IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE ... NO.: 6:14-cv-687-PGB-KRS PARKERVISION’S MOTION TO...

McKool 1105576v3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

ORLANDO DIVISION

PARKERVISION, INC., PLAINTIFF, v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, QUALCOMM ATHEROS, INC., HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, DEFENDANTS.

CASE NO.: 6:14-cv-687-PGB-KRS

PARKERVISION’S MOTION TO COMPEL INTERROGATORY ANSWERS

FROM DEFENDANTS QUALCOMM, SAMSUNG, AND HTC

Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160 Filed 07/03/15 Page 1 of 37 PageID 5639

i McKool 1105576v3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. LEGAL STANDARD ..........................................................................................................2

II. LOCAL RULE 3.04(A) STATEMENT ..............................................................................3

A. ParkerVision’s Interrogatory No. 4 Served On February 12, 2015 Is Relevant To Induced And Willful Infringement. .................................................3

B. ParkerVision’s Interrogatory No. 5 Served On February 12, 2015 Is Relevant To Discovering Whether Any (Allegedly) Acceptable Non-Infringing Alternatives To ParkerVision’s Patents Exist. ...............................6

C. ParkerVision’s Interrogatory No. 7, Served On February 12, 2015, Is Relevant To Infringement Of The Accused Products. .........................................9

D. ParkerVision’s Interrogatory No. 8, Served On February 12, 2015, Is Relevant To Identifying Allegedly Comparable Licenses For Use In Determining The Proper Measure Of Damages. ........................................14

III. ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES..............................................................................15

A. Interrogatory No. 4: Qualcomm Should Be Compelled To Provide A Complete, Non-Evasive Answer to Interrogatory No. 4 Regarding Its Pre-suit Knowledge of the Patents-in-Suit. .....................................15

B. Interrogatory Nos. 5 and 7: Defendants May Not Cite an Unreasonable Volume of Material under the Auspices of Rule 33(d), Which Serves To Hide the True Response (If Any Exists in the Mountain of Identified Documents). ................................................................17

1. Defendants’ citation to voluminous, Bates-stamped materials does not provide enough specificity to comply with Rule 33(d). .........................................................................................17

2. In addition to Defendants’ lack of specificity, Defendants cannot rely solely on Rule 33(d) for Interrogatory No. 7 because it concerns Defendants’ contentions. ...........................................20

C. Interrogatory No. 8: HTC Cannot Avoid Substantively Responding with a Bare Citation of Rule 33(d) by Assuring a Response at Some Unspecified Future Date. .............................................................................24

D. Interrogatory No. 4 and 5: Documents created in preparation for this litigation are not an adequate response under Rule 33(d) because they are not “business records.” ...............................................................26


ii McKool 1105576v3

E. Interrogatory Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 8: Defendants’ Boilerplate and Otherwise Deficient “subject to” or “without waiving” Objections Followed by Deficient Answers Should Be Overruled. .........................................27

IV. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................29


iii McKool 1105576v3

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s) Cases

Arthrex, Inc. v. Parcus Med., No: 2:11-CV-694, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124173 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 31, 2012) ........................2

In re Bilzerian, 190 B.R. 964 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1995) ....................................................................................19

Blake Associates v. Omni Spectra, 118 F.R.D. 283 (D. Mass. 1988) ........................................................................................25, 26

Calkins v. Parcel Corporation, No. 3:07-cv00025, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43937 (W.D. Va., June 4, 2008) ...................18, 19

Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Westrope, 730 F.2d 729 (11th Cir. 1984) ...................................................................................................3

Derson Group, Ltd., v. Right Management Consultants, Inc., 119 F.R.D. 396 (E.D. Ill. 1988) ...............................................................................................19

Hypertherm v. American Torch Tip Company, No. 05–cv–373–JD, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108269 (D.N.H. Dec. 29, 2008)........................18

Jones v. Z.O.E. Enters. of Jax, No. 3:11-cv-377, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104768 (M.D. Fla. July 27, 2012) ...........................2

Lesti v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, 297 F.R.D. 665 (M.D. Fla. 2014)...............................................................................................3

Mancini v. Ins. Corp., No.07cv1750, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51321 (S.D. Cal. June 18, 2009) ................................23

Mann v. Island Resorts Dev., No. 3:08cv297, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130436 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 27, 2009) ......................19, 28

Morock v. Chautauqua Airlines, Inc., No. 8:07-cv-210-T-17-MAP, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88532 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 3, 2007) ........................................................................................................................................20

Mulero-Abreu v. Pourto Rico Police Department, 675 F.3d 88 (1st Cir. 2012) ......................................................................................................27


iv McKool 1105576v3

Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Kelt, Inc., No. 6:14-cv-749-Orl-41TBS, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43251 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 30, 2015) ..................................................................................................................................28

Oleson v. Kmart Corporation, 175 F.R.D. 560 (D. Kan. 1997)................................................................................................26

ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., 27 F. Supp. 3d 1266 (M.D. Fla. 2014) .....................................................................................21

ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., 3:11-cv-719-J-37TEM, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2753 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 8, 2013) .............. passim

Pepperwood of Naples Condo. Ass’n v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., No. 2:10-cv-753-FtM-36SPC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106624 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 20, 2011) ...................................................................................................................24, 28

Pulsecard, Inc. v. Discover Card Servs., 168 F.R.D. 295 (D. Kan. 1996)................................................................................................25

Santoro v. Autozoners, LLC, 5:13-cv-242-Oc-10PRL, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64985 (M.D. Fla. May 9, 2014) ........................................................................................................................................18

Spadaro v. City of Miramar, No. 11-61607-CIV-COHN, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103278 (S.D. Fla. July 25, 2012) ..................................................................................................................................18, 19

U.S. S.E.C. v. Elfindepan, S.A., 206 F.R.D. 574 (M.D. N.C. 2002) .....................................................................................20, 27

United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677 (1958) ...................................................................................................................2

Wagner v. Fishing Co. of Alaska, Inc., No. C06-1634RSL, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55092 (W.D. Wash. July 18, 2008) ........................................................................................................................................23

Wiand v. Wells Fargo Bank, No. 8:12-CV-557-T-27EAJ, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166377 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 22, 2013) ............................................................................................................................26, 27

Woodrow Woods & Marine Exhaust Sys., Inc. v. Deangelo Marine Exhaust, Inc., 692 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................22

Woods v. DeAngelo Marine Exhaust, Inc., 2010-1478, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18227 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 28, 2012) ......................................3


v McKool 1105576v3

Zuckerman v. Vane, 812 A.2d 942 (D.C. 2002) .......................................................................................................25

Other Authorities

Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2178 (West 2014) ........................................................................................................................16, 25

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 .................................................................................................3

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) .............................................................................................3

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) ........................................................................................3

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e)(1) ........................................................................................3

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(c) ...........................................................................................26

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d) ................................................................................... passim

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d)(1) ................................................................................17, 25

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d)(2) ......................................................................................25

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a) .............................................................................................3

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(4) ......................................................................................17

Local Rule 3.04(a) .......................................................................................................................1, 3


1 McKool 1105576v3

ParkerVision moves to compel defendant Qualcomm to respond substantively to

Interrogatory Nos. 4, 5, and 7; Samsung to Interrogatory Nos. 5 and 7; and HTC to Interrogatory

Nos. 5, 7, and 8. ParkerVision served its Interrogatories over four and a half months ago on

February 12, 2015. Interrogatory No. 4 relates to the mens rea requirements of induced and

willful infringement as plead by ParkerVision in its Complaint. Interrogatory No. 5 relates to

availability of acceptable non-infringing alternatives which is highly relevant to the damages

inquiry. Interrogatory No. 7 is directed to identifying any material differences among the

operation of the accused chips in the Accused Products that are relevant to infringement. And

Interrogatory No. 8 relates to the identification of allegedly comparable licenses that is one of the

sources of evaluating patent damages. The Interrogatories that ParkerVision seeks to compel

responses to are thus highly relevant to the claims and defenses in this case.

Notwithstanding the relevance of these Interrogatories, on March 27, 2015 (and despite

ParkerVision agreeing to give Defendants an extension of time), Defendants responded under the

guise of Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d) with non-responses consisting almost entirely of assurances of

answers to be provided later and unidentified documents to be produced at an unspecified future

date. See generally Exs. 1-3. ParkerVision sent a letter to Defendants on April 3, 2015 explaining

the deficiencies in Defendants’ responses and requesting that Defendants provide ParkerVision

with substantive interrogatory responses. See Ex. 4.

The parties held a meet and confer on April 9, 2015 during which time ParkerVision

attempted to remedy these deficiencies without Court intervention. ParkerVision followed up the

meet and confer with a letter on April 10, 2015, which summarized the discussion, including

Defendants’ promises to provide meaningful supplementation to address the deficiencies in their

responses. See Ex. 5. On April 24, 2015 (and as set forth in the Local Rule 3.04(a) statement


2 McKool 1105576v3

below), ParkerVision received Defendants’ supplemental responses to some (but not all) of the

deficient Interrogatory responses. See Exs. 6-8. ParkerVision continued to refrain from seeking

judicial resolution based on Qualcomm’s second supplementation on May 26, 2015 and

Samsung’s second supplementation on May 26, 2015 and third supplementation on May 29,

2015. See Exs. 9-11. It has now been over a month, however, since Defendants have last

supplemented the interrogatories at issue, and many months since the Interrogatories were

originally served, and thus ParkerVision is forced to seek assistance from the Court to cure

Defendants’ deficient interrogatory responses.

Defendants have not fairly and substantively responded to ParkerVision’s Interrogatories,

despite being afforded ample time to provide fair and substantive responses that adequately

address the subject matter sought in those Interrogatories. Accordingly, Qualcomm should be

compelled to respond substantively to Interrogatory Nos. 4, 5, and 7; Samsung should be

compelled to respond substantively to Interrogatory Nos. 5 and 7; and HTC should be compelled

to respond substantively to Interrogatory Nos. 5, 7, and 8.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

“The overall purpose of discovery under the Federal Rules is to require the disclosure of

all relevant information so that the ultimate resolution of disputed issues in any civil action may

be based on a full and accurate understanding of the true facts, and therefore embody a fair and

just result.” Jones v. Z.O.E. Enters. of Jax, No. 3:11-cv-377, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104768, at

*2 (M.D. Fla. July 27, 2012) (citing United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 682

(1958)). The Federal Rules provide that when a party serving discovery does not receive an

adequate response, then the serving party may request an order compelling disclosure. Arthrex,

Inc. v. Parcus Med., No. 2:11-cv-694, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124173, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 31,


3 McKool 1105576v3

2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). Whether to grant the motion to compel is at the discretion of the

trial court. Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Westrope, 730 F.2d 729, 731 (11th Cir. 1984).

In deciding whether a motion to compel should be granted, the Court must first decide if

the information sought “appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b). Lesti v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, 297

F.R.D. 665, 666 (M.D. Fla. 2014) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)). “Rule 26(b) provides in

relevant part that ‘[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is

relevant to the claim or defense of any party . . . .’” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)). Rule

26 further “imposes an obligation on parties to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the factual basis

of their discovery responses.” Woods v. DeAngelo Marine Exhaust, Inc., 692 F.3d 1272, 1279

(Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (e)(1) and (b)). Moreover, Rule 26 “requires that a

party who ‘responded to an interrogatory . . . supplement or correct its disclosure or response . . .

in a timely manner if the party learns that in some material respect the disclosure or response is

in-complete or incorrect.’” Id. Section I.C.4 of the Discovery Practice Manual for the Middle

District of Florida (the “Discovery Practice Manual”) likewise provides that:

A party responding to a discovery request should make diligent effort to provide a response that (i) fairly meets and complies with the discovery request and (ii) imposes no unnecessary burden or expense on the requesting party.

II. LOCAL RULE 3.04(A) STATEMENT

A. ParkerVision’s Interrogatory No. 4 Served On February 12, 2015 Is Relevant To Induced And Willful Infringement.

Separately identify and describe how and when You first became aware of each of the Patent-in-Suits (or patent application that later issued as one of the Patents-in-Suit), including the person(s) so aware, any documents showing or reflecting Your awareness of each such Patent-in-Suit and any documents or facts showing or reflecting Your belief of infringement or validity of each Patent-in-Suit from the time you first became aware of each such Patent-in-Suit through trial in this matter. Your answer should identify by Bates number any documents that relate to, support, or refute Your answer.


4 McKooll l05576v3


This Interrogat01y is relevant to the mens rea requirements of induced and willful

infringement as plead by ParkerVision in its Complaint. See Dkt. 26. Despite ParkerVision

identifying specific instances of Qualcomm's pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit (see, e.g.,

id. at~~ 188, 236 (explaining that Qualcomm's own patents, prosecuted prior to the filing of

ParkerVision's complaint in this case, cite some of the patents-in-suit)), Qualcomm responded to

Intenogat01y No. 4 with cryptic and non-substantive answers that fail to identify who at

Qualcomm had knowledge of the patents, how they came to have that knowledge, and the

documents related thereto. Although Qualcomm supplemented its response on May 26, 2015,

for each of the patents referenced, Qualcomm merely cited to either the patent itself or the

patent's file hist01y (with the exception of the '940 Patent). Qualcomm's fmther lalmdry list of

citations to documents from Parker Vision I regarding infringement and validity fails to provide

5 McKooll l05576v3


any insight into Qualcomm's pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit including the "who, what,

when, where, why and how" of Qualcomm's admitted pre-suit knowledge and a description of

each person 's then-existing belief in infringement or validity of the patents.

B. ParkerVision's Interrogatory No.5 Served On February 12, 2015 Is Relevant To Discovering Whether Any (Allegedly) Acceptable Non-Infringing Alternatives To ParkerVision's Patents Exist.

Separately for each asse1ied claim of the Patents-in-Suit and each of Your Accused Products, please identify and describe all facts (including the technical and fmancial details) related to any acceptable non-infringing altemative(s) or design around(s) available to You, of which You are aware, which You are presently investigating, or which You may rely upon for any purpose in this case (including at trial). Your answer should additionally identify any documents by Bates number that relate to, supp01i, or refute Your answer.

6 McKooll l05576v3


7 McKooll l05576v3


The alleged availability of acceptable non-infringing altematives is highly relevant to the

damages inqui1y--one way to measm e patent infringement damages is to compare the value of

the inventions in the asse1ied claims of the patents-in-suit to the closest acceptable, non

infringing altemative. In their supplemental responses, Qualcomm and HTC point ParkerVision

to more than 250,000 pages of Bates stamped production without specifying where in this sea of

documents infonnation responsive to this Intenogatory may be found. Samsung originally

8 McKooll l05576v3


responded that it was willing to meet and confer regarding a response. The prui ies conferred on

April 9, 2015 and Srunsung supplemented its responses to other interrogatories on April 24,

2015- without supplementing its response to Interrogatory No. 5. On May 29, 2015, Samsung

then supplemented its response to Interrogat01y No. 5 with a boile1p late response that is nearly

identical to Qualcomm's and HTC's initial responses. The Defendants' asse1iions that "prior rut

methods and apparatus" ru·e non-infringing altem atives and design-arounds fails to specifically

identify what "prior a1t" is a non-infringing altemative or explain why that prior a1t would be

acceptable, specifically whether, for example, it would supp01i all of the relevant bands and

standards, how much power it would use, how big it would be, and other similar factual

considerations that must be specifically evaluated to determine whether an alleged non-

infringing altemative is acceptable.

C. ParkerVision's Interrogatory No. 7, Served On February 12, 2015, Is Relevant To Infringement Of The Accused Products.

Sepru·ately for each asse1ied claim of the Patents-in-Suit and each of Your Accused Products, identify and explain all facts and documents related to any differences between each Accused Product that you contend is material to Plaintiff's infringement allegations, that You may rely upon to supp01i any asse1i ion or finding of non-infringement in this matter, or that You may rely upon to refute any infringement assertion by Plaintiff in this matter. For each Patent-inSuit, your answer should include the identification of any differences between the transceivers cited in Plaintiff' s infringement contentions and the transceivers used in each Accused Product that you contend is material to plaintiff' s infringement allegations and any differences that You contend make it so that any one Accused Product is not representative of the operation of any other Accused Product. Your answer should additionally identify by Bates number any documents that relate to, supp01t , or refute Your answer.

9 McKooll l05576v3


10 McKooll l05576v3


11 McKooll l05576v3


ParkerVision reverse engineered and charted two Qualcomm chips in its infringement

contentions at great expense. See Dkt. 122 (ParkerVision 's Opposition to Samsung's Motion to

Su·ike, fmi her explaining that Samslmg has refused to make any schematics for its Samsung

designed products available for inspection). ParkerVision contends that these two chips are

12 McKooll l05576v3


13 McKool 1105576v3

representative of the operation of each of the other accused chips in each of the Accused

Products. Id. This Interrogatory is therefore relevant to the infringement inquiry—it is directed to

identifying any material differences among the operation of the accused chips in the Accused

Products that are relevant to infringement. This Interrogatory in an attempt to discover if

Defendants are aware of, or will argue about, any alleged differences between the operation of

different accused chips in the Accused Products that are relevant to infringement.

Interrogatory No. 7 is the only interrogatory that all Defendants supplemented their

responses to on April 24, 2015. In doing so, Defendants relied, once again, on Rule 33(d). As is

the case for several prior interrogatories, however, Defendants refer ParkerVision to an

enormous range of documents spanning many hundreds of thousands of pages with no

specification of which documents therein are responsive. Indeed, Qualcomm identifies several

Bates ranges of documents spanning more than 200,000 pages (all of which were identified in

response to a different interrogatory, Interrogatory No. 5 regarding non-infringing alternatives—

a completely different topic); Samsung identifies nearly 30,000 pages; and HTC identifies more

than 200,000 pages. Moreover, Rule 33(d) also requires that the burden in deriving the answer be

at least equal by reference to the documents identified—here, that burden is not equal:

Defendants designed the accused products, Defendants know the accused instrumentalities in

ParkerVision’s infringement contentions, Defendants have access to the native versions of the

schematics for these products, and Defendants are in the best position to identify any material

differences significantly more easily than ParkerVision.1

1 Samsung’s deficient response is particularly troubling based on its Motion to Strike. Dkt.

108. As explained in ParkerVision’s opposition, and in light of Samsung’s apparent belief that its non-Qualcomm chip products do contain material differences from those chips in ParkerVision’s infringement contentions of which ParkerVision is presently unaware, Samsung should be compelled to respond regarding what those differences are. See Dkt. 122. With this information


D. ParkerVision's Interrogatory No.8, Served On February 12, 2015, Is Relevant To Identifying Allegedly Comparable Licenses For Use In Determining The Proper Measure Of Damages.

Separately for each Patent-in-Suit, identify by Bates number and describe all licenses, settlement agreements, or covenants-not-to-suit, technology transfer agreements or any other agreements or contracts providing any rights to patents or technologies ("Agreements") entered into by You, or of which You are aware, that relate to any patent or patent application (from any jmisdiction or nationality) that (i) relates to the functions and features set f01th in plaintiff's infringement contentions for each of Yom Accused Products or technology that you contend is similar to the ftmctions and features set f01th in Plaintiff's infringement contentions for each of Yom Accused Products, or that (ii) You contend is comparable to a license that You and plaintiff would have agreed to in a hypothetical negotiation in this case. Your answer should additionally identify by Bates number any documents that relate to, support, or refute Yom answer.

Defendants' licenses that are either: 1) related to the accused ftmctionality, or 2) allegedly

"comparable" to licenses to the patents-in-suit, are relevant to the damages inqui1y. Indeed,

allegedly comparable licenses are one of the sources of evaluating patent damages discussed in

about alleged differences-which Samsung is apparently ah-eady aware of but has yet to shareParkerVision can, if necessary, reevaluate its infringement contentions to address any alleged differences between Samslmg's Qualcomm and non-Qualcomm products. And if Samsung is unaware of any material differences to infringement, it has in effect conceded that ParkerVision's representative infi:ingement contentions are proper. Samsung crumot have it both ways: either Samslmg needs to answer Interrogat01y No.7 and explain any material differences from ParkerVision's present infringement theories, or Samslmg needs to admit that it (like ParkerVision) is unaware of any such material differences and its Motion to Strike is not wellfounded.

14 McKooll l05576v3


15 McKool 1105576v3

recent Federal Circuit case law. Rather than provide a substantive response, HTC promises to

respond at some unspecified time in the future and fails to identify any responsive documents at

all.

III. ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES

A. Interrogatory No. 4: Qualcomm Should Be Compelled To Provide A Complete, Non-Evasive Answer to Interrogatory No. 4 Regarding Its Pre-suit Knowledge of the Patents-in-Suit.

Interrogatory No. 4 requests Qualcomm identify all persons with knowledge of the

patents-in-suit and to provide documents demonstrating that knowledge. See supra Section II.A.

Despite ParkerVision’s request, Qualcomm has responded that “certain individuals employed by

Qualcomm” and “at least one individual in Qualcomm’s legal department” knew of the patents.

Id. Furthermore, Qualcomm provides several document citations but reliance on Rule 33(d) is

improper when the interrogatory requests recollections.2

While Qualcomm knows that “at least one individual in Qualcomm’s legal department”

had knowledge of some of the patents-in-suit, Qualcomm has not provided the identity of that

individual. Furthermore, Qualcomm was able to provide several dates that “certain individuals”

at Qualcomm became aware of the patents-in-suit, but it failed to identify who became aware of

the patents on those dates. ParkerVision pointed out these failures in correspondence months ago

(see Exs. 4-5), but Qualcomm failed to correct these issues in its first supplemental response.

2 Qualcomm’s identification of a single individual who had knowledge of the ’940 Patent

through the document with Bates No. QCPV001390546 (an e-mail from the individual to five e-mail addresses) is insufficient. The response fails to specifically identify the recipients—leaving ParkerVision to guess which Qualcomm personnel correspond to which e-mail address. As Qualcomm itself acknowledges, there are certain individuals (not merely a single individual) who had knowledge of the ’940 Patent on or around the date it issued. Further, Qualcomm’s identification regarding a single individual for the ’940 Patent fails to address the remaining 10 patents-in-suit.


16 McKool 1105576v3

In Qualcomm’s supplemental response, it cited voluminous documents to “provide

further support to Qualcomm’s belief that the accused products do not infringe.” Ex. 9. This

response, however, is still deficient. With the exception of one individual regarding the ’940

Patent, Qualcomm has continued to fail to identify who had knowledge of the patents-in-suit or

the circumstances of that knowledge. Qualcomm is the sole party in possession of this

information, and even assuming these individuals appear in the mass of documents Qualcomm

identified under the guise of Rule 33(d), it would be impossible for ParkerVision to hunt through

Qualcomm’s massive document citations looking for individuals employed by Qualcomm when

ParkerVision does not even know who all of Qualcomm’s employees are.

Furthermore, when an interrogatory asks for a recollection, the responding party may not

rely on Rule 33(d). See 8B Wright § 2178. (“For example, if a question calls for the recollections

of parties or their employees or agents, the fact that some pertinent data might also be found in

the records would not warrant use of this option.”). Qualcomm must “identify . . . how and when

[it] first became aware of each of the Patent-in-Suits (or patent application that later issued as

one of the Patents-in-Suit), including the person(s) so aware . . . from the time [it] first became

aware of each such Patent-in-Suit through trial in this matter.” Qualcomm has failed to identify

the vast majority of the individuals and neglected to explain when and how these unidentified

individuals became aware of the Patents-in-Suit. Despite the length of Qualcomm’s response to

Interrogatory No. 4 and the additional document citation, Qualcomm’s response, including

supplementation, fails to answer ParkerVision’s Interrogatory No. 4.

Qualcomm should be compelled to provide a narrative response describing the identity

and recollection of every single individual who was aware of any of the Patents-in-Suit prior to

the filing of ParkerVision’s complaint and support that information with any dates and relevant


17 McKool 1105576v3

document citation. Qualcomm’s current response to Interrogatory No. 4 is incomplete and

evasive; therefore, it should be compelled to respond fully and in good faith because “an evasive

or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or

respond.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4).

B. Interrogatory Nos. 5 and 7: Defendants May Not Cite an Unreasonable Volume of Material under the Auspices of Rule 33(d), Which Serves To Hide the True Response (If Any Exists in the Mountain of Identified Documents).

In response to ParkerVision’s Interrogatory Nos. 5 and 7, Qualcomm has identified an

unreasonable mountain of over a quarter million documents with no specification of where in the

mountain ParkerVision is supposed to fairly derive a response to these Interrogatories. See supra

Sections II.B and C. Samsung’s response to ParkerVision’s Interrogatory No. 7 and HTC’s

responses to ParkerVision’s Interrogatory Nos. 5 and 7 follow this same tactic. See id. Because

“hiding” responsive documents (if any) within a sea of documents is not in compliance with Rule

33(d), Defendants should be compelled to provide substantive, narrative responses to these

Interrogatories.

1. Defendants’ citation to voluminous, Bates-stamped materials does not provide enough specificity to comply with Rule 33(d).

Defendants have responded with enormous Bates number ranges that fail to comply with

Rule 33(d)(1)’s requirement of “specifying the records that must be reviewed, in sufficient detail

to enable the interrogating party to locate and identify them as readily as the responding party

could.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d). Indeed, Defendants have attempted to avoid answering

ParkerVision’s Interrogatories by directing ParkerVision to a sea of Bates-stamped materials

ranging in size from tens to hundreds of thousands of pages. The advisory notes to Rule 33(d)

address this type of discovery abuse:

The Committee is advised that parties upon whom interrogatories are served have occasionally responded by directing the interrogating party to a mass of business


18 McKool 1105576v3

records or by offering to make all of their records available, justifying the response by the option provided by this subdivision. Such practices are an abuse of the option.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 Advisory Committee Notes.

The specificity requirement “now contained in Rule 33(d)(1) was added in 1980 to

address this problem,” referring to burying the interrogating party with a mountain of responsive

documentation in which the answer may (or may not) be hidden. 8B Charles Alan Wright &

Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2178 (West 2014). “Indeed, a party may not

merely refer another party to documents hoping that the other party will be able to glean the

requested information.” Santoro v. Autozoners, LLC, 5:13-cv-242, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

64985, at *4-5 (M.D. Fla. May 9, 2014). Instead, “[a]t a minimum, Defendant’s answers to the

interrogatories should include specific references to specific Bates numbered documents

correlated with specific interrogatory requests.” Id.

In Hypertherm v. American Torch Tip Company, the interrogatory-serving party

contended that the answering party relied “on Rule 33(d) to answer the interrogatories by a

general reference to thousands of documents produced in discovery [which is] tantamount to not

answering at all.” No. 05–cv–373, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108269, at *3 (D.N.H. Dec. 29, 2008).

The court agreed, observing, “[i]mportantly, Rule 33(d) is not a means for a party to avoid

answering interrogatories by making only a general reference to a mass of documents or

records.” Id. Similarly, in Calkins v. Parcel Corporation, the court explained “[c]learly, a

general reference to a 92-page list of documents, with no indication as to which of the

documents, if any, contain answers to the interrogatory, does not adequately and precisely

specif[y] . . . the actual documents where information will be found.” No. 3:07-cv-00025, 2008

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43937, at *14 (W.D. Va., June 4, 2008) (internal quotations omitted). In

Spadaro v. City of Miramar, the court required that the responding party “either provide a


19 McKool 1105576v3

complete written response for each interrogatory or cite to specific page and paragraphs of each

document he claims is responsive.” No. 11-61607-CIV-COHN, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103278,

at *11 (S.D. Fla. July 25, 2012).3 Given the “very limited circumstances” in which Rule 33(d)

may be invoked, Defendants’ unreasonable citation to voluminous documents does not satisfy

the specificity requirement of Rule 33(d). See Discovery Practice Manual at Section III(A)(10).

As in Hypertherm, Calkins, and Spadaro, Defendants’ general citation to a mass of

documents previously served in this litigation is not in compliance with Rule 33(d) because it

does not adequately specify the records from which ParkerVision may ascertain answers to its

interrogatories. Qualcomm cites over 256,885 pages of documents for Interrogatory No. 5 and

over 220,514 of the same pages for Interrogatory No. 7.4 See supra Section II.C. HTC cites

33,738 pages of documents for Interrogatory No. 5 and 212,859 pages for Interrogatory No. 7.

Id. And Samsung cites 29,221 pages for Interrogatory No. 7. Id. This type of massive document

dump does not comply with Rule 33(d). “[Defendants] may very well have provided documents

responsive to [ParkerVision’s] requests, but the manner in which they did so is not acceptable.”

Mann v. Island Resorts Dev., No. 3:08-cv-297, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130436, at *13 (N.D. Fla.

Feb. 27, 2009).5

3 See also In re Bilzerian, 190 B.R. 964, 965 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1995) (citing Derson Group,

Ltd., v. Right Management Consultants, Inc., 119 F.R.D. 396 (E.D. Ill. 1988)) (“[I]t is clear that a general reference to voluminous documents is not sufficient.”).

4 Qualcomm’s citation to an erroneous range of Bates-stamped pages from “QCPVII00105370 – QCPVII0010953” means that ParkerVision cannot provide the exact number of pages cited by Qualcomm.

5 In contrast to these interrogatories, Qualcomm provides Bates numbers for two documents in response to Interrogatory No. 8 and provides their relevance: “[b]y identifying these documents, Qualcomm does not take any position on whether the licenses are comparable licenses for purposes of the hypothetical negotiation, a determination that is premature at this stage of the litigation and will be the subject of expert discovery.” Samsung also provided Bates numbers for two documents in response to Interrogatory No. 8, but Samsung failed to state their relevance. While ParkerVision does not concede that these responses to Interrogatory No. 8 are


20 McKool 1105576v3

2. In addition to Defendants’ lack of specificity, Defendants cannot rely solely on Rule 33(d) for Interrogatory No. 7 because it concerns Defendants’ contentions.

“Reliance on Rule 33(d) is appropriate when the interrogatory requests objective facts

that are obvious from the specified documents, but is generally inappropriate when the

interrogatory asks a party to state its contentions or to state facts supporting its allegations.”

Morock v. Chautauqua Airlines, Inc., No. 8:07-cv-210-T-17-MAP, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

88532, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 3, 2007). Interrogatory No. 7 requests Defendants “identify and

explain all facts and documents related to any differences between each Accused Product that

you contend is material to Plaintiff’s infringement allegations, that You may rely upon to support

any assertion or finding of non-infringement in this matter.” See supra Section II.C. As

Interrogatory No. 7 requests Defendants explain any material differences between

ParkerVision’s infringement contentions and Defendants’ understanding of the operation of their

own products, Interrogatory No. 7 calls for a contention that ParkerVision cannot glean from

documents, regardless of how specifically Defendants cite their business records. See Morock,

2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88532, at *6 (“Only [a party] can identify [their] own contentions and the

burden on [the other party] to try and divine [their] contentions from documents obviously

imposes a greatly unequal burden on [the other party].” (quoting U.S. S.E.C. v. Elfindepan, S.A.,

206 F.R.D. 574, 577 n.5 (M.D. N.C. 2002)).) Accordingly, Defendants should be compelled to

provide a narrative response to ParkerVision’s Interrogatory No. 7, explaining what differences

(if any) they contend exist between the products charted in ParkerVision’s infringement

contentions and the other accused products. See also Dkt. 122 (explaining ParkerVision’s

complete, Qualcomm’s response was an acceptable specification of documents under Rule 33(d). For each of the other Interrogatories at issue here, Defendants should be required to respond with this same level of specificity if they intend to rely on Rule 33(d).


21 McKool 1105576v3

contention that the representative products that were reverse engineered and charted at great

expense are, to the best of ParkerVision’s present belief, representative of the operation of each

of the accused products in the case, and further explaining why reverse engineering and charting

every single chip in every single accused product is not feasible).

In ParkerVision I, the court declined to order Qualcomm to provide a narrative response

to a contention interrogatory. See ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., 3:11-cv-719-J-37TEM,

2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2753 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 8, 2013). Based on ParkerVision’s experience in

ParkerVision I, however, ParkerVision demonstrates why Defendant’s should be compelled to

substantively respond to ParkerVision’s Interrogatory No. 7 in this case.

In ParkerVision I, Qualcomm made an eleventh-hour argument that ParkerVision’s

infringement contentions are insufficient based on representative products. ParkerVision, Inc. v.

Qualcomm Inc., 27 F. Supp. 3d 1266, 1279 (M.D. Fla. 2014). During judgment as a matter of

law briefing in ParkerVision I, Qualcomm argued that ParkerVision’s use of representative

products was insufficient to carry the burden of proving infringement despite Qualcomm’s

failure to cross-examine ParkerVision’s infringement expert on his use of representative products

and relying on representative documents when cross-examining ParkerVision’s expert. Id. The

court rejected Qualcomm’s argument “that JMOL is warranted because ParkerVision failed to

present substantial evidence that the Magellan design is a representative product.” Id. at 1280-81

(internal citations omitted).

Given Qualcomm’s prior allegations of the inadequacy of representative products

argument as late as post-trial, ParkerVision served its Interrogatory No. 7 early in this case to

discern whether ParkerVision’s use of representative products would be at issue in this litigation

and to spare the parties (and the Court) the burden of separately evaluating many products, if, at


22 McKool 1105576v3

the end of the day (and as in ParkerVision I) the Defendants’ would not assert non-infringement

based on any alleged differences among the accused products. Contention interrogatories are

appropriate in the Middle District of Florida: “(1) to target claims, defenses, or contentions that

the propounding attorney reasonably suspects may be the proper subject of early dismissal or

resolution or (2) to identify and narrow the scope of unclear claims, defenses, and contentions.”

Discovery Practice Manual at Section IV(A)(8). In this case, it is critical that Defendants

affirmatively admit or deny that they will be defending against ParkerVision’s infringement

allegations based on material differences between the accused products and narratively explain to

ParkerVision what differences between the accused products they contend are material to narrow

the scope of the case and the burden on the parties (and the Court) in evaluating each of the

products at issue. The Federal Circuit has recognized the utility of contention interrogatories in

the context of narrowing patent litigation issues. See Woodrow Woods & Marine Exhaust Sys.,

Inc. v. Deangelo Marine Exhaust, Inc., 692 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Contention

interrogatories . . . serve an important purpose in helping to discover facts supporting the theories

of the parties. Answers to contention interrogatories also serve to narrow and sharpen the issues

thereby confining discovery and simplifying trial preparation.”).

Compelling Defendants to narratively respond to Interrogatory No. 7 significantly

narrows the scope of this litigation because utilizing representative products minimizes the

burden on all parties in this litigation. Each of ParkerVision’s infringement contentions is

extensive and represents substantial time expenditure by ParkerVision. If ParkerVision is

required to draft infringement contentions for all of the accused products—because of alleged

material differences between those products—this litigation will be greatly complicated. Rather

than wait (until expert reports or potentially as late as judgment as a matter of law post-trial) to


23 McKool 1105576v3

dispute the adequacy of ParkerVision’s use of representative products, Defendants need to

identify whether they will dispute the use of representative products now and provide

ParkerVision with any facts known to them that support that contention. This will enable

ParkerVision to adequately prepare its expert reports and for trial. Currently, Defendants have

not made any indication whether or not they will argue that there are meaningful differences

among the accused products such that ParkerVision cannot use a representative products

infringement theory in its expert reports and at trial.

For instance, Qualcomm stated in its original response to Interrogatory No. 7 that “[t]he

Accused Products also have many differences that provide additional bases for non-

infringement.” Qualcomm goes on to say “[f]or example, the values that Qualcomm has selected

for the resistors, capacitors, and other components are not identical across all of the Accused

Products.” Qualcomm cannot simply claim “there are many differences” and that “other

components are not identical” but then fail to provide what those differences are and how those

differences are material to Qualcomm’s non-infringement defense, as requested by Interrogatory

No. 7. If Qualcomm has knowledge of material differences between the accused products—and

as the party who designs them, it should know—it should inform ParkerVision of those

differences so that ParkerVision can prepare its expert reports and for trial. Thus, considering the

narrowly construed nature of Rule 33(d)6 and the necessity of ParkerVision knowing

Defendants’ answers to these contentions to narrow the scope of the case, Defendants should be

compelled to provide a substantive, narrative response to ParkerVision’s Interrogatory No. 7.

6 See Wagner v. Fishing Co. of Alaska, Inc., No. C-06-1634-RSL, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

55092, at *3 (W.D. Wash. July 18, 2008) (“[Rule 33(d)] has been narrowly interpreted.”); see also Mancini v. Ins. Corp., No. 07-cv-1750, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51321, at *6 (S.D. Cal. June 18, 2009) (“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow, in strictly limited circumstances, for a party to refer to specific business records in response to an interrogatory . . . .”).


24 McKool 1105576v3

C. Interrogatory No. 8: HTC Cannot Avoid Substantively Responding with a Bare Citation of Rule 33(d) by Assuring a Response at Some Unspecified Future Date.

In response to ParkerVision’s Interrogatory No. 8, HTC has failed to provide any

response whatsoever, instead only citing Rule 33(d) and promising to produce documents

responsive to this Interrogatory at some unspecified future date. See supra Section II.D. Because

an assurance to produce unidentified documents at some future date is not in compliance with

Rule 33(d), HTC should be compelled to provide a substantive narrative response to this

Interrogatory.

Rule 33(d) provides a limited alternative to answering interrogatories with a narrative

response when “the answer to an interrogatory may be determined by examining, auditing,

compiling, abstracting, or summarizing a party’s business records (including electronically

stored information), and if the burden of deriving or ascertaining the answer will be substantially

the same for either party . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d). The rule further mandates that the

answering party must “(1) specify[] the records that must be reviewed, in sufficient detail to

enable the interrogating party to locate and identify them as readily as the responding party could

. . .” Id. Rule 33(d) “is not a procedural device for avoiding the duty to provide information in

response to an interrogatory.” Pepperwood of Naples Condo. Ass’n v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins.

Co., No. 2:10-cv-753-FtM-36SPC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106624, at *16 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 20,

2011) (internal citations omitted).

HTC’s response to ParkerVision’s Interrogatory No. 8 is deficient because it does not

specify any business records as required by Rule 33(d). See supra Section II.D. Instead, HTC

merely states that at some unspecified time in the future it will produce unidentified documents

that it contends are sufficient to comply with Rule 33(d). Such unaccompanied assurances that

documents will be provided in the future (especially here where months have passed since the


25 McKool 1105576v3

service of the Interrogatory and ParkerVision’s notification to Defendants regarding their

deficient non-responses) are insufficient to meet HTC’s burden to specify relevant business

records. Zuckerman v. Vane, 812 A.2d 942, 946 (D.C. 2002); Pulsecard, Inc. v. Discover Card

Servs., 168 F.R.D. 295, 305 (D. Kan. 1996). “It is clear that a simple offer to produce unspecified

responsive materials is not sufficient designation to satisfy the [Rule 33(d)].” 8B Wright § 2178.

As stated in the Discovery Practice Manual Section III(A)(10), Rule 33(d) is only

available “in very limited circumstances.” If HTC wanted to comply with the “limited

circumstances” of Rule 33(d), at the time HTC served its initial response (i.e., on March 27,

2015), it would have “specif[ied] the records that must be reviewed, in sufficient detail to enable

the interrogating party to locate and identify them as readily as the responding party could.” Fed.

R. Civ. P. 33(d)(1). The response at issue did not “specif[y]” any documents—it simply said

some unknown and unspecified documents would be produced at some future date. See Section

II.D, supra. And, Rule 33(d)(2) further required HTC to “giv[e] the interrogating party a

reasonable opportunity to examine and audit the records and to make copies, compilations,

abstracts, or summaries.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d)(2). Because HTC did not produce or identify any

specific documents pursuant to Rule 33(d), HTC has not afforded ParkerVision the required

“opportunity to examine and audit the records.” Had HTC wanted to legitimately invoke Rule

33(d), then it was required to comply with both 33(d)(1) and 33(d)(2) at the time their responses

were served—i.e. on March 27, 2015 (or, at the very least, as part of their April 24, 2015 or May

27, 2015 supplementations).

Consistent with the literal language of the Rule, and the guidance from Wright and Miller

set forth above, several courts have held that a promise to respond in the future is insufficient to

satisfy Rule 33(d). For instance, in Blake Associates v. Omni Spectra, the court observed the


26 McKool 1105576v3

interrogatory response at issue “merely states that it ‘. . . . will make available for examination by

counsel documents responsive to this interrogatory.’” 118 F.R.D. 283, 289 (D. Mass. 1988). The

court explained, “this is patently insufficient . . . [a]n even cursory reading of Rule 33(c) [now

Rule 33(d)] would have alerted reasonably competent counsel to the fact that plaintiff’s answers

were wholly deficient.” Id. Similarly, in Oleson v. Kmart Corporation, the court rejected reliance

on Rule 33(d) where the defendant, “under the guise of Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d),” referred

generically to an employment record and promised to furnish additional material at a mutually

agreeable date and time. 175 F.R.D. 560, 564 (D. Kan. 1997). The court clarified, “it is not a

proper answer to an interrogatory that information will be produced at a time to be mutually

agreed between the parties.” Id.

ParkerVision requests that the Court compel HTC to respond in full to ParkerVision’s

Interrogatory No. 8 regarding damages, including but not limited to identifying and producing

both: 1) agreements that relate to the accused and similar functionality as described in

ParkerVision’s infringement contentions, and 2) agreements that HTC contends are comparable

to a license the parties would have agreed to in a hypothetical negotiation in this case.

D. Interrogatory No. 4 and 5: Documents created in preparation for this litigation are not an adequate response under Rule 33(d) because they are not “business records.”

In addition to the non-responsive nature of including Qualcomm’s infringement and

invalidity contentions in its response to Interrogatory No. 4 and the Defendants’ response to

Interrogatory No. 5 generally, the Defendants may not utilize documents prepared for this

litigation (i.e. their invalidity contentions), or during the course of previous litigation, in lieu of

providing a narrative response to Interrogatory Nos. 4 (Qualcomm) and 5 (each of the

Defendants)—Rule 33(d) only allows the use of business records. Wiand v. Wells Fargo Bank,

No. 8:12-CV-557-T-27EAJ, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166377, at *21 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 22, 2013).


27 McKool 1105576v3

For example, in Wiand v. Wells Fargo Bank, the responding party offered an expert report under

Rule 33(d). Id. The court held “Rule 33(d) permits a party to answer an interrogatory with

business records . . . an expert report is not a business record.” Id. In Mulero-Abreu v. Pourto

Rico Police Department, the responding party attempted to answer an interrogatory with a

deposition transcript. 675 F.3d 88, 91 (1st Cir. 2012). The court observed that “[a]nswering

interrogatories simply by directing the proponent to rummage through other discovery materials

falls short of the obligations imposed by Rule 33.” Id.; see also SEC v. Elfindepan, 206 F.R.D.

574, 577-78 (M.D.N.C. 2002) (“Pleadings, depositions, exhibits, and affidavits which plaintiff

intends to use are not Rule 33(d) business records.”). Including Qualcomm’s supplemental

response to Interrogatory No. 4, Qualcomm has cited several portions of the trial transcript from

ParkerVision I, a brief before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and its infringement

and invalidity contentions—none of these documents are business records. Likewise, in

responding to Interrogatory No. 5 each of the Defendants incorporate their invalidity contentions

under the guise of Rule 33(d)—these litigation created invalidity contents are not business

records within the meaning of the Rule. This is yet another reason why Qualcomm should be

compelled to supplement its response to Interrogatory No. 4 and Defendants should be

compelled to supplement their responses to Interrogatory No. 5.

E. Interrogatory Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 8: Defendants’ Boilerplate and Otherwise Deficient “subject to” or “without waiving” Objections Followed by Deficient Answers Should Be Overruled.

Boilerplate objections are insufficient to preserve any meritorious objection that

Defendants may have had with respect to any of ParkerVision’s Interrogatories. Accordingly,

and because their objections are waived, this is an additional reason why Qualcomm should be

compelled to respond substantively to Interrogatory Nos. 4, 5, and 7; Samsung should be


28 McKool 1105576v3

compelled to respond substantively to Interrogatory Nos. 5 and 7; and HTC should be compelled

to respond substantively to Interrogatory Nos. 5, 7, and 8.

Defendants raise a mass of objections to every single interrogatory set forth herein. See

supra Section II.A, B, C, and D. Rather than rely on the alleged objectionable nature of the

interrogatory, however, Defendants answer each such interrogatory (although not sufficiently),

and promise to provide responsive information as discussed in detail above. Courts in the Middle

District of Florida have consistently held that objections preceding an answer constitute waiver

of those objections. See Pepperwood, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96501, at *6-7 (“Even though the

practice has become common here and elsewhere, courts have found that whenever an answer

accompanies an objection, the objection is deemed waived, and the answer, if responsive,

stands.” (emphasis added)). Such objections “preserve[] nothing and waste[] the time and

resources of the parties and the court.” Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Kelt, Inc., No. 6:14-cv-

749-Orl-41TBS, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43251, at *9 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 30, 2015).

In this case, ParkerVision is not contending that Defendants’ answers should stand—on

the contrary, Defendants’ answers are entirely deficient for the reasons set forth above. However,

and because Defendants agreed to provide information in response to the Interrogatories

discussed herein “subject to” their objections, those objections have been waived. In this District,

Defendants had to choose between abstaining from answering because the interrogatory is

objectionable (and state those objections with particularity) or respond substantively. “[A]

responding party is given only two choices: to answer or to object.” Mann, 2009 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 130436, at *10. “Objecting but answering subject to the objection is not one of the

allowed choices.” Id. Here, Defendants objected with boilerplate objections, then answered

“subject to” those objections, waiving any meritorious objection they may otherwise have had.


29 McKool 1105576v3

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, ParkerVision requests that the Court grant its Motion to

Compel Defendants to provide responses to the Interrogatories discussed herein.

LOCAL RULE 3.01(G) CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Local Rule 3.01(g), ParkerVision’s attorneys conferred in good faith with

defendants’ attorneys, who object to the relief sought in this motion.


30 McKool 1105576v3

Dated: July 3, 2015 Respectfully submitted,

McKOOL SMITH, P.C. By: /s/ Joshua W. Budwin Douglas A. Cawley Texas State Bar No. 04035500 [email protected] Richard A. Kamprath Texas State Bar No. 24078767 [email protected] 300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: (214) 978-4000 Facsimile: (214) 978-4044

Kevin L. Burgess Texas State Bar No. 24006927 [email protected] Joshua W. Budwin Texas State Bar No. 24050347 [email protected] Leah Buratti Texas State Bar No. 24064897 [email protected] Kathy H. Li Texas State Bar No. 24070142 [email protected] Mario Apreotesi Texas State Bar No. 24080772 [email protected] 300 West Sixth Street, Suite 1700 Austin, Texas 78701 Telephone: (512) 692-8700 Facsimile: (512) 692-8744 SMITH HULSEY & BUSEY Stephen D. Busey James A. Bolling Florida Bar Number 117790 Florida Bar Number 901253 225 Water Street, Suite 1800 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Telephone: (904) 359-7700 Facsimile: (904) 359-7708 [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF PARKERVISION, INC.


31 McKool 1105576v3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on July 3, 2015, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of 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.

/s/ Kathy H. Li Kathy H. Li


EXHIBIT 1

Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-1 Filed 07/03/15 Page 1 of 41 PageID 5676

CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

ORLANDO DIVISION

PARKERVISION, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, QUALCOMM ATHEROS, INC., HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC,

Defendants.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED’S AND QUALCOMM ATHEROS INC.’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PARKERVISION’S FIRST SET OF COMMON

INTERROGATORIES (1-8) CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL

Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules for the

Middle District of Florida (“Local Rules”), Qualcomm Incorporated and Qualcomm Atheros,

Inc. (collectively “Qualcomm”) submit the following objections and responses to ParkerVision,

Inc.’s (“ParkerVision”) First Set of Common Interrogatories to Defendants (hereinafter “First Set

of Interrogatories”).

General Responses

Qualcomm states the following general responses to ParkerVision’s First Set of

Interrogatories and incorporates them by reference into Qualcomm’s specific objections and

responses to ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories, where appropriate.



2

1. Qualcomm’s discovery and investigation of the facts relevant to this case are

ongoing, and Qualcomm’s response to ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories is made to the

best of Qualcomm’s present knowledge, information, and belief. Qualcomm’s response is at all

times subject to such additional or different information that discovery or further investigation

may disclose and, while based on the present state of Qualcomm’s recollection, is subject to such

refreshing of recollection, and such additional knowledge of facts, as may result from

Qualcomm’s further discovery or investigation.

2. Qualcomm reserves the right to make any use of, or to introduce at any hearing

and at trial, information and/or documents responsive to ParkerVision’s First Set of

Interrogatories but discovered subsequent to the date of this response, including, but not limited

to, any such information or documents obtained in discovery herein.

3. To the extent that Qualcomm responds to ParkerVision’s Interrogatories by

stating that Qualcomm will provide information and/or documents which Qualcomm or any

other party to this litigation deems to embody material that is private, business confidential,

proprietary, trade secret, or otherwise protected from disclosure pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 26(c)(7), or Federal Rule of Evidence 501, Qualcomm will do so only upon execution

of an appropriate confidentiality agreement to protect against the unauthorized use or disclosure

of such information.

4. Qualcomm reserves all objections or other questions as to the competency,

relevance, materiality, privilege or admissibility as evidence in any subsequent proceeding in or

trial of this or any other action for any purpose whatsoever of Qualcomm’s responses herein and

any document or thing identified or provided in response to ParkerVision’s Interrogatories.



3

5. Qualcomm reserves the right to object on any ground at any time to such other or

supplemental interrogatories as ParkerVision may at any time propound involving or relating to

the subject matter of these interrogatories.

General Objections

Qualcomm states the following general objections to ParkerVision’s First Set of



1. Qualcomm objects to ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories to the extent that

they purport to request disclosure of information that comes within the scope of the attorney-

client privilege, the work product doctrine, any protective order or confidentiality agreement or

is otherwise exempted from discovery. Qualcomm hereby asserts all applicable privileges and

protections, and excludes privileged and protected information from its responses to

ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories. Any disclosure of such privileged and/or protected

information is inadvertent and is not intended to waive those privileges or protections.


they seek production of Qualcomm’s confidential and proprietary information prior to the parties

entering into a Confidentiality Agreement.

3. Qualcomm objects to ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories to the extent each

interrogatory contains impermissible subparts in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

33(a) and the Court’s Case Management and Scheduling Order (Dkt. 92, Section I(C)).

4. Qualcomm objects to each of ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories to the

extent it seeks to require Qualcomm to identify in a response each or any document which may

relate to, reflect or otherwise refer to specified matters on the ground that such requests are



4

overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence.

5. Qualcomm objects to Definition No. 5 for “Patent(s)-in-Suit” to the extent it seeks

to include any patents ParkerVision has not asserted. Qualcomm will limit its responses to the

patents identified in ParkerVision’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. 26) and ParkerVision’s

Infringement Contentions, served January 16, 2015.

6. Qualcomm objects to Definition No. 6 for “Qualcomm Transmitter Patents

Accused Product(s)” as vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to

lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent that ParkerVision’s Infringement

Contentions fail to comply with the parties’ stipulated procedures (Dkt. 84) and the Court’s Case

Management and Scheduling Order (Dkt. 92), and thus ParkerVision, as the party with the

burden of proof, has failed to adequately put Qualcomm on notice of which products allegedly

infringe which asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit. Qualcomm further objects to this

definition to the extent ParkerVision seeks to bring into the case any products not specifically

accused of infringement in ParkerVision’s Infringement Contentions, regardless of whether they

have been released yet or not. Qualcomm also objects to the blanket inclusion of any product

identified in response to Interrogatory Number 1 since ParkerVision has provided no basis for

alleging infringement.

7. Qualcomm objects to Definition No. 7 for “Qualcomm Receiver Patents Accused

Product(s)” as vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to

the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent that ParkerVision’s Infringement Contentions

fail to comply with the parties’ stipulated procedures (Dkt. 84) and the Court’s Case




5








8. Qualcomm objects to Definition No. 8 for “Qualcomm Protocol Converter Patent












9. Qualcomm objects to Definition No. 11 for “Qualcomm Accused Product(s)” for

the reasons set forth in objections to the terms “Qualcomm Transmitter Patents Accused

Product(s),” “Qualcomm Receiver Patents Accused Product(s),” and “Qualcomm Protocol

Converter Patents Accused Product(s).”



6

10. Qualcomm objects to Definition No. 12 for “Accused Product(s)” to the extent

ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories seeks any information from Qualcomm regarding

products that it does not design, manufacture or sell, and thus any information about those

products are not within Qualcomm’s possession, custody or control. Qualcomm further

incorporates by reference its objections to the terms “Qualcomm Transmitter Patents Accused



11. Qualcomm objects to Definition No. 15 for “document(s”) to the extent

ParkerVision seeks to define the term broader than its use in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

34(a). Qualcomm will interpret the term “document(s)” consistent with its use in Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 34(a). Qualcomm further objects to this definition to the extent it calls for types

of documents and information not covered by the parties’ ESI agreement.

12. Qualcomm objects to Definition No. 16 for “communication(s)” to the extent

ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories seek to impose on Qualcomm an obligation to provide

information that is not reasonably accessible, thus subjecting Qualcomm to undue burden and

expense. Qualcomm further objects to this definition to the extent it calls for types of documents

and information not covered by the parties’ ESI agreement. Qualcomm further notes that the

term “communication(s)” is not used in any of the Interrogatories in ParkerVision’s First Set of

Interrogatories, and thus Qualcomm reserves all rights to further object to the use of this term if

and when ParkerVision uses it in further discovery requests.

13. Qualcomm objects to paragraphs 1-8 of the Instructions to the extent they purport

to require disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product



7

doctrine, any protective order or confidentiality agreement or information that is otherwise

exempted from discovery.

INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

Separately identify each receiver, transmitter, transceiver, modem, baseband, and

baseband processor, or combination thereof (e.g., system on a chip) or cellular telephone, tablet,

or other mobile communication device containing a receiver, transmitter, transceiver, modem,

baseband, or baseband processor, or combination thereof (e.g., system on a chip) made, used,

offered for sale, or sold within the United States or imported into the United States by You or at

Your direction in the six years preceding the filing of the first amended complaint in this matter

and up through trial in this matter. Your answer should include an identification by Bates number

of all documents related to Your answer and use the format of the following exemplary table:

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:



8


Separately for each of Your Accused Products, identify on a monthly and quarterly basis,

for the six years preceding the filing of the original complaint in this matter and up through trial

in this matter: (a) the number of units sold, imported into, or licensed in the United States net of

any returns; (b) the revenues associated with the units sold, imported into, or licensed in the

United States net of any returns; (c) all costs relating to units sold, imported into, or licensed in

the United States net of any returns; (d) all other expenses for the units sold, imported into or

licensed in the United States net of any returns; (e) the profit margin before taxes for the units

sold, imported into or licensed in the United States net of any returns; and (f) an identification by

Bates number of all documents related to Your answer. To the extent that You do not track,

maintain, or have the ability to calculate the information separately for each Accused Product,

identify the information at the most granular level at which it is tracked, maintained, or at which

You are able to calculate the information. Your answer should use the format of the following

exemplary table:



9




10


Separately for each of Your Accused Products, identify: (a) the first U.S. release date; (b)

first U.S. sale or offer for sale; (c) first U.S. public use; (d) first U.S. manufacture; (e) first

importation into the U.S.; (f) first use by You or at Your direction in the U.S. (whether by way of

testing or otherwise); and (g) an identification by Bates number of all documents that relate to,

support, or refute Your answer. Your answer should use the format of the following exemplary

table:




11


Separately identify and describe how and when You first became aware of each of the

Patent-in-Suits (or patent application that later issued as one of the Patents-in-Suit), including the

person(s) so aware, any documents showing or reflecting Your awareness of each such Patent-in-

Suit and any documents or facts showing or reflecting Your belief of infringement or validity of

each Patent-in-Suit from the time you first became aware of each such Patent-in-Suit through

trial in this matter. Your answer should identify by Bates number any documents that relate to,

support, or refute Your answer.


:



12



13


Separately for each asserted claim of the Patents-in-Suit and each of Your Accused

Products, please identify and describe all facts (including the technical and financial details)

related to any acceptable non-infringing alternative(s) or design around(s) available to You, of

which You are aware, which You are presently investigating, or which You may rely upon for

any purpose in this case (including at trial). Your answer should additionally identify any

documents by Bates number that relate to, support, or refute Your answer.




14


Separately for each asserted claim of each of the Patents-in-Suit and each of Your

Accused Products, identify and describe all facts and documents that support or refute any non-

infringement assertion, argument or contention that You are aware of, that You may rely upon to

negate any finding or assertion of intent to infringe (e.g., for induced or willful infringement),

that You may present in any dispositive or non-dispositive motion brought in this matter, that

You may present at trial in this matter, and/or that You may rely upon for any other purpose in

this matter. Your answer should include an identification of the date you first formed each such

belief, the identity of all persons who have that belief (including the date each such person

formed such belief), and an identification by Bates number of any documents that relate to,





15



16



Products, identify and explain all facts and documents related to any differences between each

Accused Product that you contend is material to Plaintiff’s infringement allegations, that You

may rely upon to support any assertion or finding of non-infringement in this matter, or that You

may rely upon to refute any infringement assertion by Plaintiff in this matter. For each Patent-in-

Suit, your answer should include the identification of any differences between the transceivers

cited in Plaintiff’s infringement contentions and the transceivers used in each Accused Product

that you contend is material to plaintiff’s infringement allegations and any differences that You

contend make it so that any one Accused Product is not representative of the operation of any

other Accused Product. Your answer should additionally identify by Bates number any

documents that relate to, support, or refute Your answer.




17


Separately for each Patent-in-Suit, identify by Bates number and describe all licenses,

settlement agreements, or covenants-not-to-suit, technology transfer agreements or any other

agreements or contracts providing any rights to patents or technologies (“Agreements”) entered

into by You, or of which You are aware, that relate to any patent or patent application (from any

jurisdiction or nationality) that (i) relates to the functions and features set forth in plaintiff’s

infringement contentions for each of Your Accused Products or technology that you contend is

similar to the functions and features set forth in Plaintiff’s infringement contentions for each of

Your Accused Products, or that (ii) You contend is comparable to a license that You and plaintiff



18

would have agreed to in a hypothetical negotiation in this case. Your answer should additionally

identify by Bates number any documents that relate to, support, or refute Your answer.




19

Dated: March 27, 2015

COOLEY LLP By: /s/ Matthew J. Brigham Stephen C. Neal (admitted pro hac vice)

Email: [email protected] Timothy S. Teter (admitted pro hac vice) Email: [email protected] Matthew J. Brigham (admitted pro hac vice) Email: [email protected] Jeffrey S. Karr (admitted pro hac vice) Email: [email protected] Benjamin G. Damstedt (admitted pro hac vice) Email: [email protected] 3175 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155 Phone: (650) 843-5000 Fax: (650) 849-7400

and BEDELL, DITTMAR, DEVAULT, PILLANS & COXE, P.A. John A. DeVault, III Florida Bar No. 103979 E-mail: [email protected] Courtney K. Grimm Florida Bar No. 953740 E-mail: [email protected] The Bedell Building 101 East Adams Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Telephone: (904) 353-0211 Facsimile: (904) 353-9307 Counsel for Defendants Qualcomm Incorporated and Qualcomm Atheros, Inc.
























I hereby certify that on March 27, 2015, I served the foregoing document described below:

Qualcomm Incorporated’s and Qualcomm Atheros Inc.’s Objections and Responses to ParkerVision’s First Set of Common Interrogatories (1-8)

by electronic mail to the following party:

[email protected]

/s/ Matthew J. Brigham Matthew J. Brigham (Admitted pro hac vice) E-mail: [email protected] 3175 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155 Phone: (650) 843-5000 Fax: (650) 849-7400 Counsel for Defendants Qualcomm Incorporated and Qualcomm Atheros, Inc.

114085849


EXHIBIT 2


WEST\255367560 1

OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY


ORLANDO DIVISION

PARKERVISION, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.


Defendants.

CASE NO. 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

DEFENDANTS SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. AND SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTION S TO

PARKERVISION’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1 -3 AND 5-8)1

Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“F.R.C.P.”),

Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“SEC”), Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“SEA”)

and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (“STA”) (collectively, “Samsung”)2 respond

to the first set of interrogatories by Plaintiff ParkerVision, Inc. (“ParkerVision”) as follows:

GENERAL STATEMENT AND OBJECTIONS

1. Samsung objects to each interrogatory, definition and instruction to the extent that

it seeks to impose duties or obligations on Samsung beyond those set forth in the Federal Rules

of Evidence, F.R.C.P. and/or the Civil Local Rules of the District Court for the Middle District 1 Pursuant to the agreement between Samsung and ParkerVision, Samsung will respond to Interrogatory No. 4 by April 3, 2015. 2 On January 1, 2015, STA merged into SEA. SEA responds to this discovery on behalf of SEA and former STA.


WEST\255367560 2


of Florida, or any other agreement that the parties have or may enter into in this case. In this

regard, to the extent that an interrogatory requires, explicitly or implicitly, the construction of

one or more patent claim terms, a comparison of the asserted claims and the prior art, or

identification of any advice of counsel, such interrogatory is premature in light of the timetable

provided in the Case Management and Scheduling Order.

2. Samsung objects generally to the interrogatories to the extent that they

prematurely call for discovery concerning, among other things before the parties have resolved

any ant all deficiencies with ParkerVision’s Infringement Contentions.

3. The following responses are based on information available as of the date of these

responses. Discovery is not yet complete, and these responses are therefore subject to revision.

It is anticipated that further discovery, investigation, and analysis may supply additional facts

and add meaning to known facts, as well as establish entirely new factual conclusions and legal

contentions, all of which may lead to substantial changes, additions, or variations to the

information set forth herein.


it seeks disclosure of information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney

work product doctrine, joint defense, common interest and/or any other applicable privilege,

protection or doctrine. Nothing contained herein is intended to be or should be construed as a

waiver of the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, joint defense,

common interest privilege or other applicable privileges or doctrines. Samsung further objects to

each interrogatory to the extent that it requires Samsung to search for and reveal privileged

information or communications from its or its attorneys’ litigation files pertaining to the case.

5. Samsung objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it seeks confidential or


WEST\255367560 3


proprietary information pertaining to Samsung’s business, trade secrets and/or economic

relationships, or to the extent that it seeks confidential information which would impinge upon

any protected right to privacy.

6. Samsung further objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it seeks

information that contains confidential, proprietary or trade secret information of third parties.

Samsung will not provide information in response to such interrogatories until the entry of an

appropriate confidentiality agreement in this case, and all such production will be subject to any

consent required by third parties.

7. These responses are made solely for the purpose of discovery in this action.

Nothing herein is intended to waive the following objections, which are expressly reserved: all

objections as to competency, relevancy, authenticity, propriety, materiality and admissibility of

the subject matter of the interrogatories; all objections on any ground as to the use of any

information provided in response to these interrogatories; all objections on any ground to any

interrogatory for further responses to these or other interrogatories; and any and all other

objections and ground that would or could require or permit the exclusion of any document or

statement therein from evidence, all of which objections and ground are reserved and may be

interposed at the time of trial.

8. Samsung objects generally to the interrogatories to the extent that they seek

irrelevant information concerning products that are not imported into or made, used, offered for

sale, or sold in the United States.

9. Samsung objects to ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories to the extent each




WEST\255367560 4



it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence herein.

11. Samsung objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it seeks to impose an

obligation to identify or search for documents or information at any location other than that at

which they would be stored in the ordinary course of business.

12. Samsung objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it is cumulative and

duplicative of other forms of discovery that are more convenient and less burdensome. Samsung

further objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it seeks to require Samsung to do more

than conduct an examination of those files or sources that reasonably may be expected to yield

responsive information or an inquiry of those persons who reasonably may be expected to

possess responsive information.

13. Samsung objects generally to the temporal scope of the interrogatories as overly

broad, unduly burdensome, and neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence to the extent that it does not contain any reasonable or

appropriate temporal limitation. Samsung is willing to meet and confer with ParkerVision to

determine a mutually agreeable relevant time frame for discovery.

14. Samsung objects generally to these interrogatories to the extent that they seek a

legal conclusion or prematurely seek expert opinion.

15. Samsung objects generally to these interrogatories to the extent that they seek

information already in ParkerVision’s possession or that is equally available to ParkerVision

from public sources.

16. Samsung objects to the definition of “Defendant,” “You,” or “Your” as overly


WEST\255367560 5


broad and unduly burdensome to the extent that it includes Samsung’s “past and present officers,

directors, affiliates, brokers, agents, representatives, employees, servants, and all persons acting

directly or indirectly under their control, including any attorney and including each Defendant’s

respective parents, subsidiaries, or affiliated companies, and other related entities, including all

assets or companies that each Defendant has acquired or with respect to which has succeeded to

rights or obligations.” Samsung further objects to the definition of “Defendant,” “You,” or

“Your” on the ground that it seeks the production of information protected from disclosure by

the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney-work product doctrine in so far as the definition

purports to include attorneys. Samsung will construe these terms to mean SEC and SEA in

responding to each interrogatory.

17. Samsung objects to the definition of “Patent(s)-in-Suit” to the extent it seeks to

include any patents ParkerVision has not asserted against Samsung in this case. Samsung will

limit its responses to the patents identified in ParkerVision’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. 26) and

ParkerVision’s Infringement Contentions, served January 16, 2015.

18. Samsung objects to the definitions of “Qualcomm Transmitter Patents Accused

Product(s),” “Qualcomm Receiver Patents Accused Product(s),” “Qualcomm Protocol Converter

Patent Accused Product(s),” and “Qualcomm Accused Product(s)” to the extent that they seek

any information from Samsung regarding products that it does not design, manufacture or sell

and thus any information about those products are not within Samsung’s possession, custody or

control or can be obtained directly from Qualcomm rather than Samsung.

19. Samsung objects to the definition of “Samsung Accused Product(s)” as overly

broad, unduly burdensome and vague and ambiguous to the extent that it encompasses irrelevant

and unreleased products. Samsung further objects to this definition to the extent that


WEST\255367560 6


ParkerVision’s Infringement Contentions fail to comply with the Court’s Case Management and

Scheduling Order (Dkt. 92), and thus ParkerVision, as the party with the burden of proof, has

failed to adequately put Samsung on notice of which products infringe which asserted claims of

the Patents-in-Suit.

20. Samsung objects to the definition of “Accused Product(s)” as overly broad,

unduly burdensome, and vague and ambiguous to the extent that it encompasses irrelevant and

unreleased products to the extent is seeks any information from Samsung regarding products that

it does not design, manufacture or sell and thus any information about those products are not

within Samsung’s possession, custody or control. Samsung further incorporates by reference its

objections to the term “Samsung Accused Product(s).”

21. Samsung objects to the definition of the term “document” to the extent that it

purports to impose burdens on Samsung greater than, inconsistent with, or not authorized by, the

F.R.C.P., the Civil Local Rules of the District Court for the Middle District of Florida, the Case

Management and Scheduling Order, or any agreement regarding ESI reached between the parties

and/or endorsed by the Court.

22. Samsung objects to the definition of “communication(s)” to the extent that it





23. Samsung objects to the various definitions of and instructions with respect to the

terms identify,” “identity,” or “identification” on the ground that they render each interrogatory

in which they are used overly broad and unduly burdensome, and to the extent they seek


WEST\255367560 7


information that is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Samsung will respond to Interrogatories containing these terms by using a reasonable, plain

meaning interpretation of the terms as best understood by Samsung.

24. Samsung objects to the definition of “Related Patents” as overly broad, unduly

burdensome, vague and ambiguous and neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence, to the extent that it seeks discovery regarding patents not

asserted against Samsung in this case.

25. The General Statement and Objections shall be deemed to be incorporated in full

into each response set forth below, and any statement of intent to produce information contained

in any such response is subject to the limitations, objections and exceptions set forth herein.

Subject to the foregoing General Statement and Objections, Samsung responds as

follows:

INTERROGATORIES











WEST\255367560 8


Defendant Product Type Product Name

Model Number

Wireless Carrier

Internal Name

Relevant Documents

Qualcomm Modem Snapdragon 801 MSM8974 N/A __ __

Samsung Phone Galaxy S5 SM-G900 Verizon __ __


/ / /

/ / /

/ / /


WEST\255367560 9


Product Name Model Number Wireless Carrier


WEST\255367560 10




WEST\255367560 11
















exemplary table:

Defendant Accused Product

No. of Units Revenues Costs Other

Expenses Profit

Margin Documents

Qualcomm Snapdragon 801 (MSM8974)

__ __ __ __ __ __



WEST\255367560 12



WEST\255367560 13








table:


First U.S.

release date

First U.S. sale or

offer for sale

First U.S.

public use

First U.S.

manufacture

First importation into the U.S.

First use in the

Docu- ments


__ __ __ __ __ __ __



WEST\255367560 14


.










WEST\255367560 15














WEST\255367560 16




WEST\255367560 17


.















WEST\255367560 18









WEST\255367560 19









WEST\255367560 20


Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), Samsung will produce non-privileged responsive

documents from which ParkerVision may ascertain relevant information, to the extent that any

exist.

DATED: March 27, 2015 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Jeremy T. Elman Jeremy T. Elman, Esq. Florida Bar No. 37448 DLA PIPER LLP (US) 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2500 Miami, FL 33131 T: (305) 423-8500 F: (305) 503-7551 E-Mail: [email protected]

Angela J. Crawford, Esq. Florida Bar No. 43611 DLA PIPER LLP (US)

100 North Tampa, Suite 2200 Tampa, FL 33602-5809 T: (813) 222-5989 F: (813) 371-1116 E-Mail: [email protected]

Mark Fowler, Esq. (Trial Counsel) Pro Hac Vice Erik R. Fuehrer Pro Hac Vice DLA PIPER LLP (US) 2000 University Avenue East Palo Alto, CA 94303 T: (650) 833-2000 F: (650) 833-2001 E-Mail: [email protected] E-Mail: [email protected]

Sean Cunningham, Esq. Pro Hac Vice Ed Sikorski, Esq. Pro Hac Vice Kevin Hamilton, Esq. Pro Hac Vice DLA PIPER LLP (US)


WEST\255367560 21


401 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101-4297 Tel: (619) 699-2700 Fax: (619) 699-2701 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Counsel for Defendants

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC


WEST\255367560 22



I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been

served this 27th day of March, 2015, by email on counsel for ParkerVision, Inc.

By: /s/ Jeremy T. Elman

Jeremy T. Elman, Esq. Florida Bar No. 37448 DLA PIPER LLP (US) 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2500 Miami, FL 33131 T: (305) 423-8500 F: (305) 503-7551 E-Mail: [email protected]


EXHIBIT 3



1


ORLANDO DIVISION

PARKERVISION, INC.,

Plaintiff,


QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, QUALCOMM ATHEROS, INC., HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC

Defendants.

HTC CORPORATION’S AND HTC AMERICA, INC.’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PARKERVISION’S FIRST SET OF COMMON INTERROGATORIES

(1-8)


Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules for the

Middle District of Florida (“Local Rules”) HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc.

(collectively “HTC”) submit the following objections and responses to ParkerVision, Inc.’s

(“ParkerVision”) First Set of Common Interrogatories to Defendants (hereinafter “First Set of

Interrogatories”).

GENERAL RESPONSES

HTC states the following general responses to ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories and

incorporates them by reference into HTC’s specific objections and responses to ParkerVision’s

First Set of Interrogatories, where appropriate.



2

1. HTC’s discovery and investigation of the facts relevant to this case are ongoing,

and HTC’s response to ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories is made to the best of HTC’s

present knowledge, information, and belief. HTC’s response is at all times subject to such

additional or different information that discovery or further investigation may disclose and, while

based on the present state of HTC’s recollection, is subject to such refreshing of recollection, and

such additional knowledge of facts, as may result from HTC’s further discovery or investigation.

2. HTC reserves the right to make any use of, or to introduce at any hearing and at

trial, information and/or documents responsive to ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories but

discovered subsequent to the date of this response, including, but not limited to, any such

information or documents obtained in discovery herein.

3. To the extent that HTC responds to ParkerVision’s Interrogatories by stating that

HTC will provide information and/or documents which HTC or any other party to this litigation

deems to embody material that is private, business confidential, proprietary, trade secret, or

otherwise protected from disclosure pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(7), or

Federal Rule of Evidence 501, HTC will do so only upon the execution of an appropriate

confidentiality agreement to protect against the unauthorized use or disclosure of such

information.

4. HTC reserves all objections or other questions as to the competency, relevance,

materiality, privilege or admissibility as evidence in any subsequent proceeding in or trial of this

or any other action for any purpose whatsoever of HTC’s responses herein and any document or

thing identified or provided in response to ParkerVision’s Interrogatories.



3

5. HTC reserves the right to object on any ground at any time to such other or



GENERAL OBJECTIONS

HTC states the following general objections to ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories

and incorporates them by reference into HTC’s specific objections and responses to

ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories, where appropriate.

1. HTC objects to ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories to the extent that they

purport to request disclosure of information that comes within the scope of the attorney-client

privilege, the work product doctrine, any protective order or confidentiality agreement or is

otherwise exempted from discovery. HTC hereby asserts all applicable privileges and





seek production of HTC’s confidential and proprietary information prior to the parties entering

into a Confidentiality Agreement.

3. HTC objects to ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories to the extent each



4. HTC objects to each of ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories to the extent it

seeks to require HTC to identify in a response each or any document which may relate to, reflect



4

or otherwise refer to specified matters on the ground that such requests are overbroad, unduly

burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

5. HTC objects to Definition No. 5 for “Patent(s)-in-Suit” to the extent it seeks to

include any patents ParkerVision has not asserted. HTC will limit its responses to the patents

identified in ParkerVision’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. 26) and ParkerVision’s Infringement

Contentions, served January 16, 2015.

6. HTC objects to Definition No. 9 for “HTC Accused Product(s)” as vague,

overbroad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence to the extent that ParkerVision’s Infringement Contentions fail to comply

with the parties’ stipulated procedures (Dkt. 84) and the Court’s Case Management and


failed to adequately put HTC on notice of which products infringe which asserted claims of the

Patents-in-Suit. HTC further objects to this definition to the extent it seeks to bring into the case

any products not specifically accused of infringement in ParkerVision’s Infringement

Contentions, regardless of whether they have been released yet or not. HTC also objects to the

blanket inclusion of any product identified in response to Interrogatory Number 1 since

ParkerVision has provided no basis for alleging infringement.

7. HTC objects to Definition No. 12 for “Accused Product(s)” to the extent

ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories seeks any information from HTC regarding products

that it does not design, manufacture or sell and thus any information about those products are not

within HTC’s possession, custody or control. HTC further incorporates by reference its

objections to the term “HTC Accused Product(s).”



5

8. HTC objects to Definition No 15 for “document(s”) to the extent ParkerVision

seeks to define the term broader than its use in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a). HTC will

interpret the term “document(s)” consistent with its use in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a).

HTC further objects to this definition to the extent it calls for types of documents and

information not covered by the parties’ ESI agreement.

9. HTC objects to Definition No. 16 for “communication(s)” to the extent

ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories seek to impose on HTC an obligation to provide

information that is not reasonably accessible, thus subjecting HTC to undue burden and expense.


information not covered by the parties’ ESI agreement. HTC further notes that the term

“communication(s)” is not used in any of the Interrogatories in ParkerVision’s First Set of

Interrogatories, and thus HTC reserves all rights to further object to the use of this term if and

when ParkerVision uses it in further discovery requests.

10. HTC objects to paragraphs 1-8 of the Instructions to the extent they purport to

require disclosure of information protected by the attorney client privilege, the work product











6





.






7











exemplary table:




8







table:




9












10

.









:



11

.















12

.















13


.












14




.



15

Dated: March 27, 2015 COOLEY LLP By: /s/ Matthew J. Brigham Stephen C. Neal (admitted pro hac vice)


and BEDELL, DITTMAR, DEVAULT, PILLANS & COXE, P.A. John A. DeVault, III Florida Bar No. 103979 E-mail: [email protected] Courtney K. Grimm Florida Bar No. 953740 E-mail: [email protected] The Bedell Building 101 East Adams Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Telephone: (904) 353-0211 Facsimile: (904) 353-9307 Counsel for Defendants HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc.






I hereby certify that on March 27, 2015, I served the foregoing document described below:

HTC Corporation’s and HTC America, Inc.’s Objections and Responses to ParkerVision’s First Set of Common Interrogatories (1-8)


[email protected]

/s/ Matthew J. Brigham

Matthew J. Brigham (Admitted pro hac vice) E-mail: [email protected] 3175 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155 Phone: (650) 843-5000 Fax: (650) 849-7400 Counsel for Defendants HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc.

114549328


EXHIBIT 4


McKool Smith

A Professional Corporation • Attorneys Austin | Dallas | Houston | Los Angeles | Marshall | New York | Silicon Valley | Washington, DC

McKool 1085314v1

Joshua W. Budwin Direct Dial: (512) 692-8727 [email protected]

300 W. 6th Street Suite 1700

Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 692-8700 Facsimile: (512) 692-8744

April 3, 2015

VIA EMAIL Matthew J. Brigham Cooley LLP 3715 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130 Jeremy T. Elman DLA Piper LLP (US) 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2500 Miami, FL 33131

RE: ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated, et al.; Case No. 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS; United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

Dear Matt and Jeremy:

I write in regards to the deficient nature of Defendants’ written discovery responses. No Defendant has sufficiently responded to our written discovery, notwithstanding the extensions we granted the Defendants. Accordingly, please provide a date certain for your supplementation of each deficient response identified herein to provide the full information requested by the Interrogatory. Alternatively, please let us know your availability for a meet and confer so that we may seek relief from the Court. Is each Defendant available on Wednesday, April 7th, at 1:00 pm Central Time? If not, please suggest an alternative time that works for all Defendants collectively.

One global issue herein is the Defendants’ improper reliance on Rule 33(d). Specifically, Rule 33(d)(1) requires a party to “specify[] the records that must be reviewed, in sufficient detail to enable the interrogating party to locate and identify them as readily as the responding party could.” As Defendants attempt to invoke Rule 33(d) without producing or identifying any specific document, the responses discussed herein do not “specify” any documents as required by the Rule. And, Rule 33(d)(2) further requires a party to “giv[e] the interrogating party a reasonable opportunity to examine and audit the records and to make copies, compilations, abstracts, or summaries.” By attempting to rely on the Rule for documents that have not been produced or otherwise made available, ParkerVision has not been provided with the required


April 3, 2015 Page 2

McKool 1085314v1

“opportunity.” Had any Defendant wanted to legitimately invoke Rule 33(d), it was required to comply with both 33(d)(1) and 33(d)(2) at the time of its response.

Interrogatory Nos. 2-3

Qualcomm: Your response fails to provide any of the requested information, particularly as updated through the date of Qualcomm’s response to these Interrogatories. Instead, Qualcomm refers to its prior responses to Interrogatory Nos. 3 and 9 from the ParkerVision I case and states that it will produce responsive information pursuant to Rule 33(d)—without complying with either Rule 33(d)(1) or (d)(2).

HTC/Samsung: Your response fails to provide any of the requested information. Instead, HTC and Samsung state that they will produce responsive information pursuant to Rule 33(d)—without complying with either Rule 33(d)(1) or (d)(2).

Interrogatory No. 4

Qualcomm: Your response fails to identify any individuals or documents related to Qualcomm’s knowledge of the patents-in-suit. Instead, your response refers to “certain individuals” or “one individual in Qualcomm’s legal department” without identifying any of those individuals by name. Your response also fails to identify any documents showing how each individual became aware of the relevant patents or other documentary evidence related to their knowledge of the patents.

Moreover, the Interrogatory asks for information related to each individual’s belief in non-infringement and/or invalidity “from the time you first became aware of each such Patent-in-Suit through trial in this matter.” Yet, Qualcomm’s response refers only to “documents and facts . . . set forth in Qualcomm’s invalidity and non-infringement contentions.” We therefore understand your “invalidity and non-infringement contentions” to reflect the sum total of information relevant to these as-yet unnamed individuals’ knowledge and belief in non-infringement and/or invalidity from the date they first learned of the relevant patent up through the date of your response.

Samsung: Pursuant to the agreed extension, no response has yet been received from Samsung. Please however see the above critique to Qualcomm’s response to this same Interrogatory. We expect Samsung to provide a full and fair response, including the above-identified information missing from Qualcomm’s response.

Interrogatory No. 5

Qualcomm/HTC: Your response fails to provide any of the requested information, including the identity of any acceptable, non-infringing alternatives. While we understand your assertion that you do not believe your products accused of infringement in this case (or, for Qualcomm, the ParkerVision I case infringe), pointing to non-infringement of presently accused products does not identify any acceptable, non-infringing alternative to those very same



McKool 1085314v1

products—the logic in your response is wholly circular. Non-infringement of the presently accused products and the availability of non-infringing alternatives to those very same accused products are separate questions. That said, if the only available, acceptable, non-infringing alternatives to the presently-accused products that Qualcomm and HTC are aware of or otherwise intend to rely upon in this matter is the (alleged) non-infringement of the accused products themselves, please amend your response to state this more clearly.

Additionally, your response vaguely and generically refers to “the extensive prior art methods and apparatus set forth in Qualcomm’s [and HTC’s] non-infringement and invalidity contentions” without specifically identifying any such non-infringing alternative (e.g. by name or description of its operation). And, your response fails to explain how any alleged alternative is non-infringing and would be an acceptable alternative to the presently accused products (including the “extensive prior art methods and apparatus” referred to your answer).

Samsung: Has provided no response whatsoever, stating only “Samsung is willing to meet and confer with ParkerVision to determine a reasonable scope for a response to this Interrogatory.” Pursuant to our proposals to narrow the number of asserted claims (see February 17 and April 3, 2015 correspondence) and the request for a meet and confer above, we are willing to meet and confer with you regarding this Interrogatory. That said we disagree that the scope of this Interrogatory is too broad so as to prevent you from reasonably identifying any acceptable, non-infringing alternatives. If you are presently unaware of any such alternatives, you should amend your response to clearly provide this information.

Interrogatory No. 7

Qualcomm: While Qualcomm states the “Accused Products are not identical” and that “ParkerVision’s infringement theory as to one product thus does not suffice as to the others,” Qualcomm has not explained why it is making this contention and has not set forth any information that would reasonably permit ParkerVision to evaluate the veracity of this contention. As you know, we have previously asked that you provide a substantive response to this Interrogatory to enable us to undertake a good faith evaluation of the sufficiency of our infringement contentions in light of your complaints about our contentions. See e.g. our February 17 and March 27, 2015 correspondence. We are disappointed that rather than engage with us in good faith—and despite complaining about our infringement contentions—you have failed to substantively answer this Interrogatory.

Setting aside Qualcomm’s non-substantive answer, and even accepting as true that “the values that Qualcomm has selected for the resistors, capacitors, and other components are not identical,” Qualcomm has failed to explain whether any products share the same component values—e.g., do all of the “common design approaches” that your response refers to have the same or different component values? In addition, Qualcomm has wholly failed to explain why it (apparently) “contend[s these different component values are] material to plaintiff’s infringement allegations.” Qualcomm has also failed to explain why it (apparently) “contend[s these different component values] make it so that any one Accused Product is not representative of the operation of any other Accused Product.”



McKool 1085314v1

Moreover, Qualcomm has not identified any responsive documents whatsoever, other than saying “Qualcomm will be producing, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), the schematics and related documentation for any properly accused product from which the response to this interrogatory can be obtained.” Qualcomm has not therefore complied with either with either Rule 33(d)(1) or (d)(2). Please note that the documents requested here also relate to the requests in our October 2014, March 27, 2015 and April 3, 2015 correspondence—each of which asked you to produce or otherwise confirm that schematics and source code for the accused products are available for our inspection.

HTC/Samsung: Your response fails to provide any of the requested information. Instead, HTC and Samsung state that they will produce responsive information pursuant to Rule 33(d)—without complying with either Rule 33(d)(1) or (d)(2). As you know, we have previously asked that you provide a substantive response to this Interrogatory to enable us to undertake a good faith evaluation of the sufficiency of our infringement contentions in light of your complaints about the sufficiency of our contentions. See e.g. our February 17, March 3, and March 27, 2015 correspondence. We are disappointed that rather than engage with us in good faith—and despite complaining about our infringement contentions—you have failed to substantively answer this Interrogatory. Please note that the documents requested here relate to the requests in our October 2014, March 27, 2015 and April 3, 2015 correspondence—each of which asked you to produce or otherwise confirm that schematics and source code for the accused products are available for our inspection.

Interrogatory No. 8

Qualcomm: Your response fails to provide any of the requested information, particularly as updated through the date of the Interrogatory. Instead, Qualcomm refers generically to the ParkerVision I case (without specifically identifying or incorporating any response from that case) and states that it will produce responsive information pursuant to Rule 33(d)—without complying with either Rule 33(d)(1) or (d)(2).


Regards,

Josh W. Budwin

JWB/ksc


EXHIBIT 5


McKool Smith


McKool 1087050v1




April 10, 2015



Dear Counsel:

Thank you for the meet and confer yesterday. Below I attempt to summarize the issues and indicate the action we plan to undertake with respect to each:

(1) Defendants’ discovery responses – As stated in my April 3, 2015 letter (attached here) Defendants’ interrogatory responses are deficient. We are particularly concerned by Defendants’ naked reliance on Rule 33(d), without identifying any responsive documents, in response to many of our interrogatories. In my letter, we also requested a date certain for Defendants’ supplementation. Despite that request, Defendants have not yet committed to a date certain for providing substantive responses to our interrogatories. Accordingly, and unless Defendants commit to promptly providing supplemental responses by a reasonable date certain, we intend to file a motion to compel on the following grounds:

(a) Qualcomm – Interrogatory nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 for the reasons set forth in my April 3rd letter.

(b) HTC – Interrogatory nos. 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8 for the reasons set forth in my April 3rd letter.



McKool 1087050v1

(c) Samsung – Interrogatory nos. 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8 for the reasons set forth in my April 3rd letter.

Please let us know by Monday, April 13, 2015, a reasonable date certain for each of the Defendants to provide substantive and meaningful responses to the above-identified interrogatories.

(2) Our case narrowing proposal – Despite complaints in prior correspondence (see e.g. M. Brigham letters from February 4th and February 5, 2015), Defendants refuse to agree to the case narrowing proposal outlined in Kat Li’s February 17, 2015 letter as reiterated in my April 3, 2015 letter (also attached here). Defendants have also not proposed a counter case narrowing proposal. While Defendants have no issue with ParkerVision unilaterally reducing the number of asserted claims, Defendants oppose any bilateral agreement whereby ParkerVision would reduce its asserted claims and Defendants would also reduce the number of prior art assertions. Given the approaching claim construction deadlines, we believe reaching an agreement now is important and further delay is unwarranted. Further, I remind you that we made our claim reduction proposal on February 17, 2015 – before the deadline for Defendants’ invalidity/non-infringement contentions and before any claim construction deadline. We made this proposal in an attempt to address the complaints in Defendants’ prior correspondence and to reduce the burdens on the parties and the Court in claim construction, discovery and the like. Because Defendants are unwilling to agree to a mutual reduction in claim scope, we intend to file an opposed motion that asks the Court to adopt the proposal attached to Kat Li’s February 17, 2015 letter.

(3) Claim terms – The parties identified a large number in excess of the Court’s limit of 10 (and, unfortunately, there is less overlap than we had hoped). In an attempt to reach an agreement in advance of the April 24, 2015 in-person meet and confer, we discussed the following proposal which all parties agreed would be non-limiting and non-binding. The parties will endeavor to exchange preliminary constructions (that are non-binding and will not be used as the basis of any later argument by any party in claim construction or other briefing or argument) on April 17, 2015. The parties will then schedule an informal meet and confer early on the afternoon of April 20, 2015 (we suggest 1pm central – to accommodate the later disclosure), to discuss each other’s preliminary proposals and reach any further agreement or narrowing, before exchanging final proposed preliminary constructions on April 20, 2015. Please confirm your agreement.

(4) Schematic/source code review for at least HTC and Samsung – Counsel for HTC indicated that at this stage of the case, it may not have any relevant source code or schematics to produce, as the relevant source code and schematics would be in Qualcomm’s possession. We agreed to review HTC’s initial document production (served yesterday) and further discovery responses and reserve judgment as to HTC. As to Samsung, we indicated that it is our understanding that several



McKool 1087050v1

Samsung accused products, including at least the Samsung S6, include non-Qualcomm transceivers/basebands made by Samsung. As such, we repeat our request for Samsung to produce the schematics for the relevant Samsung receivers, transmitters, transceivers and basebands, together with any related source code. Despite our several prior requests, including in my April 3, 2015 letter, counsel for Samsung indicated it would “take our request under advisement and discuss with Samsung.” We requested a prompt response (either “yes” or “no” that Samsung will make the relevant Samsung schematics and source code available for our review) so that we may seek prompt resolution from the Court, if needed.

(5) Live witnesses at the technology tutorial – as discussed in the meet and confer, and in the attached email from yesterday, the parties disagree as to the applicability or need to present any live witnesses at the technology tutorial. Accordingly, we plan to file an opposed motion on this issue today.

Thank you.

Regards,

Josh W. Budwin

JWB/ksc Attachments (as described above)


McKool Smith


McKool 1085314v1




April 3, 2015



Dear Matt and Jeremy:

I write in regards to the deficient nature of Defendants’ written discovery responses. No Defendant has sufficiently responded to our written discovery, notwithstanding the extensions we granted the Defendants. Accordingly, please provide a date certain for your supplementation of each deficient response identified herein to provide the full information requested by the Interrogatory. Alternatively, please let us know your availability for a meet and confer so that we may seek relief from the Court. Is each Defendant available on Wednesday, April 7th, at 1:00 pm Central Time? If not, please suggest an alternative time that works for all Defendants collectively.

One global issue herein is the Defendants’ improper reliance on Rule 33(d). Specifically, Rule 33(d)(1) requires a party to “specify[] the records that must be reviewed, in sufficient detail to enable the interrogating party to locate and identify them as readily as the responding party could.” As Defendants attempt to invoke Rule 33(d) without producing or identifying any specific document, the responses discussed herein do not “specify” any documents as required by the Rule. And, Rule 33(d)(2) further requires a party to “giv[e] the interrogating party a reasonable opportunity to examine and audit the records and to make copies, compilations, abstracts, or summaries.” By attempting to rely on the Rule for documents that have not been produced or otherwise made available, ParkerVision has not been provided with the required



McKool 1085314v1

“opportunity.” Had any Defendant wanted to legitimately invoke Rule 33(d), it was required to comply with both 33(d)(1) and 33(d)(2) at the time of its response.

Interrogatory Nos. 2-3

Qualcomm: Your response fails to provide any of the requested information, particularly as updated through the date of Qualcomm’s response to these Interrogatories. Instead, Qualcomm refers to its prior responses to Interrogatory Nos. 3 and 9 from the ParkerVision I case and states that it will produce responsive information pursuant to Rule 33(d)—without complying with either Rule 33(d)(1) or (d)(2).


Interrogatory No. 4

Qualcomm: Your response fails to identify any individuals or documents related to Qualcomm’s knowledge of the patents-in-suit. Instead, your response refers to “certain individuals” or “one individual in Qualcomm’s legal department” without identifying any of those individuals by name. Your response also fails to identify any documents showing how each individual became aware of the relevant patents or other documentary evidence related to their knowledge of the patents.

Moreover, the Interrogatory asks for information related to each individual’s belief in non-infringement and/or invalidity “from the time you first became aware of each such Patent-in-Suit through trial in this matter.” Yet, Qualcomm’s response refers only to “documents and facts . . . set forth in Qualcomm’s invalidity and non-infringement contentions.” We therefore understand your “invalidity and non-infringement contentions” to reflect the sum total of information relevant to these as-yet unnamed individuals’ knowledge and belief in non-infringement and/or invalidity from the date they first learned of the relevant patent up through the date of your response.

Samsung: Pursuant to the agreed extension, no response has yet been received from Samsung. Please however see the above critique to Qualcomm’s response to this same Interrogatory. We expect Samsung to provide a full and fair response, including the above-identified information missing from Qualcomm’s response.

Interrogatory No. 5

Qualcomm/HTC: Your response fails to provide any of the requested information, including the identity of any acceptable, non-infringing alternatives. While we understand your assertion that you do not believe your products accused of infringement in this case (or, for Qualcomm, the ParkerVision I case infringe), pointing to non-infringement of presently accused products does not identify any acceptable, non-infringing alternative to those very same



McKool 1085314v1

products—the logic in your response is wholly circular. Non-infringement of the presently accused products and the availability of non-infringing alternatives to those very same accused products are separate questions. That said, if the only available, acceptable, non-infringing alternatives to the presently-accused products that Qualcomm and HTC are aware of or otherwise intend to rely upon in this matter is the (alleged) non-infringement of the accused products themselves, please amend your response to state this more clearly.

Additionally, your response vaguely and generically refers to “the extensive prior art methods and apparatus set forth in Qualcomm’s [and HTC’s] non-infringement and invalidity contentions” without specifically identifying any such non-infringing alternative (e.g. by name or description of its operation). And, your response fails to explain how any alleged alternative is non-infringing and would be an acceptable alternative to the presently accused products (including the “extensive prior art methods and apparatus” referred to your answer).

Samsung: Has provided no response whatsoever, stating only “Samsung is willing to meet and confer with ParkerVision to determine a reasonable scope for a response to this Interrogatory.” Pursuant to our proposals to narrow the number of asserted claims (see February 17 and April 3, 2015 correspondence) and the request for a meet and confer above, we are willing to meet and confer with you regarding this Interrogatory. That said we disagree that the scope of this Interrogatory is too broad so as to prevent you from reasonably identifying any acceptable, non-infringing alternatives. If you are presently unaware of any such alternatives, you should amend your response to clearly provide this information.

Interrogatory No. 7

Qualcomm: While Qualcomm states the “Accused Products are not identical” and that “ParkerVision’s infringement theory as to one product thus does not suffice as to the others,” Qualcomm has not explained why it is making this contention and has not set forth any information that would reasonably permit ParkerVision to evaluate the veracity of this contention. As you know, we have previously asked that you provide a substantive response to this Interrogatory to enable us to undertake a good faith evaluation of the sufficiency of our infringement contentions in light of your complaints about our contentions. See e.g. our February 17 and March 27, 2015 correspondence. We are disappointed that rather than engage with us in good faith—and despite complaining about our infringement contentions—you have failed to substantively answer this Interrogatory.

Setting aside Qualcomm’s non-substantive answer, and even accepting as true that “the values that Qualcomm has selected for the resistors, capacitors, and other components are not identical,” Qualcomm has failed to explain whether any products share the same component values—e.g., do all of the “common design approaches” that your response refers to have the same or different component values? In addition, Qualcomm has wholly failed to explain why it (apparently) “contend[s these different component values are] material to plaintiff’s infringement allegations.” Qualcomm has also failed to explain why it (apparently) “contend[s these different component values] make it so that any one Accused Product is not representative of the operation of any other Accused Product.”



McKool 1085314v1

Moreover, Qualcomm has not identified any responsive documents whatsoever, other than saying “Qualcomm will be producing, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), the schematics and related documentation for any properly accused product from which the response to this interrogatory can be obtained.” Qualcomm has not therefore complied with either with either Rule 33(d)(1) or (d)(2). Please note that the documents requested here also relate to the requests in our October 2014, March 27, 2015 and April 3, 2015 correspondence—each of which asked you to produce or otherwise confirm that schematics and source code for the accused products are available for our inspection.

HTC/Samsung: Your response fails to provide any of the requested information. Instead, HTC and Samsung state that they will produce responsive information pursuant to Rule 33(d)—without complying with either Rule 33(d)(1) or (d)(2). As you know, we have previously asked that you provide a substantive response to this Interrogatory to enable us to undertake a good faith evaluation of the sufficiency of our infringement contentions in light of your complaints about the sufficiency of our contentions. See e.g. our February 17, March 3, and March 27, 2015 correspondence. We are disappointed that rather than engage with us in good faith—and despite complaining about our infringement contentions—you have failed to substantively answer this Interrogatory. Please note that the documents requested here relate to the requests in our October 2014, March 27, 2015 and April 3, 2015 correspondence—each of which asked you to produce or otherwise confirm that schematics and source code for the accused products are available for our inspection.

Interrogatory No. 8

Qualcomm: Your response fails to provide any of the requested information, particularly as updated through the date of the Interrogatory. Instead, Qualcomm refers generically to the ParkerVision I case (without specifically identifying or incorporating any response from that case) and states that it will produce responsive information pursuant to Rule 33(d)—without complying with either Rule 33(d)(1) or (d)(2).


Regards,

Josh W. Budwin

JWB/ksc


1

Kim Chambers

From: Teter, Tim <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2015 4:06 PMTo: Josh Budwin; Brigham, Matthew; Fuehrer, Erik; Elman, Jeremy

([email protected]) ([email protected])Cc: z/QC - Parkervision; [email protected]; John Devault

([email protected]); ParkerVision II - Qualcomm; James A. Bolling ([email protected])

Subject: RE: ParkerVision/Qualcomm - Live Witnesses at the Technology Tutorial

Josh -- Thanks for your email. We had relied on the Court's order and believe that a tutorial presented (not argued) by the attorneys can most efficiently explain and address the relevant foundational technical issues. We do not believe that the tutorial should be an opportunity for Mr. Sorrells to present his controversial theories about electrical engineering, which Qualcomm disputes as being technically inaccurate. In our view, the tutorial in ParkerVision 1 is not a model to be repeated, but rather, shows why Judge Byron's order in this case (presentations by counsel) is the better choice. At the tutorial in ParkerVision 1, Mr. Sorrells presented as scientific fact arguments that were technically incorrect and not generally accepted by the scientific community. Qualcomm highlighted some of Mr. Sorrells' errors during expert discovery, and ParkerVision sought at trial to preclude Qualcomm from questioning Mr. Sorrells on his prior statements to the Court. A technical tutorial should present only relevant, fundamental, foundational issues, not an inventor's contested and disputed theories. Thus, we do not agree with ParkerVision's request to modify the Court's order. At this point, having relied on the Court's order, we do not know whether our potential witnesses could travel to Florida for a hearing on the 15th. But if ParkerVision seeks and obtains leave for Mr. Sorrells or any other witness to speak directly to the Court during the tutorial without cross-examination, Qualcomm will seek to have its fact witnesses and/or experts have the same opportunity. Best regards, Timothy S. Teter Cooley LLP 3175 Hanover Street, Palo Alto CA 94306-2155 Direct: (650) 843-5275 • Fax: (650) 849-7400 • Cell: (650) 714-3176 Bio: www.cooley.com/teterts • Practice: www.cooley.com/litigation -----Original Message----- From: Josh Budwin [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2015 11:40 AM To: Brigham, Matthew; Fuehrer, Erik; Elman, Jeremy ([email protected]) ([email protected]) Cc: z/QC - Parkervision; [email protected]; John Devault ([email protected]); ParkerVision II - Qualcomm; James A. Bolling ([email protected]) Subject: RE: ParkerVision/Qualcomm - Live Witnesses at the Technology Tutorial Counsel - It is our understanding from our discussion today, that Qualcomm and HTC oppose the calling of live witnesses at the technology tutorial and would instead prefer attorney-only argument. Qualcomm and HTC indicated that they had not yet reserved availability of any potential witness for the technology tutorial. We suggested that in case the Court does permit the presentation of live witnesses, that you it would make sense to conditionally reserve the availability of any potential witness(es) now.


2

Counsel for Samsung indicated their feeling was along the same lines as Qualcomm and HTC, but would confirm shortly. We indicated our intention to file an opposed motion to present live witness(es) at the tutorial, for the reasons discussed on the call. Thank you. ________________________________ From: Josh Budwin Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 5:28 PM To: Brigham, Matthew; Fuehrer, Erik; Elman, Jeremy ([email protected]) ([email protected]) Cc: z/QC - Parkervision; [email protected]; John Devault ([email protected]); ParkerVision II - Qualcomm; James A. Bolling ([email protected]) Subject: RE: ParkerVision/Qualcomm - Live Witnesses at the Technology Tutorial Counsel – Any thoughts on this? Or should we add it as a discussion topic for tomorrow’s call? From: Josh Budwin Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 11:43 AM To: Brigham, Matthew; Fuehrer, Erik; Elman, Jeremy ([email protected]) ([email protected]) Cc: z/QC - Parkervision; [email protected]; John Devault ([email protected]); ParkerVision II - Qualcomm; James A. Bolling ([email protected]) Subject: ParkerVision/Qualcomm - Live Witnesses at the Technology Tutorial Counsel – We have prepared the attached Joint Motion to present live witnesses at the upcoming technology tutorial. This mirrors the one that the parties filed in the ParkerVision I case. Please consider, and let us know if you’ll join our request. Thank you. Josh Budwin McKool Smith Suite 1700 300 West 6th Street Austin, TX 78701 Direct: 512.692.8727 Mobile: 267.251.2874 NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY: The information contained in and transmitted with this e-mail is SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT and ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE and is CONFIDENTIAL. It is intended only for the individual or entity designated above. You are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, use or reliance upon the information contained in and transmitted with this e-mail by or to anyone other than the addressee designated above by the sender is unauthorized and strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply immediately. Any e-mail erroneously transmitted to you should be immediately destroyed. ________________________________ This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,


3

disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. If you are the intended recipient, please be advised that the content of this message is subject to access, review and disclosure by the sender's Email System Administrator.


McKool Smith


McKool 1085297v1




April 3, 2015

VIA EMAIL Matthew J. Brigham Cooley LLP 3715 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130

Jeremy T. Elman DLA Piper LLP (US) 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2500 Miami, FL 33131


Dear Counsel:

ParkerVision originally sent its plan for claim and prior art reductions to the Defendants on February 17, 2015. I’ve enclosed copies of that correspondence for your convenience. To-date, and despite the passage of six weeks, we’ve yet to receive any response or acknowledgement from any Defendant.

Now that the parties have exchanged infringement, non-infringement and invalidity contentions, as well as identified terms for construction, we believe it prudent to revisit our proposal in advance of the May 1, 2015 filing of the Joint Claim Construction Statement. To that end, please let us know if the Defendants are agreeable to our proposal, have a counter-proposal, or are not interested in jointly pursuing claim and prior art reduction.

Please also let us know if you’d like to discuss further. Thank you.

Regards,

Josh W. Budwin

JWB/ksc Enclosures (as described above)


McKool Smith A Professional Corporation • Attorneys

Austin | Dallas | Houston | Los Angeles | Marshall | New York | Silicon Valley | Washington, DC McKool 1076552v2

Kathy H. Li Direct Dial: (512) 692-8721 [email protected]



February 17, 2015

VIA EMAIL Matthew J. Brigham Cooley LLP 3715 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130

RE: ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated, et al.; Case No. 6:14-cv-687-Orl-40KRS; United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

Dear Matt:

I write in response to your February 4, 2015 letter regarding ParkerVision’s Infringement Contentions (“your letter”).

In your letter, you reiterate your request that ParkerVision dismiss or procedurally stay the six receiver patents (the ’902, ’836, ’246, ’907, ’177, and ’116 patents). Between the filing of the case and today, nothing has prevented Qualcomm (or any other defendant) from filing an early motion for summary judgment or otherwise asking the court for an early determination of this issue. Indeed, Qualcomm (and the other defendants) failed to file a motion to dismiss or otherwise challenge the propriety of the inclusion of these six patents. And, given the pendency of the appeal of the prior case between ParkerVision and Qualcomm, and as ParkerVision stated when Qualcomm first raised this issue in October 2014, the six receiver patents in this case are different patents with different claims and different elements than in the prior case. To the extent you continue to feel strongly about this issue, we encourage you to seek early resolution of this issue in a way that does not prejudice ParkerVision’s ability to litigate the substantive issues that this case presents.

Your letter fails to articulate why the six receiver patents in this case are not infringed by any of the Qualcomm accused products based on the prior case or why the resolution of the appeal in the prior case has any bearing on the infringement issues in this case. In addition, the Federal Circuit has stated that “a court cannot impose collateral estoppel to bar a claim construction dispute solely because the patents are related. Each case requires a determination that each of the requirements for collateral estoppel are met, including that the issue previously decided is identical to the one sought to be litigated.” e.Digital Corp. v. Futurewei Techs., Inc., 772 F.3d 723, 727 (Nov. 19, 2014). Thus, despite the continuation-in-part relationship between the patents in the first case and the six receiver patents at-issue in this case, ParkerVision believes that it properly continues to assert the six receiver patents in this case.


February 17, 2015 Page 2

McKool 1076552v2

Second, your letter requests that ParkerVision reduce the number of claims it is asserting. When ParkerVision served its infringement contentions on January 16, 2015, ParkerVision was (and continues to be) unaware of what prior art Qualcomm will rely on in its invalidity contentions. Additionally, the Court has not yet issued claim constructions of the terms in the asserted claims and has yet to formally adopt the parties’ proposed case schedule. As Qualcomm is well aware, its invalidity contentions and the Court’s claim constructions will likely impact the claims that ParkerVision asserts at the later stages of this case. Nonetheless, ParkerVision is willing to work with Qualcomm (and the other defendants) to voluntarily reduce the number of asserted claims as the case progresses. Specifically, ParkerVision suggests the parties agree to a modified version of the Federal Circuit Bar Association’s Model Order that is tailored to the facts of the present case. See http://www.fedcirbar.org/olc/filelib/LVFC/cpages/9008/Library/Final%20Model%20Order%20Limiting%20Excess%20Patent%20Claims%20And%20Prior%20Art%20vdota.pdf. Exhibit A attached to this letter shows ParkerVision’s proposed case-narrowing plan based on the Model Order.

ParkerVision is also amenable to reducing of the number of asserted claims further, if Qualcomm and the other defendants inform ParkerVision whether they will be filing for inter partes review (“IPR”) of any of the patents-in-suit, and if so, which claims of which patents and which specific pieces of prior art will be used to challenge each such claim. As Qualcomm and the other defendants have up to a year from the time the case began to file an IPR on the patents-in-suit, ParkerVision must continue to assert all of the claims that Qualcomm infringes until ParkerVision knows which claims will be involved in any IPR proceeding. Thus, we invite you to share this information with us now, as part of the cooperative efforts of the parties to reduce the scope of this case.

Third, as explained in ParkerVision’s infringement contentions, its infringement theories as to the charted Qualcomm products are equally applicable to the other accused Qualcomm products. See, e.g., ParkerVision U.S. Patent No. 6,091,940 Infringement Contentions to Qualcomm, Exhibit 1-A at fn.1 (Jan. 16, 2015). Additionally, ParkerVision diligently analyzed publicly available information to determine which Qualcomm products infringe ParkerVision’s patents-in-suit. ParkerVision has also served Qualcomm with Interrogatory No. 1 requesting that Qualcomm identify each Qualcomm “receiver, transmitter, transceiver, modem, baseband, and baseband processor, or combination thereof (e.g., system on a chip).” See ParkerVision’s First Set of Common Interrogatories to Defendants at 12. Additionally, in prior correspondence (see Exhibit B, Buratti to Brigham email (Oct. 16, 2014)), ParkerVision requested that Qualcomm make schematics for each of the accused products available in advance of the deadline for ParkerVision’s infringement contentions. Qualcomm never substantively responded to our request and failed to make the schematics available. And, despite the passage of several months, Qualcomm continues to drag its feet regarding the entry of a Confidentiality Agreement that would govern the production of Qualcomm’s schematics and ParkerVision’s review thereof (see Li to Brigham emails (Feb. 13 and 16, 2015); Buratti to Brigham and Fowler email (Nov. 12, 2014)). As you well know, and based on the prior case, the schematics are likely to contain the best evidence regarding Qualcomm’s infringement. To that end, when will Qualcomm make the schematics for the accused products available for inspection? After receiving Qualcomm’s substantive response to Interrogatory No. 1, and after being afforded a reasonable opportunity to


February 17, 2015 Page 3

McKool 1076552v2

inspect the schematics for each of the accused products, ParkerVision will evaluate whether it is necessary to amend its infringement contentions.

Further, and as explained in its infringement contentions, based on its good faith investigation to-date, ParkerVision is unaware of any material differences between the accused Qualcomm products. As you know, in the first case, the jury verdict, the court’s opinion on the parties’ motions for judgment as a matter of law, and the parties’ Federal Circuit appeal briefs do not make any distinctions between any of Qualcomm’s products that any party contends matters for infringement. Nonetheless, and to determine if any such differences exist, ParkerVision’s Interrogatory No. 7 requests that Qualcomm identify any differences among the accused products that Qualcomm contends are material to infringement. If Qualcomm identifies material differences between its products, and after being afforded a reasonable opportunity to inspect the schematics for each of the accused products, ParkerVision will evaluate whether it is necessary to amend its infringement contentions. Thus, ParkerVision’s infringement contentions are proper and comply with the parties’ stipulated case management report.

In light of our outstanding requests in Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 7, and the issues raised by your letter, we trust that Qualcomm will use its best efforts to substantively answer these interrogatories now, and not provide objections or other statements designed only to frustrate the discovery of this relevant information by ParkerVision until later in the case. Indeed, having made the statements in your letter—and in the interests of the parties mutually resolving the issues you raise in an expeditious manner without the need for either party to incur any undue cost or expenditure—we trust that you will provide full substantive responses to these Interrogatories now, without further delay.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely, Kat Li

KHL/dp


EXHIBIT A


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

ORLANDO DIVISION

PARKERVISION, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, QUALCOMM ATHEROS, INC., HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC,

Defendants.

CASE NO.: 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SOUGHT

ORDER LIMITING THE SCOPE OF PATENT LITIGATION

The Court ORDERS as follows:

1. This Order supplements all other discovery rules and orders. It streamlines the

issues in this case to promote a “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination” of this action, as

provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1.

Phased Limits on Asserted Claims and Prior Art References

2. Not later than 60 days after the accused infringer completes its production of

documents sufficient to show the operation of the accused instrumentalities (which, in this case

includes the complete production of schematics and source code for the accused products), the

patent claimant shall serve a Preliminary Election of Asserted Claims, which shall assert no more

than ten claims from each patent and not more than a total of eighty claims. Not later than 21

days after service of the Preliminary Election of Asserted Claims, the patent defendant shall


serve a Preliminary Election of Asserted Prior Art, which shall assert no more than ten prior art

references against each patent and not more than a total of eighty references.1

3. Not later than 40 days after the Court issues its Claim Construction Order, the

patent claimant shall serve a Final Election of Asserted Claims, which shall identify no more

than five asserted claims per patent from among the ten previously identified claims and no more

than a total of forty claims. Not later than 21 days after service of a Final Election of Asserted

Claims, the patent defendant shall serve a Final Election of Asserted Prior Art, which shall

identify no more than five asserted prior art references per patent from among the ten prior art

references previously identified for that particular patent and no more than a total of forty

references.

Modification of this Order

4. Upon a showing of diligence, and with due consideration for prejudice, a party

may seek to modify this order for good cause shown. Any request to increase the limits

contained in this order must specifically show why the inclusion of additional asserted claims or

prior art references is warranted. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639

F.3d 1202, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2011). A failure to seek such a modification will constitute

acquiescence to the limits contained in this Order.

1 For purposes of this Order, each of the following shall count as one reference: 1) a prior art instrumentality (such as a device or process) and associated references that describe that instrumentality, 2) the closely related work of a single prior artist, and 3) an obviousness combination of two or more prior art references. For the sake of clarity, if a party asserts references A, B, C, D, and the combination of references A and B; A, B, and C; and A, B, C, and D, that party will be deemed to have asserted seven references.

.


EXHIBIT B


1

Donna Phillips

Subject: FW: Parkervision/Qualcomm - Request for telephone conference

From: Brigham, Matthew [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 3:35 PM To: Leah B. Buratti; ParkerVision II - Qualcomm Cc: z/QC - Parkervision; John Devault ([email protected]); Courtney Grimm ([email protected]) Subject: RE: Parkervision/Qualcomm - Request for telephone conference

Hi Leah- Yes, I think that time on Monday should work. I’ll give you a call. Matthew J. Brigham Cooley LLP 3175 Hanover StreetPalo Alto, CA 94304-1130Direct: (650) 843-5677 • Cell: (408) 203-4649 From: Leah B. Buratti [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 5:21 AM To: Brigham, Matthew; ParkerVision II - Qualcomm Cc: z/QC - Parkervision; John Devault ([email protected]); Courtney Grimm ([email protected])Subject: RE: Parkervision/Qualcomm - Request for telephone conference

Matt, On the first point, in general we think that it will be most efficient for all of the parties to jointly discuss case management and scheduling proposals. We therefore suggest postponing the case management and scheduling conversation until Samsung and HTC have entered appearances in the case and are available to participate in the conversation. For the second and third points, we’re generally available for a call to discuss on Monday. How’s 3 CST? For the call to be productive, please be prepared to explain Qualcomm’s basis for why the claims of the ‘116, ‘907, ‘902, ‘246, ‘836, and ‘177 patents – different claims from the prior case – are not infringed for the same reasons as adjudicated in the first case, or why the decision on appeal in the first case would have any bearing on the claims in this case. Please also be prepared to explain the basis for Qualcomm’s understanding that the willfulness finding in the first case would have any bearing on this case. In order for us to evaluate Qualcomm’s request that ParkerVision agree to stay the litigation of the ‘116, ‘907, ‘902, ‘246, ‘836, and ‘177 patent, will Qualcomm agree to provide early discovery of certain schematic and technical documents to substantiate that the claims of these patents are not infringed for the same reasons as adjudicated in the first case? Thanks, Leah From: Brigham, Matthew [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 11:29 AM To: Leah B. Buratti; ParkerVision II - Qualcomm Cc: z/QC - Parkervision; John Devault ([email protected]); Courtney Grimm ([email protected])Subject: Parkervision/Qualcomm - Request for telephone conference


2

Leah – In an effort to streamline the litigation and avoid potentially unnecessary motions practice, we’d like to have a discussion about the following topics: • The amended complaint does not identify which of the 800+ claims the defendants allegedly infringe. This lack of information makes it difficult to adequately respond and/or have a meaningful dialogue about case management and schedule. As a result, we would like to discuss when Parkervision can provide a list of the claims it is asserting. • We believe the receiver patents (‘116, ‘907, ‘902, ‘246, ‘836, and ‘177) are not infringed for at least the same reasons as adjudicated in the first case. As a result, the receiver patents should be dismissed. If Parkervision is unwilling to dismiss, we would like to discuss staying the proceedings with respect to the receiver patents pending the outcome of the appeal. We believe this would help avoid unnecessary expenditure of the Court’s and parties’ time and effort. • While we believe that the willful and indirect infringement claims in general are without merit, the willful and indirect infringement claims with respect to the receiver patents seem particularly unfounded in light of the jury verdict on willfulness and Judge Dalton’s ruling that the Qualcomm products do not infringe. We request that the willful and indirect infringement allegations with respect to the receiver patents, at a minimum, be dismissed from the complaint. Please let me know when you are available this week to discuss. -Matt Matthew J. Brigham Cooley LLP Physical Address:3175 Hanover StreetPalo Alto, CA 94304-1130Mailing Address:Five Palo Alto Square • 3000 El Camino RealPalo Alto, CA 94306-2155 Direct: (650) 843-5677 • Fax: (650) 857-0663 • Cell: (408) 203-4649 Assistant: Kelli Shanahan • (650) 843-7018 • [email protected]: www.cooley.com/mbrigham • Practice: www.cooley.com/IPLitigation

________________________________

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. If you are the intended recipient, please be advised that the content of this message is subject to access, review and disclosure by the sender's Email System Administrator.

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. If you are the intended recipient, please be advised that the content of this message is subject to access, review and disclosure by the sender's Email System Administrator.


EXHIBIT 6



1


ORLANDO DIVISION

PARKERVISION, INC.,

Plaintiff,



Defendants.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED’S AND QUALCOMM ATHEROS INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PARKERVISION’S FIRST

SET OF COMMON INTERROGATORIES (1-8) CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL



Inc. (collectively “Qualcomm”) submit the following supplemental objections and responses to

ParkerVision, Inc.’s (“ParkerVision”) First Set of Common Interrogatories to Defendants

(hereinafter “First Set of Interrogatories”).

General Responses






2


ongoing, and Qualcomm’s response to ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories is made to the

best of Qualcomm’s present knowledge, information, and belief. Qualcomm’s response is at all

times subject to such additional or different information that discovery or further investigation

may disclose and, while based on the present state of Qualcomm’s recollection, is subject to such

refreshing of recollection, and such additional knowledge of facts, as may result from



and at trial, information and/or documents responsive to ParkerVision’s First Set of

Interrogatories but discovered subsequent to the date of this response, including, but not limited

to, any such information or documents obtained in discovery herein.


stating that Qualcomm will provide information and/or documents which Qualcomm or any

other party to this litigation deems to embody material that is private, business confidential,

proprietary, trade secret, or otherwise protected from disclosure pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 26(c)(1)(G), or Federal Rule of Evidence 501, Qualcomm will do so only pursuant to

the terms of the Confidentiality Agreement, dated April 7, 2015.


relevance, materiality, privilege or admissibility as evidence in any subsequent proceeding in or

trial of this or any other action for any purpose whatsoever of Qualcomm’s responses herein and

any document or thing identified or provided in response to ParkerVision’s Interrogatories.



3




General Objections





they purport to request disclosure of information that comes within the scope of the attorney-

client privilege, the work product doctrine, any protective order or confidentiality agreement or

is otherwise exempted from discovery. Qualcomm hereby asserts all applicable privileges and








extent it seeks to require Qualcomm to identify in a response each or any document which may

relate to, reflect or otherwise refer to specified matters on the ground that such requests are

overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence.



4


to include any patents ParkerVision has not asserted. Qualcomm will limit its responses to the

patents identified in ParkerVision’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. 26) and ParkerVision’s

Infringement Contentions, served January 16, 2015.














Product(s)” as vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to

the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent that ParkerVision’s Infringement Contentions

fail to comply with the parties’ stipulated procedures (Dkt. 84) and the Court’s Case






5



















the reasons set forth in objections to the terms “Qualcomm Transmitter Patents Accused




ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories seeks any information from Qualcomm regarding



6

products that it does not design, manufacture or sell, and thus any information about those

products are not within Qualcomm’s possession, custody or control. Qualcomm further

incorporates by reference its objections to the terms “Qualcomm Transmitter Patents Accused




ParkerVision seeks to define the term broader than its use in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

34(a). Qualcomm will interpret the term “document(s)” consistent with its use in Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 34(a). Qualcomm further objects to this definition to the extent it calls for types

of documents and information not covered by the parties’ ESI agreement.


ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories seek to impose on Qualcomm an obligation to provide

information that is not reasonably accessible, thus subjecting Qualcomm to undue burden and

expense. Qualcomm further objects to this definition to the extent it calls for types of documents

and information not covered by the parties’ ESI agreement. Qualcomm further notes that the

term “communication(s)” is not used in any of the Interrogatories in ParkerVision’s First Set of

Interrogatories, and thus Qualcomm reserves all rights to further object to the use of this term if

and when ParkerVision uses it in further discovery requests.


to require disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product





7













8

.














exemplary table:



9




10







table:


:



11












12



13











14

.

FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5:






15












16











17








18










19









20


.



21

Dated: April 24, 2015



























I hereby certify that on April 24, 2015, I caused to be served the foregoing document described below:

Qualcomm Incorporated’s and Qualcomm Atheros Inc.’s Supplemental Objections and Responses to ParkerVision’s First Set of Common Interrogatories (1-8)


[email protected]


115981576


EXHIBIT 7


1

OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLYWEST\257122012.3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTMIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

ORLANDO DIVISION

PARKERVISION, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,QUALCOMM ATHEROS, INC., HTCCORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, INC.,SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,INC., and SAMSUNGTELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,LLC,

Defendants.


JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

DEFENDANTS SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNGELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. AND SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS

AMERICA, LLC’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TOPARKERVISION INC.’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1, 3 AND 7)



and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (“STA”) (collectively, “Samsung”)1 provide

these supplemental responses to the first set of interrogatories by Plaintiff ParkerVision, Inc.

(“ParkerVision”) as follows:




1 On January 1, 2015, STA merged into SEA. SEA responds to this discovery on behalf of SEAand former STA.


2


of Evidence, F.R.C.P. and/or the Civil Local Rules of the District Court for the Middle District







prematurely call for discovery concerning ParkerVision’s Infringement Contentions, which are

deficient and the subject of a motion to strike by Samsung.
















3


























4


























5










17. Samsung objects to the definition of “Patent(s)-in-Suit” to the extent that it seeks

to include any patents ParkerVision has not asserted against Samsung in this case. Samsung will


ParkerVision’s Infringement Contentions, served on January 16, 2015.








broad, unduly burdensome, vague and ambiguous to the extent that it encompasses irrelevant and

unreleased products. Samsung further objects to this definition to the extent that ParkerVision’s

Infringement Contentions fail to comply with the Court’s Case Management and Scheduling

Order (Dkt. 92), and thus ParkerVision, as the party with the burden of proof, has failed to


6


adequately put Samsung on notice of which products infringe which asserted claims of the

Patents-in-Suit.



unreleased products as well as to the extent it seeks any information from Samsung regarding

products that it does not design, manufacture or sell and thus any information about those

products are not within Samsung’s possession, custody or control. Samsung further incorporates

by reference its objections to the term “Samsung Accused Product(s).”












terms “identify,” “identity,” or “identification” on the ground that they render each interrogatory



Samsung will respond to interrogatories containing these terms by using a reasonable, plain


7











follows:

INTERROGATORIES










DefendantProductType

Product NameModelNumber

WirelessCarrier

InternalName

RelevantDocuments

Qualcomm Modem Snapdragon 801 MSM8974 N/A __ __

Samsung Phone Galaxy S5 SM-G900 Verizon __ __


8



:



9



10




11






14



15



16








table:

DefendantAccusedProduct

FirstU.S.

releasedate

First U.S.sale or

offer forsale

FirstU.S.

publicuse

FirstU.S.

manu-facture

Firstimportationinto the U.S.

Firstuseinthe

Docu-ments

QualcommSnapdragon801(MSM8974)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __



17




18










19









20


.



21


DATED: April 24, 2015 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Jeremy T. ElmanJeremy T. Elman, Esq.Florida Bar No. 37448DLA PIPER LLP (US)200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2500Miami, FL 33131T: (305) 423-8500F: (305) 503-7551E-Mail: [email protected]

Angela J. Crawford, Esq.Florida Bar No. 43611DLA PIPER LLP (US)100 North Tampa, Suite 2200


22


Tampa, FL 33602-5809T: (813) 222-5989F: (813) 371-1116E-Mail: [email protected]

Mark Fowler, Esq. (Trial Counsel)Pro Hac ViceErik R. FuehrerPro Hac ViceDLA PIPER LLP (US)2000 University AvenueEast Palo Alto, CA 94303T: (650) 833-2000F: (650) 833-2001E-Mail: [email protected]: [email protected]

Sean Cunningham, Esq.Pro Hac ViceEd Sikorski, Esq.Pro Hac ViceKevin Hamilton, Esq.Pro Hac ViceDLA PIPER LLP (US)401 B Street, Suite 1700San Diego, CA 92101-4297Tel: (619) 699-2700Fax: (619) 699-2701Email: [email protected]: [email protected]: [email protected]

Counsel for DefendantsSamsung Electronics Co., Ltd., SamsungElectronics America, Inc. and SamsungTelecommunications America, LLC


23




served this 24th day of April, 2015, by email on counsel for ParkerVision, Inc.

By: /s/ Jeremy T. ElmanJeremy T. Elman, Esq.Florida Bar No. 37448DLA PIPER LLP (US)200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2500Miami, FL 33131T: (305) 423-8500F: (305) 503-7551E-Mail: [email protected]


EXHIBIT 8



1


ORLANDO DIVISION

PARKERVISION, INC.,

Plaintiff,


QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, QUALCOMM ATHEROS, INC., HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC

Defendants.

HTC CORPORATION’S AND HTC AMERICA, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PARKERVISION’S FIRST SET OF COMMON

INTERROGATORIES (1-8)


Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules for the

Middle District of Florida (“Local Rules”) HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc.

(collectively “HTC”) submit the following supplemental objections and responses to



GENERAL RESPONSES

HTC states the following general responses to ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories and

incorporates them by reference into HTC’s specific objections and responses to ParkerVision’s

First Set of Interrogatories, where appropriate.



2

1. HTC’s discovery and investigation of the facts relevant to this case are ongoing,

and HTC’s response to ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories is made to the best of HTC’s

present knowledge, information, and belief. HTC’s response is at all times subject to such

additional or different information that discovery or further investigation may disclose and, while

based on the present state of HTC’s recollection, is subject to such refreshing of recollection, and

such additional knowledge of facts, as may result from HTC’s further discovery or investigation.

2. HTC reserves the right to make any use of, or to introduce at any hearing and at

trial, information and/or documents responsive to ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories but

discovered subsequent to the date of this response, including, but not limited to, any such

information or documents obtained in discovery herein.

3. To the extent that HTC responds to ParkerVision’s Interrogatories by stating that

HTC will provide information and/or documents which HTC or any other party to this litigation

deems to embody material that is private, business confidential, proprietary, trade secret, or

otherwise protected from disclosure pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1)(G), or

Federal Rule of Evidence 501, HTC will do so only pursuant to the terms of the Confidentiality

Agreement, dated April 7, 2015.

4. HTC reserves all objections or other questions as to the competency, relevance,

materiality, privilege or admissibility as evidence in any subsequent proceeding in or trial of this

or any other action for any purpose whatsoever of HTC’s responses herein and any document or

thing identified or provided in response to ParkerVision’s Interrogatories.

5. HTC reserves the right to object on any ground at any time to such other or





3

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

HTC states the following general objections to ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories

and incorporates them by reference into HTC’s specific objections and responses to

ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories, where appropriate.


purport to request disclosure of information that comes within the scope of the attorney-client

privilege, the work product doctrine, any protective order or confidentiality agreement or is

otherwise exempted from discovery. HTC hereby asserts all applicable privileges and




2. HTC objects to ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories to the extent each



3. HTC objects to each of ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories to the extent it

seeks to require HTC to identify in a response each or any document which may relate to, reflect

or otherwise refer to specified matters on the ground that such requests are overbroad, unduly

burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

4. HTC objects to Definition No. 5 for “Patent(s)-in-Suit” to the extent it seeks to

include any patents ParkerVision has not asserted. HTC will limit its responses to the patents

identified in ParkerVision’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. 26) and ParkerVision’s Infringement

Contentions, served January 16, 2015.



4

5. HTC objects to Definition No. 9 for “HTC Accused Product(s)” as vague,

overbroad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence to the extent that ParkerVision’s Infringement Contentions fail to comply

with the parties’ stipulated procedures (Dkt. 84) and the Court’s Case Management and


failed to adequately put HTC on notice of which products infringe which asserted claims of the

Patents-in-Suit. HTC further objects to this definition to the extent it seeks to bring into the case

any products not specifically accused of infringement in ParkerVision’s Infringement

Contentions, regardless of whether they have been released yet or not. HTC also objects to the

blanket inclusion of any product identified in response to Interrogatory Number 1 since

ParkerVision has provided no basis for alleging infringement.

6. HTC objects to Definition No. 12 for “Accused Product(s)” to the extent

ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories seeks any information from HTC regarding products

that it does not design, manufacture or sell and thus any information about those products are not

within HTC’s possession, custody or control. HTC further incorporates by reference its

objections to the term “HTC Accused Product(s).”

7. HTC objects to Definition No 15 for “document(s”) to the extent ParkerVision

seeks to define the term broader than its use in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a). HTC will

interpret the term “document(s)” consistent with its use in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a).


information not covered by the parties’ ESI agreement.

8. HTC objects to Definition No. 16 for “communication(s)” to the extent

ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories seek to impose on HTC an obligation to provide



5

information that is not reasonably accessible, thus subjecting HTC to undue burden and expense.


information not covered by the parties’ ESI agreement. HTC further notes that the term

“communication(s)” is not used in any of the Interrogatories in ParkerVision’s First Set of

Interrogatories, and thus HTC reserves all rights to further object to the use of this term if and

when ParkerVision uses it in further discovery requests.

9. HTC objects to paragraphs 1-8 of the Instructions to the extent they purport to

require disclosure of information protected by the attorney client privilege, the work product














6


.













7




exemplary table:




8







table:




9

.












10











11
















12















13


.




14













:



15

.



16

Dated: April 24, 2015 COOLEY LLP By: /s/ Matthew J. Brigham Stephen C. Neal (admitted pro hac vice)


and BEDELL, DITTMAR, DEVAULT, PILLANS & COXE, P.A. John A. DeVault, III Florida Bar No. 103979 E-mail: [email protected] Courtney K. Grimm Florida Bar No. 953740 E-mail: [email protected] The Bedell Building 101 East Adams Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Telephone: (904) 353-0211 Facsimile: (904) 353-9307 Counsel for Defendants HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc.






I hereby certify that on April 24, 2015, I caused to be served the foregoing document described below:

HTC Corporation’s and HTC America, Inc.’s Supplemental Objections and Responses to ParkerVision’s First Set of Common Interrogatories (1-8)


[email protected]

/s/ Matthew J. Brigham

Matthew J. Brigham (Admitted pro hac vice) E-mail: [email protected] 3175 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155 Phone: (650) 843-5000 Fax: (650) 849-7400 Counsel for Defendants HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc.

116227486


EXHIBIT 9



1


ORLANDO DIVISION

PARKERVISION, INC.,

Plaintiff,



Defendants.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED’S AND QUALCOMM ATHEROS INC.’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PARKERVISION’S FIRST

SET OF COMMON INTERROGATORIES (1-8) CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL



Inc. (collectively “Qualcomm”) submit the following supplemental objections and responses to



GENERAL RESPONSES






2


ongoing, and Qualcomm’s response to ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories

is made to the best of Qualcomm’s present knowledge, information, and belief.

Qualcomm’s response is at all times subject to such additional or different

information that discovery or further investigation may disclose and, while based

on the present state of Qualcomm’s recollection, is subject to such refreshing of

recollection, and such additional knowledge of facts, as may result from



and at trial, information and/or documents responsive to ParkerVision’s First Set

of Interrogatories but discovered subsequent to the date of this response,

including, but not limited to, any such information or documents obtained in

discovery herein.


stating that Qualcomm will provide information and/or documents which

Qualcomm or any other party to this litigation deems to embody material that is

private, business confidential, proprietary, trade secret, or otherwise protected

from disclosure pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1)(G), or

Federal Rule of Evidence 501, Qualcomm will do so only pursuant to the terms of

the Confidentiality Agreement, dated April 7, 2015.


relevance, materiality, privilege or admissibility as evidence in any subsequent

proceeding in or trial of this or any other action for any purpose whatsoever of



3

Qualcomm’s responses herein and any document or thing identified or provided

in response to ParkerVision’s Interrogatories.


supplemental interrogatories as ParkerVision may at any time propound involving

or relating to the subject matter of these interrogatories.

GENERAL OBJECTIONS





they purport to request disclosure of information that comes within the scope of

the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, any protective order or

confidentiality agreement or is otherwise exempted from discovery. Qualcomm

hereby asserts all applicable privileges and protections, and excludes privileged

and protected information from its responses to ParkerVision’s First Set of

Interrogatories. Any disclosure of such privileged and/or protected information is

inadvertent and is not intended to waive those privileges or protections.


interrogatory contains impermissible subparts in violation of Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 33(a) and the Court’s Case Management and Scheduling Order (Dkt.

92, Section I(C)).


extent it seeks to require Qualcomm to identify in a response each or any



4

document which may relate to, reflect or otherwise refer to specified matters on

the ground that such requests are overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.


to include any patents ParkerVision has not asserted. Qualcomm will limit its

responses to the patents identified in ParkerVision’s Amended Complaint (Dkt.

26) and ParkerVision’s Infringement Contentions, served January 16, 2015.


Accused Product(s)” as vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent

that ParkerVision’s Infringement Contentions fail to comply with the parties’

stipulated procedures (Dkt. 84) and the Court’s Case Management and Scheduling

Order (Dkt. 92), and thus ParkerVision, as the party with the burden of proof, has

failed to adequately put Qualcomm on notice of which products allegedly infringe

which asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit. Qualcomm further objects to this

definition to the extent ParkerVision seeks to bring into the case any products not

specifically accused of infringement in ParkerVision’s Infringement Contentions,

regardless of whether they have been released yet or not. Qualcomm also objects

to the blanket inclusion of any product identified in response to Interrogatory

Number 1 since ParkerVision has provided no basis for alleging infringement.


Product(s)” as vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent that



5

ParkerVision’s Infringement Contentions fail to comply with the parties’











Accused Product(s)” as vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent

that ParkerVision’s Infringement Contentions fail to comply with the parties’












6


the reasons set forth in objections to the terms “Qualcomm Transmitter Patents

Accused Product(s),” “Qualcomm Receiver Patents Accused Product(s),” and

“Qualcomm Protocol Converter Patents Accused Product(s).”


ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories seeks any information from Qualcomm

regarding products that it does not design, manufacture or sell, and thus any

information about those products are not within Qualcomm’s possession, custody

or control. Qualcomm further incorporates by reference its objections to the

terms “Qualcomm Transmitter Patents Accused Product(s),” “Qualcomm

Receiver Patents Accused Product(s),” and “Qualcomm Protocol Converter

Patents Accused Product(s).”


ParkerVision seeks to define the term broader than its use in Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 34(a). Qualcomm will interpret the term “document(s)” consistent

with its use in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a). Qualcomm further objects

to this definition to the extent it calls for types of documents and information not

covered by the parties’ ESI agreement.


ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories seek to impose on Qualcomm an

obligation to provide information that is not reasonably accessible, thus subjecting

Qualcomm to undue burden and expense. Qualcomm further objects to this

definition to the extent it calls for types of documents and information not



7

covered by the parties’ ESI agreement. Qualcomm further notes that the term

“communication(s)” is not used in any of the Interrogatories in ParkerVision’s

First Set of Interrogatories, and thus Qualcomm reserves all rights to further

object to the use of this term if and when ParkerVision uses it in further discovery

requests.


to require disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the

work product doctrine, any protective order or confidentiality agreement or

information that is otherwise exempted from discovery.












8











9







exemplary table:




10




11






12




table:




13




14












15



16




17











18




19















20



21
















22




23















24




25

Dated: May 26, 2015



























I hereby certify that on May 26, 2015, I caused to be served the foregoing document described below:

Qualcomm Incorporated’s and Qualcomm Atheros Inc.’s Second Supplemental Objections and Responses to ParkerVision’s First Set of Common Interrogatories (1-8)


[email protected]


116910261


EXHIBIT 10


1

WEST\258596110.1


ORLANDO DIVISION

PARKERVISION, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.


Defendants.


JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

DEFENDANTS SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. AND SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICA TIONS

AMERICA, LLC’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PARKERVISION INC.’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (N OS. 3 AND 7)









1 On January 1, 2015, STA merged into SEA. SEA responds to this discovery on behalf of SEA and former STA.


2

WEST\258596110.1

























3

WEST\258596110.1

























4

WEST\258596110.1

























5

WEST\258596110.1

























6

WEST\258596110.1


Patents-in-Suit.










Management and Scheduling Order, or the Electronic Discovery Protocol.













7

WEST\258596110.1








follows:

INTERROGATORIES







table:


First U.S.

release date

First U.S. sale or

offer for sale

First U.S.

public use

First U.S.

manufacture

First importation into the U.S.

First use in the U.S.

Docu- ments


__ __ __ __ __ __ __



8

WEST\258596110.1



9

WEST\258596110.1

SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3:


10

WEST\258596110.1





11

WEST\258596110.1












12

WEST\258596110.1



13

WEST\258596110.1

SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7:


14

WEST\258596110.1


15

WEST\258596110.1

DATED: May 26, 2015 Respectfully submitted,





Sean Cunningham, Esq. Pro Hac Vice Ed Sikorski, Esq. Pro Hac Vice Kevin Hamilton, Esq. Pro Hac Vice DLA PIPER LLP (US) 401 B Street, Suite 1700


16

WEST\258596110.1

San Diego, CA 92101-4297 Tel: (619) 699-2700 Fax: (619) 699-2701 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]




17

WEST\258596110.1



served this 26th day of May, 2015, by email on counsel for ParkerVision, Inc.




EXHIBIT 11


1

OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY WEST\258619521.1


ORLANDO DIVISION

PARKERVISION, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.


Defendants.


JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

DEFENDANTS SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. AND SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICA TIONS

AMERICA, LLC’S THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJ ECTIONS TO PARKERVISION INC.’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (N O. 5)









1 On January 1, 2015, STA merged into SEA. SEA responds to this discovery on behalf of SEA and former STA.


2


























3


























4


























5


























6



Patents-in-Suit.























7









follows:

INTERROGATORIES










8




9



10


DATED: May 29, 2015 Respectfully submitted,





Sean Cunningham, Esq. Pro Hac Vice Ed Sikorski, Esq. Pro Hac Vice Kevin Hamilton, Esq. Pro Hac Vice DLA PIPER LLP (US) 401 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101-4297 Tel: (619) 699-2700


11


Fax: (619) 699-2701 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]




12




served this 29th day of May, 2015, by email on counsel for ParkerVision, Inc.




Date post:	28-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	buidieu
View:	215 times
Download:	1 times