`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 55 Filed 06/13/23 Page 1 of 3
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:22-cv-01162-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`PARKERVISION, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff
`
` v.
`
`REALTEK SEMICONDUCTOR
`CORP.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant
`
`CASE READINESS STATUS REPORT
`
`Plaintiff ParkerVision, Inc. and Defendant Realtek Semiconductor Corp.,
`
`hereby provide the following status report.
`
`SCHEDULE
`
`A scheduling order has not yet been filed.
`
`FILING AND EXTENSIONS
`
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Complaint was filed on November 10, 2022 and served on
`
`April 11, 2023. There have been no extensions.
`
`RESPONSE TO THE COMPLAINT
`
`Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim on May 11,
`
`2023 (Dkt. 40), and an alternative request to Stay. Plaintiff filed an Amended
`
`Complaint on May 25, 2023 (Dkt. 51). Realtek filed a Motion to Dismiss the
`
`Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim on June 8, 2023 (Dkt. 54).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 55 Filed 06/13/23 Page 2 of 3
`
`PENDING MOTIONS
`
`Realtek has filed two Motions that remain outstanding: a Motion to Dismiss
`
`the Original Complaint (Dkt. 40), and a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint
`
`(Dkt. 54). In Realtek’s first Motion to Dismiss, Realtek alternatively requested a
`
`stay pending the resolution of ParkerVision’s appeal of the PTAB’s FWD in
`
`IPR2021-00985.
`
`RELATED CASES IN THIS JUDICIAL DISTRICT
`
`1. ParkerVision v. TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd., 6:20-cv-00945 (filed
`
`Oct. 12, 2020)
`
`2. ParkerVision, Inc. v. LG Electronics Inc., 6:21-cv-00520 (filed May 22,
`
`2021)
`
`3. ParkerVision v. TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd., 6:22-cv-01158 (filed
`
`Nov. 7, 2022)
`
`4. ParkerVision, Inc. v. MediaTek Inc. et al., 6:22-cv-01163-ADA (filed Nov.
`
`10, 2022)
`
`5. ParkerVision, Inc. v. Realtek Semiconductor Corp.., 6:23-cv-00374-ADA
`
`(filed May 16, 2023).
`
`6. ParkerVision, Inc. v. MediaTek Inc. et al., 6:23-cv-00375-ADA (filed May
`
`16, 2023).
`
`7. ParkerVision, Inc. v. Texas Instruments Inc., 6:23-cv-00384 (filed May 18,
`
`2023)
`
`8. ParkerVision, Inc. v. NXP Semiconductors N.V. et al, 6:23-cv-00389 (filed
`
`May 19, 2023)
`
`CASE READINESS STATUS REPORT
`
`
`
`PAGE | 2
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:22-cv-01162-ADA Document 55 Filed 06/13/23 Page 3 of 3
`
`IPR, CBM, AND OTHER PGR FILINGS
`
` Challenged claims 1, 12-15 and 17-20 of U.S. Patent No. 7,292,835 were
`
`invalidated in IPR2021-00985, which is now on appeal at the Federal Circuit.
`
`NUMBER OF ASSERTED PATENTS AND CLAIMS
`
`Plaintiff has asserted four patents. The asserted patent(s) are U.S. Patent
`
`Nos. 6,049,706; 6,266,518; 7,292,835; and 8,660,513.
`
`APPOINTMENT OF TECHNICAL ADVISOR
`
`The parties are unopposed to the appointment of a technical advisor to assist
`
`the Court with claim construction or other technical issues.
`
`MEET AND CONFER STATUS
`
`Plaintiff and Defendant conducted a meet & confer. Other than the pending
`
`Motions, the parties have no pre-Markman issues to raise at the CMC hearing.
`
`
`
`Dated: June 13, 2023
`
`Respectfully Submitted
`
`
`
`/s/ Raymond W. Mort, III
`Raymond W. Mort, III
`Texas State Bar No. 00791308
`raymort@austinlaw.com
`
`THE MORT LAW FIRM, PLLC
`501 Congress Ave, Suite 150
`Austin, Texas 78701
`Tel/Fax: (512) 865-7950
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`
`
`CASE READINESS STATUS REPORT
`
`
`
`PAGE | 3
`
`
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
