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

Apple Inc. v. Personalized Media Communications, LLC

Docket IPR2016-00754, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Mar. 14, 2016)
Georgianna Braden, Karl Easthom, Kevin Turner, Trenton Ward, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent8559635
Patent Owner Personalized Media Communications, LLC
Petitioner Apple Inc.
cite Cite Docket

57 Final written decision On remand: Final written decision On remand

Document IPR2016-00754, No. 57 Final written decision On remand - Final written decision On remand (P.T.A.B. Sep. 8, 2022)
These terms include “executable instructions,” “changing a decryption technique,” “encrypted video,” and “processor,” where it is clear that none of the terms would be reconsidered on the basis of our reevaluation of claim terms ...
None of the challenged claims recite a “signal processor” that the ’635 Patent appears to define in more narrow terms relative to a more general processor.
PowerOasis, 522 F.3d at 1310 (“Because none of this support was present in the Original Application and because the Original Application did not disclose a customer interface apart from the vending machine, the asserted claims are ...
Secondary Considerations K. As Petitioner argues, Patent Owner fails to show a nexus to its alleged secondary considerations of non-obviousness: “None of the purported ‘evidence’ specifically relates to the ’635 Patent, let alone the ...
cite Cite Document
+ More Snippets

51 Order on Motion: ORDER Conduct of the Proceeding 37 CFR sec 425

Document IPR2016-00754, No. 51 Order on Motion - ORDER Conduct of the Proceeding 37 CFR sec 425 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2022)
6 Daniel Nachbar, When Network File Systems Aren’t Enough: Automatic Software Distribution Revisited, USENIX Conference Proceedings, June 9- 13, 1986 (Ex. 1042) (“Nachbar”).
Before the Director, Patent Owner argued that we applied a similar analysis in the above-referenced final written decisions to that discussed in Apple Inc. v. Personalized Media Communications, LLC, IPR2016-00755, Paper 42 (PTAB Feb. 14, 2019), which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed in relevant part on the issue of claim construction.
The Director agreed, vacating the prior Final Written Decisions, and remanding the cases to address the claim construction set forth by U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Petitioner may file, on or before April 15, 2022, an Opening Brief detailing the applicability of the grounds identified above in view of the claim construction set for by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Patent 8,559,635 B1 be limited to twenty five (25) pages and will discuss all of the grounds of unpatentability set forth in the Petitions of IPR2016-00754 and IPR2016- 01520.
cite Cite Document

50 Order Other: Order Granting Request for Director Review

Document IPR2016-00754, No. 50 Order Other - Order Granting Request for Director Review (P.T.A.B. Mar. 3, 2022)
Patent Owner argues that Director review is appropriate because the Board erred by adopting erroneous claim constructions for “encrypted” and “decrypted.” Paper 48, 4–9.
Patent Owner argues that the Board applied a similar analysis in its final written decision in Apple Inc. v. Personalized Media Communications, LLC, IPR2016-00755, Paper 42 (PTAB Feb. 14, 2019), which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed in relevant part on the issue of claim construction.
The Board’s claim construction analysis for the terms “encrypted” and “decrypted” in the cases is substantially similar to the Board’s related analysis of the term “encrypted digital information transmission including encrypted information” at issue in the Federal Circuit case noted above.
As such, I grant Director review, vacate the prior Final Written Decisions, and remand the cases for the Board to address its claim construction for the terms “encrypted” and “decrypted” in light of the Federal Circuit’s decision in PMC.
Based on the foregoing, it is: ORDERED that the Board’s Final Written Decisions (IPR2016- 00754, Paper 41 and IPR2016-01520, Paper 38) are vacated; and FURTHER ORDERED that the Board shall issue new final written decisions that address the Federal Circuit’s claim construction in Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Apple Inc., 952 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
cite Cite Document

47 Order Other: GENERAL ORDER

Document IPR2016-00754, No. 47 Order Other - GENERAL ORDER (P.T.A.B. Oct. 26, 2021)
As explained in the General Order in Cases Remanded Under Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“General Order in Remanded Cases”), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) issued numerous Ordersinstructing the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) to conduct proceedings on remand consistent with the Federal Circuit’s Arthrex decision.
To avoid burdening the Office and the parties until all appellate rights had been exhausted, the General Order in Remanded Cases wasissued, suspending the requirements of the Board’s Standard Operating Procedure 9 in cases remandedby the Federal Circuit underits Arthrex decision, and holding all such cases in administrative abeyance until the Supreme Court of the United States (“Supreme Court”) acted on a petition for certiorari or the time forfiling such petitions expired.
General Order Regarding Arthrex-Related Remands On June 21, 2021, the Supreme Court vacated the Federal Circuit’s judgmentin Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. and remandedto the Acting Director for him to decide whether to rehear the Board’s final written decision.
The Supreme Court subsequently granted petitions for certiorari in other cases in which the Federal Circuit remanded to the Board for proceedings consistent with the Federal Circuit’s Arthrex decision, vacated the Federal Circuit’s judgment in those cases, and remanded them for further consideration in light of United States v. Arthrex, Inc. See Iancu v. Luoma, No. 20-74 (June 28, 2021); Jancu v. Fall Line Patents, LLC, No. 20-853 (June 28, 2021); Hirshfeld v. Implicit, LLC, No. 20-1631 (Oct. 18, 2021).
Nowthat the Supreme Court has acted on petitions for certiorari in cases that were previously remandedto the Board under the Federal Circuit’s Arthrex decision, the General Order in Remanded Casesislifted.
cite Cite Document

56 Reply: Patent Owners Sur Reply Brief on Remand

Document IPR2016-00754, No. 56 Reply - Patent Owners Sur Reply Brief on Remand (P.T.A.B. Jun. 10, 2022)
And the “repeated and consistent remarks” on which the Federal Circuit relied all focused on the word “encrypted.” As the Federal Circuit put it: “During prosecution, the applicant repeatedly and consistently voiced its position that encryption and decryption require a digital process in the context of the ’091 patent.” Id. at 1345 (emphasis added).
That is no surprise, as practically verbatim remarks about the meaning of encryption and decryption appear in the prosecution history of both patents.
Nor does Petitioner dispute that, if “decrypt” requires a digital process, then the Board’s invalidity determination as to at least claim 3 must be reversed.
Again, that is no surprise: The only reference Petitioner asserted against claim 3 was Campbell, which is completely silent as to any type of encryption/decryption, and at best discloses scrambled analog video.
That is wrong: As Patent Owner explained in detail, PMC ’091 requires revisiting other claim constructions that failed to account for “repeated and consistent remarks” during prosecution.
cite Cite Document

55 Reply: Petitioners Reply Brief on Remand

Document IPR2016-00754, No. 55 Reply - Petitioners Reply Brief on Remand (P.T.A.B. Jun. 3, 2022)
And, notwithstanding Patent Owner’s argument to the contrary, what that Court found decisive in construing this term was the amendment specifying that it must be “an encrypted digital information transmission,” and the applicant’s accompanying statement that “the prior art ‘does not teach the encryption of an entire digital signal transmission.’” Id. at 1345 (emphasis added).
The applicant made similar amendments to the ’635 patent, but only to claims 18, 20, 32, and 33—which this Board already held to require all-digital transmissions.
Patent Owner falsely contends that the Federal Circuit held that the IPR2016-00745 and -01520: Petitioner’s Reply Brief on Remand “encrypt”/“decrypt” terms are limited to all-digital processes.
For instance, Patent Owner purports to quote the Federal Circuit as holding that “‘encryption and decryption require a digital process in the context of the ’091 patent.’” Id. at 5 (citing PMC ’091, 952 F.3d at 1345).
To the contrary, the Federal Circuit affirmed this Board’s decision invalidating claims 26, 27, and 30 of the ’091 patent—which require “decrypting … encrypted information”—over a prior art reference that disclosed descrambling an analog video signal.
cite Cite Document

53 Response: Patent Owners Response Brief on Remand from the Federal Circuit

Document IPR2016-00754, No. 53 Response - Patent Owners Response Brief on Remand from the Federal Circuit (P.T.A.B. May. 16, 2022)
The Federal Circuit’s rejection of that construction in PMC ’091, and its holding that the prosecution statements require limiting encryption and decryption to all-digital processes, applies equally to the ’635 patent.
The Board’s key legal error in PMC ’091 was to disregard statements made during prosecution that “did not constitute a clear and unmistakable surrender sufficient to rise to the level of disclaimer.” 952 F.3d at 1345.
Petitioner’s expert declaration below makes clear that teletext is only “non-static” in a very limited sense: the text or simple graphics it displays can be updated in a cyclic fashion, replaced by a different page, or include “flashing” characters.
In considering whether that limitation meant that “analog synchronization signals transmitted along with digital content caused the transmission to fall outside the scope of the claim,” the court agreed with Patent Owner that the “unaccompanied by any non-digital
The limitation was added during prosecution to overcome a rejection based on prior art that discloses a standard television transmission comprising scrambled analog video and digital audio.
cite Cite Document
1 2 3 4 5 ... >>