UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION 

PARKERVISION, INC. 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

INTEL CORPORATION 

Defendant. 

C.A. No. 6:20-cv-108-ADA

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

DEFENDANT INTEL CORPORATIONS MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT OF NO WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 199 Filed 11/04/22 Page 1 of 21
Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 199 Filed 11/04/22 Page 2 of 21
ii 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

 Page(s) 

CASES 

Acceleron, LLC v. Dell Inc., 

2022 WL 1087683 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 7, 2022) ................................................................ 14 

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 

477 U.S. 242 (1986) ....................................................................................................... 4 

Bayer Healthcare LLC v. Baxalta Inc., 

989 F.3d 964 (Fed. Cir. 2021)............................................................................... passim 

Bench Walk Lighting LLC v. LG Innotek Co., 

530 F. Supp. 3d 468 (D. Del. 2021) ............................................................................. 14 

BillJCo, LLC v. Apple Inc., 

583 F. Supp. 3d 769 (W.D. Tex. 2022) ........................................................................ 14 

Cellcontrol, Inc. v. Mill Mountain Capital, LLC, 

2022 WL 598752 (W.D. Va. Feb. 28, 2022) ............................................................... 14 

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) .......................................................................... 4 

Eason v. Thaler, 

73 F.3d 1322 (5th Cir. 1996) ......................................................................................... 4 

Eko Brands, LLC v. Adrian Rivera Maynez Enters., Inc., 

946 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2020)................................................................................ 4, 12 

Grant v. CRST Expedited, Inc., 

2021 WL 2101741 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 7, 2021) ............................................................... 11 

Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 

579 U.S. 93 (2016) ......................................................................................................... 4 

Monolithic Power Sys., Inc. v. Meraki Integrated Cir. (Shenzhen) Tech., Ltd., 

2021 WL 3931910 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 1, 2021) ....................................................... 10, 14 

Olaf Soot Design, LLC v. Daktronics, Inc., 

325 F. Supp. 3d 456 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) ............................................................................ 7 

State Indus., Inc. v. A.O. Smith Corp., 

751 F.2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1985)...................................................................................... 5 

Teradyne, Inc. v. Astronics Test Systems, Inc., 

2020 WL 8173024 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2020) ............................................................... 14 

STATUTES, RULES, AND REGULATIONS 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) .................................................................................................................. 4 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 199 Filed 11/04/22 Page 3 of 21
iii 

Fed. R. Evid. 411 ..................................................................................................................... 11 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 199 Filed 11/04/22 Page 4 of 21
1 

I. INTRODUCTION

As the Federal Circuit recently made clear, [w]illfulness requires deliberate or

intentional infringement.1 Bayer Healthcare LLC v. Baxalta Inc., 989 F.3d 964, 988 (Fed. 

Cir. 2021) (Knowledge of the asserted patent and evidence of infringement is necessary, but 

not sufficient, for a finding of willfulness. Rather, willfulness requires deliberate or 

intentional infringement.). ParkerVision relies on f categories of documents in its attempt 

to show willfulness, but the undisputed facts show that none is sufficient as a matter of law: 

First, ParkerVision relies on two non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) and later 

communications between ParkerVision and Intel employees. But both NDAs pre-date issuance 

of all the Asserted Patents and neither the NDAs nor any of the communications between 

ParkerVision and Intel employees even mentions any of the Asserted Patents, much less shows 

deliberate or intentional infringement of the patents.2

 

Second, ParkerVision relies on communications between Infineon (a company from 

whom Intel acquired a wireless division) and ParkerVision that occurred prior to Intels 

acquisition of Infineons Wireless Solutions Business. But just like the communications with 

Intel, none of these communications even mentions any Asserted Patent, let alone shows 

deliberate or intentional infringement. 

Third, ParkerVision relies on a 2010 third-party (Skyworks) patent marketing 

document produced from Intels files that references two of ParkerVisions Asserted Patents 

in passing. Yet the two Asserted Patents are merely listed (in a font too small to be humanreadable) among a list of 74 patents that cite to the Skyworks patents as part of Skyworks 

promotion of Skyworkss patents. And there is no evidence that anyone at Intel or Infineon 

1

 All emphases are added unless otherwise noted. 

2 ParkerVision is asserting U.S. Patent Nos. 6,580,902 (the 902 patent), 8,588,725 (the 

725 patent), 9,118,528 (the 528 patent), 9,246,736 (the 736 patent), 9,444,673 (the 

673 patent), and 7,539,474 (the 474 patent) (collectively, the Asserted Patents).

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 199 Filed 11/04/22 Page 5 of 21
2 

ever even reviewed this list of patents, let alone reviewed the two ParkerVision patents or their 

claims. 

Fourth, ParkerVision relies on a May 2016 subpoena that it served on Intel in one of 

ParkerVisions litigations against Apple, among others, before the International Trade 

Commission (ITC). ParkerVision alleges that the subpoena accused Intel of infringing one 

of the six Asserted Patentsthe 528 patent. But ParkerVision affirmatively stated on the 

record in those same ITC proceedings, after Intel had responded to the subpoena, 

 Ex. 1, In re Certain RF Capable Integrated Circuits 

and Products Containing the Same, Investigation No. 337-TA-982, Order No 14 (Aug. 4, 2016) 

at 6 

.

3

Fifth, ParkerVision relies on its 2017 assertion in a German action that one of the Intel 

chips at issue herethe SMARTi5infringed a European patent related to one of the Asserted 

Patents. But the German court found that the Intel chip does not infringe the ParkerVision 

patent. 

Based on these undisputed facts, no reasonable jury could find that Intel had the 

requisite knowledge and intent to willfully infringe any of the Asserted Patents. Intel 

respectfully moves for summary judgment of no willful infringement. 

II. BACKGROUND 

A. None Of The Communications Between ParkerVision And Intel Identify 

Any Asserted Patents. 

ParkerVision alleges that two NDAs between ParkerVision and Intel, communications 

between Intel and ParkerVision, Intel internal emails, and data regarding visits to its websites 

3 All exhibits are attached to the Declaration of Harry Hanson, filed concurrently herewith. 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 199 Filed 11/04/22 Page 6 of 21
3 

support its claim for willful infringement. Dkt. 146, PV Third Amended Complaint (TAC), 

¶¶38, 54, 66. It is undisputed that none of that evidence mentions any of the Asserted Patents. 

B. None Of The Communications Between ParkerVision And Infineon 

Identify Any Asserted Patents. 

ParkerVision alleges that a series of communications between ParkerVision and 

Infineon between February 2006 and January 2009 support its claim for willful infringement. 

TAC, ¶¶43-61. As an initial matter, it is undisputed that all of those communications predate 

Intels acquisition of Infineon Wireless in 2011. In any event, it is also undisputed that none 

of those communications with Infineon even mentions any Asserted Patent. 

C. The Skyworks Brochure 

ParkerVision also cites a 2010 brochure offering a portfolio of patents from Skyworks 

for sale that lists the asserted 902 and 474 patent numbers among a list of 74 patentsin a 

font size that cannot be read without magnification

 Ex. 2, Skyworks Pres. 

(96103DOC00099705) at -727. The ParkerVision patents in 

. Id. ParkerVision has not identified any 

evidence that anyone at Intel ever read that , much less reviewed the two Asserted 

Patents mentioned in that document. 

D. ParkerVisions Motion To Amend To Add Willfulness. 

Over two years after filing this case, ParkerVision moved for leave to file a Third 

Amended Complaint adding claims of willful infringement. Dkt. 133. The Court granted 

ParkerVisions motion and allowed the parties to take discovery related to the new claims. Dkt. 

145. That discovery has now confirmed that there is no basis for ParkerVisions claims of 

willful infringement. 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 199 Filed 11/04/22 Page 7 of 21
4 

III. LEGAL STANDARD 

A. Summary Judgment. 

Summary judgment shall be granted when there is no genuine dispute as to any 

material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); 

see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). A fact dispute is genuine if the 

evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. 

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). [M]ere conclusory allegations are 

 insufficient  to defeat a motion for summary judgment. Eason v. Thaler, 73 F.3d 1322, 

1325 (5th Cir. 1996). 

B. Willful Infringement. 

As the Federal Circuit recently confirmed, [w]illfulness requires deliberate or 

intentional infringement. Bayer, 989 F.3d at 988 (Knowledge of the asserted patent and 

evidence of infringement is necessary, but not sufficient, for a finding of willfulness. Rather, 

willfulness requires deliberate or intentional infringement.); Eko Brands, LLC v. Adrian 

Rivera Maynez Enters., Inc., 946 F.3d 1367, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (under Halo, deliberate or 

intentional infringement is required). Further, a claim for enhanced damages based on willful 

infringement requires conduct variously described in our cases as willful, wanton, malicious, 

bad-faith, deliberate, consciously wrongful, flagrant, orindeedcharacteristic of a pirate. 

Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 579 U.S. 93, 103-104 (2016). 

IV. ARGUMENT 

 ParkerVision has failed to come forward with any evidence that even comes close to 

plausibly demonstrating deliberate or intentional infringement. Its willfulness allegations thus 

fail as a matter of law. 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 199 Filed 11/04/22 Page 8 of 21
Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 199 Filed 11/04/22 Page 9 of 21
6 

nothing about that patent. Ex. 4, Nov. 6, 2007 Email from Ravid at 1. Moreover, if anything, 

Mr. Ravids email demonstrates that Intel was not interested in pursuing ParkerVisions 

technology: 

Parker vision doesnt have a very good track record as it has to do with new IP. If 

you remember they had some groundbreaking mixer IP some 6-7 years ago that really 

didnt materialize. I dont know what they have now but we should be very very very 

suspicious getting into bed with them.  Bottom line: in my opinion there is no 

reason to do anything with them before they can present real data from REAL Si 

under a real case scenario of a real system. 

Id. Far from suggesting that Intel had knowledge of any ParkerVision patent, Mr. Ravids 

email suggests that Intel avoid further contact with ParkerVision entirely. 

Fourth, ParkerVision has pointed to visits to its website that it attributes to unidentified 

Infineon and Intel engineers from those companies facilities located in, for example, 

Grasbrunn and Neubiberg, Germany; Beijing and Shanghai, China; Bayan Lepas, Malaysia; 

Santa Clara and Folsom, California; and Hillsboro, Oregon. TAC, ¶66. But ParkerVision 

cites no evidence of who visited from those cities, that the visitors looked at sections of the 

website that referred to Asserted Patents, or that the visitors even reviewed, let alone intended 

to infringe, any Asserted Patent. Simply put, a few visits to ParkerVisions website by 

unidentified Intel employees without any evidence of reviewing any Asserted Patents does not 

come close to meeting ParkerVisions burden of establishing both knowledge of and intent to 

infringe the Asserted Patents. 

Absent evidence that the communications between Intel and ParkerVision even 

mention any Asserted Patent, ParkerVisions claim of willful infringement based on these 

documents fails as a matter of law. Knowledge of the Asserted Patents is a necessarythough 

not sufficientelement of willful infringement and none of these communications even 

establish Intels awareness of the asserted patents. Bayer, 989 F.3d at 988 (Knowledge of the 

asserted patent  is necessary, but not sufficient, for a finding of willfulness.). 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 199 Filed 11/04/22 Page 10 of 21
Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 199 Filed 11/04/22 Page 11 of 21
Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 199 Filed 11/04/22 Page 12 of 21
Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 199 Filed 11/04/22 Page 13 of 21
10 

 In short, no reasonable jury could 

infer from this document that Intel had knowledge of the substance of the claims of the 902 

and 474 patents, let alone an intent to infringe them. Bayer, 989 F.3d at 988 (Knowledge of 

the asserted patentis necessary, but not sufficient, for a finding of willfulness. Rather, 

willfulness requires deliberate or intentional infringement.); see also Monolithic Power Sys., 

Inc. v. Meraki Integrated Cir. (Shenzhen) Tech., Ltd., No. 6:20-cv-008876-ADA, 2021 WL 

3931910, at *5 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 1, 2021) (holding that knowledge of the asserted patents does 

not lead to plausible inference defendant also knew its conduct amounted to alleged 

infringement). 

D. The ITC Subpoena Does Not Suffice To Establish Willfulness. 

ParkerVision also points to its 2016 subpoena to Intel as evidence that Intel knew of 

one of the asserted patents that was also asserted in that Investigationthe 528 patent. TAC 

¶ 67. That subpoena arose out of an ITC Investigation ParkerVision filed against Apple, among 

others, and ParkerVision alleges that the subpoena and application for subpoena stated that 

Intels SMARTi5 infringes the 528 patent. Id. In response to that subpoena, Intel provided 

access to the same SMARTi5 schematics and technical documents that have been produced in 

this case. ParkerVision asserts that the subpoena supports its willfulness claim. TAC ¶¶ 67-

69. ParkerVision fails to mention, however, that following Intels production in response to 

that subpoena, ParkerVision affirmatively stated 

 Specifically, in opposition to one of the 

respondents motions for summary determination, ParkerVision represented to the 

Administrative Law Judge 

 Ex. 1, In re Certain RF Capable Integrated Circuits and 

Products Containing the Same, Investigation No. 337-TA-982, Order No 14 (Aug. 4, 2016) at 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 199 Filed 11/04/22 Page 14 of 21
Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 199 Filed 11/04/22 Page 15 of 21
Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 199 Filed 11/04/22 Page 16 of 21
Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 199 Filed 11/04/22 Page 17 of 21
14 

Intel has stated in an interrogatory response 

 Ex. 13, Intels Suppl. Resp. to Interrogs. Nos. 1-6 (Aug. 12, 2022) at 15. Intels 

 cannot save ParkerVisions claims for willful infringement. It is 

well settled that mere knowledge of patents that later became the subject of litigation is not 

sufficient to support a claim for willful infringement. See, e.g., Bayer, 989 F.3d at 988 

(Knowledge of the asserted patentis necessary, but not sufficient, for a finding of 

willfulness.); Monolithic Power, 2021 WL 3931910, at *5 (holding that knowledge of asserted 

patents does not lead to plausible inference defendant also knew its conduct amounted to 

alleged infringement); BillJCo, LLC v. Apple Inc., 583 F. Supp. 3d 769, 777 (W.D. Tex. 2022); 

See Acceleron, LLC v. Dell Inc., No. 1:12-CV-4123-TCB, 2022 WL 1087683, at *5 (N.D. Ga. 

Mar. 7, 2022) (finding no specific intent to infringe: [Defendants] knowledge of the asserted 

patent and of [Plaintiffs] other lawsuits, its decision to continue to manufacture and sell its 

products without changes, and [Plaintiffs] allegations of infringement were not enough for a 

reasonable jury to find that infringement was either known or so obvious that it should have 

been known.); Bench Walk Lighting LLC v. LG Innotek Co., 530 F. Supp. 3d 468, 492 (D. 

Del. 2021) (finding insufficient a letter that did not identify most of the accused products or 

explain how the defendant allegedly infringed), report & recommendation adopted by 530 F. 

Supp. 3d 468, 477-78 (D. Del. 2021); Teradyne, Inc. v. Astronics Test Systems, Inc., No. CV 

20-2713-GW-SHKx, 2020 WL 8173024, at *3-5 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2020) (same); Cellcontrol, 

Inc. v. Mill Mountain Capital, LLC, No. 7:21-cv-246, 2022 WL 598752, at *5 (W.D. Va. Feb. 

28, 2022) (knowledge of patent insufficient). 

ParkerVision has failed to prove anything beyond mere awareness of two of the asserted 

patents, one of which (the 528 patent) ParkerVision later 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 199 Filed 11/04/22 Page 18 of 21
15 

 Ex. 1, In re Certain RF Capable Integrated 

Circuits, Investigation No. 337-TA-982, Order No 14 (Aug. 4, 2016) at 6. On this record, no 

reasonable jury could find that Intel willfully infringed any asserted patent. 

V. CONCLUSION 

Intel therefore respectfully requests summary judgment of no willful infringement. 

Dated: October 28, 2022 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ J. Stephen Ravel 

Michael J. Summersgill (admitted Pro Hac 

Vice) 

Sarah B. Petty (admitted Pro Hac Vice) 

Harry Hanson (admitted Pro Hac Vice) 

Marissa A. Lalli (admitted Pro Hac Vice) 

Samuel C. Leifer (admitted Pro Hac Vice) 

Alicia Coneys (admitted Pro Hac Vice) 

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND 

DORR LLP 

60 State Street 

Boston, Massachusetts 02109 

T (617) 526-6000 

michael.summersgill@wilmerhale.com 

sarah.petty@wilmerhale.com 

harry.hanson@wilmerhale.com 

marissa.lalli@wilmerhale.com 

samuel.leifer@wilmerhale.com 

alicia.coneys@wilmerhale.com 

Todd Zubler (admitted Pro Hac Vice) 

Isley M. Gostin (admitted Pro Hac Vice) 

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND 

DORR LLP 

1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 

Washington, DC 20006 

T (202) 663-6636 

todd.zubler@wilmerhale.com 

isley.gostin@wilmerhale.com 

Mary (Mindy) V. Sooter 

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND 

DORR LLP 

1225 17th Street, Suite 2600 

Denver, CO 80202 

J. Stephen Ravel 

KELLY HART & HALLMAN LLP 

303 Colorado, Suite 2000 

Austin, Texas 78701 

T (512) 495-6429 

steve.ravel@kellyhart.com 

James E. Wren 

Texas State Bar No. 22018200 

1 Bear Place, Unit 97288 

Waco, Texas 76798 

T (254) 710-7670 

james.wren@baylor.edu 

Attorneys for Defendant Intel Corporation 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 199 Filed 11/04/22 Page 19 of 21
16 

T (720) 274-3135 

mindy.sooter@wilmerhale.com 

Jason F. Choy (admitted Pro Hac Vice) 

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND 

DORR LLP 

350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2400 

Los Angeles, California 90071 

T (213) 443-5300 

jason.choy@wilmerhale.com 

Harry J. Gillam, Jr.

GILLAM & SMITH, LLP

303 South Washington Ave.

Marshall, Texas 75670

T (903) 934-8450

F (903) 934-9257

gil@gillamsmithlaw.com

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 199 Filed 11/04/22 Page 20 of 21
1 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I hereby certify that all counsel of record are being served with a copy of the 

foregoing document via the Courts CM/ECF system on October 28, 2022. 

/s/ J. Stephen Ravel 

J. Stephen Ravel 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 199 Filed 11/04/22 Page 21 of 21