Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01655/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01655-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 

---

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

PARKERVISION, INC., A FLORIDA 

CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, A DELAWARE 

CORPORATION,

Defendant-Cross-Appellant

______________________ 

2014-1612, 2014-1655

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States District Court for the 

Middle District of Florida in No. 3:11-cv-00719-RBD-JRK, 

Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr.

______________________ 

Decided: July 31, 2015 

______________________ 

DONALD ROBERT DUNNER, Finnegan, Henderson, 

Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, DC, 

argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by ERIK R.

PUKNYS, Palo Alto, CA; JOSHUA WRIGHT BUDWIN, KEVIN 

LEE BURGESS, McKool Smith, PC, Austin, TX; DOUGLAS 

AARON CAWLEY, Dallas, TX.

TIMOTHY TETER, Cooley LLP, Palo Alto, CA, argued 

for defendant-cross-appellant. Also represented by 

Case: 14-1655 Document: 3-2 Page: 1 Filed: 07/31/2015
2 PARKERVISION, INC. v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED

BENJAMIN G. DAMSTEDT, JEFFREY S. KARR, LORI R. MASON,

STEPHEN C. NEAL; JEFFREY A. LAMKEN, MARTIN TOTARO, 

MoloLamken LLP, Washington, DC; JOHN M. WHEALAN, 

Chevy Chase, MD.

______________________ 

Before LOURIE, BRYSON, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

BRYSON, Circuit Judge. 

In this patent infringement action, ParkerVision, Inc.,

alleged that Qualcomm Inc. infringed ParkerVision’s

patented technology relating to “down-converting” electromagnetic signals. At issue are U.S. Patent Nos. 

6,061,551 (“the ’551 patent”), 6,266,518 (“the ’518 patent”), 6,370,371 (“the ’371 patent”), and 7,496,342 (“the 

’342 patent”), all owned by ParkerVision. 

“Down-converting” refers to converting a modulated 

high-frequency electromagnetic signal into a lowfrequency or “baseband” signal in an electronic device 

such as a wireless receiver. ParkerVision claims methods, 

systems, and apparatuses for down-converting a highfrequency signal using a technique called “energy sampling.” That technique differs from the technique of 

“voltage sampling,” which was used in conventional downconverting systems. 

ParkerVision’s energy sampling system uses the same 

circuit configuration as a voltage sampling system. At the 

most basic level, the energy sampling system consists of

an electronic switch connected on one end to an input 

electromagnetic signal and on the other end to a storage 

capacitor followed by a load device or resistor. See, e.g., 

’551 patent, Figs. 82A, 82B. ParkerVision designed its 

down-converting system to perform energy sampling, 

rather than voltage sampling, by increasing the size of the 

capacitor, increasing the duration of the period that the 

switch is closed, and decreasing the impedance value of 

the load. 

Case: 14-1655 Document: 3-2 Page: 2 Filed: 07/31/2015
PARKERVISION, INC. v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED 3

Claim 23 of the ’551 patent is representative of the 

asserted claims. It recites: 

23. An apparatus for down-converting a carrier 

signal to a lower frequency signal, comprising:

an energy transfer signal generator;

a switch module controlled by said energy transfer signal generator; and

a storage module coupled to said switch module;

wherein said storage module receives nonnegligible amounts of energy transferred from a 

carrier signal at an aliasing rate that is substantially equal to a frequency of the carrier 

signal plus or minus a frequency of the lower 

frequency signal, divided by n where n represents a harmonic or sub-harmonic of the carrier 

signal, wherein a lower frequency signal is generated from the transferred energy. 

Other asserted claims use slightly different language. 

The parties agree that the differences in the claim language do not materially affect the issues on appeal. 

ParkerVision developed energy sampling in 1996 and 

1997, and it applied for its first patent relating to that 

technology in October 1998. Before any patent issued, 

ParkerVision approached Qualcomm to license its invention. No agreement was reached, however. 

In 2011 ParkerVision filed this action against Qualcomm, alleging that Qualcomm had been infringing its 

energy-sampling patents since 2006. The district court 

bifurcated the trial. The first phase dealt with validity 

and infringement, and the second phase dealt with damages and willfulness. At the conclusion of the validity and 

infringement phase, the jury returned a verdict rejecting 

Qualcomm’s invalidity claims and finding that Qualcomm 

directly and indirectly infringed claims 23, 25, 161, 193, 

Case: 14-1655 Document: 3-2 Page: 3 Filed: 07/31/2015
4 PARKERVISION, INC. v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED

and 202 of the ’551 patent; claims 27, 82, 90, and 91 of the 

’518 patent; claim 2 of the ’371 patent; and claim 18 of the 

’342 patent. At the conclusion of the damages and willfulness phase, the jury awarded ParkerVision $172.7 

million in damages but found that Qualcomm’s infringement was not willful.

Following the trial, Qualcomm filed motions for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) and for a new trial on 

both invalidity and infringement. The court granted 

Qualcomm’s motion for JMOL of non-infringement but 

denied Qualcomm’s motions relating to invalidity. This 

appeal and cross-appeal followed. 

I

At trial, ParkerVision accused 19 Qualcomm products 

of infringing the asserted claims.1 To prove infringement, 

ParkerVision called Paul Prucnal, its technical expert, 

and David Sorrells, one of the inventors. Dr. Prucnal’s 

testimony focused on Qualcomm’s Magellan product, but 

he stated that his opinion regarding the Magellan product 

applied to each of Qualcomm’s accused products.2 Mr. 

Sorrells testified with regard to only one of the 19 accused 

products, the Solo product. 

The district court based its non-infringement ruling 

on two grounds. First, the court found that the accused 

products did not practice the limitation that recites “gen1 The verdict form erroneously listed 20 Qualcomm 

products, including the “Marimba” product. The jury 

found that all 20 products infringed, even though ParkerVision had presented no evidence regarding the Marimba product at trial.

 

2 Qualcomm did not present an infringement expert 

of its own at trial, but called a fact witness to testify as to 

the design of certain accused products. 

 

Case: 14-1655 Document: 3-2 Page: 4 Filed: 07/31/2015
PARKERVISION, INC. v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED 5

erating a lower frequency signal,” which is present in each 

asserted claim. The court held that ParkerVision’s infringement expert conceded that in the accused products 

the baseband signal was created before, or “upstream

from,” the storage capacitor. That concession, the court 

concluded, was fatal to ParkerVision’s claim under the 

“generating” limitation. Second, the court concluded that 

Qualcomm’s “50% duty cycle” products did not practice

the “sampling” limitation, which is found in claims 27, 82, 

90, and 91 of the ’518 patent, and in claim 2 of the ’371 

patent.3 We agree with the district court on both 

grounds. 

A 

The generating limitation in each of the asserted 

claims requires that the accused products produce a lowfrequency baseband signal using energy that has been 

transferred from a high-frequency carrier signal into a 

storage medium, such as a capacitor or set of capacitors.

Dr. Prucnal testified that the accused products satisfy 

the generating limitation by using a specific type of 

circuitry called a “double-balanced mixer” combined with 

a pair of capacitors connected to the output ports of the 

mixer. It is undisputed that double-balanced mixers 

existed prior to ParkerVision’s invention and that a 

double-balanced mixer by itself (i.e., without the addition 

of output capacitors) can be used to convert highfrequency carrier signals into low-frequency baseband 

signals. ParkerVision argues that Qualcomm implements 

the double-balanced mixer in an infringing configuration 

because it uses storage capacitors to interact with the 

3 Claims 90 and 91 of the ’518 patent and claim 2 of 

the ’371 patent use the term “sub-sampling” or “subsample,” which the court construed to mean “sampling at 

an aliasing rate.”

 

Case: 14-1655 Document: 3-2 Page: 5 Filed: 07/31/2015
6 PARKERVISION, INC. v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED

mixer in producing the baseband signal. According to Dr. 

Prucnal, the mixer and the capacitors in Qualcomm’s 

circuit collectively function to convert the high-frequency 

carrier signal into the low-frequency baseband signal. In 

doing so, Dr. Prucnal testified, the mixer-capacitor combination satisfies the generating limitation.

Qualcomm contends that the mixer alone converts the 

carrier signal into the baseband signal and that the 

capacitors identified by ParkerVision do not generate the 

baseband signal. According to Qualcomm, those capacitors are used to filter out unwanted high-frequency signals known as “jammers.” Because the capacitors are not 

involved in the down-converting function, the baseband 

signal necessarily comes from “somewhere other than . . . 

energy that has been stored in the capacitor.” For that 

reason, Qualcomm contends, its products do not infringe. 

The parties’ dispute thus centers on whether the capacitors immediately downstream from the mixer are

involved in generating the baseband signal. In order for 

ParkerVision to prevail under its infringement theory, it 

was required to show that the baseband signal is generated from the energy stored in those capacitors.

Dr. Prucnal testified that the identified capacitors in 

the accused products contribute to the generation of the 

baseband signal by going through a “charging and discharging” cycle, which is controlled by a switch inside the 

mixer circuit. Closing the switch allows energy from the 

carrier signal to flow into the capacitor and accumulate 

there (“charging”); opening the switch allows the capacitor 

to release the accumulated energy into the rest of the 

circuit (“discharging”). Dr. Prucnal testified that the 

charging and discharging cycle results in an accumulation 

of energy from the carrier signal, which is then used “to 

generate the baseband signal following the capacitor.” 

On cross-examination, however, Dr. Prucnal admitted 

that the baseband signal in the accused products has

Case: 14-1655 Document: 3-2 Page: 6 Filed: 07/31/2015
PARKERVISION, INC. v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED 7

already been created before the signal reaches the identified capacitors. He also testified that the “output” of the 

double-balanced mixer “is the baseband,” and that the 

double-balanced mixer “in fact” creates the baseband 

signal.4

Dr. Prucnal’s testimony is internally inconsistent. He 

testified that energy accumulated in the storage capacitor 

is used to generate a baseband signal “following the 

capacitor” but admitted that the baseband already exists 

before the capacitor. He also testified that the switch 

inside the mixer circuit works together with the storage 

capacitors to generate the baseband signal, while agreeing that the mixer itself creates the baseband. 

ParkerVision made no attempt to reconcile the two 

strands of Dr. Prucnal’s testimony at trial. The only other 

testimony that the jury heard regarding the respective 

role of the mixer and the storage capacitors in the accused 

4 The parties disagree about the location of the identified capacitors. Qualcomm asserts that the capacitors 

are located within a circuit module known as the “TX 

filter,” which immediately follows the mixer module in the 

accused products. ParkerVision admits that some capacitors are located inside the TX filter but contends that 

other capacitors are located within the mixer module

itself, and that the two groups of capacitors are both 

involved in generating the baseband signal. We need not 

resolve the dispute as to the location of the identified 

capacitors. Regardless of whether some capacitors should 

be considered to be within the mixer module, Dr. Prucnal

acknowledged that the double-balanced mixer shown in 

Qualcomm’s design, consisting of crisscrossed transistor 

pairs, generates the baseband signal and that the output 

of that circuit structure, which precedes both sets of 

capacitors identified by ParkerVision, “is the baseband.”

 

Case: 14-1655 Document: 3-2 Page: 7 Filed: 07/31/2015
8 PARKERVISION, INC. v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED

products came from Qualcomm’s witness, Jim Jaffee, an 

engineer who was responsible for designing the Magellan 

product.5 Mr. Jaffee testified—consistent with Dr. Prucnal’s admission on cross-examination—that the baseband 

signal is created in the crisscrossed transistors of the 

double-balanced mixer. He added that the capacitors 

immediately following the mixer “play no role” in generating the baseband and are designed to “have no effect” on 

the baseband; instead, the capacitors serve only to suppress the unwanted “transmit jamming” signal.

The inconsistencies in Dr. Prucnal’s testimony concern matters that are at the heart of the parties’ dispute. 

Mr. Sorrells conceded that Qualcomm would not infringe 

if the Qualcomm products obtain the baseband signal 

“somewhere other than from the . . . energy that has been 

stored in the capacitor.” He acknowledged that to meet 

its burden to prove infringement, ParkerVision had to 

prove that “the current that has gone into the storage 

capacitor is then what is generating the baseband signal” 

in the accused products. 

Dr. Prucnal’s admission that the double-balanced 

mixer creates the baseband signal before that signal 

reaches the identified capacitors means that Qualcomm 

products obtained the baseband signal from “somewhere 

other than” the energy stored in the capacitors, precluding a finding of infringement. Because ParkerVision 

provided no explanation at trial for the inconsistencies in 

Dr. Prucnal’s testimony, no reasonable jury could be 

5 Mr. Sorrells did not discuss how the mixer or the 

storage capacitors function in Qualcomm’s products in 

connection with the “generating” limitation. 

 

Case: 14-1655 Document: 3-2 Page: 8 Filed: 07/31/2015
PARKERVISION, INC. v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED 9

satisfied that Dr. Prucnal’s opinion, taken as a whole, 

provides a substantial basis for a finding of infringement.6 

During the hearing on Qualcomm’s post-trial JMOL

motion, ParkerVision attempted to reconcile Dr. Prucnal’s 

admission that the baseband signal exists at the output of 

the mixer and before the storage capacitors with his 

testimony that energy stored in the capacitors is used to 

generate the baseband signal following the capacitors. 

ParkerVision argued that what comes out of the mixer is 

merely a “lower frequency signal” (compared to the carrier 

signal), but was not the baseband. According to ParkerVision, the lower frequency signal goes into the capacitors, where it is stored as energy, and that energy is then 

used to generate the baseband signal—a different signal 

than the “lower frequency signal”—following the capacitors. 

No evidence supports such a theory, however. Dr. 

Prucnal affirmatively identified the output of the double 

balanced mixer as “the baseband.” He did so during both 

cross and redirect examination. Neither Dr. Prucnal nor 

any other witness alluded to the possibility that the signal 

that comes out of the mixer is different from the baseband. Thus, the record does not support ParkerVision’s 

theory at the JMOL hearing that the output of the mixer 

is something other than the baseband signal; its effort to 

6 On appeal, ParkerVision relies heavily on a statement made by Dr. Prucnal during cross-examination that 

“the actual baseband signal on the baseband path is 

created after the capacitor resistor.” That statement does 

not support ParkerVision’s infringement argument, 

however, because the statement referred to Dr. Prucnal’s 

simulation (which did not contain a double balanced 

mixer), not to Qualcomm’s accused circuit. Dr. Prucnal 

admitted that what was shown in his simulation “was not 

the actual output of the Qualcomm circuit.”

 

Case: 14-1655 Document: 3-2 Page: 9 Filed: 07/31/2015
10 PARKERVISION, INC. v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED

reconcile the inconsistencies in Dr. Prucnal’s testimony 

fails. 

ParkerVision alludes to the “two baseband signals” 

theory in its brief, but disclaims reliance on it. See App. 

Br. 55, Reply Br. 20. Instead, ParkerVision argues on 

appeal that the district court misunderstood the underlying technology when it distinguished between a signal 

appearing upstream from the capacitor and a signal

appearing downstream from the capacitor on the same 

electric wire. According to ParkerVision, it “makes no 

sense” to pinpoint a specific location along a wire where 

the baseband signal is generated, because all the points 

along the wire “are one and the same point.” 

ParkerVision did not present its “one and the same 

point” theory to the jury or explain the relevance of that 

theory to its infringement claim. The only evidence 

ParkerVision now relies on to support that theory is the 

testimony of Dr. Razavi, Qualcomm’s invalidity expert, 

who testified that, in one of the prior art references the 

wire “right above the capacitor . . . is the same point.”

Dr. Razavi’s testimony, however, does not support

ParkerVision’s theory. In the prior art reference that Dr. 

Razavi was discussing, the baseband signal is represented 

by voltage across the capacitor. As Dr. Razavi testified, 

voltage is the same at all points along an electric wire. It 

is undisputed, however, that the accused products are not 

“voltage-mode” products, but are “current-mode” products, 

in which the baseband signal is represented by variations 

in current, not by variations in voltage. 

At trial, Dr. Prucnal agreed that within the TX filter 

in Qualcomm’s design, a larger current flows before the 

capacitor while a smaller current flows after the capacitor, which indicates that part of the incoming current has 

Case: 14-1655 Document: 3-2 Page: 10 Filed: 07/31/2015
PARKERVISION, INC. v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED 

11

been “filtered out” by the capacitor.7 Dr. Prucnal further 

explained that the relationship between the currents 

flowing before and after the capacitor (along the same 

wire) and the current going into the capacitor are governed by what is known as Kirchhoff’s current law.

Dr. Prucnal’s testimony demonstrates that, unlike a 

voltage signal, which is the same everywhere along an 

electric wire, currents flowing along the same wire may be 

different before and after a capacitor. That difference, in 

accordance with Kirchhoff’s current law, is determined by 

how much current is absorbed, or filtered out, by the 

capacitor. Dr. Razavi’s “one and the same point” testimony, which was directed to a voltage signal, is thus inapplicable to current-mode devices such as Qualcomm’s 

accused products. 

The testimony of ParkerVision’s witnesses makes 

clear that, in order to generate the baseband signal according to ParkerVision’s invention, electric current from 

the carrier signal first flows into the storage capacitor and 

is accumulated there as energy. When that energy is 

discharged to the rest of the circuit, a baseband signal 

“following the capacitor” is created. But Dr. Prucnal 

admitted that the double-balanced mixer creates the

baseband current in the accused Qualcomm products and 

that the electric current upstream from the identified 

capacitors in those products is already “the baseband.” In 

other words, the accused products do not require an 

electric current from the carrier signal to go in and out of 

the storage capacitors in order to create the baseband 

signal; instead, the baseband current is created by the 

double-balanced mixer before the current reaches the 

7 The evidence shows that the TX filter serves to filter out the high frequency “jamming noise” in the transceiver system that otherwise would overwhelm the 

baseband signal.

 

Case: 14-1655 Document: 3-2 Page: 11 Filed: 07/31/2015
12 PARKERVISION, INC. v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED

capacitors. The district court therefore did not err in 

finding Dr. Prucnal’s admission to be “fatal” to ParkerVision’s infringement theory.

ParkerVision argues that simply because the baseband signal appears upstream from the identified capacitors does not mean the capacitors have no role in generatgenerating the signal, because the patents explain how 

capacitors can influence signals that appear elsewhere in 

the circuit. That argument misses the point. The question is not whether, as a general matter, a capacitor can 

affect signals appearing upstream from it; the question is 

whether, in Qualcomm’s products, the baseband signal

appearing upstream from the capacitors is affected by the 

capacitors in the way ParkerVision says it is. Dr. Prucnal

and Mr. Sorrells testified that current from the carrier 

signal must go in and out of the identified capacitors in 

order to generate a baseband signal “following the capacitor.” That a baseband current already exists before the 

current from the carrier signal reaches the capacitors

shows that the baseband signal is not generated in the 

way ParkerVision asserts. We therefore agree with the 

district court that no reasonable jury could have found 

that the accused products satisfy the “generating” limitation under ParkerVision’s infringement theory.

B 

As an additional reason for granting Qualcomm’s motion for JMOL of non-infringement, the district court also 

held that Qualcomm’s “50% duty cycle products” could not 

infringe the “sampling” limitation found in certain claims. 

The court construed “sampling” to mean “reducing a 

continuous-time signal to a discrete-time signal.” That 

construction is not disputed on appeal.

Qualcomm’s accused products can be divided into the 

“25% duty cycle products” and the “50% duty cycle products.” According to Dr. Prucnal, “duty cycle is the period 

of time during a cycle during which the switch is closed”; 

Case: 14-1655 Document: 3-2 Page: 12 Filed: 07/31/2015
PARKERVISION, INC. v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED 

13

having a 50 percent duty cycle means that “the switch is 

closed for half of the duty cycle and open for the other 

half.”

At trial, when asked what had led to his belief that 

Qualcomm’s products infringed the “sampling” limitation 

of ParkerVision’s patents, Mr. Sorrells pointed to the 

description in Qualcomm’s design documents of “a 25 

percent duty cycle” product. Mr. Sorrells distinguished 

his invention from the prior art on the ground that traditional double-balanced mixers are “50% duty cycle, continuous input/continuous output devices,” meaning that 

“there is always a connection” from the input of those 

devices to the output of the devices. He agreed that if 

there exists a continuous input and continuous output, 

the sampling limitation is not satisfied. Mr. Sorrells 

added, however, that Qualcomm uses a 25% duty cycle in 

some of its products, which results in a “discrete on and 

discrete off time” in those products. In those products, he 

testified, there is no continuous connection from the input 

to the output that would preclude infringement. 

Dr. Prucnal focused on Qualcomm’s Magellan product, 

a 25% duty cycle product. According to Dr. Prucnal, the 

Magellan product satisfies the sampling limitation. 

Because he testified that his analysis regarding the 

Magellan product was applicable to all the other 25% duty 

cycle products, the jury could have found from his testimony that all the accused 25% duty cycle products satisfied the sampling limitation. With respect to the 50% 

duty cycle products, however, Dr. Prucnal’s testimony was 

entirely conclusory. Despite acknowledging the existence 

of a “50-percent duty cycle issue” relating to the “sampling” limitation, Dr. Prucnal merely stated that the 50% 

duty cycle products do not have a duty cycle “that’s always at 50 percent,” and that their duty cycles could “vary 

to less than 50 percent.” 

Case: 14-1655 Document: 3-2 Page: 13 Filed: 07/31/2015
14 PARKERVISION, INC. v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED

The district court found Dr. Prucnal’s testimony regarding the 50% duty cycle products to be insufficient to 

establish infringement. We agree. Mr. Sorrells’ testimony highlighted the significance of the distinction between 

the 25% and the 50% duty cycles for purposes of determining whether the sampling limitation is satisfied. That 

is, traditional double-balanced mixers using a 50% duty 

cycle do not “sample,” because there is a continuous input 

and continuous output in those circuits. Certain accused 

products, on the other hand, satisfy the sampling limitation because they use a 25% duty cycle that produces 

discrete on and off periods. 

Dr. Prucnal’s testimony that the actual duty cycles of 

the 50% duty cycle products could vary “to less than 50 

percent” falls short of establishing infringement. Dr. 

Prucnal failed to explain, for instance, how the less-than50% duty cycle helps produce discrete on and off periods, 

and how it prevents a continuous input and continuous 

output that exists in traditional double-balanced mixers 

using a perfect 50% duty cycle. Without any explanatory 

testimony or other evidence on that point, Dr. Prucnal’s 

conclusory statement regarding the 50% duty cycle products cannot establish that those products infringe the 

sampling limitation.8 

8 On appeal, ParkerVision complains that the district court relied on evidence outside the trial record in 

determining whether the 50% duty cycle products satisfy 

the sampling limitation. While the court noted that Dr. 

Prucnal’s trial testimony regarding the 50% duty cycle 

products “fell short of that relied on by ParkerVision to 

avoid summary judgment,” the court’s ultimate finding of 

non-infringement rested on the vague and conclusory 

nature of Dr. Prucnal’s testimony, not on any difference 

between his testimony and the evidence proffered on 

summary judgment. 

 

Case: 14-1655 Document: 3-2 Page: 14 Filed: 07/31/2015
PARKERVISION, INC. v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED 

15

We affirm the district court’s grant of Qualcomm’s 

motion for JMOL of non-infringement as to all asserted 

claims.9 

II

In its cross-appeal, Qualcomm argues that all the asserted claims are invalid in light of two references, neither of which was previously considered by the Patent and 

Trademark Office. Although the district court acknowledged that Qualcomm’s argument on invalidity was 

“compelling,” it denied Qualcomm’s JMOL motion and its 

motion for a new trial on the ground that the jury had a 

sufficient basis to disbelieve Dr. Razavi, Qualcomm’s 

invalidity expert.10

A 

Qualcomm argues that the first reference, an article 

by Weisskopf, anticipates all the asserted claims except 

claim 18 of the ’342 patent. The Weisskopf reference, 

entitled “Subharmonic Sampling of Microwave Signal 

Processing Requirements,” explores “the theory behind 

subharmonic sampling,” and “the criteria for optimum 

sampling hardware performance.” It discloses a circuit 

diagram similar to the one disclosed in ParkerVision’s 

 

9 Qualcomm also argues (1) that JMOL of noninfringement should be affirmed on the alternative 

ground of no induced infringement; and (2) that the 

district court should have granted Qualcomm’s JMOL 

motion and its motion for a new trial on damages. Because we affirm the grant of JMOL of non-infringement 

on the grounds discussed above, we need not address 

Qualcomm’s additional arguments.

 

10 ParkerVision did not present an invalidity expert 

of its own at trial.

 

Case: 14-1655 Document: 3-2 Page: 15 Filed: 07/31/2015
16 PARKERVISION, INC. v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED

patents, in that it consists mainly of a switch connected to 

a storage capacitor.

At trial, Dr. Razavi conducted a limitation-bylimitation comparison of the Weisskopf reference and the 

asserted claims. He explained that Weisskopf, like the 

ParkerVision patents, discloses transferring a maximum 

amount of energy from the carrier signal to the storage 

capacitor and then generating a baseband signal using 

that transferred energy. Dr. Razavi also conducted circuit-level simulations based on Weisskopf’s circuit diagram to address the claim limitation that “the transfertransferring of energy substantially prevents accurate 

voltage reproduction of the carrier signal during the 

apertures.” That limitation appears in claim 202 of the 

’551 patent and in substance in claim 91 of the ’518 patent, but not in the other asserted claims. 

ParkerVision argues that the district court correctly 

denied Qualcomm’s motion for judgment as a matter of 

law of invalidity for three reasons. First, Weisskopf does 

not disclose transferring “non-negligible amounts of 

energy” from the carrier signal to the storage capacitor. 

Second, Weisskopf does not disclose generating a baseband signal using the transferred energy. Third, the jury 

was not required to accept Dr. Razavi’s opinions because 

they were based on inaccurate simulations. 

1 

The asserted claims all require transferring “nonnegligible amounts of energy” from the carrier signal to a 

storage device, such as the storage capacitor in Weisskopf. 

The district court construed “non-negligible amounts of 

energy” to mean “energy in amounts that are distinguishable from noise.” That construction is not disputed on 

appeal.

At trial, Dr. Razavi testified that Weisskopf chooses 

the values of the various circuit components in order to 

Case: 14-1655 Document: 3-2 Page: 16 Filed: 07/31/2015
PARKERVISION, INC. v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED 

17

“maximiz[e] the transfer of energy from the carrier signal

. . . to the capacitor.” ParkerVision replies that Weisskopf 

fails to disclose transferring energy from the carrier 

signal in amounts distinguishable from noise, and that 

Dr. Razavi’s “conclusory” testimony cannot fill that gap in 

the prior art reference. We disagree.

It is true that in describing the amounts of energy 

transferred from the carrier signal to the storage capacitor, neither the Weisskopf reference nor Dr. Razavi referred to “amounts distinguishable from noise” in those 

words. We have held, however, that the failure of a 

reference to disclose a claim limitation in the same words 

used by the patentee is not fatal to a claim of invalidity. 

Application of Glasser, 363 F.2d 449, 455 (CCPA 1966);

see also Teva Pharm. Indus. Ltd. v. AstraZeneca Pharm. 

LP, 661 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (a prior inventor 

need not “conceive of its invention using the same words 

as the patentee would later use to claim it.”). 

Mr. Sorrells explained at trial that transferring a nonnegligible amount of energy into the storage capacitor 

means “that you have to transfer enough energy to overcome the noise in the system to be able to meet your 

specifications.” He further testified that the fact that the 

accused Qualcomm products meet “all of the cellular/cellphone specifications” is proof that a “nonnegligible” amount of energy is transferred to the storage 

element in those products.

Mr. Sorrells’ testimony thus establishes that to determine whether or not energy in amounts distinguishable from noise has been transferred from the carrier

signal, one may look to whether the down-converting 

circuit functions in practice. If a circuit successfully 

down-converts, that is proof that enough energy has been 

transferred to overcome the noise in the system.

The Weisskopf reference discloses such a downconverting system. Weisskopf touts the ability of the 

Case: 14-1655 Document: 3-2 Page: 17 Filed: 07/31/2015
18 PARKERVISION, INC. v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED

disclosed circuit to down-convert a high frequency carrier 

signal to a baseband “with great efficiency and without 

loss of fidelity.” Dr. Razavi testified, without contradiction, that the Weisskopf system is designed to maximize 

the amount of energy transferred from the carrier signal. 

The fact that Weisskopf transfers as much energy as 

possible from the carrier signal, resulting in a commercially viable down-converting system is proof that the 

system successfully distinguishes the transferred energy 

from noise. No reasonable jury could have concluded 

otherwise. 

ParkerVision faults Dr. Razavi for not adding noise to 

his circuit simulation in connection with his testimony 

that Weisskopf satisfied the “non-negligible amounts of 

energy” limitation. But Dr. Razavi did not rely on simulations with regard to the “non-negligible amounts of energy” limitation; he used simulations only to prove that the 

different claim limitation was met: “prevent[ing] accurate 

voltage reproduction of the carrier signal.” The trial 

record (and in particular Mr. Sorrells’ testimony) established that performing a noise-added computer simulation

is not the only way to ascertain whether “non-negligible 

amounts of energy” are transferred. Thus, Dr. Razavi’s 

failure to conduct a noise-added simulation does not affect 

the probative force of his testimony regarding the “nonnegligible amounts of energy” limitation. 

2 

ParkerVision next contends that the Weisskopf reference does not disclose generating a baseband signal using 

the transferred energy. It is undisputed that Weisskopf 

generates a baseband signal, and that the baseband 

signal is generated by measuring the voltage across the 

storage capacitor. ParkerVision points out, however, that

Weisskopf advises against using a low-impedance load in 

the down-converting circuit on the ground that it “would 

cause energy to leak out of the capacitors,” i.e., it would 

Case: 14-1655 Document: 3-2 Page: 18 Filed: 07/31/2015
PARKERVISION, INC. v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED 

19

cause the capacitors to discharge. At trial, ParkerVision

distinguished its claims from the Weisskopf reference by 

noting that Weisskopf generates the baseband signal 

“without discharging energy from the [storage] capacitor.” 

ParkerVision’s position on invalidity thus turns on 

whether the generating limitation requires that energy be 

discharged from the storage capacitors. 

The record shows that it does not. In the initial claim 

construction order, the district court adopted the plain 

and ordinary meaning of the term “generating.” In its

subsequent order on ParkerVision’s motion for summary 

judgment of no invalidity, the court explicitly rejected 

ParkerVision’s assertion that the plain and ordinary 

meaning of “generating” requires discharging energy from 

a storage device. The court found that the “generating”

limitation is not restricted to the generation of a baseband 

signal by discharging energy from a storage device, but 

encompasses the generation of a baseband signal by other 

means as well. ParkerVision does not challenge that

interpretation of the “generating” limitation on appeal. 

Because the generating limitation does not require 

that the baseband signal be created by discharging energy 

from a storage device, ParkerVision cannot rely on the 

absence of that feature from Weisskopf to defeat Qualcomm’s anticipation claim. See Ecolab, Inc. v. FMC Corp., 

569 F.3d 1335, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (the argument that 

prior art did not anticipate the claim “is unpersuasive 

because claim 7 is written broadly and is not limited to 

PAA treatment in a meat processing plant.”); Verdegaal 

Bros. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 632 (Fed. Cir. 1987)

(“[T]here is no limitation in the subject claims with respect to the rate at which sulfuric acid is added, and, 

therefore, it is inappropriate for Verdegaal to rely on that 

distinction [against a claim of anticipation.]”). 

Although the generating limitation does not require 

discharging energy from the storage device, claim 27 of 

Case: 14-1655 Document: 3-2 Page: 19 Filed: 07/31/2015
20 PARKERVISION, INC. v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED

the ’518 patent, which recites “a method for downconverting a carrier signal to a baseband signal,” contains 

an explicit, additional step of “transferring energy to a 

load during off-time.” ’518 patent, claims 1, 27. At trial, 

Dr. Razavi testified that the “transferring energy” limitation means that “when the switch is turned off . . . energy 

is coming out of the [storage] capacitor going to a load,” 

i.e., energy is “leaking away” from the storage capacitor. 

Thus, in order for Weisskopf to anticipate this additional 

claim limitation, it must be shown that Weisskopf teaches 

discharging energy from the storage capacitor. 

Dr. Razavi testified that Weisskopf teaches two scenarios in which a baseband signal may be generated. In 

one scenario, energy is not discharged from the storage 

capacitor, while in the second scenario, energy is discharged. Dr. Razavi admitted, however, that Weisskopf 

“doesn’t put [the second scenario] in a positive light.” In 

particular, he acknowledged that Weisskopf explicitly

taught that discharging energy from the storage capacitor 

(e.g., by using a “low impedance load”) may result in “poor 

hold duration,” which “manifests itself as an increasing 

inability of the sample-and-hold circuit to isolate the 

periodic sampling function . . . from the output of the 

sample-and-hold circuit.” 

Based on that evidence, a reasonable jury could conclude that Weisskopf does not teach discharging the 

storage capacitor as part of “a method for downconverting a carrier signal to a baseband signal,” which 

claim 27 of the ’518 patent requires. That is because 

discharging the storage capacitor in Weisskopf’s system 

may cause “inability” of the system to successfully produce a baseband signal at the output. Therefore, a reasonable jury could have discredited Dr. Razavi’s 

testimony that Weisskopf teaches “transferring energy to 

a load during off-time,” as required by claim 27 of the ’518 

patent, and accordingly could have found claim 27 not to 

be anticipated by Weisskopf. The district court’s denial of 

Case: 14-1655 Document: 3-2 Page: 20 Filed: 07/31/2015
PARKERVISION, INC. v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED 

21

Qualcomm’s motion for JMOL of invalidity is thus proper 

as to that claim. And because the jury’s finding that 

claim 27 of the ’518 patent was not anticipated was not 

against the great weight of the evidence, we uphold the 

district court’s determination that a new trial on that

issue is not warranted.

3 

ParkerVision further challenges Dr. Razavi’s opinions 

regarding the Weisskopf reference on the ground that his 

opinions are based on inaccurate simulations. As noted 

above, Dr. Razavi relied on the simulations only with 

respect to the claim limitation that “accurate voltage 

reproduction” of the carrier signal is prevented, which 

appears in claim 202 of the ’551 patent and in claim 91 of 

the ’518 patent.

ParkerVision asserts first that the jury was not required to accept Dr. Razavi’s simulations, because Dr. 

Razavi admitted that his simulations did not account for 

noise, even though it would have been possible to design a 

simulation that would have done so. 

At trial, Dr. Razavi testified that, in order to determine whether accurate voltage reproduction of the carrier 

signal is prevented, he looked to the simulated waveform 

of the voltage signal “going into the switch.” A waveform 

representing a “distorted” replica of the source signal, 

according to Dr. Razavi, is proof that “accurate voltage 

reproduction” has been prevented.

ParkerVision cross-examined Dr. Razavi regarding 

the lack of noise in his simulations, asking him to confirm 

that the court’s claim construction requires transferring 

“energy [in] amounts distinguishable from noise”—a 

limitation for which Dr. Razavi did not rely on his simulations. With respect to the “preventing accurate voltage 

reproduction” limitation, for which Dr. Razavi did rely on 

simulations, ParkerVision asked Dr. Razavi no questions

Case: 14-1655 Document: 3-2 Page: 21 Filed: 07/31/2015
22 PARKERVISION, INC. v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED

relating to noise. Nothing in the trial record connects

noise to the “preventing accurate voltage reproduction” 

claim limitation, much less suggests that adding noise to 

simulations is necessary to prove that limitation.11 Because nothing in the trial record suggests that omitting 

noise in the simulations would affect Dr. Razavi’s testimony regarding the “preventing accurate voltage reproduction” limitation, no reasonable jury could reject Dr. 

Razavi’s simulations on the basis that they did not include noise.

ParkerVision’s second complaint regarding Dr. Razavi’s simulations is that Dr. Razavi “omitted certain elements and picked values that were not actually 

disclosed.” In particular, ParkerVision points to Dr. 

Razavi’s acknowledgement that in his circuit model he 

omitted a resistor that is placed in front of the buffer in 

Weisskopf’s circuit diagram. ParkerVision also asserts 

that Dr. Razavi “made up” the value of a source resistor in 

his circuit model that is not disclosed in Weisskopf. 

Regarding the omitted resistor, Dr. Razavi explained 

that the omission is “immaterial” because the “high 

impedance buffer [following the resistor] . . . doesn’t draw 

any current,” regardless of whether the resistor is included in the simulations. Dr. Razavi further testified that he 

had not “made up” the value of the source resistor but had 

taken that value from the Weisskopf reference. 

ParkerVision’s criticism of Dr. Razavi’s computer 

simulations for omitting the identified resistor suffers 

from the same flaw as its earlier argument that the 

simulation does not account for noise: It fails to tie the 

11 When Dr. Prucnal testified as to how the “preventing accurate reproduction” limitation is met in the accused products, he relied on the period of time during

which the switch is closed.

 

Case: 14-1655 Document: 3-2 Page: 22 Filed: 07/31/2015
PARKERVISION, INC. v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED 

23

alleged defect in the simulation to the claim limitation 

that Dr. Razavi was addressing at trial, i.e., “prevent[ing] 

accurate voltage reproduction of the carrier signal.” Dr. 

Razavi testified that, because the buffer immediately 

following the resistor in Weisskopf is a “high impedance 

buffer,” omission of the resistor from the simulations was

immaterial to the result. ParkerVision failed to offer any 

explanation of how the omitted resistor would undermine 

the validity of Dr. Razavi’s simulation results. Without 

any such explanation, a reasonable jury would have had 

no basis to disbelieve Dr. Razavi’s testimony or to reject 

his simulations based on the omitted resistor.

Finally, there is no force to ParkerVision’s contention

that Dr. Razavi “made up” the value of the source resistor 

in his simulation. Dr. Razavi used a 50 ohm source 

resistor in his simulation; he did so in accordance with 

Weisskopf’s explicit disclosure of a 50 ohm “source impedance.” Thus, there is no evidence that any of the alleged 

defects with Dr. Razavi’s computer simulations would 

undermine the validity of his simulation results. 

We conclude that ParkerVision has failed to point to 

any basis on which a reasonable jury could have rejected 

Dr. Razavi’s opinions that Weisskopf anticipates claims 

23, 25, 161, 193, and 202 of the ’551 patent, claims 82, 90,

and 91 of the ’518 patent, and claim 2 of the ’371 patent. 

We reverse the district court’s denial of Qualcomm’s 

motion for JMOL of invalidity as to those claims. As 

noted above, however, we affirm the district court’s denial 

of Qualcomm’s motions for JMOL and for a new trial of 

invalidity as to claim 27 of the ’518 patent. 

B 

At trial, Qualcomm sought to invalidate claim 18 of 

the ’342 patent through a second prior art reference—an 

excerpt from a book entitled “Practical RF Design Manual” by Doug DeMaw. 

Case: 14-1655 Document: 3-2 Page: 23 Filed: 07/31/2015
24 PARKERVISION, INC. v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED

Claim 18 of the ’342 patent recites a “method for 

down-converting an electromagnetic signal” based on a 

“differential” configuration of ParkerVision’s energy 

sampling system. Figure 16H of the ’342 patent is an 

embodiment of the differential energy sampling system

used in claim 18. It consists of a pair of input signals 

representing carrier information and “inverted” carrier 

information, respectively; a first and a second switch; a 

first and a second capacitor connected to the first and 

second switch, respectively; and a first and a second 

impedance device following the capacitors. See ’342 

patent, Fig. 16H; claim 18. 

Qualcomm asserts that the DeMaw reference, and in 

particular a circuit diagram disclosed in DeMaw (“Figure 

6.7 Dual FET balanced mixer using a Siliconix U430 

device”), teaches every element of claim 18 of the ’342 

patent. At trial, Dr. Razavi first conducted a componentby-component comparison between the circuit diagram 

described in Figure 16H of the ’342 patent and that 

described in Figure 6.7 of DeMaw. He concluded that 

DeMaw discloses all the components of Figure 16H. 

According to Dr. Razavi, the transistors designated as Q1 

and Q2 in DeMaw correspond to the first and second 

switches in Figure 16H, and the two signals at the input

of Q1 and Q2 in DeMaw, which represent the carrier 

signal and an “inverted” copy of the carrier signal, correspond to the “carrier plus” and “carrier minus” signals 

shown in Figure 16H. The pair of capacitors that are 

shown immediately next to the outputs of Q1 and Q2 

correspond to the first and second capacitors in Figure 

16H. And Dr. Razavi identified the two additional capacitors shown to the right of the first pair of capacitors as the 

first and second impedance devices, noting that an “impedance can be a capacitor.” ParkerVision does not 

challenge that part of Dr. Razavi’s testimony.

Case: 14-1655 Document: 3-2 Page: 24 Filed: 07/31/2015
PARKERVISION, INC. v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED 

25

Dr. Razavi next explained how DeMaw teaches each 

limitation of claim 18. In doing so, he showed the jury the 

results of computer simulations that he had performed 

according to the circuit diagram disclosed in Figure 6.7 of 

DeMaw and explained how the simulation results supported his conclusions.

Only one claim limitation is in dispute here: “performing a plurality of charging and discharging cycles of the 

first and second capacitors to generate first and second 

down-converted information signals across first and 

second impedance devices, respectively.”12 ParkerVision 

contends that DeMaw does not anticipate claim 18 because it does not expressly teach the claim limitation of 

“charging and discharging” capacitors to generate a 

baseband signal. Anticipation, however, “can occur when 

a claimed limitation is ‘inherent’ or otherwise implicit in 

the relevant reference,” even though the reference does 

not expressly teach that limitation. Standard Havens 

Prods., Inc. v. Gencor Indus., Inc., 953 F.2d 1360, 1369 

(Fed. Cir. 1991), citing Tyler Refrigeration v. Kysor Indus. 

Corp., 777 F.2d 687, 689 (Fed. Cir. 1985). 

Dr. Razavi testified that “charging and discharging of 

the first and second capacitors” occurs when the first and 

second switches (Q1 and Q2) “are turned on and off at a 

certain rate.” As the capacitors are charged and discharged, he explained, the down-converted information 

signal first appears at the outputs of Q1 and Q2, although 

at that point the down-converted signal is mixed with 

other high frequency signals, such as the local oscillator 

signal and the RF, or carrier, signal. He added that the 

signals appearing at the outputs of Q1 and Q2 propagate 

further down the remainder of the circuit where the high 

12 ParkerVision also cross-examined Dr. Razavi regarding “sampling,” but the “sampling” limitation is not 

found in claim 18 of the ’342 patent. 

 

Case: 14-1655 Document: 3-2 Page: 25 Filed: 07/31/2015
26 PARKERVISION, INC. v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED

frequency components are removed, resulting in a “clean” 

down-converted signal appearing across the first and 

second impedance devices located at the far end of the 

DeMaw circuit. Dr. Razavi’s computer simulations illustrated the waveforms of the “information signal” as that 

signal travels through the various components of the 

DeMaw circuit, changing from a high-frequency signal at 

the input of the switch to a down-converted, lowfrequency signal appearing across the identified impedance device. 

Thus, even though Figure 6.7 of DeMaw does not expressly state that the capacitors engage in “charging and 

discharging” to generate a baseband signal, Dr. Razavi’s 

detailed testimony regarding the DeMaw circuit established that charging and discharging is “implicit” in that 

reference. ParkerVision sought to challenge Dr. Razavi’s 

testimony in various respects on cross-examination, but 

none of its questioning undermined Dr. Razavi’s explanation of the operation of the DeMaw circuit and how Figure 

6.7 of DeMaw corresponds to Figure 16H of the ’342 

patent.

ParkerVision also challenged Dr. Razavi’s computer 

simulations at trial, faulting him for assigning values to 

certain components of the DeMaw circuit that were not 

provided in DeMaw itself. Dr. Razavi admitted that 

DeMaw does not disclose the values of certain capacitor 

and inductor components; he explained, however, that he 

used simulations only to “illustrate one or two effects [of 

the DeMaw circuit],” and that the component values he 

picked for the simulations did not affect his conclusion

that “DeMaw exactly matches the claim language.” 

Again, ParkerVision asserted that Dr. Razavi’s computer simulations were defective, but it did not provide 

any suggestion as to how any alleged defects in the simulations undermined Dr. Razavi’s uncontradicted testimony. Because there is no basis on which a reasonable jury 

Case: 14-1655 Document: 3-2 Page: 26 Filed: 07/31/2015
PARKERVISION, INC. v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED 

27

could reject the evidence that DeMaw anticipates claim 18 

of the ’342 patent, we reverse the district court’s denial of 

Qualcomm’s motion for JMOL of invalidity regarding 

claim 18. 

Costs to Qualcomm. 

AFFIRMED IN PART and REVERSED IN PART

Case: 14-1655 Document: 3-2 Page: 27 Filed: 07/31/2015