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

Comcast Corporation et al v. Rovi Corporation et al

Docket 1:16-cv-03852, New York Southern District Court (May 23, 2016)
Judge J. Paul Oetken, presiding
Patent
DivisionFoley Square
FlagsSTAYED, ECF, PATENT-PILOT
Cause35:0001 Establishment of PTO
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Patent
6418556; 6725281; 7895218; 7996864; 8006263; 8046801; 8122034; 8433696; 8566871; 8578413; 8621512; 8713595; 8755666; 8768147; 9172987
64185566725281789521879968648006263804680181220348433696856687185784138621512871359587556668768147
9172987
Plaintiff Comcast Corporation
Plaintiff Comcast Cable Communications, LLC
Plaintiff Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC
...
cite Cite Docket

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

No. 101 OPINION AND ORDER: re: 90 MOTION for Reconsideration Notice of Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration ...

Document Comcast Corporation et al v. Rovi Corporation et al, 1:16-cv-03852, No. 101 (S.D.N.Y. May. 15, 2017)
Motion for Reconsideration
On June 1, 2016, Comcast1 filed a motion for preliminary injunction, seeking to enjoin Rovi2 from continuing to prosecute their patent infringement claims against Plaintiffs in the Eastern District of Texas and before the International Trade Commission (“ITC”).
Legal Standard “A motion for reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources.” Indergit v. Rite Aid Corp., 52 F. Supp.
“To prevail, the movant must demonstrate either (i) an intervening change in controlling law; (ii) the availability of new evidence; or (iii) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Id. (quoting Jacob v. Duane Reade, Inc., 293 F.R.D.
Comcast argues that these statements demonstrate that, despite Rovi’s prior assurances to this Court, Rovi is indeed seeking relief as to alleged unfair acts that occurred before the expiration of the Patent Agreement.
Comcast has not shown that Rovi is seeking relief in the ITC for any unfair act consisting of pre-expiration activity, including any stockpiling or testing of the allegedly infringing products.
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)

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
1 2 3 4 5 ... >>