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

ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. v. Google, Inc.

Docket 2:14-cv-00061, Texas Eastern District Court (Feb. 5, 2014)
Judge Rodney Gilstrap, presiding
Patent
DivisionMarshall
Demand: Defendant
Cause35:271 Patent Infringement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Patent
6963859; 7225160; 7269576; 7523072; 7774280; 8001053; 8370956; 8393007; 8583556
6963859
72251607269576752307277742808001053837095683930078583556
Mediator David Folsom
Plaintiff ContentGuard Holdings, Inc.
Consol Plaintiff ContentGuard Holdings, Inc.
...
cite Cite Docket

Apple Inc. v. CONTENTGUARD HOLDINGS, INC.

Docket IPR2015-00441, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Dec. 22, 2014)
Kerry Begley, Kevin Cherry, Patrick Scanlon, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
6963859
Petitioner Apple Inc.
Patent Owner CONTENTGUARD HOLDINGS, INC.
cite Cite Docket

Apple Inc. v. CONTENTGUARD HOLDINGS, INC.

Docket IPR2015-00440, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Dec. 22, 2014)
Kerry Begley, Kevin Cherry, Patrick Scanlon, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
6963859
Petitioner Apple Inc.
Patent Owner CONTENTGUARD HOLDINGS, INC.
cite Cite Docket

Apple Inc. v. CONTENTGUARD HOLDINGS, INC.

Docket IPR2015-00442, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Dec. 22, 2014)
Kerry Begley, Kevin Cherry, Patrick Scanlon, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
6963859
Petitioner Apple Inc.
Patent Owner CONTENTGUARD HOLDINGS, INC.
cite Cite Docket

ZTE Corporation v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc.

Docket IPR2013-00137, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Feb. 12, 2013)
Jameson Lee, Michael Kim, Michael Zecher, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
6963859
Petitioner ZTE Corporation
Patent Owner ContentGuard Holdings, Inc.
cite Cite Docket

No. 486 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Signed by Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 7/8/16

Document ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 2:14-cv-00061, No. 486 (E.D.Tex. Jul. 8, 2016)
A motion for judgment as a matter of law must be denied “unless the facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in the movant’s favor that reasonable jurors could not reach a contrary conclusion.” Baisden 393 F.3d at 498 (citation omitted).
Similarly, ContentGuard claims that “non-infringement argument Defendants advanced based on the file-moving experiments performed by Dr. Clark[, Defendants’ technical expert] should also be rejected” because, “as a matter of law, copying and moving encrypted content is not the same as ‘access[ing]’ the content.” See (id. at 10–12.)
For example, Dr. Clark, Defendants’ technical expert, testified as follows regarding a test he performed on the accused devices: Question: And, sir, can you please describe the demonstration that you did with those phones in order to come to your opinions in this case?
ContentGuard responds by arguing that “[a]s a threshold matter, JMOL should be denied because Defendants’ invalidity expert, Mr. Ward, failed to establish that the [DOD] Orange Book discloses a number of elements of the asserted claims.” (Dkt. No. 450, “Inv.
After consideration of the evidence presented, including testimony from Mr. Ward admitting that the DOD Orange Book did not use the term “digital certificates,” the jury found that Defendants had not proved the patents-in-suit were invalid.
cite Cite Document

No. 409 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (DE # 459 from 2:13-cv-1112)

Document ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 2:14-cv-00061, No. 409 (E.D.Tex. Dec. 4, 2015)
In addressing the role of the specification, the Phillips court quoted with approval its earlier observations from Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998): Ultimately, the interpretation to be given a term can only be determined and confirmed with a full understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to envelop with the claim.
The PTAB also “credit[ed] the testimony of [Plaintiff’s] expert, Dr. Goodrich, that ‘a person of ordinary skill in the art [in 1994] would [have understood] a digital certificate to be an assurance that downloaded software comes from a reputable source, including a measure of tamper resistance.’” (Dkt. No. 331, Ex. 2, 7/1/2014 Final Written Decision (‘859 Patent), at 26 (square brackets PTAB’s).)
Plaintiff concludes that “Defendants’ attempt to import the undefined requirement of permanent ‘attachment’ into the claims could only mislead a jury into believing that usage rights must physically be a part of the content file(s) that comprise a digital work.” (Id., at 3.)
On balance, nothing in the prosecution history or the extrinsic evidence cited by the parties warrants departing from the lexicography and descriptions of the invention in the specification, set forth above, which support Defendants’ proposal of requiring that usage rights are “attached” to digital works.
Defendants respond that the specification, as well as the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Goodrich, in IPR proceedings, emphasize “the ‘extremely important’ requirement of tamper resistance, which is provided by encrypting the digital certificate in the private key of a master repository.” (Dkt. No. 331, at 15.)
cite Cite Document

No. 423 MEMORANDUM OPINIONAND ORDER (DE # 850 from 2:13-cv-1112)

Document ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 2:14-cv-00061, No. 423 (E.D.Tex. Dec. 4, 2015)
As the Supreme Court explained in Daubert, 509 U.S. at 596, “[v]igorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence.” See Mathis v. Exxon Corp., 302 F.3d 448, 461 (5th Cir. 2002).
The bolded portion from the following sentences from paragraph 160 of Mr. Ward’s report are exemplary opinions implicated by this Order and must be stricken: “A key feature of the present invention is that usage rights are permanently ‘attached’ to the digital work.
Prosecution History Estoppel Related Grounds for the Motions to Strike Plaintiff argues that portions of Dr. Kelly’s report improperly raise legal issues, such as ensnarement and PHE, which should not be presented to the jury.
Defendants respond by arguing that the DOE infringement theory was not disclosed until April 20, 2015, a day before the deadline to file the letter briefs for dispositive motions, which is why the PHE arguments were not raised prior to the Daubert stage.
Having considered all of Defendants’ objections, Defendants’ Combined Motion to Strike Portions of the Expert Reports and Testimony of Michael T. Goodrich and David Martin (Dkt. No. 721) is GRANTED as specifically set forth above, CARRIED as to Mr. Goodrich’s indirect infringement opinions regarding the OEM Defendants, and DENIED in all other respects.
cite Cite Document
1 2 3 4 5 ... >>