Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 40 Filed 05/11/23 Page 1 of 23
`
`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
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR
`FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 40 Filed 05/11/23 Page 2 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`
`I.
`
`II. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS ............................................................................... 2
`
`III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ 3
`
`1. ParkerVision Filed This Case as a Backdoor Attempt to Obtain Discovery ............... 3
`2. ParkerVision’s Infringement Allegations Are Based on the Chips of the Wrong
`Defendant and Unsupported Allegations of Testing ............................................................... 4
`3. Realtek Attempted to Resolve this Dispute without Motion Practice........................... 7
`IV. LEGAL PRINCIPLES ....................................................................................................... 7
`
`1. Pleading Standards ............................................................................................................... 7
`2. Direct Infringement ............................................................................................................. 8
`3.
`Indirect Infringement ........................................................................................................... 8
`V. ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 9
`
`1. ParkerVision Fails to Plead Any Factual Content to Support a Cause of Action ....... 9
`2. ParkerVision Has No Basis for Direct Infringement Because Realtek Is Not Present
`in the United States .................................................................................................................... 10
`3. ParkerVision Has No Basis for Indirect Infringement Because Realtek Had No
`Knowledge of the Asserted Patents ......................................................................................... 12
`4. ParkerVision Cannot Recover Damages for the Expired Patents Because Realtek
`Had No Actual or Constructive Notice ................................................................................... 13
`5. ParkerVision Cannot Recover Damages for the Licensed Hisense Products ............ 13
`VI. STAY PENDING APPEAL ............................................................................................. 14
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 40 Filed 05/11/23 Page 3 of 23
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Ainsworth v. Rod’s Prod. Servs., LLC,
`No. A-15-CA-605-SS, 2015 WL 13567093 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 28, 2015) ............................ 1
`
`American Med. Sys., Inc. v. Med. Eng’g Corp.,
`6 F.3d 1523 (Fed. Cir. 1993)............................................................................................ 2, 3
`
`Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Prods. Inc.,
`876 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2017).......................................................................................... 13
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 661 (2009) ..................................................................................................... 7,8,10
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ........................................................................................................ 7,10
`
`In re Billing of Lading Transmission & Processing Sys. Pat. Litg., 681 F.3d
`1323, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................. 9
`
`Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corp. of Am.,
`4 F.4th 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ........................................................................................ 2,7,9
`
`Carlton v. Freer Inv. Grp., Ltd.,
`No. 5:15-cv-00946-DAE, 2017 WL 11046201 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 8, 2017) ........................ 7,
`
`Castlemorton Wireless, LLC v. Bose Corp.,
`No. 6:20-CV-00029-ADA, 2020 WL 6578418 (W.D. Tex. July 22, 2020) ...................... 12
`
`Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`575 U.S. 632 (2015) ....................................................................................................... 2, 12
`
`Crossroads Sys., Inc. v. Dot Hill Sys. Corp.,
`2015 WL 3773014 (W.D. Tex. June 16, 2015) ................................................................. 14
`
`De La Vega v. Microsoft Corp.,
`No. W-19-CV-00612-ADA, 2020 WL 3528411 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 7, 2020) ...................... 10
`
`Edwin Vega v. Maxim Integrated Prods.,
`No. 5:15-CV-1138-DAE, slip op. (W.D. Tex. June 14, 2016) .......................................... 12
`
`Hourexchange, LLC v. Student Loan Benefits, Inc.,
`No. 1:22-CV-00356-RP, 2023 WL 139150 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 9, 2023) ................................ 9
`
`Impression Prods., Inc. v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc.,
`137 S. Ct. 1523 (2017) ....................................................................................................... 13
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 40 Filed 05/11/23 Page 4 of 23
`
`Innomemory, LLC v. Cullen/Frost Bankers, Inc.,
`No. 6:22-CV-00672-ADA, slip op. (W.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2022) ......................................... 2
`
`Kirsch Rsch. & Dev., LLC v. Tarco Specialty Prods., Inc.,
`No. 6:20-cv-318-ADA, 2021 WL 4555804 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 4, 2021) .............................. 14
`
`Lifetime Indus., Inc. v. Trim-Lok, Inc.,
`869 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2017)........................................................................................ 8, 9
`
`Lubby Holdings LLC v. Chung,
`11 F.4th 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2021) .......................................................................................... 13
`
`MEMC Elec. Materials, Inc. c. Mitsubishi Materials Silicon Corp., 420 F.3d
`1369, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................................................................................. 9
`
`Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Mfg. Co.,
`243 U.S. 502 (1917) ............................................................................................................. 3
`
`NFC Tech. LLC v. HTC Am., Inc.,
`No. 2:13-cv-1058, 2015 WL 1069111 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2015) .................................... 14
`
`NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd.,
`418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (abrogated on other grounds) ........................................ 2, 8
`
`Ortiz & Assocs. Consulting, LLC v. Ricoh USA, Inc.,
`No. 6:21-CV-01178-ADA, 2023 WL 2904583 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 11, 2023) ....................... 8
`
`ParkerVision, Inc. v. Hisense Co.,
`No. 6:20-CV-00870-ADA (filed on September 24, 2020) .............................................. 3, 4
`
`ParkerVision, Inc. v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`No. 6:21-CV-00520 (filed on May 22, 2021) .................................................................. 3, 4
`
`ParkerVision, Inc. v. TCL Indus. Holdings Co.,
`No. 6:20-CV-00945 (filed on October 12, 2020) ............................................................ 3, 4
`
`Pellegrini v. Analog Devices, Inc.
`¸ 375 F.3d 1113 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ......................................................................................... 8
`
`Rotec Indus., Inc. v. Mitsubishi Corp.,
`215 F.3d 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2000)............................................................................................ 8
`
`Sightline Payments, LLC v. Everi Holdings Inc.,
`No. 6:21-CV-01015-ADA, 2022 WL 2078215 (W.D. Tex. Jun. 1, 2022) ........................ 11
`
`Sonrai Memory Ltd. v. Western Digit. Techs., Inc.,
`No. 6:21-cv-01168-ADA, 2022 WL 3108818 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 4, 2022) ........................ 15
`
`Vervain, LLC v. Micron Tech., Inc.,
`No. 6:21-cv-00487-ADA, 2022 WL 23469 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 3, 2022) .......................... 9, 10
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 40 Filed 05/11/23 Page 5 of 23
`
`VirtualAgility Inc. v. Salesforce.com, Inc.,
`759 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2014).......................................................................................... 15
`
`Xylon Licensing LLC v. Lone Star Nat’l Bancshares-Texas, Inc.,
`No. 6:21-CV-00302-ADA, 2022 WL 2078030 (W.D. Tex. June 8, 2022) ....................... 15
`
`Yip v. Hugs to Go LLC,
`377 F. App’x 973 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................................................... 11
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(a) ..................................................................................................................... 8
`
`35 U.S.C. § 287(a) ................................................................................................................... 13
`
`Patent Act Section 271(b) .......................................................................................................... 8
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) .......................................................................... 2, 7, 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 40 Filed 05/11/23 Page 6 of 23
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Defendant Realtek Semiconductor Corp. (“Realtek”) respectfully files this motion to
`
`dismiss the Complaint (Dkt. 1) in the instant action for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff
`
`ParkerVision, Inc. (“ParkerVision”) hastily filed this action solely to obtain discovery after
`
`unsuccessfully litigating the very same claims against Hisense Co., Ltd. (“Hisense”), TCL
`
`Industry Holdings Co. (“TCL”), and LG Electronics Inc. (“LG”). But in its haste, ParkerVision
`
`apparently neglected to perform an adequate pre-suit investigation. ParkerVision fails to plead
`
`facts supporting direct infringement, fails to plead facts supporting indirect infringement, fails
`
`to plead facts supporting a damages claim based on the expired patents, and even alleges
`
`infringement against products that are plainly licensed. Yet more striking, ParkerVision does
`
`not cite to a single technical document related to the accused Realtek chips, but instead cites to
`
`the technical documents describing the chip of another manufacturer in a clear copy-and-
`
`paste error.
`
`
`
`https://fccid.io/BEJLGSWFAC71/Internal-Photos/Internal-Photos-3136304.pdf at 2 (cited by
`
`Compl. (Dkt. 1) at 19 n.1).
`
`ParkerVision fails to plead such facts, because no such facts exist. Critically, if
`
`ParkerVision had performed an adequate pre-suit investigation, it would have realized that.
`
`ParkerVision’s carelessness and indifference cannot substitute for facts, and certainly cannot
`
`meet the requisite pleading standards. See Ainsworth v. Rod's Prod. Servs., LLC, No. A-15-
`
`CA-605-SS, 2015 WL 13567093, at *6 n.3 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 28, 2015) (“The Court admonishes
`
`plaintiff’s counsel for sloppy copy-and-paste pleading. Where, as here, there are two lawsuits
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 40 Filed 05/11/23 Page 7 of 23
`
`
`
`. . . for substantially the same claims, ambiguity . . . cannot be said to fairly apprise a defendant
`
`of the nature of the individual claims against them.”). Accordingly, the Court should dismiss
`
`ParkerVision’s frivolous Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS
`
`ParkerVision has no basis to bring this action against Realtek. First, ParkerVision fails
`
`to plead a plausible claim of infringement based on the accused Realtek chips. It is black-letter
`
`law that a complaint “must support its entitlement to relief with ‘factual content,’ not just
`
`conclusory allegations that the accused product(s) meet every claim limitation.” Innomemory,
`
`LLC v. Cullen/Frost Bankers, Inc., No. 6:22-CV-00672-ADA, slip op., at *3 (W.D. Tex. Sept.
`
`30, 2022) (citing Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corp. of Am., 4 F.4th 1342, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2021)). Here,
`
`there is no factual content—just slipshod references to the chip of an unrelated defendant in
`
`another case.
`
`Second, ParkerVision cannot state a plausible claim for direct infringement. It is also
`
`black-letter law that the situs of infringement must be within the United States. NTP, Inc. v.
`
`Research in Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (abrogated on other grounds).
`
`ParkerVision alleges that Realtek directly infringes “by testing” the accused Realtek chips in
`
`the United States. Compl. (Dkt. 1) ¶¶ 48, 56, 66, 75. But Realtek has no presence in the United
`
`States, nor has ParkerVision pled such presence (because no facts support such an allegation).
`
`Thus, Realtek cannot itself test in the United States.
`
`Third, ParkerVision cannot state a plausible claim for indirect infringement. Requisite
`
`for indirect infringement are both knowledge of the patent and knowledge that the induced acts
`
`would cause infringement. Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 575 U.S. 632, 639 (2015).
`
`But nowhere does the Complaint allege that Realtek had knowledge of the patent, let alone
`
`knowledge of patent infringement.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 40 Filed 05/11/23 Page 8 of 23
`
`
`
`Fourth, ParkerVision did not mark its products, which precludes ParkerVision from
`
`recovering any damages on the three expired asserted patents. Specifically, because all but
`
`one of the asserted patents expired in 2018, damages would have only been available if
`
`ParkerVision marked its products from 2016 to 2018. See American Med. Sys., Inc. v. Med.
`
`Eng’g Corp., 6 F.3d 1523, 1539 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Because ParkerVision fails to plead any
`
`facts related to marking, it cannot recover any damages (or secure any remedy) on the three
`
`expired asserted patents.
`
`Fifth, ParkerVision’s allegations of infringement against Realtek chips in licensed
`
`Hisense televisions are plainly improper. It is fundamental that patent owners cannot obtain
`
`double recovery for their patents. See Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Mfg. Co.,
`
`243 U.S. 502, 505-06 (1917). ParkerVision’s patent claims against Hisense televisions that
`
`may contain Realtek chips are exhausted.
`
`Accordingly, ParkerVision fails to state any plausible claim to relief, and its Complaint
`
`should be dismissed.
`
`III.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`1.
`
`ParkerVision Filed This Case as a Backdoor Attempt to Obtain Discovery
`
`This case is a product of ParkerVision’s dilatory actions in three other cases. In the
`
`instant Complaint filed on November 10, 2022, ParkerVision alleges that Hisense, TCL, and
`
`LG televisions incorporating a Realtek RTL8812BU chip purportedly infringe the four asserted
`
`patents. Compl. (Dkt. 1) ¶¶ 10-16. These are the very same allegations that appeared years
`
`ago in ParkerVision’s complaints in ParkerVision, Inc. v. Hisense Co., No. 6:20-CV-00870-
`
`ADA (filed on September 24, 2020), ParkerVision, Inc. v. TCL Indus. Holdings Co., No. 6:20-
`
`CV-00945 (filed on October 12, 2020), and ParkerVision, Inc. v. LG Elecs., Inc., No. 6:21-
`
`CV-00520 (filed on May 22, 2021).
`
`Despite knowing for years that it would need discovery from Realtek, ParkerVision
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 40 Filed 05/11/23 Page 9 of 23
`
`
`
`failed to timely seek Letters Rogatory for foreign discovery in each one of those cases.
`
`Consequently, ParkerVision filed this Complaint against Realtek, then used the filing of this
`
`action to stay the TCL and LG cases, and settled with Hisense.1 But in its rush to file the
`
`Complaint, ParkerVision evidently failed to assess whether it could even allege claims of
`
`infringement against Realtek. Among other gross deficiencies littered in the Complaint,
`
`ParkerVision included infringement claims against Hisense televisions incorporating the
`
`accused Realtek chip, even though ParkerVision and Hisense had already signed a license to
`
`the asserted patents on the same products prior to filing the instant complaint.2
`
`2.
`
`ParkerVision’s Infringement Allegations Are Based on the Chips of the
`Wrong Defendant
`
`As the Complaint acknowledges, “Realtek is a foreign corporation organized and
`
`existing under the laws of Taiwan with a place of business located at No. 2, Innovation Road
`
`II, Hsinchu Science Park, Hsinchu 300, Taiwan.” Compl. (Dkt. 1) ¶ 3. Realtek has no offices
`
`or employees in the United States, nor does the Complaint allege so. See generally id. Rather,
`
`the Complaint merely alleges that Realtek has two indirect affiliates that “are registered in the
`
`United States.” Id. ¶ 6. Accordingly, the Complaint includes no factual content establishing
`
`that Realtek has a presence in the United States (because Realtek has no such presence).
`
`The Complaint alleges that Realtek infringes four patents: U.S. Patent No. 6,049,706;
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,266,518; U.S. Patent No. 7,292,835; and U.S. Patent No. 8,660,513. Three
`
`of the patents—the ’706, ’518, and ’513 patents—expired on October 21, 2018. On November
`
`17, 2022, one week after ParkerVision filed the Complaint, the PTAB issued a Final Written
`
`
`1 The Hisense action was dismissed based on settlement on November 30, 2022. No. 6:20-
`cv-00870-ADA, Dkt. 81. The TCL action was stayed on January 11, 2023. No. 6:20-cv-
`00945-ADA, Dkt. 77. The LG action was stayed on February 24, 2023. No. 6:21-cv-00520-
`ADA, Dkt. 67.
`2 See ParkerVision Secures Patent License Agreement with Hisense, Accesswire (Nov. 3,
`2022, 7:00 AM), https://www.accesswire.com/723691/ParkerVision-Secures-Patent-License-
`Agreement-with-Hisense.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 40 Filed 05/11/23 Page 10 of 23
`
`
`
`Decision determining all challenged claims of the remaining patent—the ’835 patent—
`
`unpatentable. See IPR2021-00985, Paper 44.
`
`Tacitly acknowledging that it has no claim for indirect infringement, the Complaint
`
`only seeks relief for direct infringement. The Complaint expressly states:
`
`ParkerVision has been damaged by the direct infringement of Realtek and is suffering
`and will continue to suffer irreparable harm and damages as a result of this
`infringement.
`
`Id. ¶¶ 53, 63, 72, 82.
`
`ParkerVision respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment . . . finding that
`Realtek directly infringes one or more claims of each of the patents-in-suit.
`
`Id. at 23. In contrast, the Complaint never expressly references indirect or induced
`
`infringement.
`
`But, although the Complaint expressly seeks relief for direct infringement, it fails to
`
`support those claims. Specifically, the Complaint is void of any factual allegations supporting
`
`a claim that Realtek products infringe the asserted patents or that Realtek performs any
`
`infringing acts. With respect to Realtek products, the Complaint includes no factual basis to
`
`support allegations of the technical functionality of any Realtek product. Rather, the Complaint
`
`cites two sets of documents. The first set describe an LG television incorporating a MediaTek
`
`chip:
`
`https://fccid.io/BEJLGSWFAC71/Users-Manual/User-Manual-3136306 at 2 (cited by Compl.
`
`(Dkt. 1) at 19 n.1).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 40 Filed 05/11/23 Page 11 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`https://fccid.io/BEJLGSWFAC71/Internal-Photos/Internal-Photos-3136304.pdf at 2 (cited by
`
`Compl. (Dkt. 1) at 19 n.1). The second set describes a Hisense television incorporating yet
`
`another MediaTek chip:
`
`https://fccid.io/W9HLCDF0098 at 1 (cited by Compl. (Dkt. 1) at 19 n.1).
`
`
`
`https://fccid.io/W9HLCDF0098/Internal-Photos/TempConfidential-W9HLCDF0098-
`
`Internal-Photos-3264487.pdf at 8 (cited by Compl. (Dkt. 1) at 19 n.1).
`
`
`
`3.
`
`ParkerVision Alleges Infringing Acts in the United States Based On
`Unsupported Speculation that Realtek or Unidentified “Others” Tested
`
`With respect to Realtek’s actions, ParkerVision’s infringement allegations for all of the
`
`asserted patents are based solely on a conclusory statement that Realtek or its affiliates test the
`
`accused chips in the United States:
`
`On information and belief, Realtek uses the Realtek Chips at least by testing (or having
`others on its behalf test) the Realtek Chips in the United States.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 40 Filed 05/11/23 Page 12 of 23
`
`
`
`
`Compl. (Dkt. 1) ¶¶ 48, 56, 66, 75. Notably, the Complaint includes no factual basis to support
`
`its allegation that Realtek did any testing or had others test on its behalf in the United States,
`
`particularly during the limited damages period between 2016 and 2018. Nor does the
`
`Complaint include a single allegation of pre-suit knowledge of the patents or infringement to
`
`support a claim that Realtek induced infringement by having others test on its behalf.
`
`4.
`
`Realtek Attempted to Resolve this Dispute without Motion Practice
`
`
`
`On April 14, 2023, in an effort to resolve this case without motion practice, counsel for
`
`Realtek sent counsel for ParkerVision a letter confirming that Realtek has no presence in the
`
`United States, and did not test the accused Realtek chips in the United States from November
`
`2016 to October 2018. Ex. A. The letter further requested that ParkerVision dismiss the case,
`
`or provide its factual basis for continuing to assert infringement. Id. ParkerVision never
`
`responded.
`
`IV.
`
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`1.
`
`Pleading Standards
`
`A party may move to dismiss a Complaint that fails to state a claim upon which relief
`
`can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6),
`
`the plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
`
`570 (2007)). A claim “has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that
`
`allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
`
`alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “[C]onclusory statements” and “[t]hreadbare recitals of the
`
`elements” that lack factual support cannot overcome a motion to dismiss. See id.; see also
`
`Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557 (2007) (a “naked assertion” without “factual enhancement” is not
`
`sufficient to overcome a motion to dismiss). To survive a 12(b)(6) motion in this Court, “every
`
`element of each cause of action must be supported by specific factual allegations.” Carlton v.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 40 Filed 05/11/23 Page 13 of 23
`
`
`
`Freer Inv. Grp., Ltd., No. 5:15-cv-00946-DAE, 2017 WL 11046201, at *8 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 8,
`
`2017) (internal citation omitted). Although the “level of detail required in any given case will
`
`vary,” it “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bot M8 LLC v.
`
`Sony Corp. of Am., 4 F.4th 1342, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
`
`2.
`
`Direct Infringement
`
`Section 271(a) sets forth the requirements for a claim for direct infringement of a patent.
`
`This section provides:
`
`Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers
`to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the
`United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes
`the patent.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(a). The accused product must embody the complete patented invention to
`
`constitute direct infringement. See Rotec Indus., Inc. v. Mitsubishi Corp., 215 F.3d 1246, 1252
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2000). “To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion on a direct infringement claim, the
`
`plaintiff must plead facts that plausibly, not merely possibly, suggest that the accused product
`
`meets each limitation of the asserted claim(s).” Ortiz & Assos Consulting, LLC v. Ricoh USA,
`
`Inc., No. 6:21-CV-01178-ADA, 2023 WL 2904583, at *4 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 11, 2023); see
`
`Iqbal¸ 556 U.S. at 678.
`
`Further, “the U.S. patent laws ‘do not, and were not intended to, operate beyond the
`
`limits of the United States’ and its territories.” Pellegrini v. Analog Devices, Inc.¸ 375 F.3d
`
`1113, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Thus, “Section 271(a) is only actionable against patent
`
`infringement that occurs within the United States.” NTP, 418 F.3d at 1313.
`
`3.
`
`Indirect Infringement
`
`Section 271(b) of the Patent Act provides that “[w]hoever actively induces infringement
`
`of a patent shall be liable as an infringer.” 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). To succeed on such a claim,
`
`the patentee must show that the accused infringer (1) knowingly induced direct infringement
`
`and (2) possessed “specific intent” to induce that infringement. See MEMC Elec. Materials,
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 40 Filed 05/11/23 Page 14 of 23
`
`
`
`Inc. c. Mitsubishi Materials Silicon Corp., 420 F.3d 1369, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005). To state a
`
`claim for relief for induced patent infringement, “a complaint must plead facts plausibly
`
`showing that the accused infringer ‘specifically intended [another party] to infringe [the patent]
`
`and knew that the [other party]’s acts constituted infringement.’” Lifetime Indus., Inc. v. Trim-
`
`Lok, Inc., 869 F.3d 1372, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting In re Billing of Lading Transmission
`
`& Processing Sys. Pat. Litg., 681 F.3d 1323, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).
`
`V.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`1.
`
`ParkerVision Fails to Plead Any Factual Content to Support a Cause of
`Action
`
`The Complaint fails to plausibly plead any cause of action. At minimum, “there must
`
`be some factual allegations that, when taken as true, articulate why it is plausible that the
`
`accused product infringes the patent claim.” Hourexchange, LLC v. Student Loan Benefits,
`
`Inc., No. 1:22-CV-00356-RP, 2023 WL 139150, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 9, 2023) (citing Bot M8,
`
`4 F.4th 1342 at 1353. Yet here, ParkerVision provides no factual allegations pertaining to the
`
`functionality of the accused products at all. Indeed, the only technical documentation cited in
`
`the Complaint describe a MediaTek chip, not the accused Realtek chip.
`
`But even if the cited technical documentation described the accused Realtek chip, the
`
`Complaint would still fail. “In cases involving complex technology, a complaint nakedly
`
`alleging that the accused product practices the claimed invention’s point of novelty will rarely
`
`suffice.” Vervain, LLC v. Micron Tech., Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00487-ADA, 2022 WL 23469, at
`
`*5 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 3, 2022). Here, the Complaint alleges that “the nut of the invention,”
`
`Vervain, 2022 WL 23469, at *5, is “an innovative method of RF direct conversion by a process
`
`of sampling a RF carrier signal and transferring energy to create a down-converted baseband
`
`signal,” Compl. (Dkt. 1) ¶ 30. Yet the Complaint does no more than “attach[] photos of the
`
`Accused Products and summarily alleg[e] that each and every limitation is satisfied.” Id.
`
`In particular, the Complaint maps the sampling limitations at paragraphs 52, 59, 70, and
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 40 Filed 05/11/23 Page 15 of 23
`
`
`
`79. But the Complaint mapping does nothing more than merely track the claim language. For
`
`example, for the ’706 patent, the Complaint alleges that “transistor(s) in each Realtek Chip
`
`under-samples (e.g., at a sample rate below the Nyquist rate) the input signal according to a
`
`control signal (e.g., local oscillator (LO) signal).” Compl. (Dkt. 1) ¶ 52. In other words, the
`
`Complaint merely states that the accused Realtek chip includes some transistor that could
`
`possibly practice the limitation.
`
`The ’835 patent allegations are equally barren of any factual basis. The Complaint
`
`alleges that the “down-conversion module includes a first frequency translation module (e.g.,
`
`a module having one or more switches) and a first storage module (e.g., a module having one
`
`or more capacitors).” Id. ¶ 70. Once more, the Complaint allegation states nothing more than
`
`speculation that the accused Realtek chip includes switches and capacitors (none of which is
`
`specifically identified) that could possibly practice the limitation.
`
`ParkerVision cannot establish why it is plausible that the accused product infringes the
`
`patent claims by merely citing to unspecified transistors, switches, and capacitors. Pleading
`
`this way “begs the ‘obvious alternative explanation’ that [Realtek] is merely practicing the
`
`prior art.” Vervain, 2022 WL 23469, at *5. Accordingly, the Complaint fails to sufficiently
`
`plead that the accused products practice any claim of the asserted patents.
`
`2.
`
`ParkerVision Has No Basis for Direct Infringement Because Realtek Is
`Not Present in the United States
`
`ParkerVision does not (and cannot) plead facts sufficient to raise even a plausible
`
`inference that Realtek—a Taiwanese entity with no offices or employees in the United States—
`
`practices the asserted patents in the United States. A complaint must plead factual allegations
`
`sufficient to permit “the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
`
`alleged,” based on “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.”
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 661, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Courts need
`
`not accept “a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation” and “[t]hreadbare recitals of the
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 40 Filed 05/11/23 Page 16 of 23
`
`
`
`elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” De
`
`La Vega v. Microsoft Corp., No. W-19-CV-00612-ADA, 2020 WL 3528411, at *2 (W.D. Tex.
`
`Feb. 7, 2020) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678).
`
`Plaintiff’s claims of direct infringement rise and fall on an allegation that Realtek itself
`
`“test[s]” the products in the United States. See Compl. (Dkt. 1) ¶¶ 17, 48, 56, 66, 75. This
`
`conclusory statement is unsupported and false. As ParkerVision admits in its Complaint,
`
`Realtek is “a foreign corporation organized . . . under the laws of Taiwan with a place of
`
`business” in Taiwan. Id. ¶ 3. There are no Realtek offices in the United States, nor are there
`
`any Realtek employees in the United States. Without any presence in the United States, Realtek
`
`cannot itself “test” the products in the United States. Thus, there is no basis or support for
`
`ParkerVision’s allegation of direct infringement.
`
`To the extent that ParkerVision points to the two affiliates registered in the United
`
`States to support its direct infringement claim, such an allegation is grossly deficient. As a
`
`threshold matter, the Complaint must plead facts to establish that Realtek “itself engaged in
`
`infringing acts.” Yip v. Hugs to Go LLC, 377 F. App’x 973, 978 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “[R]ote
`
`allegations [that Realtek and its affiliates form] a ‘common business enterprise’ [that] establish
`
`an alter ego theory” are insufficient. Sightline Payments, LLC v. Everi Holdings Inc., No. 6:21-
`
`CV-01015-ADA, 2022 WL 2078215, at *9 (W.D. Tex. Jun. 1, 2022). Mere “activities
`
`consistent with the parent’s and subsidiary’s relationship should not give rise to a finding of an
`
`alter ego.” Id. at *4.
`
`More importantly, there is simply no factual basis to support ParkerVision’s allegation
`
`of testing, particularly between 2016 and 2018. Regardless of whether Realtek’s affiliates are
`
`alter egos (and they are not), the sheer possibility that they test in the United States is deficient
`
`as a matter of law. Specific factual content that supports ParkerVision’s statement that Realtek
`
`tests in the United States is completely absent from the Complaint (because no such factual
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 40 Filed 05/11/23 Page 17 of 23
`
`
`
`content exists).
`
`3.
`
`ParkerVision Has No Basis for Indirect Infringement Because Realtek Had
`No Knowledge of the Asserted Patents
`
`There is no basis for indirect infringement because ParkerVision fails to plead any facts
`
`that show that Realtek had knowledge of the asserted patents or infringement. A claim of
`
`indirect infringement requires “knowledge of the patent in suit and knowledge of patent
`
`infringement.” Commil., 575 U.S. at 639. To survive a 12(b)(6) motion, ParkerVision would
`
`have needed to plead a plausible theory for the contention that Realtek had knowledge of the
`
`patent and the alleged infringement, as well as what it alleges to be the act of indirect