A federal judge in the Southern District of New York granted counterclaim-defendant TNS’s motion for summary judgment ruling that three patents related to targeted-advertising were invalid under Alice. As a preliminary matter, the court rejected Tivo’s (TRA) presumption of validity argument noting that “[t]he presumption of validity—and its concomitant clear and convincing evidence standard—does not apply to section 101 claims.” In analyzing the patents, the court found that all three patents describe the same basic invention in five basic steps: “(1) collecting household-level data from a variety of digital sources, (2) matching this data to individual households through the use of digital double-blind matching, (3) digitally storing this matched data, (4) applying a “cleansing and editing algorithm” to the data to remove extraneous and/or private information, and (5) calculating an advertising metric based on the data.” Accordingly, the court found claim 71 of the ’940 patent to be representative of all asserted claims—essentially a method for correlating the advertisements that consumers view and their purchasing behavior.
A federal judge in the Northern District of California ruled that two patents asserted against Apple Inc. are invalid for failure to meet the patent-eligibility test as established in Alice. The patents are asserted by OpenTV, Inc., a subsidiary of Kudelski SA. OpenTV accuses Apple services such as Apple TV and iTunes of infringing patents generally directed to secure transmission of media content to a target device, such as a television, computer, or smartphone.
A California federal judge dismissed an infringement suit alleging Apple Inc.’s Apple TV video streaming service infringes a patent held by Aylus Networks Inc.. The court ruled that Apple’s technology does not follow the steps laid out in patent claims asserted by Aylus. Specifically, the court relied on statements made by plaintiff during inter partes review, holding that “[d]uring the claim construction process, the Court was not asked to construe the term ‘The [Control Point Proxy] is invoked.’ However, the Court agrees with [defendant] that based on the language of the patent and [plaintiff’s] statements during the inter partes review process, dependent claims 2 and 21 require that only the CPP logic is invoked to negotiate media content delivery. . . . [T]his distinction is confirmed by [plaintiff’s] preliminary responses to [defendant’s] inter partes review petitions of the [patent-in-suit] and the PTAB’s adjudication of the petition. In this regard, [plaintiff’s] statements are akin to a prosecution disclaimer. . . . Based on this distinction, the PTAB denied [defendant’s] petition for inter partes review of claims 2 and 21. . . . [T]he PTAB’s conclusion was not based on the application of the [broadest reasonable interpretation ] standard of review, but rested on the distinction that [plaintiff] itself articulated in its response to [defendant’s] petition.” (emphasis added).