Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 103 Filed 06/11/24 Page 1 of 5
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`PARKERVISION, INC.,
`
`
`
` v.
`
`REALTEK SEMICONDUCTOR CORP.,
`
` Defendant.
`
`
` Case No. 6:22-cv-1162-ADA
`
`DISCOVERY ORDER
`
`On June 6, 2024, counsel for Plaintiff ParkerVision, Inc. (“ParkerVision”) and Defendant
`
`Realtek Semiconductor Corp.’s (“Realtek”) submitted to the Court a chart summarizing a
`
`discovery dispute.
`
`As to the dispute, ParkerVision requested that Realtek’s attorneys must collect, review,
`
`and produce all documents responsive to ParkerVision’s Requests for Production and take
`
`responsibility for discovery. Realtek requested that the Court deny ParkerVision’s request.
`
`PARKERVISION’S POSITION
`
`The close of discovery is fast approaching. And despite ParkerVision’s best efforts,
`
`Realtek has—yet again— stonewalled all reasonable efforts to obtain document discovery.
`
`As the Court may recall, this is not the first time Realtek has resorted to gamesmanship to
`
`block discovery. The Court has ordered Realtek to produce documents multiple times in this
`
`case. But this has not dissuaded Realtek from continuing its obstructionist conduct. When
`
`ParkerVision has sought to obtain additional discovery from Realtek, it has been forced to file a
`
`motion to compel.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 103 Filed 06/11/24 Page 2 of 5
`
`Realtek’s strategy is now clear: run out the clock on discovery, move this case quickly to
`
`trial, and have the case decided on a wholly incomplete record.
`
`Realtek is a sophisticated multi-billion-dollar wireless chip company based in Taiwan.
`
`ParkerVision has accused more than 20 Realtek wireless chips of infringement.
`
`Despite the expansive nature of what is being accused and Realtek agreeing to produce
`
`documents in response to almost all of ParkerVision’s RFPs, Realtek has only produced a few
`
`hundred documents related to the technology (mostly high-level data sheets given to its
`
`customers). It has produced almost nothing (and in some cases, nothing) related to research, chip
`
`design and development, specifications, testing, presentations, planning, roadmaps, marketing,
`
`competitive analyses, etc.—documents a sophisticated company like Realtek should have plenty
`
`of.
`
`Instead, playing a game, Realtek produced over 70,000 Chinese-language purchase
`
`orders. Indeed, after ParkerVision’s complaints and multiple meet/confers, in early May, Realtek
`
`stated that it would substantially complete its production by May 17. But instead of making a
`
`significant production as expected, Realtek waited weeks only to produce a handful of additional
`
`documents, and then inform ParkerVision that its document production was substantially
`
`complete.
`
`Given ParkerVision’s experience litigating against large chip companies like Realtek, the
`
`complete lack of responsive documents seemed unbelievable. So ParkerVision explored how
`
`Realtek’s counsel went about collecting and producing documents. Turns out, Realtek’s counsel
`
`instructed Realtek to search for documents related to the narrow topic of down-conversion. It
`
`then became apparent what had occurred—Realtek’s counsel left it to Realtek to act as the
`
`gatekeeper in determining what is relevant to this case. It is the fox guarding the hen house.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 103 Filed 06/11/24 Page 3 of 5
`
`Realtek’s counsel should have collected all documents falling within the scope of ParkerVision’s
`
`RFPs and withheld only those for which it had a reasonable objection in the context of the
`
`breadth of discovery allowed under Rule 26. Realtek’s counsel did not do so.
`
`Instead, Realtek’s counsel has repeated its flippant (and irrelevant) response—the down-
`
`conversion feature of the accused chips is simply not important to Realtek. But this does not
`
`excuse the lack of production or explain why a leading worldwide chip company has almost no
`
`documents related to its accused chips.
`
`The missing discovery is critical. ParkerVision cannot depose witnesses (much less
`
`determine who to depose) and start preparing expert reports until it has document discovery.
`
`REALTEK’S POSITION
`
`Realtek’s technical production has been substantially complete since May 17. Indeed, in
`
`response to every specific inquiry from ParkerVision, Realtek searched, collected, and produced
`
`documents, including those with no relevance to the accused feature. Now, with nothing specific
`
`to complain about, ParkerVision makes the burdensome and costly demand that Realtek collect
`
`and review all technical documents related to the accused chips, even if it has nothing to do with
`
`the accused feature. This is far from proportional to the needs of this case.
`
`Realtek has already exceeded its discovery obligations. Specifically, Realtek has
`
`produced SPICE files (including netlists), firmware, GDS files, schematics, datasheets, design
`
`changes, validation, and testing documents. Realtek even made its own Cadence environment
`
`available, so ParkerVision could view Realtek’s SPICE and GDS files in the same environment
`
`as Realtek engineers. Notably, this allowed ParkerVision to generate over 500 schematics of
`
`Realtek’s chips—what ParkerVision told this Court is “the heart of this case.” Ex. E.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 103 Filed 06/11/24 Page 4 of 5
`
`ParkerVision’s presumption that Realtek has a trove of relevant technical documents is
`
`unrealistic. Realtek’s Wi-Fi chips are commodity products, and the accused feature (down-
`
`conversion) was designed more than a decade ago with very few changes since. ParkerVision’s
`
`bewilderment over the number of technical documents is akin to bewilderment on the lack of
`
`technical documents on automatic car windows at a car manufacturer. There is very little
`
`discussion or development internally on this feature, and consequently, a limited number of
`
`documents. Indeed, ParkerVision itself has produced only a handful of its own technical
`
`documents despite the fact this feature is the focus of its company and products.
`
`Critically, ParkerVision has not identified what technical discovery is “missing.” During
`
`meet and confers, Realtek requested ParkerVision to identify documents it needed that were not
`
`produced. ParkerVision identified datasheets, design change, and testing documents. Realtek
`
`collected and produced these documents even though they include no discussion of down-
`
`conversion whatsoever. Exs. A, B, C. Realtek remains open to collect and produce additional
`
`types of technical documents.
`
`But this dispute is nothing more than retaliation for Realtek’s request to compel
`
`ParkerVision to produce withheld discovery from prior cases. There is also no truth to
`
`ParkerVision’s claim that “The Court has ordered Realtek to produce documents multiple times
`
`in this case.” Rather, ParkerVision has moved three times, and each time the Court granted
`
`Realtek’s relief either in whole or in part. Ex. D (allowing representative product agreement
`
`instead of production); Ex. E (declining to order Realtek generate schematics); Dkt. 97.
`
`At bottom, ParkerVision’s demand is not proportional given the low stakes in this case,
`
`and only serves to increase Reatek’s costs. Indeed, ParkerVision states in a separate dispute that
`
`Realtek’s simple request for draft licenses is “not proportional to the needs of this case and the
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 103 Filed 06/11/24 Page 5 of 5
`
`issues at stake.” Ex. F. Under that standard (indeed, any standard), collecting and reviewing
`
`technical documents on unaccused features here (memory, connectivity, peripherals, security,
`
`digital processing, bus, etc.) cannot be proportional.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`The Court, upon consideration of the parties’ respective requests, is of the opinion that
`
`Realtek’s counsel shall immediately collect and review all documents related to the accused
`
`chips and, within nine days of this Order, produce all responsive, non-privileged documents in
`
`response to ParkerVision’s Requests for Production. Accordingly, ParkerVision’s request is
`
`GRANTED.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SIGNED this 11th day of June, 2024
`
`5
`
`