“The district court here held that the delays in various prosecutions were caused by problems deliberately created by PMC and rightly focused on PMC’s unfair prosecution.” – CAFC Majority opinion
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today ruled in a divisional precedent decision prepared by Judge Reyna that the district court had properly held the Personalized Media Communications (PMC) patent unenforceable due to a lack of prosecution. I went down. Judge Stark disagreed, concurring that the PMC’s delay in filing the patent application was “unreasonable and indefensible,” but argued that Apple failed to prove that it was wronged during the delay period. bottom.
the same as Hyatt
PMC sued Apple in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in 2015, alleging that FairPlay, Apple’s digital rights management software, infringes claim 13 of PMC’s U.S. Patent No. 8,191,091. rice field. A jury found that Apple infringed at least one of claims 13 through 16, but in a subsequent bench trial, the district court found the patent unenforceable for failure to prosecute. Did. Hyatt vs Hirschfeld.
The district court ruled that PMC’s case was “very similar” to Hyatt’s, saying that “PMC took eight to 14 years to file a patent application and at least 16 years to submit the asserted claims for examination.” I’ve been waiting for years,” he said. Ultimately, the district court said, PMC’s prosecution strategy was unreasonable and rooted in a deliberate delay strategy to extend patent terms. For example, the ‘091 patent is due to expire in 2027, which he is 40 years from the 1987 priority date.
PMC alleges legal error and takes the case Hyatt or any other case that finds prosecution deficiencies. However, the CAFC explained that it disagreed with that premise and determined that they were in fact very similar. Hyattthere is no requirement that the act must look like Hyatt or any other case to find failure to prosecute. “Laches is a fair and flexible principle that needs to consider the whole situation,” he said. Hyatt.
The CAFC also rejected PMC’s assertion that it was willing to enter into a consolidation agreement with the USPTO to classify the 328 “GATT-Bubble” applications into more manageable categories. The “GATT bubble” is a term applied to patent applications filed before the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) but not yet granted that extends the term of U.S. Amended to 20 years from the filing date. It came into force on June 8, 1995.
In fact, the CAFC states: With PMC’s agreement to structure the review of a series of claims through first the A petition and then the B petition, PMC has introduced the very kind of prosecution delay that supports PMC’s lengthy campaign for prosecution. “
The majority then dismissed the PMC’s attempt to attribute the delay to the USPTO, stating, “The district court here held that the delay in various prosecutions was caused by a problem deliberately created by the PMC. and correctly focused on the unfair prosecution of PMC.”
Ultimately, the majority correctly held that the district court did not abuse its discretion, that its fact-findings were not clearly erroneous, and that the PMC’s delay in prosecution was unreasonable under the circumstances as a whole. I have certified that I have certified.
establish a prejudice
A finding of omission also requires that the infringer suffered prejudice as a result of the delay by showing that he “invested, worked on, or used the claimed technology during the period of delay.” In this regard, the dissent argued that the delay period ended before 2000, three years before Apple began FairPlay technology, and the district court and majority agreed that Apple would begin any work on the technology. agreed to be in the same year as the first date
However, the majority said this understanding “misunderstands the record and the law,” and added, “The district court ruled that the deliberate strategy of delay began at least in 1995 and until PMC filed this case in 2015. I have confirmed that it has continued,” he said.
Stark rejected the majority’s analysis, saying it could not prove that Apple obtained the right to intervene before 2000 or that the PMC unreasonably or inexplicably delayed prosecution after 2000.
“The continued impact of prosecution delays caused by the PMC, primarily between 1987 and 1995, allows Apple to win its omission by proving that it suffered prejudice around 2003. Today’s ruling suggests that no matter how well PMC did, it was destined to procure unenforceable patents, and it’s been since 1995, no matter how egregious Apple’s infringements were. , was doing itself.”
Image Source: Deposit Photo
Image ID: 50104927
Author: Ike Concept
