UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION 

PARKERVISION, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

INTEL CORPORATION, 

Defendant. 

Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00108-ADA 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

DEFENDANT INTEL CORPORATION’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF 

ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NONINFRINGEMENT REGARDING 

U.S. PATENT NO. 7,539,474 

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 284 Filed 01/31/23 Page 1 of 10
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

Page(s) 

CASES 

General Mills, Inc. v. Hunt-Wesson, Inc., 

103 F.3d 978 (Fed. Cir. 1997)..............................................................................................1 

Lighthouse Consulting Group, LLC v. BB&T Corp., 

476 F. Supp. 3d 532 (W.D. Tex. 2020) ................................................................................4 

O2 Micro International Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Technology Co., 

521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008)............................................................................................1 

Profectus Technology LLC v. Huawei Technologies Co., 

2014 WL 11728718 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 8, 2014) ....................................................................4 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 284 Filed 01/31/23 Page 2 of 10
1 

 At the January 19, 2023 final pretrial hearing, the Court instructed the parties to file briefing 

on whether PV and its technical expert’s infringement allegations for the ’474 patent are 

“inconsistent with the [Court’s] claim construction.” Jan. 19, 2023 Hr’g Tr. at 194:3-195:23. They 

are. As construed by the Court, claim 6 of the ’474 patent is limited to either a direct connection 

between the claimed switch and the claimed reference potential, or a specific type of indirect 

connection that is tantamount to a direct connection, i.e., through “a conductor (or a closed 

switch).”1

 Dkt. 75 at 4. But PV and its expert now try to argue that the claim covers any type of 

connection—direct or indirect—through any type of component that has any conductivity

(including those specifically designed to resist conductivity). PV argued for that claim scope 

during claim construction, and the Court rejected that broad reading of the claim. It is well settled 

that PV cannot reargue claim construction to the jury. O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation 

Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Jan. 19, 2023 Hr’g Tr. at 195:21-23 (the Court: 

“[i]f that’s the argument [that] plaintiff’s expert is not complying with my construction, that’s 

something I’m not going to do at trial”). Because PV’s infringement allegations depend on its 

improper claim construction argument, summary judgment of non-infringement of the ’474 patent 

should be granted. See Gen. Mills, Inc. v. Hunt-Wesson, Inc., 103 F.3d 978, 983 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 

A. The Court Resolved The Parties’ Claim Construction Dispute By Limiting 

The Claim To A Specific Type Of Indirect Connection. 

At claim construction, the parties disputed the meaning of the phrase “the [] switch is 

coupled to the [] storage element at a [] node and coupled to a [] reference potential” in claim 1 of 

the ’474 patent, on which asserted claim 6 depends. Intel argued that the term “coupled to a [] 

reference potential” required a direct connection between the switch and the reference potential. 

1

 Emphases added, unless otherwise noted. Exhibits are attached to the concurrently filed 

declaration of Harry Hanson. 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 284 Filed 01/31/23 Page 3 of 10
2 

Dkt. 58 at 26-27. Intel explained that every time the specification identifies any electrical 

component as being “coupled to a reference potential,” the specification refers to the type of direct 

connection shown in Figure 20G: 

See Dkt. 58 at 26; Dkt. 53 at 26 & n.10. PV argued in response that the term “coupled” covered 

both direct and indirect connections: “the term ‘coupled’ can refer to an indirect

connection/coupling.” Dkt. 65 at 15 (emphasis by PV); Dkt. 57 at 19 n.13. PV’s sole evidence to 

support its “indirect” connection theory was the patent’s description of a connection between a 

signal and a capacitor formed when an intervening switch was closed. Dkt. 65 at 15 (“‘When the 

switch 2008 is closed, the input signal 2004 is coupled to the capacitor 2010.’ ’474 patent, 12:10-

11, 43-44. This is an indirect connection/coupling.” (emphases by PV)). As Intel explained, 

however, PV’s claim construction proposal—whereby the claim applies to any configuration of a 

switch, storage element, and reference potential, including any indirect connections—was 

inconsistent with the specification and would render claim language meaningless: 

Every circuit has a reference potential. Accordingly, if a switch in a circuit is ‘coupled to 

a reference potential’ merely by virtue of being indirectly connected to ground through 

other components, then every switch—indeed, every electrical component—in every 

circuit is coupled to a reference potential, and the words ‘coupled to a reference potential’ 

become superfluous. 

Dkt. 58 at 26-27 (emphasis in original). The Court rejected PV’s argument, and limited “coupled” 

to only direct connections and indirect connections that are tantamount to a direct connection, i.e., 

FIG. 20G 

2000 

Al USU., tml.E 

llflll 2010 00\ill-CCIMRTED SIGIW. OOTPI/T SIQIAL 

200 ◄ 2012 

~l~ 2006 

Switch 2008 

described as 

coupled to 

ground 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 284 Filed 01/31/23 Page 4 of 10
through a conductor or closed switch. 

Term Court's Final Construction 

"the [] switch is coupled to the [] storage Plain-and-ordinaiy meamng wherein 

element at a [] node and coupled to a [] "coupled" is directly connected or connected 

reference potential" (' 4 7 4 patent, claim 1) through a conductor (or a closed switch). 

Dkt. 75 at 4. 

B. PV Now Improperly Tries To Reargue The Court's Claim Construction To 

Allow For Any Indirect Connection Through Any Component With 

Conductivity. 

It is undisputed that, in the Intel products-at-issue, 

between each switch and the alleged 

reference potential. See Dkt. 173. Faced with this fundamental flaw in its infringement claim, PV 

now tries to reargue the Comi's constmction to the jmy to allow for any indirect connection 

through any component with any conductivity. According to PV, a connection through a resistor 

meets the Comi's constiuction because a resistor, despite its purpose, has some conductivity.2 Dkt. 

208 at 3-4. But this is effectively the same ai-ginnent that PV made, and the Comi rejected, at 

Markman . See Dkt. 65 at 15. Indeed, PV's ai·gmnent would broaden the claim to cover even the 

opposite of a "conductor" because, as PV's expert states in his textbook, resistivity is the inverse 

(i.e., the opposite) of conductivity. Dkt. 173-12, Michael Steer, Microwave and RF Design: A 

Systems Approach (2010), at 842. PV's argument should be rejected. 

First, PV's ai·gmnent would render po1iions of the Court's constiuction meaningless. If 

the Comi had intended such a broad claim scope, it could have easily adopted such a constiuction 

(e.g., '"coupled' is directly or indirectly connected"). Instead, the Comi adopted a constiuction 

that allowed direct connections and only a specific type of indirect connection-i.e., through either 

2 Pai·kerVision does not allege that this limitation is met under the docti·ine of equivalents. 

3 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 284 Filed 01/31/23 Page 5 of 10
4 

“[1] a conductor (or [2] a closed switch).” Dkt. 75 at 4. There would have been no need to refer 

specifically to a “conductor” and “closed switch” if the Court had simply intended to cover any 

indirect connection. Moreover, it is undisputed that a “closed switch,” like a “conductor,” is a 

component that is designed to conduct a current. Ex. 1, Steer Opening Rpt., Appendix K-3 at 58 

(“When the second switch (transistors SW2, purple box) is ON (closed), current can pass through 

the second switch ....”). If the “conductor” portion of the Court’s construction could be met by 

any connection through any component with any conductivity—as PV now argues—there would 

have been no need to include “(or a closed switch)” in the Court’s construction, because of course 

a closed switch has some level of conductivity. PV’s argument thus improperly reads out a portion 

of the Court’s construction. See Profectus Tech. LLC v. Huawei Techs. Co., 2014 WL 11728718, 

at *2 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 8, 2014). 

Second, PV’s argument would also render meaningless the “coupled to a [] reference 

potential” claim language. The patent makes clear that the claim is directed to a specific 

configuration of components, not all indirect connections. The claim recites components of a 

switch, storage element, node, and reference potential. Dkt. 1-4, ’474 patent, at claim 1. The 

patent does not assert, nor could it, that any of these components were novel. The patent instead 

claims that what is novel is the particular configuration where the switch is coupled to the reference 

potential in a particular way. Id. If, however, the term “coupled to a [] reference potential” is 

broadened to cover any indirect connection through any component with conductivity—as PV’s 

infringement allegations require—this claim language would be rendered meaningless, as all 

components in a circuit are at least indirectly connected to a reference potential through some 

component. Supra at 2; Dkt. 58 at 26-27. But an infringement theory cannot “effectively eliminate 

[a claim] element in its entirety.” Lighthouse Consulting Grp., LLC v. BB&T Corp., 476 F. Supp. 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 284 Filed 01/31/23 Page 6 of 10
5 

3d 532, 543 (W.D. Tex. 2020). 

Third, PV’s argument that a resistor can be a “conductor” under the Court’s construction 

is inconsistent with the patent itself, which consistently distinguishes between “conductors” and 

“resistors.” For instance, as shown below in Figure 51B, where the patent describes a connection 

through a conductor, it uses lines (yellow). By contrast, where the patent describes a connection 

through a resistor, it uses the well-known symbol for that component: a zigzag (5118, blue). 

Dkt. 1-4, ’474 patent, at Fig. 51B. Indeed, in 181 pages of specification, the ’474 patent never 

once suggests that one could use a resistor for a conductor. And, as noted above, PV’s own expert 

has said the opposite: “[e]lectrical conductivity is the inverse of resistivity.” Dkt. 173-12 at 842. 

* * *

PV’s infringement allegations for the ’474 patent depend on an argument that is contrary 

to the Court’s claim construction, the claims, the specification, and PV’s own expert’s admissions. 

PV’s attempt to reargue claim construction to the jury should be rejected, and Intel’s motion for 

summary judgment of non-infringement of the ’474 patent should be granted. 

FIG. 518 

5122 , ,·· 5106 ----·• Resistor 

!,--~7 5116 / 

~J :~l~ l /2 ,ff' 

5104 I 5108' .. 5118 Il'ffDANCE LOAD 

j l STOOAGE ! -2k ohm 

5101 ~ ACIT~CE j . ' : 

E~;;;;;··-··-··- ·~ ~Condudor 

SIGNAL 

5110 (PUlSE WITH A NONNEGLIGIBLE APEATUffl 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 284 Filed 01/31/23 Page 7 of 10
6 

Dated: January 24, 2023 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 

marissa.lalli@wilmerhale.com 

harry.hanson@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 (admitted Pro Hac 

Vice) 

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND

DORR LLP 

1225 17th Street, Suite 2600 

Denver, CO 80202 

T (720) 274-3135 

mindy.sooter@wilmerhale.com 

Robert J. Gunther Jr. (admitted Pro Hac 

Vice) 

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND

DORR LLP 

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 

Harry L. Gillam, Jr. 

Texas State Bar No. 07921800 

GILLAM & SMITH, L.L.P. 

303 South Washington Avenue 

Marshall, Texas 75670 

Tel.: (903) 934-8450 

Fax: (903) 934-9257 

gil@gillamsmithlaw.com 

Attorneys for Defendant Intel Corporation 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 284 Filed 01/31/23 Page 8 of 10
7 

7 World Trade Center 

250 Greenwich Street 

New York, NY 10007 

T (212) 230-8800 

robert.gunther@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 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 284 Filed 01/31/23 Page 9 of 10
8 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

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

sealed documents via electronic mail on January 24, 2023. 

 /s/ J. Stephen Ravel

J. Stephen Ravel

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 284 Filed 01/31/23 Page 10 of 10