UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

PARKERVISION, INC., 

Plaintiff,

vs.

INTEL CORPORATION,

Defendant.

 Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-562-ADA

 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO FIRST 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 asserted in this case, as evidenced by 

findings by courts in Germany that the same accused chips 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, Apr. 25, 2019, 7 O 2141/17, 

Final Judgment (trans.) (Ger.) at 19; Bundespatentgericht [BPatG] [Federal Patent Court], 

Dec. 16, 2019, 5 Ni 19/17 (EP), Decision on Costs and Determination of the Value in Dispute 

(trans.) (Ger.) at 10, 15. 

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

Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement, D.I. 6, as follows. To the extent any allegation 

by ParkerVision is not expressly admitted, it is denied.

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. 

 

1

For ease of reference, Intel uses the headings used in ParkerVision’s First Amended Complaint. In so doing, 

Intel does not admit any of the allegations contained in those headings.

Case 6:20-cv-00562-ADA Document 11 Filed 07/30/20 Page 1 of 15
-2-

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. 

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 it has recruited and employs some 

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

Case 6:20-cv-00562-ADA Document 11 Filed 07/30/20 Page 2 of 15
-3-

9. 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. 

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 

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

district. Intel denies that it has infringed any asserted patent, directly or indirectly. 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. 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 also admits that it is registered to do business in the 

State of Texas. 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/or 

Division, and denies that venue will be proper or convenient in this District and/or Divisions 

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 would be appropriate in this case and 

would 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 District and/or Division in this case or 

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

remaining allegations in this paragraph. 

Case 6:20-cv-00562-ADA Document 11 Filed 07/30/20 Page 3 of 15
-4-

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: 

“Located 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; groundbreaking 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 First 

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

“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.

Case 6:20-cv-00562-ADA Document 11 Filed 07/30/20 Page 4 of 15
-5-

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-1107 (W.D. Tex.) and VLSI Tech. LLC v. Intel Corp., Case No. 1:19-cv-977 (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 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 

Case 6:20-cv-00562-ADA Document 11 Filed 07/30/20 Page 5 of 15
-6-

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 involving 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 incorporated ParkerVision’s down-converter and upconverter 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. Denied. 

INTEL CHIPS

26. Intel admits that Intel and/or its affiliates have manufactured and sold 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. To the extent any other 

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

27. 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. 

Case 6:20-cv-00562-ADA Document 11 Filed 07/30/20 Page 6 of 15
-7-

28. 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 

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. 

29. Intel admits that a paper titled “A Digital Multimode Polar Transmitter 

Supporting 40MHz LTE Carrier Aggregation in 28 nm CMOS,” was published in connection 

with the 2017 IEEE International Solid-State Circuits Conference. The content of that paper 

is reflected in the paper itself. To the extent any other response to the allegations in this 

paragraph is required, Intel denies such allegations. 

30. 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. 

31. 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. 

THE ASSERTED PATENTS

United States Patent No. 6,049,706

32. Intel admits that U.S. Patent No. 6,049,706 (the “’706 patent”) is entitled 

“Integrated Frequency Translation and Selectivity” and was issued on April 11, 2000 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. 

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

the extent a further response is required to any allegations in this paragraph, Intel denies that 

Case 6:20-cv-00562-ADA Document 11 Filed 07/30/20 Page 7 of 15
-8-

the ’706 patent is valid and enforceable, and further denies any remaining allegations in this 

paragraph. 

34. 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. 7,050,508

35. Intel admits that U.S. Patent No. 7,050,508 (the “’508 patent”) is entitled 

“Method and System for Frequency Up-Conversion with a Variety of Transmitter 

Configurations” and was issued on May 23, 2006 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. 

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

the extent a further response is required to any allegations in this paragraph, Intel denies that 

the ’508 patent is valid and enforceable, and further denies any remaining allegations in this 

paragraph.

37. 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. 8,190,108

38. Intel admits that U.S. Patent No. 8,190,108 (the “’108 patent”) is entitled 

“Method and System for Frequency Up-Conversion” and was issued on May 29, 2012 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. 

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

the extent a further response is required to any allegations in this paragraph, Intel denies that 

the ’108 patent is valid and enforceable, and further denies any remaining allegations in this 

paragraph.

Case 6:20-cv-00562-ADA Document 11 Filed 07/30/20 Page 8 of 15
-9-

40. 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. 6,049,706

41. Intel repeats and incorporates its Answers to paragraphs 1 to 40 as though 

fully set forth herein. 

42. Intel denies each and every allegation in paragraph 42. 

43. Intel denies each and every allegation in paragraph 43. 

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

specification of the ’706 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 ’706 patent. To the extent a further response 

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

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

specification of the ’706 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 ’706 patent. To the extent a further response 

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

46. Intel denies each and every allegation in paragraph 46. 

COUNT II – Alleged Infringement of United States Patent No. 7,050,508

47. Intel repeats and incorporates its Answers to paragraphs 1 to 46 as though 

fully set forth herein. 

48. Intel denies each and every allegation in paragraph 48. 

49. Intel denies each and every allegation in paragraph 49. 

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

specification of the ’508 patent and makes no effort to address the actual functioning of 

Case 6:20-cv-00562-ADA Document 11 Filed 07/30/20 Page 9 of 15
-10-

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

infringes any valid and enforceable claim of the ’508 patent. To the extent a further response 

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

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

specification of the ’508 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 ’508 patent. To the extent a further response 

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

52. Intel denies each and every allegation in paragraph 52.

COUNT III – Alleged Infringement of United States Patent No. 8,190,108

53. Intel repeats and incorporates its Answers to paragraphs 1 to 52 as though 

fully set forth herein. 

54. Intel denies each and every allegation in paragraph 54. 

55. Intel denies each and every allegation in paragraph 55. 

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

specification of the ’108 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 ’108 patent. To the extent a further response 

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

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

specification of the ’108 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 ’108 patent. To the extent a further response 

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

58. Intel denies each and every allegation in paragraph 58.

Case 6:20-cv-00562-ADA Document 11 Filed 07/30/20 Page 10 of 15
-11-

JURY DEMANDED

Intel demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable. 

RESPONSE TO PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Intel denies that it has infringed the asserted patents, directly or indirectly. Intel 

denies that ParkerVision is entitled to any of the grounds for relief enumerated in the First 

Amended Complaint or any other relief, and respectfully requests that the Court enter 

judgment against ParkerVision on ParkerVision’s claims. To the extent the Prayer for Relief 

includes any factual allegations, Intel denies those allegations. 

AFFIRMATIVE AND OTHER DEFENSES

WHEREFORE, having answered ParkerVision’s First 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

59. The First 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

60. 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 ’706, 

’508, and ’108 patents, either directly or indirectly, literally or through the doctrine of 

equivalents, or otherwise. 

Case 6:20-cv-00562-ADA Document 11 Filed 07/30/20 Page 11 of 15
-12-

THIRD DEFENSE: INVALIDITY

61. One or more claims of the ’706, ’508, and ’108 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. §§ 101, 102, 103, 112, and/or 116. 

FOURTH DEFENSE: UNENFORCEABILITY

62. The ’706, ’508, and ’108 patents and the claims therein are unenforceable 

against Intel. 

FIFTH DEFENSE: EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL, WAIVER, ACQUIESCENCE, 

UNCLEAN HANDS 

63. 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 related patents against multiple parties, including against Intel’s 

SMARTi chip products that ParkerVision has also accused of infringement in this case. In 

Germany, courts have found the accused Intel chips at issue here to have not infringed the EP 

’853 patent, which is a closely related patent to at least the ’706 patent asserted in this 

litigation, 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. 

64. As a further example, in 2011, MaxTak Capital Advisors, LLC, MaxTak 

Partners LP, and David Greenbaum sued ParkerVision for fraud, alleging that ParkerVision 

Case 6:20-cv-00562-ADA Document 11 Filed 07/30/20 Page 12 of 15
-13-

“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, the ParkerVision d2p technology at issue 

in MaxTak relates to the same RF technology that ParkerVision claims to have invented in its 

First Amended Complaint in this case. See, e.g., D.I. 6 ¶¶ 19-25 (First Amended Complaint); 

see also D.I. 1 ¶¶ 20-31 (Complaint). On information and belief, ParkerVision has likewise 

misrepresented its RF technology in its First 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. 

SIXTH DEFENSE: PROSECUTION HISTORY ESTOPPEL AND DISCLAIMER

65. ParkerVision is estopped, based on statements, representations, and 

admissions made during prosecution of the patent applications that led to the ’706, ’508, and 

’108 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

66. 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. 

Case 6:20-cv-00562-ADA Document 11 Filed 07/30/20 Page 13 of 15
-14-

EIGHTH DEFENSE: FAILURE TO MARK

67. 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. 

Dated: July 30, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ J. Stephen Ravel

J. Stephen Ravel

Texas State Bar No. 16584975

KELLY HART & HALLMAN LLP

303 Colorado Street, Suite 2000

Austin, TX 78701

Telephone: (512) 495-6429

Facsimile: (512) 495-6401

steve.ravel@kellyhart.com

James E. Wren

Texas State Bar No. 22018200

1 Bear Place, Unit 97288

Waco, Texas 76798

Telephone: (254) 710-7670

james.wren@baylor.edu

Michael J. Summersgill (pro hac vice) 

Massachusetts State Bar No. 632816

Sarah B. Petty (pro hac vice)

Massachusetts State Bar No. 666485

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING

 HALE AND DORR LLP

60 State Street

Boston, MA 02109

Telephone: (617) 526-6000

Facsimile: (617) 526-5000

michael.summersgill@wilmerhale.com

sarah.petty@wilmerhale.com

Jason Choy (pro hac vice) 

California State Bar No. 277583

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING

 HALE AND DORR LLP

350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2100

Los Angeles, CA 90071

Telephone: (213) 443-5300

Facsimile: (213) 443-5400

jason.choy@wilmerhale.com 

Case 6:20-cv-00562-ADA Document 11 Filed 07/30/20 Page 14 of 15
-15-

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 the Court’s 

CM/ECF system per Local Civil Rule CV-5(b) on July 30, 2020.

/s/ J. Stephen Ravel

J. Stephen Ravel

Case 6:20-cv-00562-ADA Document 11 Filed 07/30/20 Page 15 of 15