Post on 10-Jun-2018
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
PARKERVISION, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v. APPLE INC. and QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
Defendants.
Case No. 3:15-cv-1477-BJD-JRK JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS TO PLAINTIFF
PARKERVISION, INC.’S AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff Apple Inc. hereby answers Plaintiff/Counterclaim-
Defendant ParkerVision, Inc.’s Amended Complaint (“Complaint”) as follows:
ANSWER
THE PARTIES
1. Apple lacks sufficient knowledge or information on which to admit or deny the
allegations of paragraph 1 of the Complaint and on that basis denies them.
2. Apple admits the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of the Complaint.
3. Apple admits the allegations contained in paragraph 3 of the Complaint.
4. Apple lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth
of the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies them.
5. Apple lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth
of the allegations contained in paragraph 5 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.
6. Apple lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth
of the allegations contained in paragraph 6 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies them.
Case 3:15-cv-01477-BJD-JRK Document 97 Filed 03/26/18 Page 1 of 23 PageID 4558
2
7. Apple lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth
of the allegations contained in paragraph 7 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies them.
8. Apple lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth
of the allegations contained in paragraph 8 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies them.
9. Apple lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth
of the allegations contained in paragraph 9 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies them.
10. Apple lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth
of the allegations contained in paragraph 10 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies them.
NATURE OF THE ACTION
11. Apple admits that ParkerVision’s Complaint purports to bring a civil action for
patent infringement under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq. Apple
admits that the sole remaining patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent No. 9,118,528 (“the ‘528 Patent”),
entitled “Method and System For Down-Converting an Electromagnetic Signal, and Transforms
For Same, and Aperture Relationships.” Apple denies that the patents-in-suit include U.S. Patent
Nos. 6,879,817 (“the ‘817 Patent); 7,929,638 (“the ‘638 Patent”); and 8,571,135 (“the ‘135
Patent”). Pursuant to a motion filed on March 16, 2018, the parties have jointly moved to dismiss
the ‘817 Patent, ‘683 Patent, and ‘135 Patent from the case. Apple admits that copies of the ‘817,
‘638, ‘135, and ‘528 Patents were attached as Exhibits 1 through 4, respectively, to the
Complaint, filed on December 14, 2015.
12. Apple lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth
of the allegations contained in paragraph 12 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies them.
13. Apple admits that ParkerVision litigated ParkerVision v. Qualcomm, No. 11-719
(M.D. Fla. July 20, 2011) (“ParkerVision I”) and that Qualcomm prevailed both in the district court
and at the Federal Circuit. Apple admits that ParkerVision sued Qualcomm, Samsung, and others in
Case 3:15-cv-01477-BJD-JRK Document 97 Filed 03/26/18 Page 2 of 23 PageID 4559
3
ParkerVision v. Qualcomm, et al., No. 14-687 (M.D. Fla. May 2, 2014) (“ParkerVision II”). Apple
admits that the Patent-in-Suit in this action is not the same as the patents-in-suit in ParkerVision I
and ParkerVision II, but denies that the Patent-in-Suit in this action describes or claims inventions
that are patentably distinct from those in ParkerVision I and ParkerVision II. Apple denies any
remaining allegations contained in paragraph 13 of the Complaint.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
14. Apple admits the allegations contained in paragraph 14 of the Complaint.
15. Apple denies the allegations contained in paragraph 15 of the Complaint, but for
purposes of this litigation only, does not assert lack of personal jurisdiction as a defense to this
action.
16. Apple lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth
of the allegations contained in paragraph 16 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies them.
17. Apple denies that the Samsung Defendants are parties to this action. Apple
otherwise lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations contained in paragraph 17 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies them.
18. Apple denies that the LG Defendants are parties to this action. Apple lacks
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations contained
in paragraph 18 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies them.
19. Apple denies the allegations contained in paragraph 19 of the Complaint.
20. Apple denies the allegations contained in paragraph 20 of the Complaint.
COUNT I
21. Apple incorporates by reference the responses contained in paragraphs 1 through
20 above.
Case 3:15-cv-01477-BJD-JRK Document 97 Filed 03/26/18 Page 3 of 23 PageID 4560
4
22. Apple denies that the ‘817 patent remains asserted in this action, and therefore, a
response to this allegation is not required. Apple otherwise denies that the ‘817 patent is valid
and infringed by Apple and denies any remaining allegations of this paragraph.
23. Apple denies that the ‘817 patent remains asserted in this action, and therefore, a
response to this allegation is not required. Apple otherwise denies that the ‘817 patent is valid
and infringed by Apple and denies any remaining allegations of this paragraph.
24. Apple denies that the ‘817 patent remains asserted in this action, and therefore, a
response to this allegation is not required. Apple otherwise denies that the ‘817 patent is valid
and infringed by Apple and denies any remaining allegations of this paragraph.
25. Apple denies that the ‘817 patent remains asserted in this action, and therefore, a
response to this allegation is not required. Apple otherwise denies that the ‘817 patent is valid
and infringed by Apple and denies any remaining allegations of this paragraph.
26. Apple denies that the ‘817 patent remains asserted in this action, and therefore, a
response to this allegation is not required. Apple otherwise denies that the ‘817 patent is valid
and infringed by Apple and denies any remaining allegations of this paragraph.
27. Apple denies that the ‘817 patent remains asserted in this action, and therefore, a
response to this allegation is not required. Apple otherwise denies that the ‘817 patent is valid
and infringed by Apple and denies any remaining allegations of this paragraph.
28. Apple denies that the ‘817 patent remains asserted in this action, and therefore, a
response to this allegation is not required. Apple otherwise denies that the ‘817 patent is valid
and infringed by Apple and denies any remaining allegations of this paragraph.
Case 3:15-cv-01477-BJD-JRK Document 97 Filed 03/26/18 Page 4 of 23 PageID 4561
5
29. Apple denies that the ‘817 patent remains asserted in this action, and therefore, a
response to this allegation is not required. Apple otherwise denies that the ‘817 patent is valid
and infringed by Apple and denies any remaining allegations of this paragraph.
30. Apple denies that the ‘817 patent remains asserted in this action, and therefore, a
response to this allegation is not required. Apple otherwise denies that the ‘817 patent is valid
and infringed by Apple and denies any remaining allegations of this paragraph.
31. Apple denies that the ‘817 patent remains asserted in this action, and that
Samsung is a Defendant, and therefore, a response to this allegation is not required. Apple
otherwise denies that the ‘817 patent is valid and infringed by Apple and denies any remaining
allegations of this paragraph.
32. Apple denies that the ‘817 patent remains asserted in this action, and that
Samsung is a Defendant, and therefore, a response to this allegation is not required. Apple
otherwise denies that the ‘817 patent is valid and infringed by Apple and denies any remaining
allegations of this paragraph.
33. Apple denies that the ‘817 patent remains asserted in this action, and that
Samsung is a Defendant, and therefore, a response to this allegation is not required. Apple
otherwise denies that the ‘817 patent is valid and infringed by Apple and denies any remaining
allegations of this paragraph.
34. Apple denies that the ‘817 patent remains asserted in this action, and that LG is a
Defendant, and therefore, a response to this allegation is not required. Apple otherwise denies
that the ‘817 patent is valid and infringed by Apple and denies any remaining allegations of this
paragraph.
Case 3:15-cv-01477-BJD-JRK Document 97 Filed 03/26/18 Page 5 of 23 PageID 4562
6
35. Apple denies that the ‘817 patent remains asserted in this action, and that LG is a
Defendant, and therefore, a response to this allegation is not required. Apple otherwise denies
that the ‘817 patent is valid and infringed by Apple and denies any remaining allegations of this
paragraph.
36. Apple denies that the ‘817 patent remains asserted in this action, and that LG is a
Defendant, and therefore, a response to this allegation is not required. Apple otherwise denies
that the ‘817 patent is valid and infringed by Apple and denies any remaining allegations of this
paragraph.
37. Apple denies the allegations contained in paragraph 37 of the Complaint.
COUNT II
38. Apple incorporates by reference the responses contained in paragraphs 1 through
37 above.
39. Apple denies that the ‘638 patent remains asserted in this action, and therefore, a
response to this allegation is not required. Apple otherwise denies that the ‘638 patent is valid
and infringed by Apple and denies any remaining allegations of this paragraph.
40. Apple denies that the ‘638 patent remains asserted in this action, and therefore, a
response to this allegation is not required. Apple otherwise denies that the ‘638 patent is valid
and infringed by Apple and denies any remaining allegations of this paragraph.
41. Apple denies that the ‘638 patent remains asserted in this action, and therefore, a
response to this allegation is not required. Apple otherwise denies that the ‘638 patent is valid
and infringed by Apple and denies any remaining allegations of this paragraph.
Case 3:15-cv-01477-BJD-JRK Document 97 Filed 03/26/18 Page 6 of 23 PageID 4563
7
42. Apple denies that the ‘638 patent remains asserted in this action, and therefore, a
response to this allegation is not required. Apple otherwise denies that the ‘638 patent is valid
and infringed by Apple and denies any remaining allegations of this paragraph.
43. Apple denies that the ‘638 patent remains asserted in this action, and therefore, a
response to this allegation is not required. Apple otherwise denies that the ‘638 patent is valid
and infringed by Apple and denies any remaining allegations of this paragraph.
44. Apple denies that the ‘638 patent remains asserted in this action, and therefore, a
response to this allegation is not required. Apple otherwise denies that the ‘638 patent is valid
and infringed by Apple and denies any remaining allegations of this paragraph.
45. Apple denies that the ‘638 patent remains asserted in this action, and therefore, a
response to this allegation is not required. Apple otherwise denies that the ‘638 patent is valid
and infringed by Apple and denies any remaining allegations of this paragraph.
46. Apple denies that the ‘638 patent remains asserted in this action, and therefore, a
response to this allegation is not required. Apple otherwise denies that the ‘638 patent is valid
and infringed by Apple and denies any remaining allegations of this paragraph.
47. Apple denies that the ‘638 patent remains asserted in this action, and therefore, a
response to this allegation is not required. Apple otherwise denies that the ‘638 patent is valid
and infringed by Apple and denies any remaining allegations of this paragraph.
48. Apple denies that the ‘638 patent remains asserted in this action, and therefore, a
response to this allegation is not required. Apple otherwise denies that the ‘638 patent is valid
and infringed by Apple and denies any remaining allegations of this paragraph.
Case 3:15-cv-01477-BJD-JRK Document 97 Filed 03/26/18 Page 7 of 23 PageID 4564
8
49. Apple denies that the ‘638 patent remains asserted in this action, and therefore, a
response to this allegation is not required. Apple otherwise denies that the ‘638 patent is valid
and infringed by Apple and denies any remaining allegations of this paragraph.
50. Apple denies that the ‘638 patent remains asserted in this action, and therefore, a
response to this allegation is not required. Apple otherwise denies that the ‘638 patent is valid
and infringed by Apple and denies any remaining allegations of this paragraph.
51. Apple denies that the ‘638 patent remains asserted in this action, and that
Samsung is a Defendant, and therefore, a response to this allegation is not required. Apple
otherwise denies that the ‘638 patent is valid and infringed by Apple and denies any remaining
allegations of this paragraph.
52. Apple denies that the ‘638 patent remains asserted in this action, and that
Samsung is a Defendant, and therefore, a response to this allegation is not required. Apple
otherwise denies that the ‘638 patent is valid and infringed by Apple and denies any remaining
allegations of this paragraph.
53. Apple denies that the ‘638 patent remains asserted in this action, and that
Samsung is a Defendant, and therefore, a response to this allegation is not required. Apple
otherwise denies that the ‘638 patent is valid and infringed by Apple and denies any remaining
allegations of this paragraph.
54. Apple denies that the ‘638 patent remains asserted in this action, and that LG is a
Defendant, and therefore, a response to this allegation is not required. Apple otherwise denies
that the ‘638 patent is valid and infringed by Apple and denies any remaining allegations of this
paragraph.
Case 3:15-cv-01477-BJD-JRK Document 97 Filed 03/26/18 Page 8 of 23 PageID 4565
9
55. Apple denies that the ‘638 patent remains asserted in this action, and that LG is a
Defendant, and therefore, a response to this allegation is not required. Apple otherwise denies
that the ‘638 patent is valid and infringed by Apple and denies any remaining allegations of this
paragraph.
56. Apple denies that the ‘638 patent remains asserted in this action, and that LG is a
Defendant, and therefore, a response to this allegation is not required. Apple otherwise denies
that the ‘638 patent is valid and infringed by Apple and denies any remaining allegations of this
paragraph.
57. Apple denies the allegations contained in paragraph 57 of the Complaint.
COUNT III
58. Apple incorporates by reference the responses contained in paragraphs 1 through
57 above.
59. Apple denies that the ‘135 patent remains asserted in this action, and therefore, a
response to this allegation is not required. Apple otherwise denies that the ‘135 patent is valid
and infringed by Apple and denies any remaining allegations of this paragraph.
60. Apple denies that the ‘135 patent remains asserted in this action, and therefore, a
response to this allegation is not required. Apple otherwise denies that the ‘135 patent is valid
and infringed by Apple and denies any remaining allegations of this paragraph.
61. Apple denies that the ‘135 patent remains asserted in this action, and therefore, a
response to this allegation is not required. Apple otherwise denies that the ‘135 patent is valid
and infringed by Apple and denies any remaining allegations of this paragraph.
Case 3:15-cv-01477-BJD-JRK Document 97 Filed 03/26/18 Page 9 of 23 PageID 4566
10
62. Apple denies that the ‘135 patent remains asserted in this action, and therefore, a
response to this allegation is not required. Apple otherwise denies that the ‘135 patent is valid
and infringed by Apple and denies any remaining allegations of this paragraph.
63. Apple denies that the ‘135 patent remains asserted in this action, and therefore, a
response to this allegation is not required. Apple otherwise denies that the ‘135 patent is valid
and infringed by Apple and denies any remaining allegations of this paragraph.
64. Apple denies that the ‘135 patent remains asserted in this action, and therefore, a
response to this allegation is not required. Apple otherwise denies that the ‘135 patent is valid
and infringed by Apple and denies any remaining allegations of this paragraph.
65. Apple denies that the ‘135 patent remains asserted in this action, and therefore, a
response to this allegation is not required. Apple otherwise denies that the ‘135 patent is valid
and infringed by Apple and denies any remaining allegations of this paragraph.
66. Apple denies that the ‘135 patent remains asserted in this action, and therefore, a
response to this allegation is not required. Apple otherwise denies that the ‘135 patent is valid
and infringed by Apple and denies any remaining allegations of this paragraph.
67. Apple denies that the ‘135 patent remains asserted in this action, and therefore, a
response to this allegation is not required. Apple otherwise denies that the ‘135 patent is valid
and infringed by Apple and denies any remaining allegations of this paragraph.
68. Apple denies that the ‘135 patent remains asserted in this action, and that
Samsung is a Defendant, and therefore, a response to this allegation is not required. Apple
otherwise denies that the ‘135 patent is valid and infringed by Apple and denies any remaining
allegations of this paragraph.
Case 3:15-cv-01477-BJD-JRK Document 97 Filed 03/26/18 Page 10 of 23 PageID 4567
11
69. Apple denies that the ‘135 patent remains asserted in this action, and that
Samsung is a Defendant, and therefore, a response to this allegation is not required. Apple
otherwise denies that the ‘135 patent is valid and infringed by Apple and denies any remaining
allegations of this paragraph.
70. Apple denies that the ‘135 patent remains asserted in this action, and that
Samsung is a Defendant, and therefore, a response to this allegation is not required. Apple
otherwise denies that the ‘135 patent is valid and infringed by Apple and denies any remaining
allegations of this paragraph.
71. Apple denies that the ‘135 patent remains asserted in this action, and that LG is a
Defendant, and therefore, a response to this allegation is not required. Apple otherwise denies
that the ‘135 patent is valid and infringed by Apple and denies any remaining allegations of this
paragraph.
72. Apple denies that the ‘135 patent remains asserted in this action, and that LG is a
Defendant, and therefore, a response to this allegation is not required. Apple otherwise denies
that the ‘135 patent is valid and infringed by Apple and denies any remaining allegations of this
paragraph.
73. Apple denies that the ‘135 patent remains asserted in this action, and that LG is a
Defendant, and therefore, a response to this allegation is not required. Apple otherwise denies
that the ‘135 patent is valid and infringed by Apple and denies any remaining allegations of this
paragraph.
74. Apple denies the allegations contained in paragraph 74 of the Complaint.
Case 3:15-cv-01477-BJD-JRK Document 97 Filed 03/26/18 Page 11 of 23 PageID 4568
12
COUNT IV
75. Apple incorporates by reference the responses contained in paragraphs 1 through
74 above.
76. Apple denies the allegations contained in paragraph 76 of the Complaint.
77. Apple admits that it provides devices with radio frequency (“RF”) receivers,
transceivers, and/or other semiconductors that enable wireless technology. Apple denies the
remaining allegations contained in paragraph 77 of the Complaint.
78. Apple denies the allegations contained in paragraph 78 of the Complaint.
79. Apple admits that what purport to be claim charts were attached to the Complaint
as Exhibits 30-32. Apple denies that any Apple product infringes any valid claims of the ‘528
Patent. Apple denies any remaining allegations contained in paragraph 79 of the Complaint.
80. Apple lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth
of the allegations contained in paragraph 80 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies them.
81. Apple lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth
of the allegations contained in paragraph 81 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies them.
82. Apple lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth
of the allegations contained in paragraph 82 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies them.
83. Apple lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth
of the allegations contained in paragraph 83 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies them.
84. Apple lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth
of the allegations contained in paragraph 84 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies them.
85. Apple denies that Samsung is a Defendant, and therefore, a response to this
allegation is not required. Apple otherwise lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a
Case 3:15-cv-01477-BJD-JRK Document 97 Filed 03/26/18 Page 12 of 23 PageID 4569
13
belief about the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 85 of the Complaint, and on that
basis denies them.
86. Apple denies that Samsung is a Defendant, and therefore, a response to this
allegation is not required. Apple otherwise lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 86 of the Complaint, and on that
basis denies them.
87. Apple denies that Samsung is a Defendant, and therefore, a response to this
allegation is not required. Apple otherwise lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 87 of the Complaint, and on that
basis denies them.
88. Apple denies that LG is a Defendant, and therefore, a response to this allegation is
not required. Apple otherwise lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about
the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 88 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies
them.
89. Apple denies that LG is a Defendant, and therefore, a response to this allegation is
not required. Apple otherwise lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about
the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 89 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies
them.
90. Apple denies that LG is a Defendant, and therefore, a response to this allegation is
not required. Apple otherwise lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about
the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 90 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies
them.
91. Apple denies the allegations contained in paragraph 91 of the Complaint.
Case 3:15-cv-01477-BJD-JRK Document 97 Filed 03/26/18 Page 13 of 23 PageID 4570
14
RESPONSE TO PARKERVISION’S PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Apple denies that ParkerVision is entitled to any relief requested in its Prayer for Relief,
either as prayed or otherwise. To the extent that ParkerVision’s Prayer for Relief may be deemed
to allege any facts, Apple denies each and every allegation.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Apple reserves the right to amend its Answer, including by asserting additional defenses
as discovery progresses. Without altering any applicable burdens of proof, Apple alleges the
following affirmative defenses:
FIRST DEFENSE – FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
92. ParkerVision’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
SECOND DEFENSE – NONINFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘528 PATENT
93. Apple has not infringed, and currently does not infringe, any valid claim of the
‘528 Patent directly, indirectly, contributorily, by inducement, under the doctrine of equivalents,
or in any other manner. The Apple products identified by ParkerVision as allegedly
incorporating the Qualcomm WTR1625 and/or WTR3925 transceivers, and any other Qualcomm
device that is capable of down-converting a higher frequency signal into a lower frequency
signal, and any other Apple product alleged to incorporate such Qualcomm devices, do not
infringe.
94. Any and all products or actions of Apple accused of infringement have substantial
uses that do not infringe and do not contribute to the alleged infringement of the claims of the
‘528 Patent.
Case 3:15-cv-01477-BJD-JRK Document 97 Filed 03/26/18 Page 14 of 23 PageID 4571
15
THIRD DEFENSE – INVALIDITY OF THE ‘528 PATENT
95. The claims of the ‘528 Patent are invalid for failure to comply with one or more
provisions of patentability, including those set forth in 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112, by
way of example as explained below.
96. The claims of the ‘528 Patent are invalid under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and
103 because they are anticipated, or rendered obvious, by prior art, at least including U.S. Patent
No. 6,240,000 to Tayloe (“Tayloe”) and “The Merigo Method: SSB Generator/Producing a
Demodulator” by Yasuo Nozawa (“Nozawa”). Tayloe has a priority date of October 15, 1998,
and is prior art to all claims of the ‘528 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) (pre-AIA). Like the ‘528
Patent, Tayloe discloses an apparatus that receives an I/Q modulated oscillating voltage and
downconverts it using four frequency down-conversion modules, followed by two subtractor
modules. Nozawa was published in 1993 and is prior art to all claims of the ‘528 Patent under at
least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and/or 102(b) (pre-AIA). Like the ‘528 Patent, the Nozawa receiver
also receives an I/Q modulated oscillating voltage. The Nozawa receiver consists of a
transformer at the input, followed by switches that are driven by 25% local oscillator signals, and
then the switches connect to capacitors, so that when each switch turns on, it delivers energy
from the input RF signal to the capacitors. Each capacitor is connected to a 1.3 kilo-ohm resistor,
going to a virtual ground. When the corresponding switch turns off, the voltage on the capacitor
begins to discharge through that 1.3 kilo-ohm resistor. The claims of the ‘528 Patent are
anticipated by, or obvious in light of, at least Tayloe and Nozawa.
97. The claims of the ‘528 Patent are also invalid under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 at
least because they are indefinite. For example, independent claim 1 is an indefinite “hybrid”
claim because it is directed to both an apparatus and a method of using that apparatus. Claim
Case 3:15-cv-01477-BJD-JRK Document 97 Filed 03/26/18 Page 15 of 23 PageID 4572
16
language directed to both an apparatus and a method of using that apparatus renders a claim
indefinite under section 112, paragraph 2, because so-called hybrid claims create uncertainty as
to whether infringement requires using the apparatus in the manner recited in the claims, or
whether mere making or selling of the claimed apparatus constitutes infringement.
FOURTH DEFENSE – LIMITATION ON DAMAGES
98. ParkerVision is barred or limited in recovery, in whole or in part, by 35 U.S.C. §§
286, 287, and 28 U.S.C. § 1498.
FIFTH DEFENSE – PATENT EXHAUSTION / DOUBLE RECOVERY
99. ParkerVision is barred from recovering monetary damages and other relief from
Apple under the doctrines of patent exhaustion and under the prohibition of double recovery
from manufacturers and their customers. ParkerVision accuses Apple’s products of infringement
based on their inclusion of Qualcomm devices. To the extent that Apple purchased such devices
from Qualcomm, and ParkerVision may obtain any monetary damages or other relief from
Qualcomm, any claim for relief for Apple’s allegedly infringing conduct is barred. Qualcomm is
a party to this action, and ParkerVision cannot recover from Apple based on infringement
occurring in Qualcomm devices.
SIXTH DEFENSE – PROSECUTION HISTORY ESTOPPEL
100. ParkerVision is estopped from construing any claim of the Patent-in-Suit to be
infringed or have been infringed, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, by any
method or product manufactured, used, imported, sold or offered for sale by Apple in view of the
prior art and because of admissions and statements ParkerVision made to the USPTO during
prosecution of the applications leading to the issuance of the Patent-in-Suit.
Case 3:15-cv-01477-BJD-JRK Document 97 Filed 03/26/18 Page 16 of 23 PageID 4573
17
SEVENTH DEFENSE – EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL AND/OR WAIVER
101. ParkerVision’s claims against Apple with respect to the Patent-in-Suit are barred
by equitable estoppel, laches, and/or waiver.
EIGHTH DEFENSE – COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AND/OR RES JUDICATA
102. ParkerVision’s claims against Apple with respect to the Patent-in-Suit are barred
by collateral estoppel and/or res judicata as a result of ParkerVision I.
RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
Apple reserves all other affirmative defenses pursuant to Rule 8(c) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, the Patent Laws of the United States, and any other defenses, at law or in
equity, that now exist or in the future may be available based on discovery and further factual
investigation in the case.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Apple respectfully requests that this Court enter a Judgment and Order
dismissing the Complaint, and:
A. Declaring that all asserted claims of the Patent-in-Suit are invalid, not infringed,
and/or unenforceable;
B. Finding that this case is an exceptional case pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 or
otherwise, and awarding Apple its costs, together with reasonable attorneys’ fees and all of its
expenses for defending this suit; and
C. Awarding Apple any such other costs and further relief as the Court may deem
just and proper.
Case 3:15-cv-01477-BJD-JRK Document 97 Filed 03/26/18 Page 17 of 23 PageID 4574
18
COUNTERCLAIMS
Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff Apple, Inc. (“Apple”), for its Counterclaims against
Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant ParkerVision, Inc. (“ParkerVision”), upon knowledge as to
matters relating to itself and upon information and belief as to all other matters, alleges as
follows:
PARTIES
1. Apple, Inc. is a California corporation with its principal place of business at 1
Infinite Loop, Cupertino, California 95014.
2. ParkerVision is a Florida Corporation with its principal place of business at 7915
Baymeadows Way, Jacksonville, Florida 32256.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. This Court has jurisdiction and venue over these counterclaims pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1338(a), 1367, 1391, 1400(b), 2201, and 2202.
4. Apple seeks, inter alia, declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 through
2202 and Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
5. ParkerVision is a resident of the State of Florida and, by filing this action, has
submitted to this Court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction.
BACKGROUND
6. On December 16, 2015, ParkerVision filed its Amended Complaint against Apple
Inc., Qualcomm Incorporated, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America,
Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., LG
Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc.
Case 3:15-cv-01477-BJD-JRK Document 97 Filed 03/26/18 Page 18 of 23 PageID 4575
19
ParkerVision asserted infringement of the following U.S. Patents: U.S. Patent Nos. (1)
6,879,817; (2) 7,929,638; (3) 8,571,135; (4) 9,118,528.
7. This is the third of four cases that ParkerVision has filed against Apple’s supplier
Qualcomm. First, ParkerVision asserted eight patents in ParkerVision v. Qualcomm, No. 11-719
(M.D. Fla. July 20, 2011) (“ParkerVision I”), in which Qualcomm prevailed both in the district
court and at the Federal Circuit. ParkerVision then sued Qualcomm, Samsung, and others in
ParkerVision v. Qualcomm, et al., No. 14-687 (M.D. Fla. May 2, 2014) (“ParkerVision II”),
originally asserting eleven patents. ParkerVision dismissed six patents from that action, which is
currently stayed pending the Federal Circuit’s decision in ParkerVision’s appeal of the Patent
Trial and Appeal Board’s decision invalidating certain claims of another ParkerVision patent.
Third, ParkerVision filed the present litigation (“ParkerVision III”). And fourth, ParkerVision
filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission against Qualcomm, Apple, and others
in Certain RF Capable Integrated Circuits and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-
982 (“ParkerVision IV”). After the Staff of the ITC issued a pre-trial brief calling into question
ParkerVision’s claims, and after a highly unfavorable evidentiary ruling by the Administrative
Law Judge, ParkerVision withdrew its ITC complaint in its entirety on the eve of trial.
8. On August 10, 2016, the Court issued an Order granting dismissal of the Samsung
Defendants from this Case. On July 31, 2017, the Court issued an Order granting dismissal of the
LG Defendants from this Case.
9. On March 16, 2018, Apple, Qualcomm, and ParkerVision filed a joint motion to
dismiss the ‘817, ‘638, and ‘135 Patents from this Case.
10. The sole remaining patent in this case is the ‘528 Patent. This patent purports to
disclose a concept called “energy transfer sampling,” which is the same underlying concept as in
Case 3:15-cv-01477-BJD-JRK Document 97 Filed 03/26/18 Page 19 of 23 PageID 4576
20
the patents ParkerVision previously asserted unsuccessfully against Apple’s supplier Qualcomm.
The ‘528 Patent does not describe or enable any technology useful for CDMA, WCDMA, or
LTE devices. The ‘528 Patent does not describe, enable, or claim down-conversion using a
double-balanced mixer.
11. The ‘528 Patent describes and claims I/Q embodiments of ParkerVision’s alleged
down-conversion invention. But the use of I/Q down-converters was well known to those of
ordinary skill in the art prior to ParkerVision’s alleged invention. The only embodiments of I/Q
down-converters described in the ‘528 Patent uses the inverted gate configuration, wherein the
input signal is first coupled to a series capacitor followed by a switch to ground or other
reference potential.
12. Prior to the filing of the complaint in this action, ParkerVision was on notice that
the Qualcomm accused devices do not perform ParkerVision’s energy transfer sampling.
ParkerVision has no basis to assert that any of the accused Apple products incorporating the
accused Qualcomm products, including the WTR1625 and WTR3925, infringe any claim of the
‘528 Patent.
FIRST COUNTERCLAIM
(Declaration of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,118,528)
13. Apple incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 12 above as though full
stated herein.
14. ParkerVision claims to be owner of all right, title, and interest in the ‘528 Patent.
15. ParkerVision has accused Apple of infringement of the ‘528 Patent and has
created a substantial, immediate, and real controversy between the parties as to the infringement
of the ‘528 Patent.
Case 3:15-cv-01477-BJD-JRK Document 97 Filed 03/26/18 Page 20 of 23 PageID 4577
21
16. Apple, including the iPhone 6 smartphone, iPhone 6S smartphone, and iPad Air
tablet, has not infringed, and currently does not infringe, any valid claim of the ‘528 Patent
directly, indirectly, contributorily, by inducement, under the doctrine of equivalents, or in any
other manner, and ParkerVision is entitled to no relief for any claim of alleged infringement.
SECOND COUNTERCLAIM
(Declaration of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 9,118,528)
17. Apple incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 16 above as though full
stated herein.
18. ParkerVision contends that the asserted claims of the ‘528 Patent are valid and
has created a substantial, immediate, and real controversy between the parties as to the invalidity
of the asserted claims of the ‘528 Patent.
19. Each asserted claim of the ‘528 Patent is invalid for failure to comply with one or
more provisions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112, and ParkerVision is entitled to no relief
for any claim relating to their alleged validity.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Apple respectfully requests that this Court enter a Judgement and Order:
A. Declaring that all asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit are invalid, not infringed,
and/or unenforceable;
B. Finding that this case is an exceptional case pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 or
otherwise, and awarding Apple its costs, together with reasonable attorneys’ fees and all of its
expenses for defending this suit; and
C. Awarding Apple any such other costs and further relief as the Court may deem
just and proper.
Case 3:15-cv-01477-BJD-JRK Document 97 Filed 03/26/18 Page 21 of 23 PageID 4578
22
JURY DEMAND
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Apple demands trial by jury on all
issues so triable as to the Counterclaims and Affirmative Defenses.
Dated: March 26, 2018 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Edward Soto Edward Soto Florida Bar Number: 265144 edward.soto@weil.com WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 1395 Brickell Ave, Suite 1200 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 577-3177 Fax: (305) 374-7159
Brian E. Ferguson – Trial Counsel (admitted pro hac vice) Robert T. Vlasis (admitted pro hac vice) WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 2001 M Street NW Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20036 Tel. (202) 682-7000 Fax. (202) 857-0940
Counsel for Apple Inc.
Case 3:15-cv-01477-BJD-JRK Document 97 Filed 03/26/18 Page 22 of 23 PageID 4579
Certificate of Service I certify that on March 26, 2018, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system. I further certify that I mailed the foregoing document and the notice of electronic filing by first-class mail to the following non- CM/ECF participants: None. By: Edward Soto 1 Edward Soto (Bar No. 265144) edward.soto@weil.com Counsel for Defendant Apple Inc.
Case 3:15-cv-01477-BJD-JRK Document 97 Filed 03/26/18 Page 23 of 23 PageID 4580