1

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

UNOPPOSED MOTION REGARDING TRANSFER

Defendant Intel Corporation (“Intel”) respectfully moves the Court to issue an order 

directing that the Court’s ruling on Intel’s Motion to Transfer to the District of Oregon, or in the 

Alternative, to the Austin Division pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), in ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel 

Corp., No. 6:20-cv-108-ADA, D.I. 30 (W.D. Tex.) also apply to the above-captioned case, No. 

6:20-cv-562-ADA. In support of this Motion, Intel states as follows: 

1. Plaintiff ParkerVision, Inc. (“ParkerVision”) filed the above-captioned action 

against Intel for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the Western District 

of Texas, Waco Division, on June 24, 2020 (hereinafter “ParkerVision II”). 

2. ParkerVision filed a prior, related action against Intel in the United States District 

Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division, under Case No. 6:20-cv-108-ADA, on 

February 11, 2020 (hereinafter “ParkerVision I”). 

3. On July 10, 2020, Intel filed a Motion to Transfer ParkerVision I to the District of 

Oregon, or in the Alternative, to the Austin Division pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (hereinafter 

the “Motion to Transfer ParkerVision I”) and that motion has been briefed. 

4. Counsel for the parties have conferred regarding Intel’s intent to file a Motion to 

Transfer ParkerVision II to the District of Oregon, or in the Alternative, to the Austin Division.

Case 6:20-cv-00562-ADA Document 20 Filed 09/02/20 Page 1 of 3
2

5. Counsel for Intel has also conferred with counsel for ParkerVision about the relief 

requested in this motion, and ParkerVision does not oppose. The parties wish to avoid burdening 

the Court with unnecessary and duplicative motion practice and therefore agree that the Court’s 

ruling on Intel’s Motion to Transfer ParkerVision I should also apply to ParkerVision II.

6. WHEREFORE, Intel respectfully requests that the Court enter an Order directing 

that the Court’s ruling on Intel’s Motion to Transfer ParkerVision I shall also apply to 

ParkerVision II. 

Dated: September 2, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ J. Stephen Ravel

Michael J. Summersgill (admitted Pro Hac 

Vice)

Sarah B. Petty (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

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. 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-00562-ADA Document 20 Filed 09/02/20 Page 2 of 3
3

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

The undersigned certifies counsel conferred and Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to the 

relief sought. Accordingly, this motion and the relief requested herein are unopposed.

/s/ J. Stephen Ravel 

J. Stephen Ravel

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that, on September 2, 2020, 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 in accordance with Local Rule CV-5.

/s/ J. Stephen Ravel

J. Stephen Ravel

Case 6:20-cv-00562-ADA Document 20 Filed 09/02/20 Page 3 of 3