UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

PARKERVISION, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

INTEL CORPORATION, 

Defendant.

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

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

DEFENDANT INTEL CORPORATION’S FEBRUARY 6, 2023 SUBMISSION 

REGARDING OBJECTIONS AND ISSUES TO RAISE WITH THE COURT1

1 Intel reserves all objections made to PV’s disclosures even if not raised in this submission.

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 291 Filed 02/06/23 Page 1 of 5
1

1. ParkerVision’s Proposals Regarding Deposition Designations And Deposition

Designation Disclosures Are Unworkable And Deficient.

Intel writes regarding three issues concerning the parties’ deposition designations. 

First, consistent with Intel’s understanding of the Court’s typical practice, Intel has proposed that, 

if either side plays deposition testimony from a particular witness, all deposition testimony from 

that witness should be played at the same time. See VLSI Tech. LLC v. Intel Corp., No. 21-cv-299, 

Apr. 25, 2022 Trial Tr. at 223:1-21 (THE COURT: “I would prefer it all be at one time. On the 

other hand, [the defendant] may not decide to put on any evidence so I’ve stopped compelling the 

defendant to do their depositions unless they choose to. But if you do want to put it on the same 

time, if that’s the question, I would prefer to hear it at the same time.”).2 ParkerVision, on the 

other hand, intends to play only its affirmative designations and Intel’s counter-designations in 

ParkerVision’s case-in-chief (and exclude Intel’s affirmative designations on the same witnesses). 

Intel’s proposal is more respectful of the Court, the jurors’, and the parties’ time, as it avoids 

replaying the same or closely related testimony from the same witness more than once. 

ParkerVision’s proposal—to play testimony from the same witness at two different times during 

the trial—would result in significant duplication and inefficiencies. 

Second, also consistent with Intel’s understanding of the Court’s typical practice, Intel has 

proposed that, “[f]or any deposition testimony played or read during either party’s case-in-chief, 

all deposition designations and counter-designations from that witness will be played or read 

together in chronological order.” Dkt. 258, ¶75. ParkerVision rejected that proposal, instead 

arguing that testimony should be organized “by subject matter.” Id. at 12 n.3. But ParkerVision 

failed to disclose how it would categorize the testimony or the order of such categories. Intel’s 

proposal to organize testimony chronologically will help the jury understand the testimony and 

minimize disputes about the categorization of the testimony. 

Third, the deposition videos and clip reports that ParkerVision served on Intel are deficient. 

Specifically, where ParkerVision has an outstanding objection to testimony counter-designated by 

Intel, ParkerVision simply omitted that testimony from the video and clip report.3

 Intel 

respectfully requests that ParkerVision not be permitted to present incomplete deposition videos 

to the jury. 

2 Emphases added, unless otherwise noted.

3 Klepser Dep. at 266:25-267:05, 267:09-267:10, 267:12-267:23, 268:02-268:07, 268:11-268:21; 

Cook Dep. at 58:04-58:07, 59:08-59:12, 144:21-144:24, 145:02-145:03, 151:06-151:08, 151:19-

151:21, 153:20-153:22, 153:25-153:25. 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 291 Filed 02/06/23 Page 2 of 5
2 

Dated: February 6, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ J. Stephen Ravel

Michael J. Summersgill (admitted Pro Hac 

Vice) 

Sarah B. Petty (admitted Pro Hac Vice) 

Harry Hanson (admitted Pro Hac Vice) 

Marissa A. Lalli (admitted Pro Hac Vice) 

Samuel C. Leifer (admitted Pro Hac Vice) 

Alicia Coneys (admitted Pro Hac Vice) 

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND

DORR LLP

60 State Street

Boston, Massachusetts 02109 

T (617) 526-6000 

michael.summersgill@wilmerhale.com

sarah.petty@wilmerhale.com

marissa.lalli@wilmerhale.com

harry.hanson@wilmerhale.com

samuel.leifer@wilmerhale.com

alicia.coneys@wilmerhale.com

Todd Zubler (admitted Pro Hac Vice) 

Isley M. Gostin (admitted Pro Hac Vice) 

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND

DORR LLP

1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 

Washington, DC 20006 

T (202) 663-6636 

todd.zubler@wilmerhale.com

isley.gostin@wilmerhale.com 

Mary (Mindy) V. Sooter (admitted Pro Hac 

Vice) 

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND

DORR LLP

1225 17th Street, Suite 2600 

Denver, CO 80202 

T (720) 274-3135 

mindy.sooter@wilmerhale.com 

Robert J. Gunther Jr. (admitted Pro Hac 

Vice) 

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND

DORR LLP

J. Stephen Ravel

KELLY HART & HALLMAN LLP

303 Colorado, Suite 2000

Austin, Texas 78701

T (512) 495-6429

steve.ravel@kellyhart.com

James E. Wren

Texas State Bar No. 22018200 

1 Bear Place, Unit 97288 

Waco, Texas 76798 

T (254) 710-7670 

james.wren@baylor.edu 

Harry L. Gillam, Jr.

Texas State Bar No. 07921800 

GILLAM & SMITH, L.L.P.

303 South Washington Avenue 

Marshall, Texas 75670 

Tel.: (903) 934-8450 

Fax: (903) 934-9257 

gil@gillamsmithlaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant Intel Corporation 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 291 Filed 02/06/23 Page 3 of 5
3 

7 World Trade Center

250 Greenwich Street

New York, NY 10007 

T (212) 230-8800 

robert.gunther@wilmerhale.com 

Jason F. Choy (admitted Pro Hac Vice) 

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND

DORR LLP

350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2400 

Los Angeles, California 90071 

T (213) 443-5300 

jason.choy@wilmerhale.com

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 291 Filed 02/06/23 Page 4 of 5
4 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

document via the Court's CM/ECF system on February 6, 2023. 

/s/ J. Stephen Ravel .

J. Stephen Ravel

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 291 Filed 02/06/23 Page 5 of 5