UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION 

THETA IP, LLC. 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, 

INC., 

Defendants

Case No. 6:20-cv-00160-ADA 

 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT 

Case 6:20-cv-00160-ADA Document 157 Filed 11/19/21 Page 1 of 12
i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page(s) 

I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1

II. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................... 1

A. The Asserted Claims .............................................................................................. 1

B. Theta’s Infringement Theory ................................................................................. 3

III. Argument ........................................................................................................................... 4

A. The Accused Products Do Not Perform Certain Claimed Adjustments ................ 4

B. The Accused Products Do Not Meet the “Worst-Case” Limitations ..................... 5

C. Summary Judgment of No Infringement on the ’202 Patent is Appropriate 

Because the Accused Products Do Not Perform the “Comparing” Step ............... 6

IV. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 7

Case 6:20-cv-00160-ADA Document 157 Filed 11/19/21 Page 2 of 12
ii 

EXHIBIT LIST 

Exhibit Description 

Ex. 1 Deposition of Theta’s technical expert, Lawrence E. Larson, October 29, 

2021. 

Ex. 2 Expert report of Theta’s technical expert, Lawrence E. Larson, regarding 

purported infringement, September 17, 2021 

Case 6:20-cv-00160-ADA Document 157 Filed 11/19/21 Page 3 of 12
1 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Theta cannot show that the accused products perform the bias adjustments of ’962 Claim 

1 and ’202 Claim 13; meet the “worst-case” limitations of the ’825 Patent claims 3 and 8, and 

’202 claims 7 and 13; or meet the “comparing” step of each of the ’202 Claims.1 Summary 

judgment of non-infringement is thus appropriate on all the Asserted Patents. 

II. BACKGROUND 

A. The Asserted Claims 

A wireless transceiver consumes power when listening for and processing a signal, such 

as a desired phone call. The Asserted Patents are directed to methods for reducing power 

consumption when the received signal has certain characteristics related to the strength of 

“desired signal” and “interferer signals.” Based on whether the “desired signals” and “interferer 

signals” are “high” or “low,” the patents teach either increasing or decreasing the amount of 

power consumed in receiving the signal. To do this, the patents discuss dynamically changing 

bias current, impedance, or both to reduce power dissipation. The concept is encapsulated in the 

numbered clauses of ’962 claim 1: 

wherein the bias current and the impedance of the circuit in the receiver signal 

path of the wireless transceiver are varied according to the following: 

(i) when the signal strength of the interferer signal is high and the signal strength 

of the desired signal is low, the bias current of the circuit in the receiver signal 

path of the wireless transceiver is increased and the impedance of the circuit 

in the receiver signal path of the wireless transceiver is reduced, resulting in a 

first current drain; 

(ii) when the signal strength of the interferer signal is high and the signal strength 

of the desired signal is high, the bias current of the circuit in the receiver 

signal path of the wireless transceiver is increased while the impedance of the 

circuit in the receiver signal path of the wireless transceiver is increased, 

1

 Theta has identified the following asserted claims: U.S. Patent No. 9,838,962 (“’962 

Patent”), Claim 1; 10,129,825 (“’825 Patent”), Claims 3, 8; 10,524,202 (“’202 Patent”), Claims 

7, 13 (collectively “Asserted Claims” and “Asserted Patents”). 

Case 6:20-cv-00160-ADA Document 157 Filed 11/19/21 Page 4 of 12
2 

resulting in a reduction in current drain when compared to the first current 

drain; 

(iii) when the signal strength of the interferer signal is low and the signal strength 

of the desired signal is low, the bias current of the circuit in the receiver signal 

path of the wireless transceiver is reduced and the impedance of the circuit in 

the receiver signal path of the wireless transceiver is reduced resulting in 

reduced current drain when compared to the first current drain; and 

(iv) when the signal strength of the interferer signal is low and the signal strength 

of the desired signal is high, the bias current of the circuit in the receiver 

signal path of the wireless transceiver is decreased2

 and the impedance of the 

circuit in the receiver signal path of the wireless transceiver is increased, 

resulting in a reduction in current drain compared to the first current drain. 

For example, clause (iii) requires that when the desired signal is “low” and the interferer 

is “low,” the actions to take are to reduce bias current and reduce impedance. This has the effect 

of reducing power consumption compared to the “first current drain” of clause (i). At the 

minimum, in order to practice the invention, one must (a) determine the strength of the desired 

signal, (b) determine the strength of the interferer signal, (c) determine if the signals are “high” 

or “low”, and (d) make a defined change to bias current, impedance, or both. 

The Asserted Claims also describe a specific case called the “worst-case power 

dissipation condition,” which is when the power dissipation (consumption) is at its highest. 

Claims 3 and 8 of the ’825 Patent require: 

wherein a worst-case power dissipation condition from the battery results when 

the signal strength of the desired signal is low and the signal strength of the 

interferer signal is high 

To satisfy this element, Theta must prove that the receiver goes into the highest power 

consumption mode, i.e. the worst case, when the desired signal is low and the interferer is high. 

2 This word was changed from “increased” to “decreased” by certificate of correction. 

Case 6:20-cv-00160-ADA Document 157 Filed 11/19/21 Page 5 of 12
3 

B. Theta’s Infringement Theory 

Theta’s original complaint accused an old Qualcomm technology called “IntelliCeiver,” 

allegedly built into current Qualcomm radio transceivers. D.I. 1 ¶ 51. 

. Theta then abandoned 

the IntelliCeiver theory a year into the case and shifted its accusations toward the Qualcomm 

automatic gain control (“AGC”) function in the transceivers. AGC was well-known in the prior 

art, as acknowledged in the Asserted Patents and by Theta’s expert. See, e.g., ’825 Patent Fig. 1 

(RF AGC 166, BaseBand AGC 120), 3:62–64, 4:22–23; Ex. 1 (Larson Dep.) 41:25–42:19, 43:9–

12, 45:2–4. 

The specific flavor of AGC that Theta accuses is a proprietary Qualcomm algorithm 

called 

. See Ex. 2 (Larson Rep.) ¶¶ 67–68. 

. See, e.g., Ex. 2 

(Larson Rep.) ¶ 148.3

 According to Dr. Larson, 

. See, e.g., Ex. 2 (Larson Rep.) ¶¶ 170, 174–75. 

Importantly, there is no dispute that the in all the Accused Products 

 

Ex. 1 (Larson Dep.) 200:19–24. As explained in more detail by Theta’s expert, 

 See, e.g., Ex. 2 

(Larson Rep.) ¶¶ 67 (

3

 An increased “gain state” corresponds to decreased gain. 

Case 6:20-cv-00160-ADA Document 157 Filed 11/19/21 Page 6 of 12
4 

), 132 ( 

), 147, 171–73, 527, 721; Ex. 

1 (Larson Dep.) 201:7–9 (

), 724 (quoting internal Qualcomm design document). So, in sum: 

Under the formula, 

. See, e.g., Ex. 2 (Larson Rep.) ¶¶ 

172 ( ), 

374; Ex. 1 (Larson Dep.) 202:6–8 (

). 

. Ex. 2 (Larson Rep.) ¶ 170. 

III. ARGUMENT 

A. The Accused Products Do Not Perform Certain Claimed Adjustments 

Several Asserted Claims require that bias current be increased when the interferer signal 

is high or decreased when the interferer signal is low. For instance, ’962 Claim 1, clause (i) sets 

the “first current drain” when the receiver is in the Desired (Low) / Interferer (High) condition 

and requires a reduction in bias current when the transceiver moves to clause (iii), where the 

signals are Desired (Low) / Interferer (Low). ’202 Claim 13 similarly requires an increase in 

bias current when the receiver is in the Desired (Low) / Interferer (High) condition. 

The accused algorithm, however, makes the opposite adjustment. Reducing the 

interferer signal from the high level in clause (i) to the low level in romanette (iii) 

. Accordingly, as the receiver moves from clause (i) to (iii), 

Case 6:20-cv-00160-ADA Document 157 Filed 11/19/21 Page 7 of 12
5 

4

 – the opposite of what is required by ’962 Claim 

1. Similarly, under the condition recited in ’202 Claim 13, 

. For this reason, Theta cannot establish 

infringement, and summary judgment is appropriate on ’962 Claim 1 and ’202 Claim 13. 

B. The Accused Products Do Not Meet the “Worst-Case” Limitations 

Claims 3 and 8 of the ’825 Patent require that “a worst-case power dissipation condition 

from the battery results when the signal strength of the desired signal is low and the signal 

strength of the interferer signal is high.” Claim 7 of the ’202 Patent contains a worst-case 

limitation reciting the same low-high signal conditions. Claim 13 of the ’202 Patent similarly 

requires that bias current be increased in response to the same Desired (Low) / Interferer (High) 

condition, defined in the specification as the worst-case power dissipation condition. Dr. Larson 

confirms that he treats this as the “worst case,” with his analysis on claim 13 citing back to the 

worst-case limitations of ’202 claim 1 and ’825 Claim 3. E.g. Ex. 2 (Larson Rep.) ¶ 265. 

According to Theta’s expert, worst-case power dissipation occurs in 

. E.g., 

Ex. 2 (Larson Rep.) ¶ 137, 143. Samsung agrees that . 

So, in order to establish infringement, Theta must show that when the received signal exhibits 

low desired/high interferer conditions, the system . 

Theta has produced no such evidence, and indeed, as discussed above, 

. 

4

 As explained above, . 

See, e.g., Ex. 1 (Larson Dep.) 200:19–24; Ex. 2 (Larson Rep.) ¶¶ 67, 132, 147, 171–73. 

Case 6:20-cv-00160-ADA Document 157 Filed 11/19/21 Page 8 of 12
6 

. Dr. Larson was 

in agreement with respect to the operation of the system. See, e.g., Ex. 2 (Larson Rep.) ¶¶ 171–

72; Ex. 1 (Larson Dep.) 41:16–24, 201:7–9, 202:6–8 (

), 202:10–203:8 ( 

). 

It is Theta’s burden to come forward with competent evidence to support its infringement 

claim. But Theta cannot meet its burden because the accused algorithm works in the 

opposite manner of the claims. Summary judgment on ’825 Claims 3 and 8, and ’202 Claims 7 

and 13 is therefore appropriate. 

C. Summary Judgment of No Infringement on the ’202 Patent is Appropriate 

Because the Accused Products Do Not Perform the “Comparing” Step 

Claims 7 and 13 of the ’202 Patent require “comparing the strength of the desired signal 

relative to the strength of the interferer signal.” Proof of the presence of this element would 

require showing (1) where the strength of the desired signal is determined, (2) where the strength 

of the interferer signal is determined, and (3) where those two values are compared, presumably 

at a particular place in the Qualcomm source code. 

Dr. Larsen’s report provides no such disclosure. The closest he came in his report is a 

discussion of .” Ex. 2 (Larson Rep.) ¶ 212–14. But at 

his deposition, he acknowledged that this step merely determines the interferer signal strength 

and does not satisfy the rest of the claim limitation: 

Q Okay. So in paragraph 213 of your report, none of the—none of the 

sentences there describe a compare of the signal strength of the desired signal to 

the signal strength of the interferer signal. Correct? 

A So those—those words are—and once again, we are talking about 213. 

Right? 

Q Of your report, correct. 

Case 6:20-cv-00160-ADA Document 157 Filed 11/19/21 Page 9 of 12
7 

A Yeah. No. That—that—that paragraph, 213, does not talk about 

comparing —sorry— . 

Ex. 1 (Larson Dep.) 360:5–17; see also Ex. 1 (Larson Dep.) 219:16–220:9, 221:10–25, 225:10–

226:7, 229:24–230:9, 361:5–17, 361:18–362:8, 365:20–367:12. 

Nor did Dr. Larson identify any other comparison in the accused products5

: 

Q· · So in section [d], spanning paragraphs 211 through 215, you have not 

shown what in the show the compare of the strength of the 

desired signal to the strength of the interferer signal. Correct? 

[objection] 

A Yeah. In those paragraphs the—I have not explicitly shown a precise—

not—I have not explicitly shown a comparison of the 

 and, to be honest, because I don't think it’s necessary. 

Ex. 1 (Larson Dep.) 368:17–369:7. 

Dr. Larson did not provide a basis in his report from which a reasonable jury could 

conclude that the comparing step has been met. Accordingly, summary judgment of noninfringement is appropriate on each claim of the ’202 Patent. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

Summary judgment of non-infringement of all the Asserted Patents should be entered for 

Samsung for the reasons explained above. 

 

5

 Dr. Larson’s infringement analysis of the limitation “[d] The S21 Accused Products 

compare the strength of the desired signal to the strength of the interferer signal” spans 

paragraphs 211–15. Ex. 2 (Larson Rep.) ¶¶ 211–15. His analysis of this limitation for other 

claims that contain the term as well as for different products merely cite back to this section, or 

contain substantially the same analysis. E.g., id. ¶¶ 235, 263, 413–17, 437, 465, 614–18, 638. 

Case 6:20-cv-00160-ADA Document 157 Filed 11/19/21 Page 10 of 12
8 

Dated: November 12, 2021 Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ S. Michael Song 

S. Michael Song (CA State Bar No. 198656) 

Michael Joshi (CA State Bar No. 302184) 

michael.song@dechert.com 

michael.joshi@dechert.com 

DECHERT LLP 

3000 El Camino Real 

Five Palo Alto Square, Suite 650 

Palo Alto, CA 94036 

Telephone: (650) 813-4800 

Martin J. Black (PA State Bar No. 54319) 

Derek J. Brader (PA State Bar No. 312513) 

martin.black@dechert.com 

derek.brader@dechert.com 

DECHERT LLP 

Cira Centre 

2929 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104 

Telephone: (215) 994-4000 

Ruffin B. Cordell (DC Bar No. 459780) 

cordell@fr.com 

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 

1000 Maine Avenue, S.W., Suite 1000 

Washington, DC 20024 

Telephone:(202) 783-5070 

Francis J. Albert (CA Bar No. 247741) 

albert@fr.com 

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 

12860 El Camino Real, Suite 400 

San Diego, CA 92130 

Telephone:(858) 678-5070 

Melissa R. Smith (State Bar No. 24001351) 

melissa.gillamsmithlaw.com 

GILLAM & SMITH, LLP 

303 South Washington Avenue 

Marshall, Texas 75670 

Telephone: (903) 934-8450 

Attorneys for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. 

and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

Case 6:20-cv-00160-ADA Document 157 Filed 11/19/21 Page 11 of 12
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing document was filed and received by 

all counsel of record using the Court’s CM/ECF system on November 12, 2021. 

/s/ S. Michael Song 

S. Michael Song 

Case 6:20-cv-00160-ADA Document 157 Filed 11/19/21 Page 12 of 12