IP Law Daily, PATENT—M.D. Fla.: Xfinity X1 platform does not infringe streaming video patent, (Jun 7, 2023)

By Brian Craig, J.D.

No reasonable jury could find literal infringement of the “adding or deleting channels” or the “interactive program guide application installed on the device” limitations.

In a jury trial brought by WhereverTV, Inc. against Comcast over a patent for streaming video content, the federal district court in Tampa, Florida, determined that no reasonable jury could find literal infringement of the patent claims. The court granted Comcast’s motion for a judgment as a matter of law at the close of WhereverTV’s case in chief and took the case away from the jury. After further briefing, the court issued the present order explaining its earlier ruling that WhereverTV presented insufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that Comcast’s X1 entertainment platform meets the “interactive program guide application installed on the device” limitations in the patent claims (WhereverTV, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, June 5, 2023, Jung, W.).

WhereverTV is the assignee and owner of U.S. Patent No. 8,656,431 (the ’431 Patent), which was issued by the USPTO in 2014. The ’431 Patent discloses a system and device that employs a global interactive program guide to receive, access, manage, and view digital entertainment services such as live television, television on demand, and pre-recorded video and audio programming from one or more content sources, via an internet-enabled device, anywhere in the world.

In 2009, cable television and internet provider Comcast Cable Communications, LLC began developing an entertainment platform known as the Xfinity X1. The X1 allows users to access video content from their cable provider and streaming providers through a cloud-based system. In 2018, WhereverTV sued Comcast for patent infringement. Following a Markman hearing, the court held a six-day jury trial in April 2023. At the close of WhereverTV’s case, Comcast moved for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a). The court granted the motion, agreeing that no reasonable jury could find direct infringement of the “adding or deleting channels” or the “interactive program guide application installed on the device” limitations. After further briefing by the parties, the court issued its final written order entering judgment for Comcast and explaining its reasons for granting Comcast’s motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Literal infringement. The court concluded that no reasonable jury could find literal infringement of the patent claims. A literal infringement analysis involves two steps. First, the asserted claims must be interpreted by the court as a matter of law to determine their meaning and scope. In the second step, the trier of fact determines whether the claims as thus construed read on the accused product.

Because the court declined to construe the “adding or deleting” channels limitation advanced by WhereverTV, the court interpreted the term according to its plain and ordinary meaning. The court concluded that channels cannot be added or deleted on the X1 under the plain meaning of “add” and “delete” on the X1. WhereverTV failed to present sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that the X1 meets each and every limitation of Claim 1. No reasonable jury could find that the X1 meets either the “adding or deleting channels” limitation or the “interactive program guide application installed on the device” limitation.

WhereverTV abandoned its infringement claims under the doctrine of equivalents. Therefore, WhereverTV could not prevail merely by showing that “subscribing” to a channel is substantially the same as, or similar to, adding a channel to the interactive program guide. WhereverTV was required to show by a preponderance of the evidence that subscribing is literally “adding” and that unsubscribing is literally “deleting.” With insufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that the X1 meets the “interactive program guide application installed on the device” limitation, WhereverTV cannot show the X1’s literal infringement of Claim 1 of the ’431 Patent. Therefore, the court granted Comcast’s motion for judgment as a matter of law.

The Case is No. 2:18-cv-529-WFJ-NPM.

Attorneys: Adam C. Sanderson (Reese Marketos LLP) for WhereverTV, Inc. Kathryn Bi (Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP) for Comcast Cable Communications, LLC.

Companies: WhereverTV, Inc.; Comcast Cable Communications, LLC

MainStory: TopStory Patent TechnologyInternet FloridaNews GCNNews