Litigation

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

Active

6:23-cv-00375-ADA

Patents at issue (1)

Defender signal. Patent 7483686 has had claims invalidated at PTAB. Those final written decisions are public record and a ready-made § 102 / § 103 ground in district court. See IPR estoppel for what carries over.

7483686PTAB: claims invalidated

Plaintiffs (1)

Summary

ParkerVision, Inc. filed this patent infringement suit against MediaTek Inc. and MediaTek USA Inc. in the Western District of Texas. The case is active, with various filings including an Agreed Scheduling Order and Joint Claim Construction Chart.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

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 & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

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.

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

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

  • 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.

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll research MediaTek's counsel of record in this case through multiple searches.

Let me dig deeper into the docket and specific filings to confirm the current counsel of record.

I have a strong base. Let me confirm additional appearances, firm offices, and any local counsel.

Counsel of Record for Defendants MediaTek Inc. and MediaTek USA Inc.

Bottom line: MediaTek is represented in this case by an in-house team from a single law firm — Perkins Coie LLP — with the core of the team sitting in the Seattle and San Diego offices. I found no separate Texas local-counsel firm appearing for MediaTek in this docket; W.D. Tex. does not require local counsel, and out-of-state counsel appear pro hac vice. The 2022 companion case (ParkerVision v. MediaTek, 6:22-cv-01163-ADA) had a materially overlapping Perkins Coie team, which helps corroborate office locations.

Active counsel of record (MediaTek Inc. & MediaTek USA Inc., as Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs)

Attorney Role Firm / Office Notes
Ramsey M. Al-Salam (WA Bar No. 18822) Lead trial counsel (apparent); listed in the operative signature block Perkins Coie LLP, 1201 Third Ave., Suite 4900, Seattle, WA Longtime Perkins Coie patent litigator (patent litigation practice leadership); Washington-bar admitted. Appeared in this case ~May 30, 2025 (Notice of Attorney Appearance).
Christina J. McCullough (WA Bar No. 47147) Core case team; listed in the operative signature block Perkins Coie LLP, Seattle, WA Appeared ~May 30, 2025. Seattle-based patent litigator; part of the Perkins Coie MediaTek-ParkerVision team across the three W.D. Tex. suits.
Kevin A. Zeck (WA Bar No. 41689) Core case team; filed the substantive claim-construction papers (e.g., Objections to Special Master's R&R, ECF No. 55; Zeck declaration attached to ECF No. 38) Perkins Coie LLP, Seattle, WA ⚠️ Motion to withdraw filed May 13, 2026 (CourtListener docket entry 141). Status of that motion not confirmed in the sources retrieved.
Joseph P. Reid (SDO) Core case team; filed case-management papers (e.g., withdrawal motions, stipulations, ECF Nos. 56, 61, 64) Perkins Coie LLP, San Diego, CA Appeared Nov. 7, 2024 (Notice of Attorney Appearance).
Eric Rockwell Maas (SDO) Case team Perkins Coie LLP, San Diego, CA Appeared Sept. 26, 2024; filed stipulations (e.g., ECF No. 63).
Evan S. Day Case team Perkins Coie LLP, San Diego, CA Appeared June 10, 2024 (ECF No. 44). Also back-up counsel in MediaTek v. ParkerVision, IPR2024-00796 (Reg. No. 75,992).
Kyle R. Canavera Case team Perkins Coie LLP, San Diego, CA Filed oppositions to ParkerVision's protective-order/consolidation motions (ECF Nos. 65, 66). Also back-up counsel in IPR2024-00796 (Reg. No. 72,167).
Abigail Ann Gardner Case team Perkins Coie LLP, San Diego, CA Appeared April 17, 2024 (ECF No. 39); listed with Perkins Coie's San Diego docketing address in the companion 6:22-cv-01163 case.

The signature block of a later joint filing in this case (ECF No. 120) expressly identifies Al-Salam, McCullough, and Zeck — all under Perkins Coie's Seattle address — as "ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS AND COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFFS MEDIATEK INC." (and MediaTek USA Inc.), which is the best confirmation I could obtain of the current roster without direct PACER access.

Counsel who have withdrawn (no longer of record)

  • Matthew C. Bernstein (Perkins Coie, San Diego) — filed the substantive claim-construction briefing (ECF No. 38), the Sotera stipulation letter in IPR2024-00796, and early case papers; his Perkins Coie biography describes him as having served as lead counsel for MediaTek in the three W.D. Tex. RF-semiconductor cases. Motion to withdraw granted Jan. 3, 2025 (ECF No. 64).
  • Ji Wang (Perkins Coie, San Diego) — withdrawal granted Dec. 16, 2024 (ECF No. 56).
  • Miguel J. Bombach (Perkins Coie) — withdrawal from the district case granted (text order on ECF No. 101); also removed as back-up IPR counsel per Petitioner's Updated Mandatory Notices (May 22, 2025).

PTAB-side counsel (parallel IPR2024-00796 on the '686 patent) — not district-court counsel of record

  • Jessica C. Kaiser, Perkins Coie LLP, Denver, CO — lead counsel before the PTAB; argued the Sept. 9, 2025 oral hearing (Reg. No. 58,937). I did not find a district-court appearance for her in 6:23-cv-00375.
  • Evan Day and Kyle Canavera (both San Diego) — back-up IPR counsel, and also district-court counsel (above).

Explicitly not verified / not found

  • No separate Texas local-counsel firm appeared for MediaTek in the records I retrieved. If one exists, it did not surface in the docket snippets, the ECF 120 signature block, or the CM/ECF "notice of electronic filing" e-mail lists I obtained.
  • Kevin J. Patariu (Perkins Coie, San Diego) appears for MediaTek in the earlier companion case, 6:22-cv-01163-ADA, but I could not confirm an appearance in 6:23-cv-00375. Do not treat him as counsel of record here without a PACER check.
  • Office locations for Bombach were not confirmed; I did not find current office designations for him or for Gardner beyond the San Diego docket address. I did not fabricate any.
  • I could not retrieve a full attorney-by-attorney PACER docket report (the case is on PACER; CourtListener's free docket is the fallback and some entries are truncated). Later 2025–2026 appearances, if any, may not be reflected.

Flags — contradictions with the previously generated sections

  1. Plaintiff's counsel section appears to be incorrect. The earlier "Plaintiff representatives" section lists Michael J. McKeon (Fish & Richardson) and Jeffrey S. Love (Klarquist) as "likely lead counsel," plus Capshaw DeRieux and The Dacus Firm as local counsel. The actual filings in this case are signed by Raymond W. Mort III (The Mort Law Firm, PLLC, Austin, TX) and Ronald M. Daignault / Chandran B. Iyer / Jason S. Charkow / Stephanie Mandir / Zachary H. Ellis (Daignault Iyer LLP), with Joshua J. Yi serving as the court's Special Master (not counsel). I found no appearance by Fish & Richardson, Klarquist, Capshaw DeRieux, or The Dacus Firm in this matter. That section should be corrected rather than built upon.
  2. Patents in suit. The case metadata (and the prior sections) list only U.S. Patent No. 7,483,686. The operative complaint (ECF No. 2, filed May 17, 2023) asserts three patents — the ’686, ’177 (7,865,177), and ’528 (9,118,528) — and the Joint Claim Construction Chart / MediaTek's Markman briefing address all three. This is a metadata-vs.-record conflict worth resolving (possibly the ’177/’528 were later dropped, but I found no order dismissing them).
  3. Case number variant. A related third ParkerVision-MediaTek suit appears as 6:23-cv-00732-ADA/-XR (W.D. Tex.), sometimes captioned with the same Perkins Coie team; do not conflate it with 6:23-cv-00375.

Key sources