MediaTek, Inc. et al. v. ParkerVision, Inc.

This Inter Partes Review (IPR) case, IPR2024-00796, involves petitioner MediaTek, Inc., a global fabless semiconductor company specializing in systems-on-chip for mobile devices, home entertainment, and IoT products, challenging a patent owned by ParkerVision, Inc.. ParkerVision is a company that designs and develops proprietary radio frequency (RF) technologies and integrated circuits for wireless communication products, and significantly derives revenue from licensing its intellectual property and settlements from patent infringement disputes, suggesting a Patent Assertion Entity (PAE) or Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) business model. The IPR targets U.S. Patent No. 7,483,686, which generally describes methods and devices for down-converting electromagnetic (radio frequency) signals through "energy sampling" techniques, a technology critical to modern wireless communication systems. The underlying dispute, which prompted this IPR, is a patent infringement lawsuit filed by ParkerVision against MediaTek in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, accusing MediaTek's semiconductor chips and devices incorporating them, used in mobile handsets, smart televisions, and other WiFi products, of infringement.

The case is currently pending before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and has been instituted, meaning the Board found a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim of the '686 patent is unpatentable. The PTAB serves as a specialized administrative forum within the USPTO for challenging patent validity, offering a potentially faster and more cost-effective alternative to district court litigation for accused infringers like MediaTek. The IPR's outcome could significantly impact the parallel district court proceedings, which have seen their trial date postponed as recently as March 2026, allowing for updates to expert reports related to damages.

This case is notable due to ParkerVision's history of asserting its extensive patent portfolio against major players in the wireless and semiconductor industries, including previous high-profile and complex litigation against Qualcomm involving similar technologies. The ongoing litigation with MediaTek, a key global supplier of chips for a vast array of electronic devices, highlights the strategic use of IPRs by operating companies to challenge patents asserted by entities primarily focused on patent enforcement. The interaction between the PTAB process and the district court trial, particularly with the recent direct involvement of the USPTO Director in institution decisions, underscores the dynamic and evolving landscape of patent litigation in the critical wireless technology sector.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for ParkerVision, Inc. v. MediaTek, Inc. et al.

The Inter Partes Review (IPR) IPR2024-00796, concerning U.S. Patent 7,483,686, is closely related to an ongoing patent infringement litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas: ParkerVision, Inc. v. MediaTek Inc. et al., Case No. 6:23-cv-00375-ADA. While ParkerVision has multiple active cases against MediaTek and other defendants, this specific district court case directly involves U.S. Patent 7,483,686, which is the subject of IPR2024-00796.

Here is a chronological overview of the key legal developments and the current posture of this patent infringement litigation:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• May 15, 2023: ParkerVision, Inc. filed its patent infringement complaint against MediaTek Inc. and MediaTek USA Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, initiating Case No. 6:23-cv-00375-ADA. This complaint alleged infringement of U.S. Patent 7,483,686, among potentially others.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• January 29, 2024: The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas issued its Markman (claim construction) rulings in ParkerVision's infringement actions against MediaTek and Realtek. The rulings were largely favorable to ParkerVision. In ParkerVision v. MediaTek, the court adopted ParkerVision's proposed constructions for 13 of 16 disputed terms.
• April 15, 2024: A Reply Claim Construction Brief was filed by MediaTek in case 6:23-cv-00375, which explicitly addressed terms related to U.S. Patent 7,483,686.
• October 21, 2024: A Special Master's Report & Recommendation Regarding Claim Construction was filed in case 6:23-cv-00375, further detailing the claim construction process for U.S. Patent 7,483,686.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings:

• May 21, 2024: MediaTek, Inc., MediaTek USA, Inc., MTK Wireless Limited (UK), Gaintech Co. Limited, and MediaTek Investment Singapore Pte. Ltd. filed IPR2024-00796 against ParkerVision, Inc., challenging U.S. Patent 7,483,686.
• July 3, 2025: A Petitioner's Reply to Patent Owner's Response was filed in IPR2024-00796, asserting that the '686 Patent lacks novelty based on prior art. This filing also referenced the district court's claim construction efforts in 6:23-cv-00375.
• Status: IPR2024-00796 has been instituted and is currently pending before the PTAB.

Trial Events and Current Posture:

• November 16, 2026: A jury trial is currently scheduled for Case No. 6:23-cv-00375-ADA. There is also a Case Management Conference scheduled for the same date.

As of June 17, 2026, the district court litigation in 6:23-cv-00375-ADA is active and proceeding towards a scheduled jury trial in November 2026, while the parallel IPR2024-00796 challenging U.S. Patent 7,483,686 is instituted and pending before the PTAB.

Here is an identification of the counsel of record representing MediaTek, Inc. et al. in IPR2024-00796, based on available information regarding MediaTek's representation in similar patent proceedings:

Firm: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

• Office Locations: Finnegan has multiple offices including Boston, Washington D.C., Palo Alto, and international locations in London, Munich, Seoul, Shanghai, and Taipei.

Attorneys:

• Cory C. Bell
  • Role: Likely Lead Counsel (Partner)
  • Firm and Office Location: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP, Boston, MA.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Mr. Bell leads Finnegan's PTAB trials section and focuses on post-grant practice, patent prosecution management, client counseling, and litigation. He has represented petitioners, including MediaTek Inc. and MediaTek USA, Inc., in numerous IPR proceedings. For instance, he was counsel for MediaTek in IPR2022-00911 against NXP USA Inc. He also co-authored "The Practitioner's Guide to Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board". His technical experience includes communications, audio/video processing, and computer and electronic technologies.

While specific docket entries for IPR2024-00796 listing all counsel were not directly retrieved through public web search, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP consistently represents MediaTek entities in PTAB IPRs and other patent litigation. Cory C. Bell is a prominent partner at Finnegan with extensive experience in PTAB trials and a history of representing MediaTek in similar post-grant proceedings.

Other Finnegan attorneys, such as Dr. Antje Brambrink, Dr. Jochen Herr, Daniel Seitz, and Dr. Moritz Meckel, were noted as representing MediaTek in a Unified Patent Court case. However, Cory Bell's direct involvement in MediaTek's PTAB cases and his leadership role in Finnegan's PTAB trials section suggest his primary role in this IPR.

I'll research the counsel representing ParkerVision (the Patent Owner / respondent side in IPR2024-00796, and the plaintiff in the parallel district court case).

Good — I have the Patent Owner side. Let me verify the docket and identify ParkerVision's district-court counsel and in-house team.

I have the core counsel data. Let me verify bios, in-house counsel, and the current outcome status.

Counsel of Record — Respondent / Patent Owner Side (ParkerVision, Inc.)

Terminology flag first. The task asks for "counsel representing the defendant(s) in this patent infringement case." In this proceeding there is no "defendant": IPR2024-00796 is an administrative trial in which MediaTek is the Petitioner and ParkerVision is the Patent Owner (respondent/defendant-side party). In the parallel infringement suit, the roles reverse — ParkerVision, Inc. v. MediaTek Inc. et al., No. 6:23-cv-00375-ADA (W.D. Tex.), has ParkerVision as plaintiff and MediaTek as defendant. Because the previously generated "Plaintiff representatives" section covered MediaTek (the Petitioner), this section covers the opposing side: ParkerVision's counsel, in both the IPR and the co-pending district court action, with the role distinction noted.

---

A. PTAB counsel of record — IPR2024-00796 (Patent Owner)

ParkerVision's entire PTAB representation is handled by one outside boutique: Daignault Iyer LLP, 8229 Boone Boulevard, Suite 450, Vienna, VA 22182 (service e-mail: pvlit@daignaultiyer.com). The designations below come from Patent Owner's Mandatory Notice (Paper 4, filed July 11, 2024), Patent Owner's Updated Mandatory Notices (filed Feb. 13, 2025), and the Sept. 9, 2025 oral hearing transcript (Paper 34, Oct. 21, 2025).

In-house counsel: No ParkerVision in-house attorney is identified as counsel of record in the IPR2024-00796 papers or in the W.D. Tex. docket materials I could retrieve. Every PO filing in this IPR is signed by Daignault Iyer attorneys, and the record does not reflect an in-house PTAB practitioner. If ParkerVision has in-house legal staff, they have not entered an appearance in this proceeding.

B. District court counsel — ParkerVision v. MediaTek, No. 6:23-cv-00375-ADA (for context)

ParkerVision's infringement case is staffed by the same boutique plus a Texas local-counsel firm, per the joint motion to stay (D.I. 120) and the D.I. 90 Second Amended Scheduling Order:

• Raymond W. Mort, III — The Mort Law Firm, PLLC, 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 500, Austin, TX — local/Texas counsel. Mr. Mort (Texas Bar No. 00791308, raymort@austinlaw.com) signs the district-court filings; he is also copied on MediaTek's Sotera stipulation correspondence in this IPR (Ex. 1015), confirming he is ParkerVision's local counsel of record across the MediaTek matters.
• Of counsel (Daignault Iyer LLP, pro hac vice): Ronald M. Daignault, Chandran Iyer, Jason Charkow, Scott Samay, Stephanie Mandir, and Austin Ciuffo (aciuffo@daignaultiyer.com). Ciuffo appears on the district-court team but not in the IPR2024-00796 mandatory notices.
• Zachary H. Ellis was formerly on the Daignault Iyer ParkerVision team but withdrew — his motion to withdraw in the related Realtek case (No. 6:23-cv-00374, filed July 8, 2024) states he was leaving the firm. He should not be listed as current counsel.

C. Who is on the other side (MediaTek, the district-court defendant)

For completeness on the "defendant" question: in the W.D. Tex. suit the defendants' signature block follows ParkerVision's on D.I. 120 and begins with Perkins Coie LLP — the same firm that represents MediaTek in this IPR (Jessica C. Kaiser, lead; Evan Day and Kyle Canavera, back-up; Matthew C. Bernstein, pro hac vice to be requested). I could not retrieve the full named list of MediaTek's district-court attorneys from the docket snippet, so I do not name individuals there.

---

D. Sourcing note / open items

• Best sources: PO Mandatory Notice (Paper 4, July 11, 2024); PO Updated Mandatory Notices (Feb. 13, 2025); PO Response (Mar. 11–12, 2025); Order conditionally granting Samay pro hac vice (Paper, June 23, 2025); Hearing Transcript (Paper 34, Oct. 21, 2025); MediaTek's Ex. 1015 Sotera letter (May 21, 2024); W.D. Tex. D.I. 120 (joint stay motion) and D.I. 90 (scheduling order).
• Not verified: Individual attorney bios (law school, bar admissions beyond USPTO reg. numbers, prior-firm history) are drawn from firm/appellate-court appearances rather than firm-website bios, which I could