top of page

Personalized Media Communications, LLC, v. Apple Inc. (Fed. Cir. Mar. 13, 2020)

In concluding that the claim term "an encrypted digital information transmission including encrypted information" in U.S. Patent No. 8,191,091 is limited to all digital signals contrary to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's interpretation, the Federal Circuit stated that:

"Even where “prosecution history statements do not rise to the level of unmistakable disavowal, they do inform the claim construction.” "[T]he Board erred by effectively requiring the prosecution history evidence to rise to the level of a disclaimer in order to inform the meaning of the disputed claim term. Assuming without deciding that PMC’s statements and amendments were inadequate to give rise to a disclaimer, we still find that the prosecution history provides persuasive evidence that informs the meaning of the disputed claim phrase and addresses an ambiguity otherwise left unresolved by the claims and specification."

The Federal Circuit thus vacated the Board's anticipation and obviousness determinations and affirmed the remainder of its determinations.

Read the case here.

Recent Posts

See All

Semiconductor Technology Pilot Program

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has announced the Semiconductor Technology Pilot Program which is designed to support the Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors (C

U.S. Supreme Court opinion of Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi

Post by Paul Serbinowski What must the specification disclose to enable broad functional claim language? A week ago in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, the U.S. Supreme Court considered what the specification mu


Commenting has been turned off.
bottom of page