Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
PRKR v QCOM - Motion to Supplement Infringement Contentions (2012!08!27)

PRKR v QCOM - Motion to Supplement Infringement Contentions (2012!08!27)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 248|Likes:
Published by Dan Ravicher
Case 3:11-cv-00719-RBD-TEM Document 152

Filed 08/27/12 Page 1 of 15 PageID 3440

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION PARKERVISION, INC., Plaintiff, v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, Defendant. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, Counterclaim Plaintiff, v. PARKERVISION, INC., AND STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN, & FOX PLLC, Counterclaim Defendants. Case No. 3:11-cv-719-J-37TEM

PLAINTIFF PARKERVISION INC.’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE SUPPLEMENTAL INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS BASED UPO
Case 3:11-cv-00719-RBD-TEM Document 152

Filed 08/27/12 Page 1 of 15 PageID 3440

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION PARKERVISION, INC., Plaintiff, v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, Defendant. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, Counterclaim Plaintiff, v. PARKERVISION, INC., AND STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN, & FOX PLLC, Counterclaim Defendants. Case No. 3:11-cv-719-J-37TEM

PLAINTIFF PARKERVISION INC.’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE SUPPLEMENTAL INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS BASED UPO

More info:

Published by: Dan Ravicher on Aug 27, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/14/2015

pdf

text

original

 
 
McKool 657959v4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTMIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDAJACKSONVILLE DIVISION
PARKERVISION, INC.,Plaintiff,v.QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,Defendant.QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,Counterclaim Plaintiff,v.PARKERVISION, INC., AND STERNE,KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN, & FOX PLLC,Counterclaim Defendants.Case No. 3:11-cv-719-J-37TEM
PLAINTIFF PARKERVISION INC.’S MOTION FOR LEAVETO SERVE SUPPLEMENTAL INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS BASED UPONQUALCOMM’S BELATED SUPPLEMENTATION OF ITS INTERROGATORYRESPONSES TO INDENTIFY ADDITIONAL ACCUSED INSTRUMENTALITIES
Case 3:11-cv-00719-RBD-TEM Document 152 Filed 08/27/12 Page 1 of 15 PageID 3440
 
 
McKool 657959v4
1Plaintiff ParkerVision, Inc. (“ParkerVision”) respectfully seeks leave pursuant to EasternDistrict of Texas Local Patent Rule 3-6(b)
1
to serve supplemental infringement contentions onQualcomm, Inc. (“Qualcomm”). ParkerVision has good cause for its proposed supplement basedupon Qualcomm’s belated identification of additional infringing products in its recently servedsupplemental Interrogatory responses. ParkerVision’s proposed Supplemental InfringementContentions are attached hereto as Exhibit A.
I.
 
INTRODUCTION
On March 2, 2012, pursuant to the deadline set in the Court’s scheduling order,ParkerVision served its Infringement Contentions (“ICs”) on Qualcomm. These ICs accusedeach of the products identified in Qualcomm’s February 21, 2012 response to Interrogatory No. 2of infringement. And, per the agreement of the parties, these ICs also contended that each of theaccused products contained substantially the same infringing functionality (
i.e.
a receiver thatperforms direct conversion). On June 21, 2012, Qualcomm supplemented its response toParkerVision’s Interrogatory No. 2—listing additional products that contain the accused receiverfunctionality. Qualcomm had not previously informed ParkerVision that these additionalproducts also included the accused receiver functionality. Based upon Qualcomm’s belatedsupplemental response to Interrogatory No. 2, ParkerVision believes that it has good cause tosupplement its ICs to account for the additional products only recently disclosed by Qualcommto contain the accused receiver functionality. Any alleged prejudice Qualcomm claims is a resultof its failure to identify the additional products that include the accused receiver functionalityearlier. Moreover, given the stage of the case (no depositions have been taken, discovery closes
1
In its Case Management Order, the Court applied the Eastern District of Texas Rules of Practice for Patent Cases with respect to the disclosure and amendment of the parties’infringement and invalidity contentions. Dkt. 84 at 1-2.
Case 3:11-cv-00719-RBD-TEM Document 152 Filed 08/27/12 Page 2 of 15 PageID 3441
 
 
McKool 657959v4
2at the end of November and trial is nearly a year away), no Court-imposed deadlines need to bealtered, and any alleged prejudice to Qualcomm is
de minimis
.
II.
 
STATEMENT OF FACTSA.
 
Case Management Agreements and Deadlines.
In accordance with the Local Rule 3.05(c) for Middle District of Florida, the partiessubmitted a Joint Case Management Report to the Court on December 30, 2011. Dkt. 69. In theJoint Case Management Report the parties agreed that:If the party asserting patent infringement contends that an identical AccusedInstrumentality is contained in multiple products, then that AccusedInstrumentality is required to be charted only once with an accompanyingidentification of the products that allegedly contain that Accused Instrumentality;
 Id 
. at 15. The Court’s Case Management and Scheduling Order, issued on February 13, 2012,and set March 2, 2012 as the deadline for ParkerVision’s ICs. Dkt. 84.
B.
 
ParkerVision Diligently Sought Discovery Related to its InfringementContentions.
In early January 2012, shortly after the discovery period opened, ParkerVision servedQualcomm with its First Set of Interrogatories.
2
 
See
Ex. B. Interrogatory No. 2 asked:Separately for each product disclosed in response to Interrogatory 1, identifywhich products contain a receiver (or receiver function) that performs directconversion, i.e., conversion of a signal on a carrier frequency to baseband withoutconversion to an intermediate frequency, and for each identified product,describe, using the most accurate terms possible, the mechanism or circuitry thatperforms the direct conversion
 Id 
. at 9. ParkerVision’s Interrogatory No. 2 was designed to determine the potential universe of Qualcomm products that contained the accused receiver functionality. Interrogatory No. 4asked:
2
Pursuant to Local Rule 3.05(c) for the Middle District of Florida, ParkerVision could not servediscovery on Qualcomm until after the parties had completed their case management meeting,which took place in late December 2011.
Case 3:11-cv-00719-RBD-TEM Document 152 Filed 08/27/12 Page 3 of 15 PageID 3442

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->