DCT

3:11-cv-00719

ParkerVision Inc v. Qualcomm Inc

Key Events

Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: ParkerVision, Inc. (Florida)
- Defendant: Qualcomm Inc (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Smith Hulsey & Busey; Allen, Dyer, Doppelt, Milbrath & Gilchrist, P.A.
Case Identification: 3:11-cv-00719, M.D. Fla., 07/20/2011
Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant regularly conducts, engages in, or carries on an established business in the Middle District of Florida.
Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s integrated circuits, which utilize direct conversion receiver technology, infringe seven patents related to methods and systems for down-converting electromagnetic signals.
Technical Context: The technology relates to radio frequency (RF) receiver design, specifically the down-conversion of high-frequency signals to lower, more easily processed frequencies, a fundamental function in wireless communication devices.
Key Procedural History: The provided patent documents indicate that several years after this complaint was filed, key claims of the two lead patents were cancelled in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. The certificates for IPR2014-00947 and IPR2014-00946, both issued February 8, 2018, show the cancellation of claims including the primary independent claims of both U.S. Patent Nos. 6,061,551 and 6,266,518. This subsequent invalidation of foundational claims would be a critical factor in the ultimate disposition of the allegations made in this 2011 complaint.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
1998-10-21	Priority Date (’551, '371 Patents)
1999-08-18	Priority Date (’518 Patent)
2000-04-14	Priority Date (’896, '845, '401 Patents)
2000-05-09	U.S. Patent No. 6,061,551 Issued
2001-07-24	U.S. Patent No. 6,266,518 Issued
2002-04-09	U.S. Patent No. 6,370,371 Issued
2003-03-21	Priority Date (’342 Patent)
2009-02-24	U.S. Patent No. 7,496,342 Issued
2009-04-07	U.S. Patent No. 7,515,896 Issued
2010-05-25	U.S. Patent No. 7,724,845 Issued
2010-10-26	U.S. Patent No. 7,822,401 Issued
2011-07-20	Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 6,061,551 - Method and System for Down-Converting Electromagnetic Signals

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,061,551, Method and System for Down-Converting Electromagnetic Signals, issued May 9, 2000 (’551 Patent).

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: Conventional radio receivers require numerous components to down-convert high-frequency electromagnetic signals to a lower intermediate frequency (IF) or baseband for processing. This approach is described as complex, expensive, power-intensive, and typically limited to specific frequency bands (’551 Patent, col. 1:53-62; col. 25:1-26:2).
The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a simplified down-converter that utilizes "aliasing" to translate the frequency. Instead of sampling at or above the Nyquist rate (at least twice the signal frequency), the invention under-samples the signal at a lower "aliasing rate." This is achieved by using a switch to periodically transfer energy from the incoming signal to a storage element, like a capacitor, at the aliasing rate, thereby directly generating a down-converted signal without the need for traditional mixers and multiple filters (’551 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:55-66). This concept is illustrated generally in the flowchart of FIG. 14A.
Technical Importance: This technology aimed to provide a "universal frequency translator" that could be implemented with fewer components on an integrated circuit, reducing size, cost, and power consumption for wireless devices (’551 Patent, col. 26:5-21).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying which ones (Compl. ¶11). The first independent method claim at the time of filing, Claim 1 (subsequently cancelled), is representative of the core method:
- receiving a carrier signal;
- generating an energy transfer signal having an aliasing rate that is substantially equal to a frequency of the carrier signal divided by n, where n represents a harmonic or sub-harmonic; and
- generating a lower frequency signal from the transferred energy.

U.S. Patent No. 6,266,518 - Method and System for Down-Converting Electromagnetic Signals by Sampling and Integrating Over Apertures

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,266,518, Method and System for Down-Converting Electromagnetic Signals by Sampling and Integrating Over Apertures, issued July 24, 2001 (’518 Patent).

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: Like the ’551 patent, the ’518 Patent addresses the complexity and inefficiency of conventional down-converters that rely on multiple stages of mixing and filtering to process radio frequency signals (’518 Patent, col. 1:26-38; col. 22:55-24:40).
The Patented Solution: The invention refines the under-sampling approach by focusing on sampling a carrier signal over specific "aperture periods" and explicitly "integrating the energy" during those periods. This controlled integration of energy from the carrier signal over discrete time windows is intended to create a more accurate down-converted representation of the original signal (’518 Patent, Abstract). The general process is depicted in the flowchart of FIG. 46A, which shows a step of "transferring energy from the EM signal at the aliasing rate to down-convert the EM signal."
Technical Importance: By focusing on the integration of energy over defined apertures, the invention sought to improve the efficiency of energy transfer and the fidelity of the down-converted signal compared to simpler under-sampling techniques, which is critical for maintaining signal quality in receivers (’518 Patent, col. 62:20-66:44).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" without specification (Compl. ¶11). The first independent method claim at the time of filing, Claim 1 (subsequently cancelled), covers the core process:
- receiving a first signal (e.g., a carrier signal);
- sampling the first signal over aperture periods to transfer energy;
- integrating the energy over the aperture periods; and
- generating a second signal from the integrated energy.

U.S. Patent No. 6,370,371 - Applications of Universal Frequency Translation

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,370,371, Applications of Universal Frequency Translation, issued April 9, 2002.
Technology Synopsis: This patent describes various applications of a "universal frequency translation" (UFT) module. It discloses how this core down-conversion and up-conversion technology can be implemented in diverse communication systems, including receivers, transmitters, transceivers, and systems for enhanced signal reception in the presence of interference.
Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶11).
Accused Features: The accused features are the "direct conversion receiver technology" found in Qualcomm's RTR6285 and QSC6270 integrated circuits (Compl. ¶11).

U.S. Patent No. 7,496,342 - Down-Converting Electromagnetic Signals, Including Controlled Discharge of Capacitors

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,496,342, Down-Converting Electromagnetic Signals, Including Controlled Discharge of Capacitors, issued February 24, 2009.
Technology Synopsis: This patent focuses on a method for down-converting signals that involves the controlled charging and, specifically, the controlled discharging of a capacitor. The method appears to refine the energy transfer process by actively managing the capacitor's discharge cycle to form the down-converted signal.
Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶11).
Accused Features: The accused features are the "direct conversion receiver technology" found in Qualcomm's RTR6285 and QSC6270 integrated circuits (Compl. ¶11).

U.S. Patent No. 7,515,896 - Method and System for Down-Converting an Electromagnetic Signal, and Transforms for Same, and Aperture Relationships

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,515,896, Method and System for Down-Converting an Electromagnetic Signal, and Transforms for Same, and Aperture Relationships, issued April 7, 2009.
Technology Synopsis: This patent describes down-converting an electromagnetic signal by receiving the signal and operating on it over approximately half-cycles of a carrier signal. The invention uses recursive operations performed at a sub-harmonic rate of the carrier signal to accumulate results and form the down-converted signal, focusing on the mathematical transforms and aperture relationships involved.
Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶11).
Accused Features: The accused features are the "direct conversion receiver technology" found in Qualcomm's RTR6285 and QSC6270 integrated circuits (Compl. ¶11).

U.S. Patent No. 7,724,845 - Method and System for Down-Converting and Electromagnetic Signal, and Transforms for Same

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,724,845, Method and System for Down-Converting and Electromagnetic Signal, and Transforms for Same, issued May 25, 2010.
Technology Synopsis: This patent is similar to the '896 Patent, describing methods for down-conversion that involve recursive operations performed at a sub-harmonic rate of an incoming carrier signal. The process involves accumulating the results of these operations to form a down-converted signal, either at an intermediate frequency or as a demodulated baseband signal.
Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶11).
Accused Features: The accused features are the "direct conversion receiver technology" found in Qualcomm's RTR6285 and QSC6270 integrated circuits (Compl. ¶11).

U.S. Patent No. 7,822,401 - Apparatus and Method for Down-Converting Electromagnetic Signals by Controlled Charging and Discharging of a Capacitor

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,822,401, Apparatus and Method for Down-Converting Electromagnetic Signals by Controlled Charging and Discharging of a Capacitor, issued October 26, 2010.
Technology Synopsis: This patent describes an apparatus for down-conversion that includes a capacitor and a switching device. The invention focuses on controlling the charging and discharging cycles of the capacitor, which is electrically coupled to an RF information signal, to form a down-converted signal.
Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶11).
Accused Features: The accused features are the "direct conversion receiver technology" found in Qualcomm's RTR6285 and QSC6270 integrated circuits (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are Qualcomm's RTR6285 and QSC6270 integrated circuits (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges these circuits contain "direct conversion receiver technology" and are incorporated into "cellular telephones and mobile devices" sold in the United States (Compl. ¶11). The complaint does not provide further technical details on the specific architecture or operational methods of the accused circuits beyond this general characterization.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a claim chart or detailed infringement allegations mapping specific product features to claim elements. It makes a general allegation that the accused integrated circuits contain "direct conversion receiver technology" that infringes one or more claims of the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶11).

Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over whether the term "direct conversion receiver technology," as allegedly practiced by Qualcomm, falls within the scope of the patents' claims, which are directed to specific methods of down-conversion using aliasing and under-sampling. The case raises the question of whether Qualcomm's technology, a conventionally understood architecture, operates in a manner that also meets the specific limitations of ParkerVision's patented methods.
- Technical Questions: A key factual question for the court will be how the accused RTR6285 and QSC6270 circuits technically operate to down-convert signals. The infringement analysis will depend on evidence showing whether these circuits perform the claimed steps of generating a specific "aliasing rate" signal and using it to sample or transfer energy from a carrier signal to generate a down-converted signal, as recited in the asserted patents.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "aliasing rate" (from ’551 Patent)
Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to the patented invention, as it defines the under-sampling frequency that distinguishes the claimed method from conventional Nyquist-rate sampling. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether the sampling frequencies used in Qualcomm's circuits, if any are found to be infringing, meet this critical claim limitation.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines the term broadly as a rate that causes the EM signal to be aliased, later specifying that the aliasing rate is "equal to, or less than, twice the frequency of the EM carrier signal" (’551 Patent, col. 2:58-63; col. 23:25-28). This language could support a broad definition covering any sub-Nyquist sampling frequency.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides specific formulas and examples for determining a "suitable aliasing rate" based on the carrier and desired intermediate frequencies (’551 Patent, col. 28:40-52). A party might argue these specific relationships and embodiments limit the term to only those under-sampling rates calculated and applied in the manner disclosed.
The Term: "integrating the energy over the aperture periods" (from ’518 Patent)
Context and Importance: This phrase is central to the method described in the ’518 Patent, distinguishing it from merely "sampling" a signal. The definition of what constitutes "integrating the energy" will be critical for determining whether the operation of the accused circuits meets this limitation.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes transferring "non-negligible amounts of energy" to a storage device, which could be argued to encompass any process where charge accumulates on a capacitor during a sampling window (’518 Patent, col. 62:49-54).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description focuses on accumulating the results of recursive operations and describes forming a down-converted signal from the "integrated energy" (’518 Patent, Abstract; col. 115:3-4). This may support a narrower construction requiring a more specific type of energy accumulation process beyond what occurs in a conventional sample-and-hold circuit.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of infringement "by inducement and/or contributorily" (Compl. ¶11). It does not, however, plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for such claims, such as referencing user manuals, product instructions, or component specifications.
Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Qualcomm's infringement is willful because it "lacks justifiable belief that there is no infringement" and has "acted with objective recklessness" (Compl. ¶13). No specific facts alleging pre-suit knowledge of the patents are provided to support this claim.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

A central issue will be one of technological overlap: can ParkerVision demonstrate through discovery and expert testimony that Qualcomm's "direct conversion receiver" architecture—a well-known industry approach—operates in a way that practices the specific, unconventional method of down-conversion via under-sampling at a controlled "aliasing rate" as claimed in the patents-in-suit?
A key legal question will be one of claim scope: how will the court construe foundational terms such as "aliasing rate" and "integrating the energy"? The breadth of these definitions will be dispositive, as it will establish the boundary between the patented inventions and the prior art of conventional receiver design.
A critical procedural question will be the impact of subsequent invalidations: given that the foundational independent claims of the lead patents were cancelled in IPRs years after this suit was filed, a key question is how this impacts the viability and scope of any remaining asserted claims and the calculation of potential damages for any infringement that may have occurred before the claims were invalidated.