• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
408 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)

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

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
1 2 3 4 5 ... >>