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

ParkerVision, Inc. v. MediaTek Inc. et al. is a patent infringement lawsuit active in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division (Case No. 6:23-cv-00375-ADA). The plaintiff, ParkerVision, Inc., based in Jacksonville, Florida, develops and licenses proprietary radio frequency (RF) technologies and integrated circuits for wireless communication products. While ParkerVision engages in technology development, its activities in this context align with that of a patent assertion entity (PAE) or non-practicing entity (NPE), focusing on intellectual property enforcement and licensing. The defendants, MediaTek Inc. and its U.S. subsidiary MediaTek USA Inc., form a global fabless semiconductor company headquartered in Taiwan. MediaTek is a market leader in designing systems-on-chip (SoCs) for a wide array of devices, including mobile phones, home entertainment, and IoT products.

The lawsuit asserts U.S. Patent No. 7,483,686, which broadly covers a "universal platform module and methods and apparatuses relating thereto enabled by universal frequency translation technology." This patent generally relates to multi-mode communication devices and encompasses concepts for signal reception, transmission, and/or processing within a universal platform module (UPM). While the specific accused products are not explicitly detailed in the provided search snippets, MediaTek's core business involves providing chipsets for smartphones and other wireless communication devices, suggesting the alleged infringement pertains to their semiconductor products used in such devices.

This case is being heard in the Western District of Texas, Waco Division, a venue that gained significant attention for patent litigation due to the efforts of Judge Alan Albright, a former patent litigator appointed in 2018. Historically, plaintiffs could almost guarantee their cases would be assigned to Judge Albright by filing in Waco, known for its patent-specific rules aimed at expediting trials and its perceived plaintiff-friendly environment. However, in July 2022, a new rule was implemented to randomly assign patent cases filed in Waco among all judges in the Western District of Texas, addressing concerns about "judge shopping." The case is notable as part of ParkerVision's ongoing patent enforcement strategy, following extensive prior litigation against other major semiconductor companies like Qualcomm regarding similar wireless technologies. ParkerVision's history includes a significant win against Qualcomm in 2013, which was later overturned, and subsequent appeals related to claim construction. A recent development in the MediaTek case saw the trial postponed to allow updates to expert reports and related briefings.

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

The patent infringement lawsuit filed by ParkerVision, Inc. against MediaTek Inc. and MediaTek USA Inc. in the Western District of Texas (6:23-cv-00375-ADA) is currently active, with significant pre-trial developments and a parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceeding having reached a final written decision.

Filing & Initial Pleadings

The case commenced with ParkerVision, Inc. filing a patent infringement complaint. While the exact filing date of the complaint and the defendants' answer and any counterclaims were not immediately available through public search, an Agreed Scheduling Order (ECF No. 32) was issued on January 4, 2024, indicating the case had moved past initial pleadings.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance

No specific motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay (other than those related to the IPR, discussed below) were detailed in the available search results for this particular case.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes

The case progressed to claim construction, a critical phase in patent litigation. A Joint Claim Construction Chart (ECF No. 40) was filed on May 3, 2024. Subsequently, a Special Master's Report & Recommendation Regarding Claim Construction (ECF No. 52) was issued on October 21, 2024.

During the claim construction process, the parties debated the meaning of various terms. In particular, the District Court adopted an agreement that "energy transfer signal" should be given its plain and ordinary meaning. The court also rejected ParkerVision's attempt to define "energy transfer signal" with additional limitations, noting that the District Court had already rejected similar proposed constructions in the context of other elements. Furthermore, the District Court rejected ParkerVision's attempt to import an "energy transfer system" limitation into its construction of "storage module," referencing a Federal Circuit construction of the same term from another related ParkerVision patent.

Discovery Milestones

The trial was initially scheduled for March 20, 2026, with jury selection on March 19, 2026. However, the trial was postponed at the court's request due to modifications required for expert reports and related briefings. New proposed scheduling motions indicate that the resubmission of expert reports was expected by May 2026, the close of expert discovery by June 2026, and the completion of final pre-trial briefings by July 2026. New trial dates are currently pending.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions

As the trial was postponed, there have been no trial events, verdict, or post-trial motions to report to date.

Final Disposition or Present Posture

The case remains active in the Western District of Texas.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

MediaTek Inc. filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2024-00796, against U.S. Patent No. 7,483,686, challenging claims 1-20. The IPR petition was filed on May 21, 2024, and review was instituted on November 26, 2024. MediaTek's petition argued that claims 1-20 were unpatentable based on prior art, specifically contending that "multi-platform" transceivers and frequency down-conversion systems that sample energy onto a storage device were not novel as of the patent's priority date. ParkerVision, in its response, attempted to introduce limitations not explicitly in the claims and argued that MediaTek failed to demonstrate the prior art met certain communication standards.

The IPR proceeding reached a Final Written Decision on May 22, 2026. The specific findings of this Final Written Decision and its impact on the district court litigation were not detailed in the available public search results, but such a decision typically has a significant effect on the validity of the challenged claims in the ongoing infringement case.

ParkerVision, Inc. is represented by a team of experienced patent litigators. While a direct, explicit list of counsel from the immediate docket for case 6:23-cv-00375-ADA was not available through web search, the following attorneys and firms are consistently associated with ParkerVision's patent litigation efforts, particularly in the Western and Eastern Districts of Texas, and are highly likely to be involved:

• S. Calvin Capshaw

  • Role: Likely Local Counsel or Co-Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Capshaw DeRieux, LLP, Gladewater, Texas
  • Note on experience: Mr. Capshaw's practice primarily involves commercial litigation, patent litigation, and federal court litigation. He is a partner at Capshaw DeRieux, LLP, a firm he co-founded focusing on complex commercial and intellectual property litigation. He has previously represented plaintiffs like My Health Inc. in patent infringement cases in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Elizabeth L. DeRieux

  • Role: Likely Local Counsel or Co-Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Capshaw DeRieux, LLP, Gladewater, Texas
  • Note on experience: Ms. DeRieux is a seasoned litigator with a focus on intellectual property, particularly patent litigation, with experience representing plaintiffs in cases involving software, computing, consumer electronics, and IoT devices. She has frequently represented patent assertion entities (PAEs) and is a partner at Capshaw DeRieux, LLP.

• Deron R. Dacus

  • Role: Likely Local Counsel or Co-Lead Counsel
  • Firm: The Dacus Firm, P.C., Tyler, Texas
  • Note on experience: Mr. Dacus is a board-certified civil trial lawyer with extensive experience in patent litigation, particularly in the Eastern District of Texas, and has served as both local and lead counsel. His firm is recognized for its expertise in the Waco court, part of the Western District of Texas.

• Michael J. McKeon

  • Role: Likely Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Washington, D.C.
  • Note on experience: Mr. McKeon is a nationally recognized intellectual property and trial attorney with over 25 years of experience representing prominent technology companies in complex, high-stakes patent disputes in U.S. district courts (including the Eastern District of Texas), the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

• Jeffrey S. Love

  • Role: Likely Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Klarquist, Portland, Oregon
  • Note on experience: Mr. Love counsels companies on various intellectual property matters, including patent litigation and pre-litigation counseling. He has represented parties in patent cases in federal district courts across the country, including Texas, and before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the Federal Circuit. He has been recognized in Best Lawyers in America for Patent Litigation.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["ParkerVision v. MediaTek 6:23-cv-00375-ADA MediaTek counsel", "MediaTek Inc. patent litigation counsel", "ParkerVision, Inc. v. MediaTek Inc. et al. 6:23-cv-00375-ADA docket", "Michael J. Sacksteder patent litigation experience", "David T. Pritikin patent litigation experience", "Mark Strassner patent litigation experience", "MediaTek in-house counsel intellectual property"]))
thought
The user is asking for the counsel of record for the defendant(s), MediaTek Inc. and MediaTek USA Inc., in the case ParkerVision, Inc. v. MediaTek Inc. et al. (6:23-cv-00375-ADA). I need to identify the attorneys, their roles, firms, and office locations, and provide a brief note on their relevant experience. I will use the provided search results to gather this information.

Based on the search results, I can see several attorneys listed for MediaTek. I need to consolidate this information and present it in the requested format.

Here's the plan:

1. Extract attorney names, firms, and roles from the search results.
2. For each attorney, try to find their office location.
3. For each attorney, look for a one-line note on relevant patent litigation experience or notable past cases.
4. If there are any ambiguities or missing information, I will explicitly state that.Based on the available information, the specific counsel of record for defendants MediaTek Inc. and MediaTek USA Inc. in ParkerVision, Inc. v. MediaTek Inc. et al. (6:23-cv-00375-ADA) is not explicitly detailed with a direct docket citation within the provided search snippets. However, based on consistent patterns of representation in related patent litigation for MediaTek, the following attorneys and firms are highly probable to be representing the defendants.

Likely Outside Counsel for MediaTek Inc. and MediaTek USA Inc.

• Michael J. Sacksteder
  • Role: Likely Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Fenwick & West LLP
  • Office Location: San Francisco, CA
  • Relevant Experience: Michael Sacksteder is a Partner in Fenwick's Litigation Group and is recognized as a leading patent litigator for defendants, having successfully led patent litigation teams for high-profile clients in various active patent litigation courts, including the Eastern District of Texas and the Federal Circuit. He has extensive experience in defending technology companies against patent infringement claims, including those brought by non-practicing entities.

While not explicitly linked to the 6:23-cv-00375-ADA docket in the provided snippets, Fenwick & West LLP is consistently recognized as a top-performing law firm for patent defense. Other Fenwick attorneys, such as Saina Shamilov, David Hadden, Jon McMichael, and Ravi Ranganath, have also been recognized as active and high-performing patent litigators representing defendants.

Other Firms with Recent MediaTek Patent Litigation Experience (Potential Co-Counsel or Local Counsel):

• Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner
  • Relevant Experience: Finnegan has represented MediaTek Inc. and MediaTek USA Inc. in other standard essential patent (SEP) suits in the Eastern District of Texas, which successfully settled. They also represent MediaTek in Unified Patent Court (UPC) and German proceedings. This experience in similar venues and for the same defendants suggests they could be involved in the current case.
• Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP
  • Richard Zembek
    • Role: Has served as backup counsel for MediaTek Inc. and MediaTek USA, Inc. in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) against NXP USA, Inc.
    • Firm: Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP
    • Office Location: Houston, Texas
    • Relevant Experience: Experienced in PTAB proceedings, which are often parallel to district court litigation.

In-House Counsel

MediaTek maintains an in-house legal team dedicated to intellectual property. Individuals such as David Su (Vice President and Counsel, R.O.C.) are involved in managing the company's IP strategy and overseeing outside counsel in litigation. The in-house team serves as legal counsel for the company's IP division, providing guidance on asset management, dispute resolution, and litigation, and partnering with outside counsel to manage complex patent disputes.

Note on Sourcing: The identification of specific counsel of record for case 6:23-cv-00375-ADA is inferred from patterns of representation in MediaTek's recent patent litigation, particularly involving Michael J. Sacksteder and Fenwick & West, given the lack of a direct docket entry citation to counsel for this precise case in the provided snippets.