UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

PARKERVISION, INC. 

Plaintiff,

vs. 

INTEL CORPORATION

Defendant.

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

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

DEFENDANT INTEL CORPORATION’S SEALED REPLY IN SUPPORT OF 

ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NONINFRINGEMENT 

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

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 241 Filed 11/29/22 Page 1 of 8
i

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Cases

Doe ex rel. Doe v. Dallas Indep. School Dist.,

220 F.3d 380 (5th Cir. 2000) ...............................................................................................3

Mobility Elecs. Inc. v. Formosa Elec. Indus.,

2006 WL 6112208 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 24, 2006) .....................................................................1

Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Linear Tech. Corp.,

2002 WL 34455166 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 3, 2002).....................................................................1

Travanti Pharma Inc. v. Iomed, Inc.,

2006 WL 83126 (D. Minn. Jan. 11, 2006)...........................................................................1

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 241 Filed 11/29/22 Page 2 of 8
1

ParkerVision’s responsive argument boils down to a single assertion: that two circuit 

components with opposite functions—conductors and resistors—are the same. Dkt. 208 

(“Resp.”). But the undisputed facts show that is not the case. 

First, ParkerVision ignores that its own expert has admitted that conductors and 

resistors are not the same. ParkerVision’s expert, Dr. Michael Steer, acknowledges that 

conductors are designed to (1) enable the flow of (i.e., “conduct”) current, and (2) “generally 

... ha[ve] a low resistance.” Dkt. 173-8, Steer Dep. at 167:19-168:1.1 By contrast, he 

acknowledges that resistors are designed to do the exact opposite: to (1) “reduce current flow,” 

and (2) “introduce resistance.” Dkt. 173-9, Steer Op. Rpt., ¶¶102-03.2

ParkerVision notes that Dr. Steer testified that a conductor may not “necessarily” have 

a low resistance, but that does not change the fact that he clearly stated that conductors 

“generally ... ha[ve] a low resistance,” preferably close to “zero.” Dkt. 173-8, Steer Dep. at 

167:19-168:1. In fact, in his own textbook, Dr. Steer affirmatively states that “conductivity” 

(the function of a conductor) is the “inverse of resistivity” (the function of a resistor). Dkt. 

173-12, Michael Steer, Microware and RF Design: A Systems Approach (2010), at 842; see 

also Ex. 1, Steer Op. Rpt., ¶258 (“I note that conductance (the ease with which an electric 

current passes) is the reciprocal of resistance (opposition to the flow of electric current).”). 3In 

1 Emphases are added, unless otherwise noted.

2 The cases ParkerVision cites do not change this, and none of them describe a resistor as a 

conductor. See Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Linear Tech. Corp., 2002 WL 34455166, at *10 

(E.D. Tex. Apr. 3, 2002) (construing “conductor” as “a wire or other material available for 

carrying a current or transmitting voltage”); Travanti Pharma Inc. v. Iomed, Inc., 2006 WL 

83126, at *5 (D. Minn. Jan. 11, 2006) (construing “conductor” as “one or more conducting 

media”); Mobility Elecs. Inc. v. Formosa Elec. Indus., 2006 WL 6112208, at *16 (E.D. Tex. 

Feb. 24, 2006) (construing “conductor” as “a wire, cable or other body or medium that is 

suitable for carrying electric current”). Two of ParkerVision’s cited cases even explicitly 

define a conductor as a wire, which has a very low resistance and is intended to allow current 

to easily flow. Notably, the Court’s construction requires the relevant connection be made 

directly or “through a conductor (or closed switch).” Dkt. 75, Claim Construction Order, at 4. 

A closed switch functions in the same way as a wire.

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

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 241 Filed 11/29/22 Page 3 of 8
2

other words, Dr. Steer has acknowledged that the function of conductors is the opposite (i.e., 

the “inverse”) of resistors.

Consistent with this distinction, the ’474 patent uses straight lines to show conductors 

connecting components but uses a zigzag resistor symbol whenever referring to a resistor: 

Dkt. 1-4, ’474 Patent, Fig. 51B (annotated). 

Id., Fig. 20G (annotated). If ParkerVision were correct that the asserted patent treated these 

two types of components as the same, Resp. at 3-4, then there would be no need to illustrate 

them differently. ParkerVision cannot create a factual dispute by disagreeing with its own 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 241 Filed 11/29/22 Page 4 of 8
3

expert and the asserted patent. See Doe ex rel. Doe v. Dallas Indep. School Dist., 220 F.3d 

380, 386 (5th Cir. 2000) (“[A] nonmoving party may not manufacture a dispute of fact merely 

to defeat a motion for summary judgment.”).

Second, ParkerVision’s argument would render the term “conductor” effectively 

meaningless. The Court’s construction does not require just any connection; instead, the switch 

must either be connected to the alleged reference potential directly or through a specific circuit 

element—i.e., a “conductor” or a “closed switch.” Dkt. 75, Claim Construction Order, at 4. 

ParkerVision argues that because a resistor (like nearly every other circuit component) allows 

at least some minimal amount of current to flow, a resistor is a “conductor” within the meaning 

of the Court’s construction. Resp. at 3-4. But under that argument, virtually all circuit 

components, most of which indisputably allow at least some level of current to flow, would 

constitute conductors and the requirement of a connection through a “conductor” would 

become effectively no limitation at all.

There is no dispute that conductors have some resistance and resistors have some 

conductivity. But as ParkerVision’s own expert explains in his textbook, that does not make 

them the same. Instead, they are opposites: “[e]lectrical conductivity is the inverse of 

resistivity.” Dkt. 173-12, Michael Steer, Microware and RF Design: A Systems Approach

(2010), at 842. The Court’s construction requires a conductor and ParkerVision cannot meet 

that requirement by pointing to a circuit element with the opposite function.

Third, ParkerVision argues that by describing a “conductor” as a circuit component 

designed to enable the flow of current, Intel is somehow “attempt[ing] to narrow the Court’s 

construction” of “coupled.” Resp. at 1. But it is ParkerVision who is attempting to alter the 

Court’s construction by significantly broadening it to include literally any circuit connection 

without “insulators.” Id. at 5. In other words, under ParkerVision’s interpretation, the Court’s 

construction would include indirectly connecting a switch and a reference potential via 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 241 Filed 11/29/22 Page 5 of 8
4

virtually any circuit component with any level of conductivity, aligned in any conceivable 

configuration, so long as no components are “insulators.” But for the reasons detailed above 

and in Intel’s opening brief, such an interpretation would be inconsistent with the undisputed 

meaning of this term in the asserted patents and Dr. Steer’s own statements and writings.

For the foregoing reasons, Intel’s motion should be granted. 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 241 Filed 11/29/22 Page 6 of 8
5

Dated: November 22, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ J. Stephen Ravel

Michael J. Summersgill (admitted Pro Hac 

Vice)

Sarah B. Petty (admitted Pro Hac Vice)

Harry Hanson (admitted Pro Hac Vice)

Samuel C. Leifer (admitted Pro Hac Vice)

Alicia Coneys (admitted Pro Hac Vice)

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND 

DORR LLP

60 State Street

Boston, Massachusetts 02109

T (617) 526-6000

michael.summersgill@wilmerhale.com

sarah.petty@wilmerhale.com

harry.hanson@wilmerhale.com

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

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

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 241 Filed 11/29/22 Page 7 of 8
6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

foregoing sealed documents via electronic mail on November 22, 2022.

/s/ J. Stephen Ravel 

J. Stephen Ravel

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 241 Filed 11/29/22 Page 8 of 8