Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 114 Filed 07/16/24 Page 1 of 5
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`PARKERVISION, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`REALTEK SEMICONDUCTOR CORP.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`NO. 6:22-cv-01162-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`ORDER ON DISCOVERY DISPUTE
`
`On June 18, 2024, Defendant Realtek Semiconductor Corporation (“Realtek”)
`
`presented a discovery dispute to the Court regarding Plaintiff ParkerVision, Inc.’s
`
`(“ParkerVision”) refusal to confirm whether it would produce marketing, business plans, sales,
`
`projections, competitor analysis, and other financial documents. The parties’ positions,
`
`requested relief, and the Court’s Orders are as follows:
`
`Realtek’s Position
`
`On June 7, 2024, the Court provided guidance on the scope of discovery, adding “[i]f
`
`Realtek believes that additional discovery is now warranted from ParkerVision,” it is
`
`“welcome to raise another discovery dispute” if agreement cannot be reached. Ex. C. After
`
`repeated meet and confers (Exs. D, E, F), ParkerVision has refused to confirm whether it will
`
`produce marketing, business plans, sales projections, competitor analysis, and other financial
`
`documents—the very same documents that ParkerVision demanded from Realtek because
`
`they “are directly encompassed by the Georgia Pacific factors.” Dkt. 104. Instead,
`
`ParkerVision continues its delay tactics, obstructing any attempt for discovery relief by
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 114 Filed 07/16/24 Page 2 of 5
`
`taking weeks (and in some cases, months) to “consider” Realtek’s position, or agreeing to
`
`produce and then changing its own self-imposed deadline. Ex. F.
`
`Now, with less than a month until the end of fact discovery (July 2) and exchange of
`
`opening expert reports (July 9), ParkerVision has produced almost no financial and marketing
`
`documents. Apparently, ParkerVision does not believe that it is required to perform any
`
`searches, and can just rely on its old production from the Qualcomm case (which closed fact
`
`discovery in 2016, before the damages period in this case). ParkerVision asserts that such
`
`documents must not exist if not previously produced. Ex. F. ParkerVision’s SEC filings and
`
`other public documents establish otherwise.
`
`ParkerVision is publicly traded and required to report its business plans, sales
`
`projections, and competitors. See, e.g., Ex. G. The information from its SEC filings was not
`
`generated out of thin air, yet the factual basis for its SEC filings has not been produced.
`
`Further, investors have previously sued ParkerVision for fraud based in part on false
`
`statements ParkerVision made on the power savings benefits of its technology. Ex. H. Yet
`
`ParkerVision has failed to produce any marketing documents referenced in that complaint.
`
`Marketing and business plans are explicitly considered under Georgia-Pacific factors
`
`4 (“[t]he licensor’s established policy and marketing program”) and 12 (“[t]he nature of the
`
`patented invention; the character of the commercial embodiment of it as owned and produced
`
`by the licensor; and the benefits to those who used the invention.”). Similarly, sales
`
`projections, competitor analysis, and other financial information (such as revenue, profit, and
`
`costs) are plainly within the scope of Georgia-Pacific factors 6 (“[t]he effect of selling the
`
`patented specialty in promoting sales of other products”), 8 (“[t]he established profitability of
`
`the product made under the patent; its commercial success; and its current popularity”), and
`
`12 (“[t]he portion of the profit or of the selling price that may be customary in the particular
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 114 Filed 07/16/24 Page 3 of 5
`
`business or in comparable businesses to allow for the use of the invention or analogous
`
`inventions.”).
`
`ParkerVision “may not unilaterally decide which document requests it will comply
`
`with and when its document production begins and ends.” Dkt. 104. ParkerVision’s
`
`continuous failure to produce documents prejudice Realtek’s ability to develop its defenses,
`
`particularly here, where ParkerVision has plainly been withholding information and
`
`documents to sandbag Realtek days before the end of fact discovery.
`
`Requested Relief: ParkerVision must produce marketing, business plans, sales
`
`projections, competitor analysis, and other financial documents in response to Interrogatory
`
`Nos. 11 and 12, and Request for Production Nos. 17, 19, 33, 36, and 62 by June 21.
`
`ParkerVision’s Position
`
`Realtek has fabricated a discovery dispute, misrepresenting what ParkerVision has
`
`said and what ParkerVision has done.
`
`In the first sentence of Realtek’s position, it notes an important caveat to the Court’s
`
`guidance—“if agreement cannot be reached.” There is no impasse or dispute between the
`
`parties.
`
`Indeed, Realtek’s counsel has repeatedly abused the discovery-dispute email process
`
`by sending ParkerVision dispute charts before there is even any impasse or dispute. Realtek
`
`then uses the dispute emails as leverage, threatening to file these emails with the Court
`
`without giving ParkerVision time to consider Realtek’s requests. And even when
`
`ParkerVision inevitably points out that there is no dispute or impasse between the parties,
`
`Realtek continues to push forward with filing dispute emails like the present one.
`
`Here, Realtek provided this dispute chart the day after the parties’ meet-and-confer on
`
`this issue – after ParkerVision agreed to re-visit its investigation into the responsive
`
`documents that Realtek is requesting, including documents related to ParkerVisions’ dealings
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 114 Filed 07/16/24 Page 4 of 5
`
`with IBM, Boeing, Questar, Prairiecomm, and Texas Instruments. To the extent
`
`ParkerVision’s follow-on investigation uncovers additional documents, ParkerVision stated
`
`that they will be produced. Notably, ParkerVision has already produced documents related to
`
`these relationships.
`
`Accordingly, Realtek is just flat wrong when it says that “ParkerVision has refused to
`
`confirm whether it will produce marketing, business plans, sales projections, competitor
`
`analysis, and other financial documents—the very same documents that ParkerVision
`
`demanded from Realtek because they ‘are directly encompassed by the Georgia Pacific
`
`factors.’”
`
`On the parties’ meet-and-confer call, ParkerVision’s counsel made it clear that
`
`ParkerVision already searched for the documents Realtek seeks and produced what it found.
`
`This material includes ParkerVision chip data sheets, Board meeting presentations (that
`
`include roadmaps, financials, and marketing plans), marketing documents, product webpages,
`
`technical papers and presentations that ParkerVision used to explain its technology to third
`
`parties, financial documents such as quarterly and annual SEC filings, and agreements with
`
`third parties.
`
`Moreover, ParkerVision’s counsel also explained to Realtek’s counsel that
`
`ParkerVision never succeeded in becoming a competitive chip company. Thus, certain
`
`documents that Realtek is looking for simply do not exist.
`
`Finally, ParkerVision’s counsel explained that it did not simply rely on its old
`
`Qualcomm production. ParkerVision has conducted additional searches and produced
`
`additional documents beyond those from the Qualcomm case.
`
`At bottom, there is no discovery dispute between the parties at this time.
`
`Requested Relief: Realtek’s request for relief is denied because any supposed dispute
`
`is not ripe for the Court’s consideration.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 114 Filed 07/16/24 Page 5 of 5
`
`The Court, having considered both Realtek’s and ParkerVision’s positions on the
`
`ORDER
`
`discovery dispute, as well as other papers and evidence submitted in support and opposition,
`
`hereby Orders that Realtek’s requested relief is DENIED.
`
`SIGNED on this 16th day of July, 2024.
`
`5
`
`