• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
306 results

Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Rovi Guides, Inc.

Docket IPR2017-00939, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Mar. 1, 2017)
Barbara Benoit, Karl Easthom, Stacy Margolies, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
9172987
Patent Owner Rovi Guides, Inc.
Petitioner Comcast Cable Communications, LLC
cite Cite Docket

Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Rovi Guides, Inc.

Docket IPR2017-00941, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Mar. 1, 2017)
Barbara Benoit, Karl Easthom, Stacy Margolies, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
9172987
Patent Owner Rovi Guides, Inc.
Petitioner Comcast Cable Communications, LLC
cite Cite Docket

32 Termination Decision Document: Final Written Decision

Document IPR2017-00939, No. 32 Termination Decision Document - Final Written Decision (P.T.A.B. Sep. 7, 2018)
The challenged patent indicates that “it would be desirable if a markup language could be used to provide for the downloading display characteristics of user screens and program guide functionality as plug-ins anytime, without modifying the code of the application.” Id. at 1:45–49.
See generally PO Resp. Having considered the entirety of the evidence, we agree with Petitioner that Wugofski’s computer 110 having control circuitry and a convergence television environment that includes a TV tuner or cable signal decoder teaches the recited set-top box.
Dr. Lippman testifies that “in Wugofski, the broadcaster controls which objects are displayed as part of the user interface, as well as their behavior, by sending a hypertext markup language (HTML) document to the computer 110 via the network.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 99 (citing Ex. 1002, Abstract, 7:39–44, 8:16–41).
Von Herzen, Patent Owner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art “would understand, however, that Wugofski only allows the user, at best, to adjust the parameter values of the behaviors associated with the display objects.” PO Resp. 17 (citing Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 78–80).
Patent Owner, however, contends that Wugofski’s disclosure is insufficient to teach or suggest the interpreting or the updating limitations because the recited assignment of a second program function requires a new behavior be added to the object.
cite Cite Document

31 Hearing Transcript: Hearing Transcript

Document IPR2017-00939, No. 31 Hearing Transcript - Hearing Transcript (P.T.A.B. Jul. 10, 2018)
JUDGE BENOIT: And so, is that the background that Dr. Lippman understood when he used -- he started with the Microsoft Computer Dictionary definition of set-top box and he expanded it to include television set or other similar display devices?
Mapping that to the claim, the Petitioner has taken the position that when you access the network and one of this object code uploads is automatically installed on your machine, that’s in response to user input.
And in the claim construction order, the Court says, "The parties mainly dispute Comcast’s inclusion of the limitation that program function does not include screen layouts.
Comcast has not demonstrated that the distinction on which it relies rises to the level of lexicography sufficient to justify its Cases IPR2017-00939 and IPR2017-00941 Patent 9,172,987 B2 proposed construction, which imports a limitation from the spec.
But the very portion of the spec they cite makes clear that these other additional services, and they talked about it earlier, weather information, associated internet web links, computer software, that they’re all in the context of a program guide.
cite Cite Document

70 Termination Decision Document: Final Written Decision

Document IPR2017-00941, No. 70 Termination Decision Document - Final Written Decision (P.T.A.B. Sep. 7, 2018)
The challenged patent indicates that “it would be desirable if a markup language could be used to provide for the downloading display characteristics of user screens and program guide functionality as plug-ins anytime, without modifying the code of the application.” Id. at 1:45–49.
Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015), overruled on other grounds by Aqua Prods., Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (en banc) (“A construction that is unreasonably broad and which does not reasonably reflect the plain language and disclosure will not pass muster.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
Thus, for purposes of determining whether Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of challenged claims would have been obvious over Kamada in combination with other references, we now understand and consider Petitioner’s assertion that Kamada’s button identifier “2” with it related displayed textual description (i.e., “2: TRAFFIC” in Figure 1; “2.
We also recognize that this portion of Dr. Lippman’s declaration testimony (Ex. 1105 ¶¶ 26–33) was not relied on during Petitioner’s contentions regarding purported reasons one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make Gerba’s hot spot functionality based on Java.
Petitioner’s Supplemental Reply arguments essentially re-write its Petition in an attempt to substantially improve its position regarding the requisite articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support a conclusion of obviousness.
cite Cite Document

69 Hearing Transcript: Hearing Transcript

Document IPR2017-00941, No. 69 Hearing Transcript - Hearing Transcript (P.T.A.B. Sep. 5, 2018)
The GUI is generated using received HTML data to specify themes to finding layout and functions and using embedded executable software such as Java applets and ActiveX controls.
I'm sorry to be -- MR. TAYLOR: No. And this -- I understand the confusion because what Kamada has is in addition to just typing in the 2 into the Case IPR2017-00941 Patent 9,172,987 B2 HTML file that's going to be displayed, it has these, what they call the button assignment table.
JUDGE EASTHOM: Counsel, I hate to kick a dead horse and I'm sorry I'm slow on this right now, but you seem to be drawing a distinction, as I thought you said it, about Kamada having hot-spots perhaps and then your disclosure is based on windows.
Patent owner, who has the burden in this case, asserts that these exhibits should be excluded because they either exceed the permissible scope of reply, lack authentication and/or constitute hearsay.
For instance, in a footnote on page 9 of his declaration, Dr. Lippman noted that Dr. Shamos agrees with me that the entire screen all the way down to possibly an individual pixel are display items.
cite Cite Document

27 Order: Oral Argument

Document IPR2017-00939, No. 27 Order - Oral Argument (P.T.A.B. May. 11, 2018)

cite Cite Document

62 Order: Supplemental Oral Argument

Document IPR2017-00941, No. 62 Order - Supplemental Oral Argument (P.T.A.B. Aug. 14, 2018)

cite Cite Document
1 2 3 4 5 ... >>