components in the
`
`MediaTek Chips that provide layer-by-layer chip-level details of the MediaTek Chips at
`
`issue in this case.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 61 Filed 07/12/22 Page 3 of 7
`
`ParkerVision therefore respectfully requests the Court to issue Letters Rogatory
`
`requesting that MediaTek be compelled to produce all documents that are responsive to
`
`ParkerVision’s requests for production, and a witness to testify on each of the
`
`deposition topics, as set forth in Attachments A and B to Exhibit 1 (collectively
`
`“ParkerVision’s Discovery Requests”).
`
`II.
`
`Argument.
`
`“Federal courts may issue letters rogatory to foreign tribunals, agencies, or
`
`officers in order to seek ‘assistance in the production of evidence located in the foreign
`
`country.” Blitzsafe Tex. v. Jaguar Land Rover, No. 2:17-cv-00424-JRG, 2019 U.S. Dist.
`
`LEXIS 240026, at *2 (quoting United States v. El-Mezain, 664 F.3d 467, 516-17 (5th Cir.
`
`2011), as revised (Dec. 27, 2011)). Federal courts have “inherent power” to issue letters
`
`rogatory. Nat. Gas Pipeline Co. of Am. v. Energy Gathering, Inc., 2 F.3d 1397, 1408 (5th Cir.
`
`1993); accord 28 U.S.C. § 1781. In the Fifth Circuit, “[t]he decision to issue a letter
`
`rogatory is . . . entrusted to the sound discretion of the district court . . . .” El-Mezain, 664
`
`F.3d at 517. Further, there “must be a ‘good reason’ to deny a request for letters
`
`rogatory, at least when the request is made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 28(b).” Triump
`
`Aerostructures v. Comau, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-2329-L, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125347, at *8
`
`(N.D. Tex. Sep. 18, 2015) (internal citations omitted); see also id. at *9 (stating that letters
`
`rogatory or letters of request should be consistent with Rule 26(b)(1)).
`
`ParkerVision’s Discovery Requests are within the scope of discovery defined by
`
`Rule 26. Specifically, the documents requested in Attachment A seek circuit-level detail
`
`of the accused chips used in LGE’s accused products, technical information and other
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 61 Filed 07/12/22 Page 4 of 7
`
`information regarding the MediaTek Chips that MediaTek has sold or otherwise
`
`provided to LGE directly or through a third party, the agreements between MediaTek
`
`and LGE and other third parties relating to the MediaTek Chips, and information
`
`relating to the marketing and sale of MediaTek Chips. The deposition topics recited in
`
`Attachment B relate to the documents requested in Attachment A, as described
`
`generally above, and the authentication and business-record nature of the requested
`
`documents. The requested documents and deposition testimony are therefore important
`
`to ParkerVision’s ability to demonstrate LGE’s infringement of the Asserted Patents and
`
`to properly and fully respond to LGE’s defenses.
`
`There are no alternative means of obtaining the requested information from LGE
`
`as LGE has informed ParkerVision that it is not in possession, custody or control of
`
`documents relating to the technical details of the MediaTek Chips and directed
`
`ParkerVision to obtain that discovery from MediaTek. Further, MediaTek has no known
`
`subsidiary or otherwise affiliated entity located in the United States on whom a
`
`subpoena could be served. Based on LGE’s stated inability to produce any of the
`
`documents and deposition testimony sought and no known MediaTek-affiliated
`
`company located in the United States, there are no alternative means of obtaining the
`
`discovery ParkerVision seeks.
`
`Accordingly, ParkerVision respectfully requests the Court to return: (a) the
`
`original copy of the signed and issued Letters Rogatory; and (b) one certified copy, to
`
`the undersigned counsel. ParkerVision will then transmit the issued Letters Rogatory to
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 61 Filed 07/12/22 Page 5 of 7
`
`the United States Department of State to oversee transmission of the Letters Rogatory to
`
`Taiwan through diplomatic channels as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1781(a)(2).
`
`III. Conclusion.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the Court should issue an order issuing Letters
`
`Rogatory directed to the Appropriate Judicial Authority of Taiwan. The information
`
`sought through this Motion and Letters Rogatory are within the scope of discovery
`
`permitted under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and necessary for
`
`ParkerVision to prosecute its claims in the above-captioned action.
`
`Dated: July 12, 2022
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Raymond W. Mort, III
`Raymond W. Mort, III
`Texas State Bar No. 00791308
`raymort@austinlaw.com
`THE MORT LAW FIRM, PLLC
`100 Congress Avenue, Suite 2000
`Austin, Texas 78701
`Tel/Fax: 512-865-7950
`
`Of counsel:
`Ronald M. Daignault (pro hac vice)*
`Chandran B. Iyer (pro hac vice)
`Jason S. Charkow (pro hac vice)*
`Stephanie R. Mandir (pro hac vice)
`Zachary H. Ellis
`(Texas State Bar No. 24122606)*
`Christian E. Samay (pro hac vice)*
`DAIGNAULT IYER LLP
`8618 Westwood Center Drive – Suite 150
`Vienna, VA 22182
`rdaignault@daignaultiyer.com
`cbiyer@daignaultiyer.com
`jcharkow@daignaultiyer.com
`smandir@daignaultiyer.com
`zellis@daignaultiyer.com
`csamay@daignaultiyer.com
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 61 Filed 07/12/22 Page 6 of 7
`
`*Not admitted in Virginia
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff ParkerVision, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 61 Filed 07/12/22 Page 7 of 7
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
`
`Pursuant to Local Rule CV-7(G), the undersigned hereby certifies that Plaintiff’s
`
`counsel contacted Intel’s counsel and received confirmation that they do not oppose this
`
`Motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Ronald M. Daignault
`Ronald M. Daignault
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
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
