The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals revived a patent infringement lawsuit Monday against Comcast two years after the judge presiding over the trial granted a motion ending the case before the jury heard closing arguments.
WhereverTV, a global TV subscription service, alleged Comcast infringed its patent covering its interactive program guide, and its lawyers had spent two weeks making its case to a jury when U.S. District Judge William Jung of the Middle District of Florida made the rare decision to grant Comcast’s motion for a directed verdict.
On appeal, WhereverTV argued that the district court erred in granting the motion because of its claim constructions of the interactive program guide and “adding and deleting” of channels patent limitations. The patent at issue is a system that employs a global interactive program guide to manage live TV and saved shows or movies via a device connected to the internet from anywhere in the world.
Reese Marketos partners Adam Sanderson and Brett Rosenthal tried the case before a jury in April 2023. Sanderson said the appellate court’s decision to send the case back for another trial “vindicates” his client, “who developed cutting-edge technology that fuses cable television with streaming services to create a more user-friendly experience.”
“We’re grateful to the Court for its thorough consideration of our appeal,” he said. Now, there’s just one thing to do: return this case to a jury as soon as possible. We look forward to trying this case in the courtroom, where it belongs.”
The appellate court agreed with WhereverTV that the district court erred in granting Comcast’s motion by not construing the limitation using the claim construction framework set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., which clarified the hierarchy of evidentiary sources for claim construction in patent law in 2005.
“The district court’s JMOL cannot stand under the proper construction of this limitation,” the appellate court wrote in its opinion.
Rosenthal, who said he was feeling confident as the trial progressed before the jury, recalls it was a “shock” when Judge Jung granted Comcast’s motion.
“Definitely feels vindicating to finally get the decision,” Rosenthal said.
Oral arguments before the appellate court were held in February.
“We’re reading the tea leaves throughout and trying to interpret every question that the judges asked or didn’t ask, or offhand comment that they made during argument, and read into what that might mean,” Rosenthal said.
If the court had let the jury render a verdict and then granted the motion, Rosenthal said a new trial may not have been necessary.
“It’s exciting that we’re going to have a chance to go back to the district court and try the case again, because we again felt really good about how the case had played with the first jury,” Rosenthal said. “We’ll never know what their verdict might have been, but the feeling was really good. I think that we’ll feel very confident going into another jury trial, that this time we can prevail on the facts.”
Weil, Gotshal & Manges partner Mark Perry, who is representing Comcast, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The case has been remanded to the Middle District of Florida for a second jury trial.
WhereverTV is also represented by Jamison Joiner of Reese Marketos.
The case is WhereverTV v. Comcast Cable Communications LLC, 23-2098.