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.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["ParkerVision Inc IPR2024-00796 counsel", "ParkerVision Inc attorneys patent litigation", "IPR2024-00796 docket counsel ParkerVision", "ParkerVision Inc v. MediaTek Inc. Western District of Texas attorneys", "ParkerVision Inc v. MediaTek Inc. WD Tex lead counsel", "ParkerVision Inc patent litigation counsel"]))
thought
The user is asking for the counsel of record representing ParkerVision, Inc. (defendant in the IPR, but plaintiff in the underlying district court case). I need to find information about their attorneys, including their names, roles, firms, office locations, and relevant experience. I will use web search, prioritizing docket information, firm websites, and legal news sources.

Since the prompt specifies "defendant(s) in this patent infringement case" and the case metadata is IPR2024-00796, I should focus on ParkerVision's counsel for the IPR. However, it's also helpful to look at the underlying district court case if that provides more comprehensive counsel information, as firms often handle both.

My strategy will be to search for "ParkerVision Inc IPR2024-00796 counsel" and "ParkerVision Inc attorneys patent litigation" to find their legal representation in general and specifically for this IPR. I will also look for "ParkerVision Inc v. MediaTek Inc. Western District of Texas attorneys" to see if there's overlap or additional information from the district court case.ParkerVision, Inc., the defendant in the IPR, is represented by counsel from Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP and McKool Smith in its broader patent litigation efforts, with Kasowitz appearing to lead its strategy concerning PTAB challenges and subsequent appeals.

The following attorneys have been identified as representing ParkerVision:

Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP

Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP has consistently represented ParkerVision in appellate matters stemming from PTAB decisions, indicating their central role in ParkerVision's patent validity strategy. The firm is known for its aggressive approach to litigation, with significant experience as lead IP trial counsel. The firm has offices in multiple cities, including New York City and Washington, D.C..

• Amit R. Vora
  • Role: Partner, Lead Counsel for ParkerVision (Appellate Litigator)
  • Firm & Office: Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, New York
  • Experience Note: Vora has been lead counsel for ParkerVision in high-stakes patent cases, including a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the Federal Circuit's practice of summarily affirming PTAB patent invalidations.
• Clarine Nardi Riddle
  • Role: Senior Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, Washington, DC
  • Experience Note: Part of the Kasowitz team representing ParkerVision in significant appellate challenges related to PTAB decisions.
• Paul C. Tsavoussis
  • Role: Associate
  • Firm & Office: Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP (Office location not specified in provided sources, but likely New York or Washington, DC given other counsel)
  • Experience Note: Member of the Kasowitz team handling ParkerVision's appellate matters concerning patent invalidations.

McKool Smith

McKool Smith has represented ParkerVision in district court patent infringement cases and subsequent appeals, securing a Federal Circuit victory against Qualcomm. McKool Smith is recognized as a leading trial firm for complex commercial litigation and intellectual property, with offices in Austin, Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles, Marshall, New York, and Washington, D.C..

• Joshua Budwin
  • Role: Principal
  • Firm & Office: McKool Smith (Office location not specified, but firm has multiple offices)
  • Experience Note: Involved in securing a Federal Circuit victory for ParkerVision in a patent infringement case against Qualcomm.
• Kevin Burgess
  • Role: Principal
  • Firm & Office: McKool Smith (Office location not specified, but firm has multiple offices)
  • Experience Note: Part of the McKool Smith team representing ParkerVision against Qualcomm.
• Matthew Cameron
  • Role: Principal
  • Firm & Office: McKool Smith (Office location not specified, but firm has multiple offices)
  • Experience Note: Contributed to ParkerVision's Federal Circuit success against Qualcomm.
• Mitch Verboncoeur
  • Role: Principal
  • Firm & Office: McKool Smith (Office location not specified, but firm has multiple offices)
  • Experience Note: Key member of the McKool Smith team in ParkerVision's patent litigation efforts.

While the immediate IPR docket for IPR2024-00796 was not directly accessible to explicitly list counsel appearing, a Supreme Court filing dated August 23, 2024, by "undersigned counsel" for ParkerVision, Inc., mentions having "patent owner's preliminary responses due in IPR2024-00796" and other related IPRs. Given Kasowitz's consistent representation of ParkerVision in PTAB-related appellate matters, it is highly probable that Kasowitz attorneys, particularly those listed above, are handling ParkerVision's defense in IPR2024-00796.