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
Qual's Ope SJ Brief

Qual's Ope SJ Brief

Ratings: (0)|Views: 45|Likes:
Published by Markman Advisors
QCOM SJ Brief
QCOM SJ Brief

More info:

Published by: Markman Advisors on May 29, 2013
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

05/30/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTTHE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
P
ARKER
V
ISION
,
 
I
NC
.,
Plaintiff 
,v. Case No. 3:11-cv-719-J-37-TEMQ
UALCOMM
I
NCORPORATED
,
Defendant
.
QUALCOMM’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ANDACCOMPANYING MEMORANDUM OF LAW REDACTED VERSION
Case 3:11-cv-00719-RBD-TEM Document 270 Filed 05/22/13 Page 1 of 32 PageID 8961
 
 -i-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PageRequest for Oral Argument ......................................................................................................... 1
 
I.
 
Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1
 
II.
 
Factual Background and Procedural History .............................................................. 3
 
A.
 
Qualcomm and Its Subsidiaries Independently Developed TheirOwn Direct Downconversion Technology. ..................................................... 3
 
1.
 
In the late 1990s, direct downconversion technology waswell-known but had limitations preventing widespreadimplementation in cell phones. ............................................................ 3
 
2.
 
In 1998, ParkerVision approached Qualcomm, saying thatit had developed a direct-to-digital product that couldreplace Qualcomm’s existing downconversion technology. ........... 4
 
3.
 
ParkerVision ultimately could not demonstrate workingtechnology for cell phones, and the discussions ended inmid-1999. ................................................................................................. 5
 
4.
 
By 2002, Qualcomm independently developed andimplemented its “ZIF” direct downconversion technology,which ParkerVision concedes does not infringe. .............................. 7
 
5.
 
In the mid-2000s, Qualcomm purchased Berkana and soonthereafter began incorporating Berkana’s noninfringingdirect downconversion technology into Qualcomm’schipsets. ................................................................................................... 8
 
B.
 
ParkerVision Decides that Its Most Promising Business Strategy isLitigation and Initiates This Case. .................................................................... 9
 
III.
 
Argument ........................................................................................................................ 11
 
A.
 
ParkerVision Has Failed to Offer Any Evidence—or EvenContentions—that the Atheros Products Infringe Any of thePatents-in-Suit. .................................................................................................. 12
 
1.
 
ParkerVision failed to submit the expert testimonyrequired to prove infringement. ........................................................ 12
 
2.
 
ParkerVision has failed to submit any other evidence tosupport a claim of infringement as to the Atherosproducts. ................................................................................................ 14
 
B.
 
Qualcomm Is Entitled to Summary Judgment of No Pre-SuitIndirect Infringement for Four of the Six Asserted Patents. ....................... 14
 
Case 3:11-cv-00719-RBD-TEM Document 270 Filed 05/22/13 Page 2 of 32 PageID 8962
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
Page
-ii-
1.
 
To prevail on indirect infringement, ParkerVision mustprove that Qualcomm had knowledge of the assertedpatents. .................................................................................................. 14
 
2.
 
ParkerVision cannot show that Qualcomm had pre-suitknowledge of four of the six asserted patents. ................................ 15
 
3.
 
ParkerVision’s other evidence does not raise a triable issueof fact. .................................................................................................... 17
 
4.
 
Because Qualcomm lacked pre-suit knowledge, the Courtshould grant partial summary judgment of no pre-suitindirect infringement. .......................................................................... 19
 
C.
 
Qualcomm is Entitled to Summary Judgment that Its 50% DutyCycle Products Do Not Infringe the Patents-in-Suit. ................................... 20
 
1.
 
All asserted claims require discharge of energy from astorage device. ...................................................................................... 20
 
2.
 
Dr. Prucnal has admitted that products which employ a50% duty cycle do not discharge energy from a storagedevice. .................................................................................................... 22
 
3.
 
Qualcomm’s 50% duty cycle products do not dischargeenergy from a storage device. ............................................................ 23
 
IV.
 
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 25
 
Case 3:11-cv-00719-RBD-TEM Document 270 Filed 05/22/13 Page 3 of 32 PageID 8963

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)//-->