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 

INTEL CORPORATIONS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF 

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

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 198 Filed 11/04/22 Page 1 of 11
i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

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

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

A. The 474 Patent ......................................................................................................1

B. Intels SMARTi Transceivers ...............................................................................2

III. LEGAL STANDARD ........................................................................................................4

IV. ARGUMENT ......................................................................................................................4

A. The Accused Products Do Not Include the Required Switch 

Coupled To A Reference Potential .......................................................................4

V. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................6

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 198 Filed 11/04/22 Page 2 of 11
ii 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

Page(s) 

CASES 

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 

477 U.S. 242 (1986) .............................................................................................................4 

Cat Tech LLC v. TubeMaster, Inc., 

528 F.3d 871 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..............................................................................................6 

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 

477 U.S. 317 (1986) .............................................................................................................4 

Eason v. Thaler, 

73 F.3d 1322 (5th Cir. 1996) ...............................................................................................4 

STATUTES, RULES, AND REGULATIONS 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56(a) ...........................................................................................4 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 198 Filed 11/04/22 Page 3 of 11
1 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Intel moves for summary judgment of noninfringement as to the sole asserted claim of one 

of ParkerVisions six asserted patents. As construed by the Court, claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 

7,539,474 (the 474 patent) requires a switch to be directly connected or connected through a 

conductor (or a closed switch) to a reference potential. Dkt. 75, Claim Construction Order, at 4. 

In the relevant circuitry of each of Intels SMARTi chips at issue, however, the switch is neither 

directly connected nor connected through a conductor (or closed switch) to the alleged 

reference potential as required. Instead, the opposite is true: 

 Accordingly, summary judgment of noninfringement of claim 6 of the 

474 patent is warranted. 

II. BACKGROUND 

A. The 474 Patent. 

The 474 patent is directed to receivers that down-convert an input signal from a high 

frequency to a low frequency. Claim 1 of the 474 patent, on which asserted claim 6 depends, 

recites two frequency down-conversion modules, each having four components: a switch, 

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

claim 1 states in relevant part: 

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 

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 198 Filed 11/04/22 Page 4 of 11
Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 198 Filed 11/04/22 Page 5 of 11
3 

Ex. 7, October 17, 2022 Steer Dep. at 170:10-171:18 

.

4

 As shown below, 

 Ex. 3, Steer Opening Rpt., Appendix K-3 (SMARTi5) at 92. But 

as also shown in Dr. Steers report, 

 

Id. (enlarged and annotated); see also id. at 95-96 ( 

). Specifically, as Dr. Steer concedes, 

 See, e.g., Ex. 8, Steer Opening Rpt., 

¶ 102. 

 See Ex. 1, Steer Opening Rpt., 

4

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

5

 ParkerVision and Dr. Steers allegations regarding the required switch coupled to a reference 

potential are . See supra note 2. 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 198 Filed 11/04/22 Page 6 of 11
4 

Appendix K-1 (SMARTi4G) at 54, 56; Ex. 2, Steer Opening Rpt., Appendix K-2 (SMARTi4.5) at 

56, 58; Ex. 3, Steer Opening Rpt., Appendix K-3 (SMARTi5) at 92-93, 95-96; Ex. 4, Steer Opening 

Rpt., Appendix K-4 (SMARTi6T) at 92-93, 95-96; Ex. 5, Steer Opening Rpt., Appendix K-5 

(SMARTi7.1) at 64-65, 67-68; Ex. 6, Steer Opening Rpt., Appendix K-6 (SMARTi8) at 60, 63. 

III. LEGAL STANDARD 

Summary judgment shall be granted when there is no genuine dispute as to any material 

fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also 

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). A fact dispute is genuine if the evidence is 

such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty 

Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). [M]ere conclusory allegations are . . . insufficient . . . to 

defeat a motion for summary judgment. Eason v. Thaler, 73 F.3d 1322, 1325 (5th Cir. 1996). 

IV. ARGUMENT 

A. The Accused Products Do Not Include the Required Switch Coupled To A 

Reference Potential. 

The undisputed facts demonstrate that the switch and alleged reference potential in the Intel 

chips at issue are neither directly connected nor connected through a conductor (or closed 

switch) as the claim requires. 

First, the switches are not directly connected to the alleged reference potentials. Instead, 

it is undisputed that 

 See Ex. 1, Steer Opening Rpt., Appendix K-1 

(SMARTi4G) at 54, 56; Ex. 2, Steer Opening Rpt., Appendix K-2 (SMARTi4.5) at 56, 58; Ex. 3, 

Steer Opening Rpt., Appendix K-3 (SMARTi5) at 92-93, 95-96; Ex. 4, Steer Opening Rpt., 

Appendix K-4 (SMARTi6T) at 92-93, 95-96; Ex. 5, Steer Opening Rpt., Appendix K-5 

(SMARTi7.1) at 64-65, 67-68; Ex. 6, Steer Opening Rpt., Appendix K-6 (SMARTi8) at 60, 63. 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 198 Filed 11/04/22 Page 7 of 11
Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 198 Filed 11/04/22 Page 8 of 11
6 

Ex. 11, Michael Steer, Microwave and RF Design: A Systems Approach (2010), at 842. Moreover, 

because it is undisputed that virtually all circuit components allow some current to flow, see, e.g., 

Ex. 12, Rebuttal Expert Report of Dr. Vivek Subramanian, ¶ 835, ParkerVisions argument would 

mean that virtually all circuit components would constitute conductors and that all of the 

components of a circuit would be connected through conductors thus rendering the connected 

through a conductor claim requirement completely meaningless. See Cat Tech LLC v. 

TubeMaster, Inc., 528 F.3d 871, 885-86 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (affirming district courts grant of 

summary judgment of noninfringement where plaintiffs strained . . . construction would render 

claim limitation functionally meaningless). 

V. CONCLUSION 

The undisputed facts demonstrate that the Intel SMARTi chips at issue do not include the 

required switch coupled directly or through a conductor (or a closed switch) to a reference potential 

as required by claim 6 of the 474 patent. Summary judgment of noninfringement of claim 6 of 

the 474 patent should therefore be granted. 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 198 Filed 11/04/22 Page 9 of 11
7 

Dated: October 28, 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) 

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 

harry.hanson@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 

Mary (Mindy) V. Sooter 

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 2100 

Los Angeles, California 90071 

T (213) 443-5300 

jason.choy@wilmerhale.com 

J. Steven 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 198 Filed 11/04/22 Page 10 of 11
8 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic 

service are being served with a copy of the foregoing document via electronic mail on October 28, 

2022. 

 /s/ J. Stephen Ravel 

J. Stephen Ravel 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 198 Filed 11/04/22 Page 11 of 11