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

SEALED ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, AND COUNTERCLAIMS 

TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 

Plaintiff ParkerVision, Inc.’s (“ParkerVision”) patent infringement claims against 

Defendant Intel Corporation (“Intel”) have no merit and Intel’s products do not use 

ParkerVision’s purported inventions in the patents-at-issue in this case, as evidenced by

findings by courts in Germany that chips accused in this case do not infringe ParkerVision’s 

closely related European Patent No. 1 135 853 (the “EP ‘853 patent”), and that the EP ‘853 

patent is invalid. See Munich Regional Court, 7 O 2141/17, Final Judgment (trans.) (Ger.) at 

19, Apr. 25, 2019; Bundespatentgericht [BPatG] [Federal Patent Court], 5 Ni 19/17 (EP), 

Decision on Costs and Determination of the Value in Dispute (trans.) (Ger.) at 10, 15, Dec. 16, 

2019. Intel engineers independently developed the cellular modem technology at issue without 

knowledge of ParkerVision’s technology or patents. Moreover, ParkerVision’s claims to have 

invented ground-breaking technology have proved to be unfounded, as Intel quickly realized 

that ParkerVision’s purported intellectual property was “snake oil.” Both Intel and third parties 

quickly realized (and very bluntly stated) that ParkerVision’s claims to have developed 

allegedly “revolutionary” technology turned out to be completely baseless. ParkerVision has 

repeatedly overstated the benefits and performance of its technology, making claims publicly 

that are contradicted and unsupported by its own internal documents, and the allegations in its 

complaint against Intel are more of the same, as evidenced by the Munich Regional Court’s 

5('$&7('38%/,&9(56,21

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 1 of 65
-2-

finding that one of the same chips at issue here does not infringe a closely related ParkerVision 

patent.

Accordingly, and as alleged herein, Intel hereby answers ParkerVision’s Third 

Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement (D.I. 146) as follows. 

NATURE OF THE ACTION1

1. This paragraph states legal conclusions to which no response is required. To

the extent a further response is required, Intel denies that it has infringed any asserted patent, 

directly or indirectly. Intel denies any remaining allegations in this paragraph. 

PARTIES

2. Intel lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations in paragraph 2, and therefore denies the same. 

3. Intel admits that it is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of

Delaware with a place of business at 2200 Mission College Boulevard, Santa Clara, California 

95054.

4. Intel admits that it has facilities at 1300 S. Mopac Expressway, Austin, Texas

78746; 6500 River Place Blvd, Bldg. 7, Austin, Texas 78730; and 5113 Southwest Parkway, 

Austin, Texas 78735. To the extent a further response is required, Intel denies any remaining 

allegations in this paragraph. 

5. Intel admits that it has a Texas registered agent located at CT Corporation

System, 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201. To the extent a further response 

is required, Intel denies any remaining allegations in this paragraph. 

1 For ease of reference, Intel uses the headings used in ParkerVision’s Third Amended 

Complaint. In so doing, Intel does not admit any of the allegations contained in those headings.

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 2 of 65
-3-

6. Intel admits that since 1989, it has been registered to do business in the State of

Texas under Texas Taxpayer Number 19416727436. To the extent a further response is 

required, Intel denies any remaining allegations in this paragraph. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7. This paragraph states legal conclusions to which no response is required. To

the extent a further response is required, Intel admits that this Court has subject matter 

jurisdiction over ParkerVision’s allegations of patent infringement. Intel denies any remaining 

allegations in this paragraph. 

8. This paragraph states legal conclusions to which no response is required. To

the extent a further response is required, Intel admits that Intel Corporation is a named party in 

this action and that it has a place of business in this District, specifically, 1300 S. Mopac 

Expressway, Austin, Texas 78746. Intel specifically denies that it has committed acts of 

infringement in this District or anywhere else. Intel further denies that venue is convenient in 

this District, and denies that venue will be proper or convenient in this District for all matters 

where Intel is a named party; given the extent of Intel’s operations in other states, transfer out 

of this District and/or Division will presumably be appropriate in other cases and nothing herein 

should be read as a waiver of Intel’s right to request transfer out of this Division and/or District 

in future cases as may be appropriate. Except as so expressly admitted, Intel denies the 

remaining allegations in this paragraph. 

9. This paragraph states legal conclusions to which no response is required. To

the extent a further response is required, Intel admits that it has recruited and employs some 

Texas residents. Intel denies any remaining allegations in this paragraph. 

10. This paragraph states legal conclusions to which no response is required. To

the extent a further response is required, Intel admits that it conducts business within this 

judicial district; that it has facilities in this judicial district; that it receives income from its 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 3 of 65
-4-

operations in this judicial district; and that it employs Texas residents within this judicial 

district. Intel denies any remaining allegations in this paragraph.

11. This paragraph states legal conclusions to which no response is required. To

the extent a further response is required, Intel denies any remaining allegations in this 

paragraph. 

12. Intel denies that it has infringed any asserted patent, directly or indirectly.

Moreover, this paragraph states legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the 

extent a further response is required, Intel denies any remaining allegations in this paragraph. 

13. This paragraph states legal conclusions to which no response is required. To

the extent a further response is required, Intel denies any remaining allegations in this 

paragraph. 

14. Intel admits that it has facilities in Austin and that it has employees at those

facilities but none of those employees have any material connection to this case. The remaining 

statements in this paragraph are legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the 

extent a further response is required, Intel denies any remaining allegations in this paragraph.

15. Intel admits that its website describes its operations in Austin as follows:

“[l]ocated in the capitol city of Texas, Intel Austin is an important research and development 

center for the Intel technology that is changing the way we live, work, and play. Among the 

innovations developed in Austin are core technologies for next-generation microprocessors, 

platforms and base software; ground-breaking silicon solutions for computing and 

communications devices, which includes handheld computing and cellular communications; 

and cutting-edge network storage products.” To the extent a further response is required, Intel 

denies any remaining allegations in this paragraph. 

16. Intel admits that the third-party website cited in paragraph 16 of the Third

Amended Complaint purports to list H-1B labor condition applications for “Employer Name” 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 4 of 65
-5-

“Intel Corporation” at “Worksite City” “Austin, TX.” Intel lacks knowledge and information 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the statements on the cited third-party website at 

this time, and therefore denies the same. The remaining statements in this paragraph are legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent any other response to the allegations 

in this paragraph is required, Intel denies such allegations. 

17. Intel admits that its website lists job openings for positions in Austin, Texas.

To the extent any other response to the allegations in this paragraph is required, Intel denies 

such allegations. 

18. Intel admits that it is a party to Flash-Control, LLC v. Intel Corp., Case No.

1:19-cv-01107 (W.D. Tex.) and VLSI Tech. LLC v. Intel Corp., Case No. 1:19-cv-00977 (W.D. 

Tex.). To the extent any other response to the allegations in this paragraph is required, Intel 

denies such allegations. 

BACKGROUND

19. Intel lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to ParkerVision’s

allegations in this paragraph, and therefore denies such allegations on that basis. 

20. Intel lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to ParkerVision’s

allegations in this paragraph, and therefore denies such allegations on that basis. 

21. Intel lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to ParkerVision’s

allegations in this paragraph, and therefore denies such allegations on that basis. 

22. Intel denies the allegations of paragraph 22, including, without limitation, the

assertion that ParkerVision allegedly “developed 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.” Intel lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to ParkerVision’s 

assertions regarding the time frame in which ParkerVision was allegedly working on this 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 5 of 65
-6-

technology, and therefore denies such allegations on that basis. Intel denies any remaining 

allegations in this paragraph. 

23. Intel lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to ParkerVision’s

assertions regarding the creation of prototype chips or conduction of tests, and therefore denies 

such allegations on that basis. Intel denies that ParkerVision’s “technology led to improved 

RF receiver performance, lower power consumption, reduced size and integration benefits” 

and further denies that ParkerVision’s technology allowed “RF transceivers [to] be built 

smaller, cheaper and with greater improved performance.” Intel denies any remaining 

allegations in this paragraph. 

24. Intel denies that ParkerVision’s technology represented “innovation[]” and

further denies that ParkerVision developed technologies novel or useful in the areas of 

“additional RF down-conversion technologies, RF up-conversion technologies and other 

related direct-conversion technologies,” or “complementary wireless communications 

technologies that involved interactions, processes, and controls between the baseband 

processor and the transceiver.” Intel denies that ParkerVision’s technology “improved” or 

“enhanced the operation of transceivers that incorporate ParkerVision’s down-converter and 

up-converter technologies.” Intel lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to 

ParkerVision’s assertions regarding the size of its patent portfolio, and therefore denies such 

allegations on that basis. Intel denies any remaining allegations in this paragraph. 

25. Intel denies that ParkerVision’s technology constituted “innovations.”

Qualcomm is not a party to this lawsuit, and Intel denies that Qualcomm’s alleged conduct has 

any bearing on this litigation. Intel denies any remaining allegations in this paragraph. 

26. Intel denies that ParkerVision’s “technology” is “significant,” “revolutionary,”

“critical,” a “holy grail,” or that it offered performance benefits, as evidenced by 

ParkerVision’s history of failed claims of patent infringement. For example, the Federal Patent 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 6 of 65
-7-

Court in Germany rejected ParkerVision’s contention that it invented a “fundamentally 

different approach to energy transmission down-conversion,” and instead found that 

ParkerVision’s EP ‘853 patent would have been found invalid, had it not already expired. See 

Bundespatentgericht [BPatG] [Federal Patent Court], 5 Ni 19/17 (EP), Decision on Costs and 

Determination of the Value in Dispute (Ger.) (trans.) at 10, 15, Dec. 16, 2019. Intel also denies 

the remaining characterizations of ParkerVision’s technology in this paragraph. These 

purported statements by individuals at Qualcomm are not relevant to this litigation and do not 

support ParkerVision’s allegations of infringement here, particularly in light of ParkerVision’s 

losses on its claims of patent infringement against Qualcomm in the Middle District of Florida 

and at the Federal Circuit. See Parkervision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., 27 F. Supp. 3d 1266, 1269 

(M.D. Fla. 2014), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 621 F. App’x. 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Intel denies 

any remaining allegations in this paragraph. 

27. Intel lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to ParkerVision’s

allegations in this paragraph, and therefore denies such allegations on that basis. 

28. Intel denies that ParkerVision’s purported technology addressed “a critical need

for smaller, more efficient receivers capable of supporting multiple frequency bands,” and 

denies any remaining allegations in this paragraph. 

29. Intel lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to ParkerVision’s

allegations in this paragraph, and therefore denies such allegations on that basis. 

30. Intel denies that it uses or has ever used ParkerVision’s technology. Intel further

denies that ParkerVision has been damaged by Intel’s conduct. Intel lacks knowledge or 

information sufficient to respond to ParkerVision’s remaining allegations in this paragraph, 

and therefore denies such remaining allegations on that basis. 

31. Denied.

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 7 of 65
-8-

INTEL CHIPS

32. Intel admits that Intel and/or its affiliates have manufactured and sold radio

frequency (“RF”) transceiver chips and/or modems, including the Intel PMB 5750, PMB 5757 

and PMB 5762 (collectively, the “RF Transceiver Chips”), outside the United States in Asia, 

and that those same chips may be incorporated by third parties into smartphones. Intel objects 

to ParkerVision’s belated attempt to broaden this case beyond the RF Transceiver Chips 

through its amended definition of “Intel Chips.” At the April 26, 2021 hearing, the Court 

ordered that it was too late for ParkerVision to add non-cellular products such as the “near field 

communication devices, smart watches, personal area networks, cable modems, smart meters, 

DSL modems, Bluetooth devices and/or Wi-Fi devices” referenced in Paragraph 32, absent a 

significant adjustment to the case schedule. In the Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order 

filed by ParkerVision on February 9, 2022 and granted by the Court on April 14, 2022, the 

parties agreed that the first trial was limited to “Accused cellular products.” See Dkt. No. 108. 

In light of the current status of these products, Intel’s investigation into near field 

communication devices, smart watches, personal area networks, cable modems, smart meters, 

DSL modems, Bluetooth devices and/or Wi-Fi devices is ongoing, and on that basis, Intel 

denies any allegations relating to such products. To the extent any other response to the 

allegations in this paragraph is required, Intel denies such allegations. 

33. Intel admits that its RF Transceiver Chips have been incorporated by third

parties into devices such as Apple iPhones. Intel further admits that its RF Transceiver Chips 

offer, among other things, the ability to connect to a cellular network. To the extent any other 

response to the allegations in this paragraph is required, Intel denies such allegations. 

34. Intel admits that the PMB 5750 has been incorporated by third parties into the

Apple iPhone 7 and 7 Plus. Intel admits that the PMB 5757 has been incorporated by third 

parties into the Apple iPhone 8, 8 Plus, and X. Intel admits that the PMB 5762 has been 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 8 of 65
-9-

incorporated by third parties into the Apple iPhone XR, XS, and XS Max. To the extent any 

other response to the allegations in this paragraph is required, Intel denies such allegations. 

35. Intel states that Apple acquired assets related to Intel’s RF Transceiver Chips in

December 2019. To the extent any other response to the allegations in this paragraph is 

required, Intel denies such allegations. 

RESPONSE TO PARKERVISION’S BASELESS ALLEGATIONS OF WILLFUL 

INFRINGEMENT

36. ParkerVision’s allegations of willful infringement are baseless for multiple

reasons. First, the Intel receiver technology-at-issue was designed by Werner Schelmbauer, a 

former Infineon engineer who joined Intel in January 2011, and who had no contact with 

ParkerVision and has no knowledge of any ParkerVision patent or technology. Second, neither 

Infineon nor Intel uses or has ever used any ParkerVision technology, let alone the 

ParkerVision receiver technology-at-issue in this case, which an Intel employee described in a 

contemporaneous, internal document as “snake oil” and third parties described as “a piece of 

sh**” and a “black box” that “didn’t do anything better, or faster, or more efficiently than we 

could do in a number of ways.” Third, while many of ParkerVision’s allegations predate Intel’s 

acquisition of Infineon, the documentary record and testimony of witnesses to date make clear 

that ParkerVision tried to interest Infineon in its “d2p” transmitter technology, which is 

unrelated to the patents-at-issue in this case, Infineon rejected that technology, told 

ParkerVision that it did not think ParkerVision’s technology is viable, and decided to use its 

own independently developed technology. Fourth, the independently developed receiver 

technology in Intel’s SMARTiTM 5 transceivers, which is at issue in this case, has already been 

found not to infringe a ParkerVision European patent that ParkerVision admits is related to the 

ParkerVision patents-at-issue in this case. Fifth, ParkerVision has repeatedly misled investors 

and the public about its business and technology, including in SEC filings where ParkerVision 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 9 of 65
-10-

continued to tout a project for LG Innotek in connection with a 2009 $16 million stock offering, 

while contemporaneous, internal ParkerVision documents describe

 Intel denies that it uses or has ever used ParkerVision’s 

technology. Intel further denies that its SMARTiTM products infringe any ParkerVision patentat-issue. Intel further denies that the engineers who developed the receiver functionality-atissue were in possession of ParkerVision confidential technical information that is the subject 

of the patents-at-issue or had knowledge of the ParkerVision patents-at-issue at any relevant 

time. ParkerVision’s allegations of willful infringement are therefore baseless and Intel 

reserves all rights, including the right to seek attorneys’ fees and sanctions, should 

ParkerVision pursue claims for willful infringement. To the extent any other response to the 

allegations in this paragraph is required, Intel denies such allegations. 

37. Intel admits that individuals from ParkerVision met with Intel employees and

Infineon employees but denies that either Intel or Infineon obtained any ParkerVision 

confidential technical information sufficient to practice ParkerVision’s alleged energy 

sampling/Direct2Data (D2D) invention or used any ParkerVision information in the design of 

the accused SMARTiTM products. Intel admits that it acquired assets related to Infineon’s 

wireless business in January 2011. Intel lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond 

to ParkerVision’s remaining allegations in this paragraph, and therefore denies such remaining 

allegations on that basis. To the extent any other response to the allegations in this paragraph 

is required, Intel denies such allegations. 

38. Intel admits that ParkerVision and Intel entered into Non-Disclosure

Agreements dated August 5, 1999 and September 27, 2002. Intel denies that ParkerVision 

discussed any of the patents-at-issue with Intel, as all of those patents issued in June 2003 or 

later. Moreover, contemporaneous Intel internal emails note that “ParkerVision has always felt 

like a stock scam” in response to an October 1999 press release from Asensio & Company 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 10 of 65
-11-

entitled “ParkerVision Possesses No Valuable Technology” and question whether a 

ParkerVision July 2001 press release regarding ParkerVision intellectual property related to 

ParkerVision’s “D2D” (aka “Direct2DataTM wireless semiconductor technology”) was “[m]ore 

snake oil.” Internal ParkerVision documents likewise show that Babak Bastani, “Director, 

Global R&D, WMSG-Radio Products Dev” at Freescale, “evaluated our d2d as a mixer in 

Plantation, and thought it was a ‘piece of sh**.’” And a September 1999 Forbes article noted 

the discrepancy between a ParkerVision “press release in March 1998 touting successful 

product testing at Boeing” and the first-hand account of “Dale Klotz, manager of radio 

frequency development at Boeing” who described the same testing as a “black box test” that 

showed ParkerVision’s technology “didn’t do anything better, or faster, or more efficiently 

than we could do in a number of ways.” The same 1999 Forbes article noted that “[t]he lone 

bullish analyst works for ParkerVision’s underwriter, Whale Securities,” a firm which 

“specializes in smallish firms with grandiose ambitions” and which “has paid at least $900,000 

in fines to the NASD for such transgressions as stock manipulation.” ParkerVision nonetheless 

continued to attempt to engage Intel, without success. Intel lacks knowledge or information 

sufficient to respond to ParkerVision’s remaining allegations in this paragraph, and therefore 

denies such remaining allegations on that basis. To the extent any other response to the 

allegations in this paragraph is required, Intel denies such allegations. 

39. Intel denies that ParkerVision discussed any patents-in-suit with Intel. Intel

admits that ParkerVision’s D2D technology is the subject matter of the claims of the patentsin-suit, but Intel denies that it uses or has ever used ParkerVision’s energy transfer technology 

in its SMARTi transceivers or Wi-Fi chips and denies that any Intel product infringes any 

ParkerVision patent. Intel lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to 

ParkerVision’s remaining allegations in this paragraph, and therefore denies such remaining 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 11 of 65
-12-

allegations on that basis. To the extent any other response to the allegations in this paragraph 

is required, Intel denies such allegations. 

40. Intel lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to ParkerVision’s

allegations in this paragraph, and therefore denies such allegations on that basis. To the extent 

any other response to the allegations in this paragraph is required, Intel denies such allegations.

41. Intel denies that any Intel product infringes any ParkerVision patent. Intel

denies that Zdravko Boos developed the receiver functionality in the SMARTi products-atissue. Moreover, the August 21, 2002 date in ParkerVision’s allegation appears to be based on 

a technical error that has been corrected. The correct date for the document ParkerVision 

appears to be relying on is April 26, 2006. Intel lacks knowledge or information sufficient to 

respond to ParkerVision’s remaining allegations in this paragraph, and therefore denies such 

remaining allegations on that basis. To the extent any other response to the allegations in this 

paragraph is required, Intel denies such allegations. 

42. Intel admits that Zdravko Boos sent an email to Bernd Adler and others at

Infineon that forwarded a ParkerVision press release on January 21, 2005. Intel denies that the 

press release was directed to ParkerVision’s D2D technology; rather, the ParkerVision power 

amplifier technology announced in the press release relates to transmit technology unrelated to 

the patents-at-issue. For example, the press release states that “[a]ccording to ParkerVision, 

its power amplifiers reduce total transmitter power consumption by 50% to 80%.” To the 

extent any other response to the allegations in this paragraph is required, Intel denies such 

allegations.

43. Intel admits that Jeff Leach sent an unsolicited email to Gerhard Schmidt in

February 2006 to “introduce” ParkerVision. Intel admits that Mr. Leach invited Mr. Schmidt 

to ParkerVision’s suite at “3GSM” and referred to a ParkerVision technology “called d2p” that

is not related to the patents-at-issue in this case. Mr. Leach’s email did not refer to any 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 12 of 65
-13-

ParkerVision patent or ParkerVision’s alleged energy sampling/Direct2Data (D2D) invention. 

To the extent any other response to the allegations in this paragraph is required, Intel denies 

such allegations. 

44. Intel admits that ParkerVision produced a document dated “2-14-2006” that

purports to summarize a meeting between individuals from Infineon and individuals from 

ParkerVision, including Mr. Jeff Leach. The document does not mention any ParkerVision 

patent or refer to any discussion of ParkerVision’s alleged energy sampling/Direct2Data (D2D) 

invention. To the extent a further response is required, Intel lacks knowledge or information 

sufficient to respond to ParkerVision’s allegations in this paragraph, and therefore denies such 

allegations on that basis. 

45. Intel admits that ParkerVision produced an email dated February 20, 2006 from

Mr. Jeff Leach to individuals at Infineon that indicates three attachments. The email does not 

mention any ParkerVision patent. To the extent a further response is required, Intel lacks 

knowledge or information sufficient to respond to ParkerVision’s allegations in this paragraph, 

and therefore denies such allegations on that basis. 

46. Intel admits that ParkerVision produced an email chain dated April 20, 2006

between rudolf-koch@infineon.com and jleach@ParkerVision.com. The email does not 

mention any ParkerVision patent. To the extent a further response is required, Intel lacks 

knowledge or information sufficient to respond to ParkerVision’s allegations in this paragraph, 

and therefore denies such allegations on that basis. 

47. Intel admits that ParkerVision produced a document dated “4-26-2006” that

purports to summarize a meeting between individuals from Infineon and individuals from 

ParkerVision, including Mr. Jeff Leach. Mr. Leach testified that he had no recollection of the 

meeting or the document at his deposition. None of the individuals that ParkerVision identifies 

from Infineon designed the receiver circuits at issue in this case. Moreover, the document 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 13 of 65
-14-

produced by ParkerVision does not mention any specific ParkerVision patent. To the extent a 

further response is required, Intel lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to 

ParkerVision’s allegations in this paragraph, and therefore denies such allegations on that basis.

48. Intel admits that ParkerVision produced a document dated “4-26-2006” that

purports to summarize a meeting between individuals from Infineon and individuals from 

ParkerVision, including Mr. Jeff Leach. Mr. Leach testified that he had no recollection of the 

meeting or the document at his deposition. None of the individuals from Infineon whose names 

appear on the document designed the receiver circuits at issue in this case. Moreover, the 

document does not mention any specific ParkerVision patent. To the extent a further response 

is required, Intel lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to ParkerVision’s 

allegations in this paragraph, and therefore denies such allegations on that basis. 

49. Intel admits that ParkerVision produced a document dated “4-26-2006” that

purports to summarize a meeting between individuals from Infineon and individuals from 

ParkerVision, including Mr. Jeff Leach, and an email dated May 4, 2006 from Mr. Leach to 

individuals from Infineon. Mr. Leach testified that he had no recollection of the meeting or the 

document purporting to summarize the meeting at his deposition. None of the individuals from 

Infineon whose names appear on the document purporting to summarize a meeting between 

Infineon and ParkerVision designed the receiver circuits at issue in this case. Moreover, neither 

the document nor the email mentions any specific ParkerVision patent. The document does, 

however, note that “JP and JS took a few minutes to ‘pull’ some slides out based on the lack 

of NDA,” which belies the insinuation that ParkerVision shared confidential information with 

Infineon at the meeting the document purports to summarize. To the extent a further response 

is required, Intel lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to ParkerVision’s 

allegations in this paragraph, and therefore denies such allegations on that basis. 

50. Denied.

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 14 of 65
-15-

51. Intel admits that Joseph Strobl sent an email to Messrs. Koch and Adler dated

May 3, 2006. Intel admits that Mr. Koch sent an invitation dated May 3, 2006 to a meeting on 

May 9, 2006 with the subject “Abstimmung Protokoll Parkervision.” To the extent a further 

response is required, Intel lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to 

ParkerVision’s allegations in this paragraph, and therefore denies such allegations on that basis.

52. Intel admits that a document entitled “STEPS-Dialog 2006” for “Employee:

Boos Zdravko” states “Parker Vision transmitter concept has been evaluated and based on the 

complexity and required chip area plus a very high royalty cost cooperation has been rejected.” 

(Emphases added). Contrary to ParkerVision’s allegation that “unknown to ParkerVision, 

Infineon internally decided to reject” ParkerVision’s overtures, ParkerVision’s own documents 

state that Infineon told ParkerVision that its “quote/proposal was not realistic” and asked 

ParkerVision employee “John [Stuckey] to re-quote to Bernhard Straub (Business 

Development).” Intel admits that Infineon decided not to work with ParkerVision on its D2P 

transmitter technology or otherwise use any ParkerVision technology. To the extent a further 

response is required, Intel denies any remaining allegations in this paragraph. 

53. Contrary to ParkerVision’s allegations in this paragraph, ParkerVision’s own

documents state that Infineon told ParkerVision that its quote/proposal” regarding its D2P 

transmitter technology “was not realistic” and asked ParkerVision employee “John [Stuckey] 

to re-quote to Bernhard Straub (Business Development).” Intel denies that Infineon continued 

to evaluate and monitor ParkerVision’s patented technologies while leading ParkerVision to 

believe that Infineon was exploring potential business relationships with ParkerVision. To the 

extent a further response is required, Intel denies any remaining allegations in this paragraph. 

54. Intel admits that ParkerVision has produced documents and communications

with Infineon related to its “D2P” transmitter technology, but denies that D2P was “inventive 

patented” technology. Intel admits that Shmuel Ravid wrote an email dated November 6, 2007 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 15 of 65
-16-

that states “Parker vision doesn’t 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 didn’t 

materialize. I don’t 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.” Intel denies that Mr. Ravid’s email characterizes any ParkerVision technology as 

“groundbreaking” IP or that Intel was “monitoring ParkerVision” or its technologies, as 

ParkerVision alleges. To the contrary, Mr. Ravid’s email makes clear that ParkerVision’s 

claims to have developed “groundbreaking IP” never materialized and recommends against 

engaging with ParkerVision. To the extent a further response is required, Intel denies any 

remaining allegations in this paragraph.

55. Intel admits that Zdravko Boos sent a meeting invitation dated September 18,

2007 to a number of colleagues at Infineon with the Subject “MMTx AM path meeting.” On 

information and belief, “MMTx” in that context refers to “Multimode Transmitter,” which is 

unrelated to the receiver technology-at-issue in this case. Intel admits that Mr. Boos’s 

September 18, 2007 meeting invitation states “30 min shift due to Parker Vision PA 

presentation.” On information and belief, “PA” in that context refers to “Power Amplifier,” 

which is a transmit-chain component unrelated to the receiver technology-at-issue in this case. 

Intel denies that Mr. Boos’s email “indicated that numerous employees were well aware of 

ParkerVision and its technology” or that numerous employees were well aware of ParkerVision 

and its technology. Intel lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to 

ParkerVision’s remaining allegations in this paragraph, and therefore denies such allegations 

on that basis. 

56. Intel admits that Zdravko Boos sent an email dated August 14, 2008 to Bernd

Adler that states “I started, as you do, to look to the competitors’ financial reports. Here is the 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 16 of 65
-17-

ParkerVision one[:] Revenue for 2008, if any, will not be sufficient to cover our operational 

expenses for 2008. The expected continued losses and use of cash will continue to be funded 

from available working capital. We believe that our current capital resources will be sufficient 

to support our liquidity requirements at least into the first quarter of 2009.” In August 2008, 

Zdravko Boos also emailed Bernd Adler the publicly disclosed salaries of ParkerVision’s 

executives with the subject line “How they manage this?” In August 2008, Zdravko Boos also 

emailed Bernd Adler a link to a website with the url “pvnotes.com/pv-deception.” The website 

pvnotes.com was a well-known website documenting ParkerVision’s lack of credibility and 

inaccurate technological assertions. See 

https://web.archive.org/web/20081121003928/http://www.pvnotes.com/pv-deception. Intel 

lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to ParkerVision’s remaining allegations 

in this paragraph, and therefore denies such allegations on that basis. 

57. The documentary record and testimony of witnesses to date make clear that

ParkerVision repeatedly attempted to interest Infineon in its “d2p” technology, which is 

unrelated to the patents-at-issue in this case, and Infineon told ParkerVision that its business 

proposals were not realistic and that its technology was not viable compared to Infineon’s 

independently developed technology. For example, ParkerVision’s own documents state that 

Infineon told ParkerVision that its “quote/proposal was not realistic” and asked ParkerVision 

employee “John [Stuckey] to re-quote to Bernhard Straub (Business Development).” 

ParkerVision also produced a document dated “09-18-2007” that purports to summarize a 

meeting between Jeff Leach and “D. Feher” from ParkerVision and Stefan Heinen and Zdravko 

Boos from Infineon where ParkerVision’s objectives for the meeting include “[r]e-gain 

[Infineon’s] interest in d2p.” On information and belief, d2p is a marketing term for 

ParkerVision’s Power Amplifier technology, which is unrelated to the receiver technology-atissue in this case. ParkerVision also produced a presentation entitled “ParkerVision Board 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 17 of 65
-18-

Meeting August 26, 2008” that notes a planned meeting with “Infineon RF Chief Scientist 

(Bernd Adler)” in September 2008 to “present [a] business proposal in person.” The same 

slides note that ParkerVision’s intention for that in-person meeting “is to provide aggressive 

business proposal to push decision makers to action.” ParkerVision also produced an internal 

email from John Stuckey dated October 8, 2008 that states “Parker’s week 40 (9-29) meeting 

with Bernd Adler was successful. Waiting for follow-up from Bernd to (a) confirm 8WL test 

results, (b) schedule Lake Mary visit, (c) begin MOU discussions.” The same email states that 

“[d]ialog continuing with Infineon and Renesas – objective being to get them to Lake Mary for 

lab review and business discussions within the next 2-3 weeks.” Intel admits that Bernhard 

Straub sent an email dated October 10, 2008 to Zdravko Boos stating “Can we sit together to 

talk about a possible use of PV’s IP for our roadmap. I talked today to Bernd. I want to do 

this follow-up with you.” but denies any suggestion that Mr. Straub—the very “Business 

Development” executive Infineon directed John Stuckey of ParkerVision to “re-quote”—was 

proposing to discuss “use of PV’s IP” without permission. To the contrary, the documentary 

record and testimony to date show that ParkerVision had made a “business proposal” to 

Infineon just weeks earlier. Moreover, ParkerVision’s own documents show that Infineon told

ParkerVision in January 2009 that “Bernd Adler does not think [ParkerVision’s] technology is 

viable compared to multi-band, multi-mode transceiver and PA [Power Amplifier] they 

[Infineon] intend to launch in 2010....” Thus, contrary to ParkerVision’s allegations, Infineon 

communicated to ParkerVision that its initial “quote/proposal was not realistic” and that 

Infineon did not think ParkerVision’s D2P transmitter technology was viable compared to 

Infineon’s independently developed technology. The documentary record and testimony to 

date show that Infineon considered and rejected multiple proposals from ParkerVision 

regarding technology unrelated to the technology-at-issue in this case and communicated those 

rejections to ParkerVision. Intel lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 18 of 65
-19-

ParkerVision’s remaining allegations in this paragraph, and therefore denies such allegations 

on that basis. 

58. Intel admits that a document entitled “STEPS-Dialog 2008” for “Boos,

Zdravko” lists “assessment of start up companies (Parker Vision, etc)” in the field “Targets and 

Responsibilities for FY 08/09.” Intel admits that Zdravko Boos sent an email dated January 

26, 2009 to Bernd Adler with the subject “Incentive.” Mr. Adler testified about that document 

at his June 28, 2022 deposition and explained that Mr. Boos was “ask[ing] if he gets [a] special 

incentive because he got the multimode transmitter working” and asking if there was budget 

for such an incentive “[s]ince we didn’t spend anything” on the “plan to [buy] Sequoia, plan to 

[buy] Staszewski brothers out of TI [or] employee McCune as IFX fellow or from the possible 

Parker Vision cooperation.” The full context of the email thus makes clear that Infineon had 

rejected ParkerVision’s D2P transmitter technology, not that Mr. Boos had requested funds for 

any ParkerVision project. Intel lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to 

ParkerVision’s remaining allegations in this paragraph, and therefore denies such allegations 

on that basis. 

59. Intel admits that Hubert Baierl sent an email dated February 6, 2009 to Zdravko

Boos that states “I learned that you have taken a look into Parker Vision’s technology=>What 

is your current conclusion?” Intel admits that Mr, Baierl sent a calendar invite to Mr. Boos on 

February 9, 2009 for a thirty-minute meeting on February 11, 2009. Intel also notes that 

ParkerVision produced a “Preliminary Statement of Work for Infineon” dated January 19, 2009 

that states “ParkerVision is looking to purchase, from Infineon, a receiver solution that supports 

tri-band WCDMA/quad-band GSM/EDGE which will be integrated into a custom reference 

design for which we have existing customers.” Contemporaneous ParkerVision documents 

reveal that ParkerVision sought to use Infineon transceivers because ParkerVision’s own D2D 

receiver technology was not ready and was incapable of meeting the needs of a project for LG 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 19 of 65
-20-

Innotek. On information and belief, based on the documentary record, Mr. Hubert Baierl 

received emails related to ParkerVision’s attempt to integrate its technology into an Infineon 

platform. Intel lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to ParkerVision’s 

remaining allegations in this paragraph, and therefore denies such allegations on that basis. 

60. Intel admits that Hubert Baierl sent an email dated February 11, 2009 to

Zdravko Boos that states “FYI: Currently we have no NDA with ParkerVision.” Intel admits 

that Zdravko Boos sent an email dated February 11 2009 to Bernd Adler that states “do we 

have NDA with Parker Vision?” Intel admits that Bernd Adler sent an email dated February 

11 2009 to Zdravko Boos that states “Expired 31.12.2008 as far as I know. Bernhard Straub 

knows better.” Intel lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to ParkerVision’s 

remaining allegations in this paragraph, and therefore denies such allegations on that basis. 

61. Intel admits that ParkerVision and Infineon entered into an NDA dated January

19, 2009. That January 19, 2009 NDA states “WHEREAS, the parties to this Agreement and 

their Affiliates intend to engage in discussions for the purpose of evaluating a possible business 

relationship between the parties regarding Infineon’s RF Transceivers for possible use through 

integration with ParkerVision’s RF solutions for resale.” ParkerVision also produced a 

“Preliminary Statement of Work for Infineon” dated January 19, 2009 that states “ParkerVision 

is looking to purchase, from Infineon, a receiver solution that supports tri-band WCDMA/quadband GSM/EDGE which will be integrated into a custom reference design for which we have 

existing customers.” Based on the documentary record and testimony to date, including 

testimony from ParkerVision CEO Jeff Parker, Intel understands that ParkerVision’s interest 

in Infineon transceivers in 2009 was related to a Joint Development Agreement between 

ParkerVision and LG Innotek (“LGIT”), announced December 4, 2008, under which 

ParkerVision would supply “unpackaged RFICs” that LGIT would incorporated into “multimode wireless modules for sale by LG Innotek,” specifically “multi-mode, multi-band HEDGE 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 20 of 65
-21-

module[s] supporting GSM, EDGE, WCDMA and HSPA standards with a targeted product 

launch in the second half of 2009.” ParkerVision sought to use Infineon transceivers because 

ParkerVision’s own D2D receiver technology was not ready and was incapable of meeting the 

needs of LGIT. Intel lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to ParkerVision’s 

remaining allegations in this paragraph, and therefore denies such allegations on that basis. 

62. ParkerVision’s allegations again relate to ParkerVision’s request for Infineon

technology, not to any interest by Infineon in ParkerVision technology. Based on the 

documentary record and testimony to date, including testimony from ParkerVision CEO Jeff 

Parker, Intel understands that ParkerVision was working on a “D2P HEDGE Prototype 

System” code named “Panther” in 2009 as part of its project for LGIT. Based on a 

contemporaneous ParkerVision “Product Definition Document,” the “Panther” system 

attempted to use an existing Infineon chipset—including an Infineon PMB8878 baseband 

integrated circuit, a PMB6921 power management IC, and a PMB6952 transceiver (aka 

“SMARTiTM 3GE”) integrated circuit—with ParkerVision’s D2P transmitter technology. A 

contemporaneous ParkerVision document describes the “Panther” project as “[o]f critical 

importance” to the “prime customer, LG Innotek (LGIT) and their potential customers to retain 

and obtain commercial interest.” Another contemporaneous ParkerVision document, however, 

describes 

 The same contemporaneous ParkerVision document,

revised November 9, 2009 and “commissioned by CEO (Jeffrey Parker)”, states that 

Meanwhile, on November 10, 2009—the following day—ParkerVision issued a supplement to 

a September 14, 2009 prospectus offering 8,000,000 shares of common stock for sale at $2.00 

per share. The November 10, 2009 Prospectus Supplement says the following about 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 21 of 65
-22-

ParkerVision’s agreement with LG Innotek while saying nothing about 

described in ParkerVision’s internal documents: “On December 4, 2008, we entered 

into a Product and Marketing Development Agreement (the ‘LGI Agreement’) with LG 

Innotek Co., Ltd. (‘LGI’), a division of the LG Group. Under the terms of the LGI Agreement, 

we will work cooperatively with LGI to develop and market RF modules that incorporate our 

technologies for use in mobile handset and data card applications. Under this agreement, we 

will supply LGI with tested, unpackaged integrated circuits under a supply agreement, the 

terms of which will be finalized as part of the development planning with LGI. The modules 

are being designed for commercial HEDGE applications. HEDGE is an acronym for 

applications that incorporate support for 2G, 2.5G and 3G waverform standards including 

GSM, EDGE, WCDMA, and HSPA.” The very next week, on November 16, 2009, 

ParkerVision closed an offering for sales of 8,000,000 sales for common stock for aggregate 

gross proceeds of $16 million, according to ParkerVision’s Form 10-K for the year ending 

December 31, 2009. Moreover, according to the testimony of ParkerVision CEO Jeff Parker, 

ParkerVision ended altogether its efforts to work with LG Innotek in the beginning of 2010. 

Intel lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to ParkerVision’s remaining 

allegations in this paragraph, and therefore denies such allegations on that basis. 

63. Intel admits that individuals at Infineon received a document entitled

“Skyworks Solutions presents for acquisition The Mobile Transceiver Patent Portfolio I” in 

June 2010. Intel denies that that Skyworks document identified seventy-four ParkerVision 

patents “as being the dominant patents in RF architecture.” To the contrary, the Skyworks 

document merely lists ParkerVision patents—in a font size that is not human-readable—as 

patents that cite two Skyworks patents. At most, that indicates the priority and relevance of 

the Skyworks patents, not the later-filed ParkerVision patents. Because the font-size of the 

ParkerVision patent numbers is not human-readable, Intel denies that any recipient of this 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 22 of 65
-23-

Skyworks document would have gained knowledge of ParkerVision’s patents, let alone the 

patents-at-issue in this case. To the extent a further response is required, Intel denies any 

remaining allegations in this paragraph. 

64. Intel admits that Intel acquired assets related to Infineon’s wireless business in

January 2011, including employees and cellular modem technology, including cellular 

baseband, transceiver, and power management technology. To the extent a further response is 

required, Intel denies any remaining allegations in this paragraph. 

65. Intel admits that Zdravko Boos and Bernd Adler became Intel employees as part

of Intel’s acquisition of Infineon’s wireless business. Werner Schelmbauer, not Mr. Boos or 

Mr. Adler, designed the receiver technology at issue in this case. Mr. Schelmbauer designed 

the circuits at issue without knowledge of any ParkerVision patent or technology. To the extent 

a further response is required, Intel denies any remaining allegations in this paragraph. 

66. Intel admits that ParkerVision has produced documents that purport to track

certain information about visits to the ParkerVision website. But none of the locations 

identified in ParkerVision’s allegations were Infineon or Intel locations that were involved in 

the design of the accused SMARTi products, and none of the topics listed in ParkerVision’s 

allegations relates to the receiver technology accused in this case. In addition, none of the 

documents produced by ParkerVision mention any ParkerVision patent. Intel lacks 

knowledge or information sufficient to respond to ParkerVision’s remaining allegations in 

this paragraph, and therefore denies such allegations on that basis.

67. Intel admits that ParkerVision filed an Application for Issuance of Subpoena

Duces Tecum and Subpoena Ad Testificandum to Intel Corp. in Certain RF Capable Integrated 

Circuits and Products Containing the Same (ITC, Inv. No. 337-TA-982). Intel admits that 

ParkerVision’s ITC subpoena sought documents and testimony related to SMARTiTM 5 and 

that Intel produced and/or made available for inspection technical documents and schematics 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 23 of 65
-24-

for SMARTiTM 5 and provided a witness who testified about the design and operation of 

SMARTiTM 5. Intel denies that ParkerVision’s ITC subpoena to Intel provided actual notice 

of alleged infringement of any ParkerVision patent, as the ALJ in the ITC Investigation found 

that “ParkerVision states it has never accused the Intel-based iPhones of infringement....” 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. To the extent a further response is required, 

Intel denies any remaining allegations in this paragraph. 

68. Admitted.

69. Admitted.

70. Intel admits that Daniel Schwartz worked as a Radio Architect at Intel and was

involved in the design of the SMARTiTM 7. Intel admits that Mr. Schwartz provided documents 

and schematics related to the SMARTiTM 5 to Intel’s legal team shortly after Intel received 

ParkerVision’s ITC subpoena. To the extent a further response is required, Intel denies any 

remaining allegations in this paragraph.

71. Intel admits that ParkerVision amended its complaint for patent infringement

against Apple Inc. in the Munich Regional Court in Germany in February 2017 to allege that 

the SMARTiTM 5 based iPhone infringes ParkerVision’s European Patent No. 1 135 853 (“EP 

‘853”). The Munich Regional Court subsequently determined that Intel’s SMARTiTM 5 does 

not infringe EP ‘853, which is a closely related patent to the patents-at-issue. See Munich 

Regional Court, 7 O 2141/17, Final Judgment (trans.) (Ger.) at 19, Apr. 25, 2019. The Munich 

Regional Court also ordered plaintiff ParkerVision GmbH to bear the costs of the legal 

proceedings. See id. at 2. To the extent a further response is required, Intel denies any 

remaining allegations in this paragraph.

72. Intel admits that its engineers provided information used to defend against

ParkerVision’s baseless claim that the Intel SMARTiTM 5 infringes EP ‘853. Intel denies that 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 24 of 65
-25-

Intel’s SMARTiTM 5 infringes any ParkerVision patent. In fact, the Munich Regional Court 

subsequently determined that Intel’s SMARTiTM 5 does not infringe EP ‘853 which is a closely 

related patent to the patents-at-issue. See Munich Regional Court, 7 O 2141/17, Final Judgment 

(trans.) (Ger.) at 19, Apr. 25, 2019. The Munich Regional Court also ordered plaintiff 

ParkerVision GmbH to bear the costs of the legal proceedings. See id. at 2. To the extent a 

further response is required, Intel denies any remaining allegations in this paragraph. 

73. Denied.

74. Intel admits that EP853 claims priority to the applications that led to the

issuance of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,687,493; 6,049,706; 6,580,902; 6,560,301; and 6,061,551. Intel 

denies that U.S. patent Nos. 6,687,493; 6,049,706; 6,580,902; 6,560,301; and 6,061,551 are 

listed on the face of EP853. To the extent a further response is required, Intel denies any 

remaining allegations in this paragraph.

75. Intel denies that Intel knew of each of the patents-at-issue before ParkerVision

filed this suit. Intel admits that ParkerVision’s ITC subpoena referred to the ‘528 patent-atissue, but denies that ParkerVision’s ITC subpoena to Intel provided actual notice of alleged

infringement of any ParkerVision patent, as the ALJ in the ITC Investigation found that 

“ParkerVision states it has never accused the Intel-based iPhones of infringement....” 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. Intel denies that Intel or Intel employees

“continual[ly] monitor[ed]” ParkerVision’s technologies, denies that ParkerVision has 

“inventive technology and patents,” and denies that ParkerVision communicated with Intel 

about its patents. To the extent a further response is required, Intel denies any remaining 

allegations in this paragraph. 

76. Intel denies that it uses or has ever used ParkerVision’s technology and denies

that its SMARTiTM 4, 5, 6T, 7, and 8 products infringe any of the ParkerVision patents-at-issue. 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 25 of 65
-26-

Intel denies that ParkerVision has “groundbreaking” IP, as ParkerVision alleges. To the 

contrary, Intel documents including the Shmuel Ravid November 6, 2007 email discussed 

above make clear that ParkerVision’s claims to have developed “groundbreaking IP” never 

materialized. The Intel receiver technology-at-issue was designed by Werner Schelmbauer, a 

former Infineon engineer who joined Intel in January 2011, and who had no contact with 

ParkerVision and has no knowledge of any ParkerVision patent or technology. Moreover, the 

independently developed receiver technology in Intel’s SMARTiTM 5 transceivers, which is at 

issue in this case, has already been found not to infringe a ParkerVision European patent that 

ParkerVision admits is related to the ParkerVision patents-at-issue in this case. ParkerVision’s 

allegations of willful infringement are therefore baseless, and Intel reserves all rights, including 

the right to seek attorneys’ fees and sanctions, should ParkerVision pursue claims for willful 

infringement. Intel also denies that any SMARTi chip uses “energy transfer technology” or 

infringes any ParkerVision patent, or that any such technology was incorporated into Intel WiFi chips, which also do not infringe any ParkerVision patent. To the extent a further response 

is required, Intel denies any remaining allegations in this paragraph. 

THE ASSERTED PATENTS

United States Patent No. 6,580,902 

77. Intel admits that U.S. Patent No. 6,580,902 (the “‘902 patent”) is entitled

“Frequency Translation Using Optimized Switch Structures” and was issued on June 17, 2003, 

but denies that it is a valid or duly and legally issued patent. To the extent any other response 

to the allegations in this paragraph is required, Intel denies such allegations. 

78. This paragraph states legal conclusions to which no response is required. To

the extent a further response is required, Intel denies that the ‘902 patent is valid and 

enforceable, and further denies all remaining allegations in this paragraph. 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 26 of 65
-27-

79. Intel lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to ParkerVision’s

allegations in this paragraph, and therefore denies such allegations on that basis. 

United States Patent No. 7,539,474 

80. Intel admits that U.S. Patent No. 7,539,474 (the “‘474 patent”) is entitled “DC

Offset, Re-Radiation, and I/Q Solutions Using Universal Frequency Translation Technology” 

and was issued on May 26, 2009, but denies that it is a valid or duly and legally issued patent. 

To the extent any other response to the allegations in this paragraph is required, Intel denies 

such allegations. 

81. This paragraph states legal conclusions to which no response is required. To

the extent a further response is required, Intel denies that the ‘474 patent is valid and 

enforceable, and further denies all remaining allegations in this paragraph. 

82. Intel lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to ParkerVision’s

allegations in this paragraph, and therefore denies such allegations on that basis. 

United States Patent No. 8,588,725 

83. Intel admits that U.S. Patent No. 8,588,725 (the “‘725 patent”) is entitled

“Apparatus, System, and Method for Down Converting and Up-Converting Electromagnetic 

Signals” and was issued on November 19, 2013, but denies that it is a valid or duly and legally 

issued patent. To the extent any other response to the allegations in this paragraph is required, 

Intel denies such allegations. 

84. This paragraph states legal conclusions to which no response is required. To

the extent a further response is required, Intel denies that the ‘725 patent is valid and 

enforceable, and further denies all remaining allegations in this paragraph. 

85. Intel lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to ParkerVision’s

allegations in this paragraph, and therefore denies such allegations on that basis. 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 27 of 65
-28-

United States Patent No. 9,118,528 

86. Intel admits that U.S. Patent No. 9,118,528 (the “‘528 patent”) is entitled

“Method and System for Down-Converting an Electromagnetic Signal, and Transforms for 

Same, and Aperture Relationships” and was issued on August 25, 2015, but denies that it is a 

valid or or duly and legally issued patent. To the extent any other response to the allegations 

in this paragraph is required, Intel denies such allegations. 

87. This paragraph states legal conclusions to which no response is required. To

the extent a further response is required, Intel denies that the ‘528 patent is valid and 

enforceable, and further denies all remaining allegations in this paragraph. 

88. Intel lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to ParkerVision’s

allegations in this paragraph, and therefore denies such allegations on that basis. 

United States Patent No. 9,246,736 

89. Intel admits that U.S. Patent No. 9,246,736 (the “‘736 patent”) is entitled

“Method and System for Down-Converting an Electromagnetic Signal” and was issued on 

January 26, 2016, but denies that it is a valid or duly and legally issued patent. To the extent

any other response to the allegations in this paragraph is required, Intel denies such allegations. 

90. This paragraph states legal conclusions to which no response is required. To

the extent a further response is required, Intel denies that the ‘736 patent is valid and 

enforceable, and further denies all remaining allegations in this paragraph. 

91. Intel lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to ParkerVision’s

allegations in this paragraph, and therefore denies such allegations on that basis. 

United States Patent No. 9,444,673 

92. Intel admits that U.S. Patent No. 9,444,673 (the “‘673 patent”) is entitled

“Methods and Systems for Down-Converting a Signal Using a Complementary Transistor 

Structure” and was issued on September 13, 2016, but denies that it is a valid or duly and 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 28 of 65
-29-

legally issued patent. Intel denies that the ‘673 patent is attached as Exhibit 10 to 

ParkerVision’s Third Amended Complaint, as no Exhibits were filed with the Third Amended 

Complaint. To the extent any other response to the allegations in this paragraph is required, 

Intel denies such allegations. 

93. This paragraph states legal conclusions to which no response is required. To

the extent a further response is required, Intel denies that the ‘673 patent is valid and 

enforceable, and further denies all remaining allegations in this paragraph. 

94. Intel lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond to ParkerVision’s

allegations in this paragraph, and therefore denies such allegations on that basis. 

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNT I – Alleged Infringement of United States Patent No. 6,580,902 

95. Intel repeats and incorporates its Answers to paragraphs 1 to 94 as though fully

set forth herein. 

96. Intel denies each and every allegation in paragraph 96.

97. Intel denies each and every allegation in paragraph 97.

98. This paragraph, which merely parrots language directly from the claims and

specification of the ‘902 patent and makes no effort to address the actual functioning of Intel’s 

products, states legal conclusions to which no response is required. Intel denies that it infringes 

any valid and enforceable claim of the ‘902 patent. To the extent a further response is required 

to any allegations in this paragraph, Intel denies such allegations. 

99. This paragraph, which merely parrots language directly from the claims and

specification of the ‘902 patent and makes no effort to address the actual functioning of Intel’s 

products, states legal conclusions to which no response is required. Intel denies that it infringes 

any valid and enforceable claim of the ‘902 patent. To the extent a further response is required 

to any allegations in this paragraph, Intel denies such allegations. 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 29 of 65
-30-

100. This paragraph, which merely parrots language directly from the claims and

specification of the ‘902 patent and makes no effort to address the actual functioning of Intel’s 

products, states legal conclusions to which no response is required. Intel denies that it infringes 

any valid and enforceable claim of the ‘902 patent. To the extent a further response is required 

to any allegations in this paragraph, Intel denies such allegations. 

101. This paragraph, which merely parrots language directly from the claims and

specification of the ‘902 patent and makes no effort to address the actual functioning of Intel’s 

products, states legal conclusions to which no response is required. Intel denies that it infringes 

any valid and enforceable claim of the ‘902 patent. To the extent a further response is required 

to any allegations in this paragraph, Intel denies such allegations. 

102. Intel denies each and every allegation in paragraph 102.

103. Intel denies each and every allegation in paragraph 103.

104. Intel denies each and every allegation in paragraph 104.

COUNT II – Alleged Infringement of United States Patent No. 7,539,474 

105. Intel repeats and incorporates its Answers to paragraphs 1 to 104 as though fully

set forth herein. 

106. Intel denies each and every allegation in paragraph 106.

107. Intel denies each and every allegation in paragraph 107.

108. This paragraph, which merely parrots language directly from the claims and

specification of the ‘474 patent and makes no effort to address the actual functioning of Intel’s 

products, states legal conclusions to which no response is required. Intel denies that it infringes 

any valid and enforceable claim of the ‘474 patent. To the extent a further response is required 

to any allegations in this paragraph, Intel denies such allegations. 

109. This paragraph, which merely parrots language directly from the claims and

specification of the ‘474 patent and makes no effort to address the actual functioning of Intel’s 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 30 of 65
-31-

products, states legal conclusions to which no response is required. Intel denies that it infringes 

any valid and enforceable claim of the ‘474 patent. To the extent a further response is required 

to any allegations in this paragraph, Intel denies such allegations. 

110. This paragraph, which merely parrots language directly from the claims and

specification of the ‘474 patent and makes no effort to address the actual functioning of Intel’s 

products, states legal conclusions to which no response is required. Intel denies that it infringes 

any valid and enforceable claim of the ‘474 patent. To the extent a further response is required 

to any allegations in this paragraph, Intel denies such allegations. 

111. Intel denies each and every allegation in paragraph 111.

112. Intel denies each and every allegation in paragraph 112.

COUNT VI – Alleged Infringement of United States Patent No. 8,588,725 

113. Intel repeats and incorporates its Answers to paragraphs 1 to 113 as though fully

set forth herein. 

114. Intel denies each and every allegation in paragraph 114.

115. Intel denies each and every allegation in paragraph 115.

116. This paragraph, which merely parrots language directly from the claims and

specification of the ‘725 patent and makes no effort to address the actual functioning of Intel’s 

products, states legal conclusions to which no response is required. Intel denies that it infringes 

any valid and enforceable claim of the ‘725 patent. To the extent a further response is required 

to any allegations in this paragraph, Intel denies such allegations. 

117. This paragraph, which merely parrots language directly from the claims and

specification of the ‘725 patent and makes no effort to address the actual functioning of Intel’s 

products, states legal conclusions to which no response is required. Intel denies that it infringes 

any valid and enforceable claim of the ‘725 patent. To the extent a further response is required 

to any allegations in this paragraph, Intel denies such allegations. 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 31 of 65
-32-

118. Intel denies each and every allegation in paragraph 118.

119. Intel denies each and every allegation in paragraph 119.

COUNT IV – Alleged Infringement of United States Patent No. 9,118,528 

120. Intel repeats and incorporates its Answers to paragraphs 1 to 120 as though fully

set forth herein. 

121. Intel denies each and every allegation in paragraph 121.

122. Intel denies each and every allegation in paragraph 122.

123. This paragraph, which merely parrots language directly from the claims and

specification of the ‘528 patent and makes no effort to address the actual functioning of Intel’s 

products, states legal conclusions to which no response is required. Intel denies that it infringes 

any valid and enforceable claim of the ‘528 patent. To the extent a further response is required 

to any allegations in this paragraph, Intel denies such allegations. 

124. This paragraph, which merely parrots language directly from the claims and

specification of the ‘528 patent and makes no effort to address the actual functioning of Intel’s 

products, states legal conclusions to which no response is required. Intel denies that it infringes 

any valid and enforceable claim of the ‘528 patent. To the extent a further response is required 

to any allegations in this paragraph, Intel denies such allegations. 

125. This paragraph, which merely parrots language directly from the claims and

specification of the ‘528 patent and makes no effort to address the actual functioning of Intel’s 

products, states legal conclusions to which no response is required. Intel denies that it infringes 

any valid and enforceable claim of the ‘528 patent. To the extent a further response is required 

to any allegations in this paragraph, Intel denies such allegations. 

126. This paragraph, which merely parrots language directly from the claims and

specification of the ‘528 patent and makes no effort to address the actual functioning of Intel’s 

products, states legal conclusions to which no response is required. Intel denies that it infringes 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 32 of 65
-33-

any valid and enforceable claim of the ‘528 patent. To the extent a further response is required 

to any allegations in this paragraph, Intel denies such allegations. 

127. This paragraph, which merely parrots language directly from the claims and

specification of the ‘528 patent and makes no effort to address the actual functioning of Intel’s 

products, states legal conclusions to which no response is required. Intel denies that it infringes

any valid and enforceable claim of the ‘528 patent. To the extent a further response is required 

to any allegations in this paragraph, Intel denies such allegations. 

128. This paragraph, which merely parrots language directly from the claims and

specification of the ‘528 patent and makes no effort to address the actual functioning of Intel’s 

products, states legal conclusions to which no response is required. Intel denies that it infringes 

any valid and enforceable claim of the ‘528 patent. To the extent a further response is required 

to any allegations in this paragraph, Intel denies such allegations. 

129. Intel denies each and every allegation in paragraph 129.

130. Intel denies each and every allegation in paragraph 130.

COUNT V – Alleged Infringement of United States Patent No. 9,246,736

131. Intel repeats and incorporates its Answers to paragraphs 1 to 131 as though fully

set forth herein. 

132. Intel denies each and every allegation in paragraph 132.

133. Intel denies each and every allegation in paragraph 133.

134. This paragraph, which merely parrots language directly from the claims and

specification of the ‘736 patent and makes no effort to address the actual functioning of Intel’s 

products, states legal conclusions to which no response is required. Intel denies that it infringes 

any valid and enforceable claim of the ‘736 patent. To the extent a further response is required 

to any allegations in this paragraph, Intel denies such allegations. 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 33 of 65
-34-

135. This paragraph, which merely parrots language directly from the claims and

specification of the ‘736 patent and makes no effort to address the actual functioning of Intel’s 

products, states legal conclusions to which no response is required. Intel denies that it infringes 

any valid and enforceable claim of the ‘736 patent. To the extent a further response is required 

to any allegations in this paragraph, Intel denies such allegations. 

136. This paragraph, which merely parrots language directly from the claims and

specification of the ‘736 patent and makes no effort to address the actual functioning of Intel’s 

products, states legal conclusions to which no response is required. Intel denies that it infringes 

any valid and enforceable claim of the ‘736 patent. To the extent a further response is required 

to any allegations in this paragraph, Intel denies such allegations. 

137. This paragraph, which merely parrots language directly from the claims and

specification of the ‘736 patent and makes no effort to address the actual functioning of Intel’s 

products, states legal conclusions to which no response is required. Intel denies that it infringes 

any valid and enforceable claim of the ‘736 patent. To the extent a further response is required 

to any allegations in this paragraph, Intel denies such allegations. 

138. This paragraph, which merely parrots language directly from the claims and

specification of the ‘736 patent and makes no effort to address the actual functioning of Intel’s 

products, states legal conclusions to which no response is required. Intel denies that it infringes 

any valid and enforceable claim of the ‘736 patent. To the extent a further response is required 

to any allegations in this paragraph, Intel denies such allegations. 

139. This paragraph, which merely parrots language directly from the claims and

specification of the ‘736 patent and makes no effort to address the actual functioning of Intel’s 

products, states legal conclusions to which no response is required. Intel denies that it infringes 

any valid and enforceable claim of the ‘736 patent. To the extent a further response is required 

to any allegations in this paragraph, Intel denies such allegations. 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 34 of 65
-35-

140. This paragraph, which merely parrots language directly from the claims and

specification of the ‘736 patent and makes no effort to address the actual functioning of Intel’s 

products, states legal conclusions to which no response is required. Intel denies that it infringes 

any valid and enforceable claim of the ‘736 patent. To the extent a further response is required 

to any allegations in this paragraph, Intel denies such allegations. 

141. This paragraph, which merely parrots language directly from the claims and

specification of the ‘736 patent and makes no effort to address the actual functioning of Intel’s 

products, states legal conclusions to which no response is required. Intel denies that it infringes 

any valid and enforceable claim of the ‘736 patent. To the extent a further response is required 

to any allegations in this paragraph, Intel denies such allegations. 

142. Intel denies each and every allegation in paragraph 142.

143. Intel denies each and every allegation in paragraph 143.

COUNT X – Alleged Infringement of United States Patent No. 9,444,673 

144. Intel repeats and incorporates its Answers to paragraphs 1 to 144 as though fully

set forth herein. 

145. Intel denies each and every allegation in paragraph 145.

146. Intel denies each and every allegation in paragraph 146.

147. This paragraph, which merely parrots language directly from the claims and

specification of the ‘673 patent and makes no effort to address the actual functioning of Intel’s 

products, states legal conclusions to which no response is required. Intel denies that it infringes 

any valid and enforceable claim of the ‘673 patent. To the extent a further response is required 

to any allegations in this paragraph, Intel denies such allegations. 

148. This paragraph, which merely parrots language directly from the claims and

specification of the ‘673 patent and makes no effort to address the actual functioning of Intel’s 

products, states legal conclusions to which no response is required. Intel denies that it infringes 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 35 of 65
-36-

any valid and enforceable claim of the ‘673 patent. To the extent a further response is required 

to any allegations in this paragraph, Intel denies such allegations. 

149. This paragraph, which merely parrots language directly from the claims and

specification of the ‘673 patent and makes no effort to address the actual functioning of Intel’s 

products, states legal conclusions to which no response is required. Intel denies that it infringes 

any valid and enforceable claim of the ‘673 patent. To the extent a further response is required 

to any allegations in this paragraph, Intel denies such allegations. 

150. This paragraph, which merely parrots language directly from the claims and

specification of the ‘673 patent and makes no effort to address the actual functioning of Intel’s 

products, states legal conclusions to which no response is required. Intel denies that it infringes 

any valid and enforceable claim of the ‘673 patent. To the extent a further response is required 

to any allegations in this paragraph, Intel denies such allegations. 

151. Intel denies each and every allegation in paragraph 151.

152. Intel denies each and every allegation in paragraph 152.

JURY DEMANDED

Intel demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable. 

RESPONSE TO PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Intel denies that it has infringed any asserted patent, directly or indirectly. Intel denies 

that ParkerVision is entitled to any of the grounds for relief enumerated in the Third Amended 

Complaint or any other relief, and respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment against 

ParkerVision on each of ParkerVision’s claims. To the extent the Prayer for Relief includes 

any factual allegations, Intel denies those allegations. 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 36 of 65
-37-

AFFIRMATIVE AND OTHER DEFENSES

WHEREFORE, having answered ParkerVision’s Third Amended Complaint, Intel 

asserts the following defenses set forth below. By pleading these defenses, Intel does not 

concede that it has the burden of proof as to any of them. 

Intel reserves the right to allege additional affirmative defenses that become known 

through the course of discovery. 

FIRST DEFENSE: FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

153. The Third Amended Complaint, and each purported claim for relief asserted

therein, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

SECOND DEFENSE: NON-INFRINGEMENT

154. Intel does not make, use, test, sell, offer for sale, or import into the United States,

and has not made, used, tested, sold, offered for sale or imported into the United States, any 

products or methods that infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the’902,’474, ‘725,’528, 

‘736, and ‘673 patents, either directly or indirectly, literally or through the doctrine of 

equivalents, or otherwise. 

THIRD DEFENSE: INVALIDITY

155. One or more claims of the’902,’474, ‘725,’528, ‘736, and ‘673 patents are

invalid for failure to meet the conditions of patentability and/or otherwise comply with one or 

more provisions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, 112, and/or 116. 

FOURTH DEFENSE: UNENFORCEABILITY

156. The’902,’474, ‘725,’528, ‘736, and ‘673 patents, and the claims therein, are

unenforceable against Intel. 

FIFTH DEFENSE: EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL, WAIVER, ACQUIESCENCE, 

UNCLEAN HANDS 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 37 of 65
-38-

157. ParkerVision’s claims for relief are barred, in whole or in part, under principles

of equity, including but not limited to estoppel, waiver, acquiescence, and/or unclean hands. 

For example, ParkerVision has engaged in serial litigation in which it has unsuccessfully 

asserted these and related patents against multiple parties, including against Intel’s SMARTiTM

chip products that ParkerVision has also accused of infringement in this case. In Germany, 

courts have found Intel chips at issue here do not infringe the EP ‘853 patent, which is a closely 

related patent to the patents-at-issue, and also determined that the EP ‘853 patent would likely 

have been found invalid. See Munich Regional Court, 7 O 241/17, Final Judgement (trans.) 

(Ger.) at 19, Apr. 25, 2019; see also Bundespatentgericht [BPatG] [Federal Patent Court], 5 Ni 

19/17 (EP), Decision on Costs and Determination of the Value in Dispute (Ger.) (trans.) at 10, 

15, Dec. 16, 2019. In light of ParkerVision’s serial and unsuccessful patent litigation 

campaign, ParkerVision’s claims should therefore be barred, in whole or in part, under the 

principles of equity, including the doctrine of unclean hands. 

158. As a further example, in 2011, MaxTak Capital Advisors, LLC, MaxTak

Partners LP, and David Greenbaum sued ParkerVision for fraud, alleging that ParkerVision 

“made numerous public statements omitting material facts and deliberately misrepresenting: 

(a) d2p’s [i.e., ParkerVision’s ‘direct-to-power’ technology] effectiveness and value; (b) the

interest expressed by OEMs and other manufacturers in developing and commercializing 

products integrating d2p technology; (c) ParkerVision’s financial results; and (d) the 

Company’s prospects for developing profitable sales of its d2p technology.” See MaxTak 

Capital Advisors, et al. v. ParkerVision, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:11-cv-07549, D.I. 1 ¶ 33 (D.N.J. 

Dec. 28, 2011). On information and belief, ParkerVision has likewise misrepresented its RF 

technology in its Complaint, First Amended Complaint, Second Amended Complaint, and 

Third Amended Complaint in this case, and ParkerVision’s claims should therefore be barred, 

in whole or in part, under the principles of equity, including the doctrine of unclean hands. 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 38 of 65
-39-

SIXTH DEFENSE: PROSECUTION HISTORY ESTOPPEL AND DISCLAIMER

159. ParkerVision is estopped, based on statements, representations, and admissions

made during prosecution of the patent applications that led to the’902,’474, ‘725,’528, ‘736, 

and ‘673 patents from asserting that the claims of the aforementioned patents are infringed by 

Intel or Intel’s products, services, including the doctrine of equivalents. 

SEVENTH DEFENSE: LIMITATION ON DAMAGES

160. ParkerVision’s claims for monetary damages are limited by the statute of

limitations and/or limited to acts of infringement occurring within six years of the date of 

initiating this suit under 35 U.S.C. § 286. 

EIGHTH DEFENSE: FAILURE TO MARK

161. To the extent ParkerVision, its predecessors, or licensees of any asserted patent

failed to comply with the marking requirements set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 287, the relief sought 

by ParkerVision is barred, in whole or in part. 

COUNTERCLAIMS TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT 

INFRINGEMENT

Counterclaim Plaintiff Intel Corporation (“Intel”) alleges the following Counterclaims 

in response to Counterclaim Defendant ParkerVision, Inc.’s (“ParkerVision”) Third Amended 

Complaint (D.I. 146) for patent infringement. 

THE PARTIES

1. Counterclaim Plaintiff Intel is a corporation organized and existing under the

laws of the State of Delaware, with a place of business at 2200 Mission College Boulevard, 

Santa Clara, California 95054. 

2. Counterclaim Defendant ParkerVision alleges in its Third Amended Complaint

that it is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business at 4446-1A Hendricks 

Avenue, Suite 354, Jacksonville, Florida 32207. 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 39 of 65
-40-

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. These Counterclaims arise under Title 35 of the United States Code. The Court

has subject matter jurisdiction over these Counterclaims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 

1338(a), 2201, and 2202. 

4. ParkerVision is subject to personal jurisdiction in this District because

ParkerVision filed its Complaint, First Amended Complaint, Second Amended Complaint, and 

Third Amended Complaint in this District. 

5. Venue is proper in this District because ParkerVision filed its Complaint, First

Amended Complaint, Second Amended Complaint, and Third Amended Complaint in this 

District. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

6. In this Third Amended Complaint, ParkerVision alleges that it is the owner of

U.S. Patent Nos. 6,580,902 (“‘902 patent”); 7,539,474 (“‘474 patent”); 8,588,725 (“‘725 

patent”); 9,118,528 (“‘528 patent”); 9,246,736 (“‘736 patent”); and 9,444,673 (“‘673 patent”). 

7. In its Third Amended Complaint, ParkerVision alleges that Intel’s PMB 5750,

PMB 5757, and PMB 5762 (collectively, the “RF Transceiver Chips”) infringe the ‘902, ‘474, 

‘725, ‘528, ‘736, and ‘673 patents. 

8. Intel denies each and every such infringement allegation.

9. As a result of ParkerVision’s actions and statements, including the filing of the

Third Amended Complaint, an actual and justiciable controversy exists between ParkerVision 

and Intel with regard to the validity and infringement of the’902, ‘474, ‘725,’528, ‘736, and 

‘673 patents. 

10. A judicial determination is necessary and appropriate at this time given

ParkerVision’s allegations against Intel and in order for Intel to ascertain its rights and duties 

with respect to the ‘902, ‘474, ‘725, ‘528, ‘736, and ‘673 patents. 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 40 of 65
-41-

FIRST COUNTERCLAIM 

(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,580,902)

11. Intel repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in the foregoing

Paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

12. Intel counterclaims against ParkerVision pursuant to the patent laws of the

United States, Title 35 of the United States Code, and the Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 

U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. 

13. In its Third Amended Complaint, ParkerVision alleges that Intel is directly

infringing, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, the ‘902 patent, and that the ‘902 

patent is valid and enforceable. 

14. An actual controversy exists between ParkerVision and Intel by virtue of the

allegations in ParkerVision’s Third Amended Complaint and Intel’s Answer as to the validity 

and infringement of the ‘902 patent. 

15. The RF Transceiver Chips, including the accused Intel PMB 5750, PMB 5757,

and PMB 5762, do not meet all of the elements of any of the claims of the ‘902 patent, and 

therefore Intel does not infringe the claims of the ‘902 patent. 

16. For example, Intel does not infringe at least Claim 1 of the ‘902 patent because

the RF Transceiver Chips, including the accused Intel PMB 5750, PMB 5757, and PMB 5762, 

do not use, include, and/or incorporate a circuit for down-converting an electromagnetic signal, 

comprising at least one or more of the following limitations: (i) an energy transfer module 

having a switch having a switch module and an energy storage module, said energy transfer 

module sampling the electromagnetic signal at an energy transfer rate, according to an energy 

transfer signal, to obtain sampled energy, said sampled energy being stored by said energy 

storage module, a down-converted signal being generated from said sampled energy, wherein 

(ii) said energy transfer module further comprises: (iii) transistors coupled together, said

transistors having a common first port, a common second port, and a common control port, 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 41 of 65
-42-

wherein the electromagnetic signal is accepted at said common first port and said sampled 

energy is present at said common second port, and further wherein said common control port 

accepts said energy transfer signal, said energy transfer signal having a control frequency that 

is substantially equal to said energy transfer rate, and (iv) wherein each of said transistors has 

a drain, a source, and a gate, and said common first port couples together drains of said 

transistors, said common second port couples together sources of said transistors, and said 

common control port couples together gates of said transistors. 

17. Moreover, the PMB 5750 chip that ParkerVision accuses of infringement in its

Third Amended Complaint was already found not to infringe European Patent No. 1 135 853 

(“EP ‘853”) in a proceeding in Germany at least because “there is no sampling means according 

to the patent.” See Munich Regional Court, 7 O 2141/17, Final Judgment (trans.) (Ger.) at 19, 

Apr. 25, 2019. The EP ‘853 patent claims priority to U.S. Application No. 09/293095 that led 

to the ‘902 patent, and, like Claim 1 of the ‘902 patent, includes claims that require “sampling.” 

See id. at 4 (“[A] sampling means for sampling the input signal at a sampling frequency....”).

18. Intel does not infringe the ‘902 patent because Intel does not make, use, test,

sell, offer for sale, or import into the United States, and has not made, used, tested, sold, offered 

for sale, or imported into the United States, any products or methods that infringe any valid 

claim of the ‘902 patent, either directly or indirectly, literally or through the doctrine of 

equivalents, or otherwise. 

19. Intel is entitled to a declaratory judgment that it has not infringed, and is not

infringing, directly or indirectly (either literally, under the doctrine of equivalents, or 

otherwise) any valid, patent-eligible claim of the ‘902 patent.

SECOND COUNTERCLAIM

(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 6,580,902)

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 42 of 65
-43-

20. Intel repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in the foregoing

Paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

21. Intel counterclaims against ParkerVision pursuant to the patent laws of the

United States, Title 35 of the United States Code, and the Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 

U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. 

22. In its Third Amended Complaint, ParkerVision alleges that Intel is directly

infringing, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, the ‘902 patent, and that the ‘902 

patent is valid and enforceable. 

23. An actual controversy exists between ParkerVision and Intel by virtue of the

allegations in ParkerVision’s Third Amended Complaint and Intel’s Answer as to the validity 

and infringement of the ‘902 patent. 

24. Intel contests the validity and enforceability of the ‘902 patent, and does not

infringe the ‘902 patent at least because the claims of the ‘902 patent are invalid under 35 

U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, 112, and/or 116. 

25. For example, U.S. Patent No. 6,230,000 (“Tayloe”) in combination with

“Practical RF Design Manual” (1982) by Doug DeMaw (“DeMaw“) renders obvious, including 

at least under ParkerVision’s alleged infringement theory, at least Claim 1 of the ‘902 patent 

under 35 U.S.C. § 103. At least under ParkerVision’s apparent infringement theory, Tayloe 

discloses and/or renders obvious every element of Claim 1. To the extent ParkerVision 

contends that Tayloe does not disclose transistors coupled together with common drain, source, 

and gate ports, wherein the common drain ports receive an input signal and common source 

ports output a down-converted signal and common control gates receive a control signal, those 

elements are disclosed and/or rendered obvious by at least DeMaw. Intel has provided final 

invalidity contentions consistent with the schedule ordered by the Court and following 

ParkerVision’s final infringement contentions. 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 43 of 65
-44-

26. Similarly, the German Federal Patent Court found that all elements of

ParkerVision’s related EP ‘853 patent are disclosed in the prior art article A 900-MHz RF 

Front-End with Integrated Discrete-Time Filtering, IEEE J. of Solid-State Circuits, Band 31, 

Nr. 12 (Dec. 1996) by Shen, D. H., et al., (“Shen”), and rejected ParkerVision’s argument that 

it invented a “fundamentally different approach to energy transmission down-conversion.” See 

Bundespatentgericht [BPatG] [Federal Patent Court], 5 Ni 19/17 (EP), Decision on Costs and 

Determination of the Value in Dispute (Ger.) (trans.) at 10, Dec. 16, 2019. The EP ‘853 patent 

claims priority to U.S. Application No. 09/293095 that led to the ‘902 patent, and, like the ‘902 

patent, also claims priority to the U.S. Application No. 09/176,022. Further, like Claim 1 of 

the ‘902 patent, the EP ‘853 patent includes claims that require “sampling.” See Munich 

Regional Court, 7 O 2141/17, Final Judgment (trans.) (Ger.) at 4, Apr. 25, 2019. Shen likewise 

discloses and/or renders obvious the elements of at least Claim 1 of the ‘902 patent, and 

therefore invalidates that claim. Intel has provided final invalidity contentions consistent with 

the schedule ordered by the Court and following ParkerVision’s final infringement contentions. 

27. Intel is entitled to a declaratory judgment that the claims of the ‘902 patent are

invalid, including, without limitation, under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, 112, and/or 116. 

THIRD COUNTERCLAIM

(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,539,474)

28. Intel repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in the foregoing

Paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

29. Intel counterclaims against ParkerVision pursuant to the patent laws of the

United States, Title 35 of the United States Code, and the Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 

U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 44 of 65
-45-

30. In its Third Amended Complaint, ParkerVision alleges that Intel is directly

infringing, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, the ‘474 patent, and that the ‘474 

patent is valid and enforceable. 

31. An actual controversy exists between ParkerVision and Intel by virtue of the

allegations in ParkerVision’s Third Amended Complaint and Intel’s Answer as to the validity 

and infringement of the ‘474 patent. 

32. The RF Transceiver Chips, including the accused Intel PMB 5750, PMB 5757,

and PMB 5762, do not meet all of the elements of any of the claims of the ‘474 patent, and 

therefore Intel does not infringe the claims of the ‘474 patent. 

33. For example, Intel does not infringe at least Claim 1 of the ‘474 patent because

the RF Transceiver Chips, including the accused Intel PMB 5750, PMB 5757, and PMB 5762, 

do not use, include, and/or incorporate an apparatus for down-converting an input signal, 

comprising at least one or more of the following limitations: (i) a first frequency downconversion module that receives an input signal, wherein the first frequency down-conversion 

module down-converts the input signal according to a first control signal and outputs a first 

down-converted signal; (ii) a second frequency down-conversion module that receives the 

input signal, wherein the second frequency down-conversion module down-converts the input 

signal according to a second control signal and outputs a second down-converted signal; and 

(iii) a combining module that combines the second down-converted signal with the first downconverted signal and outputs a single channel down-converted signal; (iv) wherein the first 

frequency down-conversion module comprises a first switch and a first storage element, 

wherein the first switch is coupled to the first storage element at a first node and coupled to a 

first reference potential; and (v) wherein the second frequency down-conversion module 

comprises a second switch and a second storage element, wherein the second switch is coupled 

to the second storage element at a second node and coupled to a second reference potential. 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 45 of 65
-46-

34. Moreover, the PMB 5750 chip that ParkerVision accuses of infringement in its

Third Amended Complaint was already found not to infringe European Patent No. 1 135 853 

(“EP ‘853”) in a proceeding in Germany at least because “there is no sampling means according 

to the patent.” See Munich Regional Court, 7 O 2141/17, Final Judgment (trans.) (Ger.) at 19, 

Apr. 25, 2019. The EP ‘853 patent claims priority to U.S. Patent No. 6,061,551 (“‘551 patent”), 

and the ‘474 patent expressly incorporates by reference the ‘551 patent. Accordingly, Intel 

does not infringe the claims of the ‘474 patent for at least the same reasons that PMB 5750 was 

found not to infringe the EP ‘853 patent. 

35. Intel does not infringe the ‘474 patent because Intel does not make, use, test,

sell, offer for sale, or import into the United States, and has not made, used, tested, sold, offered 

for sale, or imported into the United States, any products or methods that infringe any valid 

claim of the ‘474 patent, either directly or indirectly, literally or through the doctrine of 

equivalents, or otherwise. 

36. Intel is entitled to a declaratory judgment that it has not infringed, and is not

infringing, directly or indirectly (either literally, under the doctrine of equivalents, or 

otherwise) any valid, patent-eligible claim of the ‘474 patent. 

FOURTH COUNTERCLAIM

(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 7,539,474)

37. Intel repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in the foregoing

Paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

38. Intel counterclaims against ParkerVision pursuant to the patent laws of the

United States, Title 35 of the United States Code, and the Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 

U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 46 of 65
-47-

39. In its Third Amended Complaint, ParkerVision alleges that Intel is directly

infringing, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, the ‘474 patent, and that the ‘474 

patent is valid and enforceable. 

40. An actual controversy exists between ParkerVision and Intel by virtue of the

allegations in ParkerVision’s Third Amended Complaint and Intel’s Answer as to the validity 

and infringement of the ‘474 patent. 

41. Intel contests the validity and enforceability of the ‘474 patent, and does not

infringe the ‘474 patent at least because the claims of the ‘474 patent are invalid under 35 

U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, 112, and/or 116. 

42. For example, “RF and Microwave Circuit Design for Wireless

Communications” (1997) by Lawrence E. Larson (“Larson”) discloses every element of at least 

Claim 1 of the ‘474 patent and therefore anticipates and/or renders obvious, including at least 

under ParkerVision’s apparent infringement theory, at least Claim 1 of the ‘474 patent under 

35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103. Intel has provided final invalidity contentions consistent with the 

schedule ordered by the Court and following ParkerVision’s final infringement contentions. 

43. Similarly, the German Federal Patent Court found that all elements of

ParkerVision’s related EP ‘853 patent are disclosed in the prior art article A 900-MHz RF 

Front-End with Integrated Discrete-Time Filtering, IEEE J. of Solid-State Circuits, Band 31, 

Nr. 12 (Dec. 1996) by Shen, D. H., et al., (“Shen”), and rejected ParkerVision’s argument that 

it invented a “fundamentally different approach to energy transmission down-conversion.” See 

Bundespatentgericht [BPatG] [Federal Patent Court] 5 Ni 19/17 (EP), Decision on Costs and 

Determination of the Value in Dispute (Ger.) (trans.) at 10, Dec. 16, 2019. The EP ‘853 patent 

claims priority to U.S. Patent No. 6,061,551 (“‘551 patent”), and the ‘474 patent expressly 

incorporates by reference the ‘551 patent. Shen likewise discloses and/or renders obvious the 

elements of at least Claim 1 of the ‘474 patent, and therefore invalidates that claim. Intel has 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 47 of 65
-48-

provided final invalidity contentions consistent with the schedule ordered by the Court and 

following ParkerVision’s final infringement contentions. 

44. Intel is entitled to a declaratory judgment that the claims of the ‘474 patent are

invalid, including, without limitation, under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, 112, and/or 116. 

FIFTH COUNTERCLAIM

(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,588,725)

45. Intel repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in the foregoing

Paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

46. Intel counterclaims against ParkerVision pursuant to the patent laws of the

United States, Title 35 of the United States Code, and the Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 

U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. 

47. In its Third Amended Complaint, ParkerVision alleges that Intel is directly

infringing, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, the ‘725 patent, and that the ‘725 

patent is valid and enforceable. 

48. An actual controversy exists between ParkerVision and Intel by virtue of the

allegations in ParkerVision’s Third Amended Complaint and Intel’s Answer as to the validity 

and infringement of the ‘725 patent. 

49. The RF Transceiver Chips, including the accused Intel PMB 5750, PMB 5757,

and PMB 5762, do not meet all of the elements of any of the claims of the ‘725 patent, and 

therefore Intel does not infringe the claims of the ‘725 patent. 

50. For example, Intel does not infringe at least Claim 1 of the ‘725 patent because

the RF Transceiver Chips, including the accused Intel PMB 5750, PMB 5757, and PMB 5762, 

do not use, include, and/or incorporate an apparatus for down-converting an electromagnetic 

signal, comprising at least one or more of the following limitations: (i) an aliasing module 

comprising a switching device and a storage module, the aliasing module receiving as an input 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 48 of 65
-49-

an RF information signal, and the aliasing module providing as an output a down-converted 

signal; (ii) the switching device of the aliasing module receiving as an input a control signal 

that controls a charging and discharging cycle of the storage module by controlling the 

switching device so that a portion of energy is transferred from the RF information signal to 

the storage module during a charging part of the cycle and a portion of the transferred energy 

is discharged during a discharging part of the cycle, wherein said control signal operates at an 

aliasing rate selected so that energy of the RF information signal is sampled and applied to the 

storage module at a frequency that is equal to or less than twice the frequency of the RF 

information signal; and (iii) wherein the storage module generates said down-converted signal 

from the alternate charging and discharging applied to the storage module using said control 

signal. 

51. Moreover, the PMB 5750 chip that ParkerVision accuses of infringement in its

Third Amended Complaint was already found not to infringe European Patent No. 1 135 853 

(“EP ‘853”) in a proceeding in Germany at least because “there is no sampling means according 

to the patent.” See Munich Regional Court, 7 O 2141/17, Final Judgment (trans.) (Ger.) at 19, 

Apr. 25, 2019. The EP ‘853 patent claims priority to U.S. Patent No. 6,061,551 (“‘551 patent”), 

and the ‘725 patent expressly incorporates by reference the ‘551 patent. In addition, the EP 

‘853 patent, like Claim 1 of the ‘725 patent, includes claims that require “sampling.” See id.

at 4 (“[A] sampling means for sampling the input signal at a sampling frequency....”). 

52. Intel does not infringe the ‘725 patent because Intel does not make, use, test,

sell, offer for sale, or import into the United States, and has not made, used, tested, sold, offered 

for sale, or imported into the United States, any products or methods that infringe any valid 

claim of the ‘725 patent, either directly or indirectly, literally or through the doctrine of 

equivalents, or otherwise. 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 49 of 65
-50-

53. Intel is entitled to a declaratory judgment that it has not infringed, and is not

infringing, directly or indirectly (either literally, under the doctrine of equivalents, or 

otherwise) any valid, patent-eligible claim of the ‘725 patent.

SIXTH COUNTERCLAIM

(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 8,588,725)

54. Intel repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in the foregoing

Paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

55. Intel counterclaims against ParkerVision pursuant to the patent laws of the

United States, Title 35 of the United States Code, and the Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 

U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. 

56. In its Third Amended Complaint, ParkerVision alleges that Intel is directly

infringing, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, the ‘725 patent, and that the ‘725 

patent is valid and enforceable. 

57. An actual controversy exists between ParkerVision and Intel by virtue of the

allegations in ParkerVision’s Third Amended Complaint and Intel’s Answer as to the validity 

and infringement of the ‘725 patent. 

58. Intel contests the validity and enforceability of the ‘725 patent, and does not

infringe the ‘725 patent at least because the claims of the ‘725 patent are invalid under 35 

U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, 112, and/or 116. 

59. For example, U.S. Patent No. 6,230,000 (“Tayloe”) discloses every element of

at least Claim 1 of the ‘725 patent and therefore anticipates and/or renders obvious, including 

at least under ParkerVision’s apparent infringement theory, at least Claim 1 of the ‘725 patent 

under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103. Intel has provided final invalidity contentions consistent with 

the schedule ordered by the Court and following ParkerVision’s final infringement 

contentions. 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 50 of 65
-51-

60. Similarly, the German Federal Patent Court found that all elements of

ParkerVision’s related EP ‘853 patent are disclosed in the prior art article A 900-MHz RF 

Front-End with Integrated Discrete-Time Filtering, IEEE J. of Solid-State Circuits, Band 31, 

Nr. 12 (Dec. 1996) by Shen, D. H., et al., (“Shen”), and rejected ParkerVision’s argument that 

it invented a “fundamentally different approach to energy transmission down-conversion.” See 

Bundespatentgericht [BPatG] [Federal Patent Court] 5 Ni 19/17 (EP), Decision on Costs and 

Determination of the Value in Dispute (Ger.) (trans.) at 10, Dec. 16, 2019. The EP ‘853 patent 

claims priority to U.S. Patent No. 6,061,551 (“‘551 patent”), and the ‘725 patent expressly 

incorporates by reference the ‘551 patent. In addition, like Claim 1 of the ‘725 patent, the EP 

‘853 patent includes claims that require “sampling.” See Munich Regional Court, 7 O 2141/17, 

Final Judgment (trans.) (Ger.) at 4, Apr. 25, 2019. Shen likewise discloses and/or renders 

obvious the elements of at least Claim 1 of the ‘725 patent, and therefore invalidates that claim. 

Intel has provided final invalidity contentions consistent with the schedule ordered by the Court 

and following ParkerVision’s final infringement contentions. 

61. Intel is entitled to a declaratory judgment that the claims of the ‘725 patent are

invalid, including, without limitation, under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, 112, and/or 116. 

SEVENTH COUNTERCLAIM

(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,118,528) 

62. Intel repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in the foregoing

Paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

63. Intel counterclaims against ParkerVision pursuant to the patent laws of the

United States, Title 35 of the United States Code, and the Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 

U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 51 of 65
-52-

64. In its Third Amended Complaint, ParkerVision alleges that Intel is directly

infringing, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, the ‘528 patent, and that the ‘528 

patent is valid and enforceable. 

65. An actual controversy exists between ParkerVision and Intel by virtue of the

allegations in ParkerVision’s Third Amended Complaint and Intel’s Answer as to the validity 

and infringement of the ‘528 patent. 

66. The RF Transceiver Chips, including the accused Intel PMB 5750, PMB 5757,

and PMB 5762, do not meet all of the elements of any of the claims of the ‘528 patent, and 

therefore Intel does not infringe the claims of the ‘528 patent. 

67. For example, Intel does not infringe at least Claim 1 of the ‘528 patent because

the RF Transceiver Chips, including the accused Intel PMB 5750, PMB 5757, and PMB 5762, 

do not use, include, and/or incorporate a system for frequency down-converting a modulated 

carrier signal to a baseband signal comprising at least one or more of the following limitations: 

(i) a first switch coupled to a first control signal which comprises a sampling aperture with a

specified frequency, wherein the first switch is on and a portion of energy that is distinguishable 

from noise is transferred from the modulated carrier signal as an output of said first switch 

during the sampling aperture of the first control signal; (ii) a first energy storage element that 

stores the transferred energy from the modulated carrier signal and outputs a down-converted 

in-phase baseband signal portion of said modulated carrier signal; (iii) a second switch coupled 

to a second control signal which comprises a sampling aperture with a specified frequency, 

wherein the second switch is on and a portion of energy that is distinguishable from noise is 

transferred from the modulated carrier signal as an output of said second switch during the 

sampling aperture of the second control signal; (iv) a second energy storage element that stores 

the transferred energy from the modulated carrier signal and outputs a down-converted inverted 

in-phase baseband signal portion of said modulated carrier signal; (v) wherein the portions of 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 52 of 65
-53-

transferred energy from each of the first and second switch are integrated over time to

accumulate said portions of transferred energy from which said down-converted in-phase 

baseband signal portion and said down-converted inverted in-phase baseband signal portion 

are derived; and (vi) a first differential amplifier circuit that combines said down-converted inphase baseband signal portion with said down-converted inverted in-phase baseband signal 

portion and outputs a first channel down-converted differential in-phase baseband signal.

68. Moreover, the PMB 5750 chip that ParkerVision accuses of infringement in its

Third Amended Complaint was already found not to infringe European Patent No. 1 135 853 

(“EP ‘853”) in a proceeding in Germany at least because “there is no sampling means according 

to the patent.” See Munich Regional Court, 7 O 2141/17, Final Judgment (trans.) (Ger.) at 19, 

Apr. 25, 2019. The EP ‘853 patent claims priority to U.S. Patent No. 6,061,551 (“‘551 patent”), 

and the ‘528 patent expressly incorporates by reference the ‘551 patent. In addition, like Claim 

1 of the ‘528 patent, the EP ‘853 patent includes claims that require “sampling.” See id. at 4 

(“[A] sampling means for sampling the input signal at a sampling frequency....”).

69. Intel does not infringe the ‘528 patent because Intel does not make, use, test,

sell, offer for sale, or import into the United States, and has not made, used, tested, sold, offered 

for sale, or imported into the United States, any products or methods that infringe any valid 

claim of the ‘528 patent, either directly or indirectly, literally or through the doctrine of 

equivalents, or otherwise. 

70. Intel is entitled to a declaratory judgment that it has not infringed, and is not

infringing, directly or indirectly (either literally, under the doctrine of equivalents, or 

otherwise) any valid, patent-eligible claim of the ‘528 patent. 

EIGHTH COUNTERCLAIM 

(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 9,118,528) 

71. Intel repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in the foregoing

Paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 53 of 65
-54-

72. Intel counterclaims against ParkerVision pursuant to the patent laws of the

United States, Title 35 of the United States Code, and the Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 

U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. 

73. In its Third Amended Complaint, ParkerVision alleges that Intel is directly

infringing, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, the ‘528 patent, and that the ‘528 

patent is valid and enforceable. 

74. An actual controversy exists between ParkerVision and Intel by virtue of the

allegations in ParkerVision’s Third Amended Complaint and Intel’s Answer as to the validity 

and infringement of the ‘528 patent. 

75. Intel contests the validity and enforceability of the ‘528 patent, and does not

infringe the ‘528 patent at least because the claims of the ‘528 patent are invalid under 35 

U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, 112, and/or 116. 

76. For example, U.S. Patent No. 6,230,000 (“Tayloe”) discloses every element of

at least Claim 1 of the ‘528 patent and therefore anticipates and/or renders obvious, including 

at least under ParkerVision’s apparent infringement theory, at least Claim 1 of the ‘528 patent 

under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103. Intel has provided final invalidity contentions consistent with 

the schedule ordered by the Court and following ParkerVision’s final infringement contentions. 

77. Similarly, the German Federal Patent Court found that all elements of

ParkerVision’s related EP ‘853 patent are disclosed in the prior art article A 900-MHz RF 

Front-End with Integrated Discrete-Time Filtering, IEEE J. of Solid-State Circuits, Band 31, 

Nr. 12 (Dec. 1996) by Shen, D. H., et al., (“Shen”), and rejected ParkerVision’s argument that 

it invented a “fundamentally different approach to energy transmission down-conversion.” See

Bundespatentgericht [BPatG] [Federal Patent Court] 5 Ni 19/17 (EP), Decision on Costs and 

Determination of the Value in Dispute (Ger.) (trans.) at 10, Dec. 16, 2019. The EP ‘853 patent 

claims priority to U.S. Patent No. 6,061,551 (“‘551 patent”), and the ‘528 patent expressly 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 54 of 65
-55-

incorporates by reference the ‘551 patent. In addition, like Claim 1 of the ‘528 patent, the EP 

‘853 patent includes claims that require “sampling.” See Munich Regional Court, 7 O 2141/17, 

Final Judgment (trans.) (Ger.) at 4, Apr. 25, 2019. Shen likewise discloses and/or renders 

obvious the elements of at least Claim 1 of the ‘528 patent, and therefore invalidates that claim. 

Intel has provided final invalidity contentions consistent with the schedule ordered by the Court 

and following ParkerVision’s final infringement contentions. 

78. Intel is entitled to a declaratory judgment that the claims of the ‘528 patent are

invalid, including, without limitation, under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, 112, and/or 116. 

NINTH COUNTERCLAIM 

(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,246,736)

79. Intel repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in the foregoing

Paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

80. Intel counterclaims against ParkerVision pursuant to the patent laws of the

United States, Title 35 of the United States Code, and the Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 

U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. 

81. In its Third Amended Complaint, ParkerVision alleges that Intel is directly

infringing, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, the ‘736 patent, and that the ‘736 

patent is valid and enforceable. 

82. An actual controversy exists between ParkerVision and Intel by virtue of the

allegations in ParkerVision’s Third Amended Complaint and Intel’s Answer as to the validity 

and infringement of the ‘736 patent. 

83. The RF Transceiver Chips, including the accused Intel PMB 5750, PMB 5757,

and PMB 5762, do not meet all of the elements of any of the claims of the ‘736 patent, and 

therefore Intel does not infringe the claims of the ‘736 patent. 

84. For example, Intel does not infringe at least Claim 1 of the ‘736 patent because

the RF Transceiver Chips, including the accused Intel PMB 5750, PMB 5757, and PMB 5762, 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 55 of 65
-56-

do not use, include, and/or incorporate a system for frequency down-converting a modulated 

carrier signal to a demodulated baseband signal, comprising at least one or more of the 

following limitations: (i) a first switch coupled to a first control signal which comprises a first 

sampling aperture with a specified frequency, wherein the first switch is on during the first 

sampling aperture and wherein the first switch is off outside the first sampling aperture; (ii) a 

first energy storage element, coupled to said first switch, that outputs a down-converted inphase baseband signal portion of said modulated carrier signal; (iii) a second switch coupled 

to a second control signal which comprises a second sampling aperture with a specified 

frequency, wherein the second switch is on during the second sampling aperture and wherein 

the first switch is off outside the second sampling aperture; (iv) a second energy storage 

element, coupled to said second switch, that outputs a down-converted inverted in-phase 

baseband signal portion of said modulated carrier signal; (v) wherein the first and second 

control signals each control a charging and discharging cycle of their respective energy storage 

element so that for each switch a portion of energy from the modulated carrier signal is 

transferred to the respective energy storage element when the respective switch is on during 

the charging cycle, and a portion of previously transferred energy is discharged during the 

discharging cycle for each respective switch when the respective switch is off. 

85. Further, Intel does not infringe at least Claim 1 of the ‘736 patent because the

RF Transceiver Chips, including the accused Intel PMB 5750, PMB 5757, and PMB 5762, do 

not use, include, and/or incorporate a system for frequency down-converting a modulated 

carrier signal to a demodulated baseband signal comprising at least one or more of the 

following limitations (vi) wherein for each respective energy storage element, the energy 

discharged during any given discharge cycle is not completely discharged, with the remaining 

undischarged energy from the given discharge cycle becoming an initial condition for a next 

charging cycle that begins immediately following the given discharge cycle; (vii) wherein said 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 56 of 65
-57-

down-converted in-phase baseband signal portion is derived from energy accumulated at said 

first energy storage element during both the charging and the discharging cycles for the first 

energy storage element; (viii) wherein said down-converted inverted in-phase baseband signal 

portion is derived from energy accumulated at said second energy storage element during both 

the charging and the discharging cycles for the second energy storage element; and (ix) a first 

differential amplifier circuit that combines said down-converted in-phase baseband signal 

portion with said down-converted inverted in-phase baseband signal portion and outputs a first 

channel down-converted differential in-phase baseband signal. 

86. Moreover, the PMB 5750 chip that ParkerVision accuses of infringement in its

Third Amended Complaint was already found not to infringe European Patent No. 1 135 853 

(“EP ‘853”) in a proceeding in Germany at least because “there is no sampling means according 

to the patent.” See Munich Regional Court, 7 O 2141/17, Final Judgment (trans.) (Ger.) at 19, 

Apr. 25, 2019. The EP ‘853 patent and the ‘736 patent both claim priority to U.S. Application 

No. 09/176,022, and the EP ‘853 patent, like Claim 1 of the ‘736 patent, includes claims that 

require “sampling.” See id. at 4 (“[A] sampling means for sampling the input signal at a 

sampling frequency....”). 

87. Intel does not infringe the ‘736 patent because Intel does not make, use, test,

sell, offer for sale, or import into the United States, and has not made, used, tested, sold, offered 

for sale, or imported into the United States, any products or methods that infringe any valid 

claim of the ‘736 patent, either directly or indirectly, literally or through the doctrine of 

equivalents, or otherwise. 

88. Intel is entitled to a declaratory judgment that it has not infringed, and is not

infringing, directly or indirectly (either literally, under the doctrine of equivalents, or 

otherwise) any valid, patent-eligible claim of the ‘736 patent.

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 57 of 65
-58-

TENTH COUNTERCLAIM

(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 9,246,736)

89. Intel repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in the foregoing

Paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

90. Intel counterclaims against ParkerVision pursuant to the patent laws of the

United States, Title 35 of the United States Code, and the Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 

U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. 

91. In its Third Amended Complaint, ParkerVision alleges that Intel is directly

infringing, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, the ‘736 patent, and that the ‘736 

patent is valid and enforceable. 

92. An actual controversy exists between ParkerVision and Intel by virtue of the

allegations in ParkerVision’s Third Amended Complaint and Intel’s Answer as to the validity 

and infringement of the ‘736 patent. 

93. Intel contests the validity and enforceability of the ‘736 patent, and does not

infringe the ‘736 patent at least because the claims of the ‘736 patent are invalid under 35 

U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, 112, and/or 116. 

94. For example, U.S. Patent No. 6,230,000 (“Tayloe”) in combination with A 900-

MHz RF Front-End with Integrated Discrete-Time Filtering, IEEE J. of Solid-State Circuits, 

Band 31, Nr. 12 (Dec. 1996) by Shen, D. H., et al., (“Shen”) renders obvious, including at least 

under ParkerVision’s alleged infringement theory, at least Claim 1 of the ‘736 patent under 35 

U.S.C. § 103. At least under ParkerVision’s apparent infringement theory, Tayloe discloses 

and/or renders obvious ever element of Claim 1. To the extent ParkerVision contends Tayloe 

does not disclose a second switch and a second control signal, those elements are disclosed 

and/or rendered obvious by at least Shen. Intel has provided final invalidity contentions 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 58 of 65
-59-

consistent with the schedule ordered by the Court and following ParkerVision’s final 

infringement contentions. 

95. Similarly, the German Federal Patent Court found that all elements of

ParkerVision’s related EP ‘853 patent are disclosed in Shen and rejected ParkerVision’s 

argument that it invented a “fundamentally different approach to energy transmission downconversion.” See Bundespatentgericht [BPatG] [Federal Patent Court], 5 Ni 19/17 (EP), 

Decision on Costs and Determination of the Value in Dispute (Ger.) (trans.) at 10 Dec. 16, 

2019. The EP ‘853 patent, like the ‘736 patent, claims priority to the U.S. Application No. 

09/176,022. Further, like Claim 1 of the ‘736 patent, the EP ‘853 patent includes claims that 

require “sampling.” See Munich Regional Court, 7 O 2141/17, Final Judgment (trans.) (Ger.) 

at 4, Apr. 25, 2019. Shen likewise discloses and/or renders obvious the elements of at least 

Claim 1 of the ‘736 patent, and therefore invalidates that claim. Intel has provided final 

invalidity contentions consistent with the schedule ordered by the Court and following 

ParkerVision’s final infringement contentions. 

96. Intel is entitled to a declaratory judgment that the claims of the ‘736 patent are

invalid, including, without limitation, under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, 112, and/or 116. 

ELEVENTH COUNTERCLAIM

(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,444,673)

97. Intel repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in the foregoing

Paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

98. Intel counterclaims against ParkerVision pursuant to the patent laws of the

United States, Title 35 of the United States Code, and the Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 

U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 59 of 65
-60-

99. In its Third Amended Complaint, ParkerVision alleges that Intel is directly

infringing, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, the ‘673 patent, and that the ‘673 

patent is valid and enforceable. 

100. An actual controversy exists between ParkerVision and Intel by virtue of the

allegations in ParkerVision’s Third Amended Complaint and Intel’s Answer as to the validity 

and infringement of the ‘673 patent. 

101. The RF Transceiver Chips, including the accused Intel PMB 5750, PMB 5757,

and PMB 5762, do not meet all of the elements of any of the claims of the ‘673 patent, and 

therefore Intel does not infringe the claims of the ‘673 patent. 

102. For example, Intel does not infringe at least Claim 1 of the ‘673 patent because

the RF Transceiver Chips, including the accused Intel PMB 5750, PMB 5757, and PMB 5762, 

do not use, include, and/or incorporate an apparatus for down-converting an input modulated 

carrier signal to a demodulated baseband signal, wherein the modulated carrier signal has an 

amplitude variation, a phase variation, a frequency variation, or a combination thereof, the 

apparatus comprising at least one or more of the following limitations: (i) a frequency downconversion module comprising: a switch, a capacitor coupled to said switch, and a pulse 

generator coupled to said switch; (ii) said pulse generator outputting pulses to said switch at a 

rate that is a function of a frequency of the modulated carrier signal and a frequency of the 

demodulated baseband signal determined according to: (the frequency of the modulated carrier 

VLJQDO í a frequency of the demodulated baseband signal) divided by N, where N is any 

integer including 1; (iii) wherein said pulses have apertures and said pulses cause said switch 

to open outside of said apertures and cause said switch to close and sample the modulated 

carrier signal during said apertures by transferring energy from the modulated carrier signal 

and accumulating the transferred energy in said capacitor each time said switch is closed; and 

(iv) wherein some of the previously accumulated energy is discharged from said capacitor into

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 60 of 65
-61-

load circuitry each time said switch is open; and (v) wherein the demodulated baseband signal 

is generated from (i) the accumulating of the energy transferred to the capacitor each time the 

switch is closed and (ii) the discharging of said some of the previously accumulated energy 

into the load circuitry each time the switch is opened. 

103. Moreover, the PMB 5750 chip that ParkerVision accuses of infringement in its

Third Amended Complaint was already found not to infringe European Patent No. 1 135 853 

(“EP ‘853”) in a proceeding in Germany at least because “there is no sampling means according 

to the patent.” See Munich Regional Court, 7 O 2141/17, Final Judgment (trans.) (Ger.) at 19, 

Apr. 25, 2019. The EP ‘853 patent and the ‘673 patent both claim priority to U.S. Application 

No. 09/176,022, and the EP ‘853 patent, like Claim 1 of the ‘673 patent, includes claims that 

require “sampling.” See id. at 4 (“[A] sampling means for sampling the input signal at a 

sampling frequency....”).

104. Intel does not infringe the ‘673 patent because Intel does not make, use, test,

sell, offer for sale, or import into the United States, and has not made, used, tested, sold, offered 

for sale, or imported into the United States, any products or methods that infringe any valid 

claim of the ‘673 patent, either directly or indirectly, literally or through the doctrine of 

equivalents, or otherwise. 

105. Intel is entitled to a declaratory judgment that it has not infringed, and is not

infringing, directly or indirectly (either literally, under the doctrine of equivalents, or 

otherwise) any valid, patent-eligible claim of the ‘673 patent.

TWELFTH COUNTERCLAIM

(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 9,444,673

106. Intel repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in the foregoing

Paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 61 of 65
-62-

107. Intel counterclaims against ParkerVision pursuant to the patent laws of the

United States, Title 35 of the United States Code, and the Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 

U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. 

108. In its Third Amended Complaint, ParkerVision alleges that Intel is directly

infringing, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, the ‘673 patent, and that the ‘673 

patent is valid and enforceable. 

109. An actual controversy exists between ParkerVision and Intel by virtue of the

allegations in ParkerVision’s Third Amended Complaint and Intel’s Answer as to the validity 

and infringement of the ‘673 patent. 

110. Intel contests the validity and enforceability of the ‘673 patent, and does not

infringe the ‘673 patent at least because the claims of the ‘673 patent are invalid under 35 

U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, 112, and/or 116. 

111. For example, U.S. Patent No. 6,230,000 (“Tayloe”) in combination with U.S.

Patent No. 5,345,471 (“McEwan“) renders obvious, including at least under ParkerVision’s 

alleged infringement theory, at least Claim 1 of the ‘673 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103. At least 

under ParkerVision’s apparent infringement theory, Tayloe discloses and/or renders obvious 

every element of Claim 1. To the extent ParkerVision contends that Tayloe does not disclose 

energy transferred to a load during an off-time, that element is disclosed and/or rendered 

obvious by at least McEwan. Intel has provided final invalidity contentions consistent with the 

schedule ordered by the Court and following ParkerVision’s final infringement contentions. 

112. Similarly, the German Federal Patent Court found that all elements of

ParkerVision’s related EP ‘853 patent are disclosed in the prior art article A 900-MHz RF 

Front-End with Integrated Discrete-Time Filtering, IEEE J. of Solid-State Circuits, Band 31, 

Nr. 12 (Dec. 1996) by Shen, D. H., et al., (“Shen”), and rejected ParkerVision’s argument that 

it invented a “fundamentally different approach to energy transmission down-conversion.” See 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 62 of 65
-63-

Bundespatentgericht [BPatG] [Federal Patent Court] 5 Ni 19/17 (EP), Decision on Costs and 

Determination of the Value in Dispute (Ger.) (trans.) at 10, Dec. 16, 2019. The EP ‘853 patent, 

like the ‘673 patent, claims priority to the U.S. Application No. 09/176,022. Further, like Claim 

1 of the ‘673 patent, the EP ‘853 patent includes claims that require “sampling.” See Munich 

Regional Court, 7 O 2141/17, Final Judgment (trans.) (Ger.) at 4, Apr. 25, 2019. Shen likewise 

discloses and/or renders obvious the elements of at least Claim 1 of the ‘673 patent, and 

therefore invalidates that claim. Intel has provided final invalidity contentions consistent with 

the schedule ordered by the Court and following ParkerVision’s final infringement contentions. 

113. Intel is entitled to a declaratory judgment that the claims of the ‘673 patent are

invalid, including, without limitation, under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, 112, and/or 116. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Intel demands a trial by jury on all issues triable of right by a jury raised in 

ParkerVision’s Third Amended Complaint, Intel’s Answer, and Intel’s Counterclaims pursuant 

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Intel denies that ParkerVision is entitled to any relief, including, 

without limitation, as described in the “Prayer for Relief” section of ParkerVision’s Third 

Amended Complaint. 

Intel prays for: 

A. A judgment in favor of Intel dismissing with prejudice ParkerVision’s Third

Amended Complaint in its entirety and denying the relief requested therein;

B. A declaration that the’902, ’474, ‘725, ‘528, ‘736, and ‘673 patents are not

infringed by Intel;

C. A declaration that the claims of the ‘902, ‘474, ‘725, ‘528, ‘736, and ‘673

patents are invalid;

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 63 of 65
-64-

D. A finding that this is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285, including an

award to Intel of attorneys’ fees, costs, and disbursements incurred in defending

this action; and

E. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Dated: July 18, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ J. Stephen Ravel .

Michael J. Summersgill (admitted Pro Hac Vice)

Sarah B. Petty (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

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

Jason F. Choy (admitted Pro Hac Vice) 

Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP

350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2100 

Los Angeles, California 90071 

T (213) 443-5300 

jason.choy@wilmerhale.com

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 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 64 of 65
-65-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

document via electronic mail on July 18, 2022. 

 /s/ J. Stephen Ravel 

J. Stephen Ravel

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 169 Filed 10/19/22 Page 65 of 65