Short Summary
Disney challenges the Patent Owner’s request for Director Review, asserting that the Board’s claim constructions and prior‑art analysis were correct. The response contends the request adds no new arguments and should be denied.
Detailed Summary
In its authorized response to the Patent Owner’s Director Review Request, Disney Media & Entertainment Distribution argues that the request fails to identify any substantive legal error, new evidence, or policy concern, merely re‑presenting arguments already rejected by the PTAB. The petitioner emphasizes that the Board’s claim constructions for terms such as “exhibitor,” “distribution,” and “marketing” are proper and that the prior art references—Garfinkle, Allen, Budow, and Kosten—teach every limitation of the asserted claims. Accordingly, Disney urges the Board to deny the Director Review Request as unnecessary and unsupported.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution, LLC vs Digital Media Technology Holdings, LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Valve CorporationvsImmersion Corporation
Valve Corporation successfully secured institution at the PTAB regarding claims of Immersion Corporation's vibrotactile feedback patent (9430042). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on anticipation and obviousness grounds. This decision moves the dispute toward trial in district court.
Tempus AI, Inc.vsGuardant Health Inc.
Guardant Health settled its digital sequencing patent dispute with Foundation Medicine for $25 million, granting a non‑exclusive license and ending all related litigation.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al.vsMicron Technology, Inc. et al.
Yangtze Memory Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate three claims of Micron's 3D NAND patent, citing anticipation by Lung and obviousness over Park, Fukuzumi, and Mokhlesi. The petitioner argues discretionary denial does not apply and seeks cancellation of claims 8, 13, and 21.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al.vsMES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliate MidAmerican Energy have moved to keep their settlement with BirchTech Corp. confidential, invoking federal statutes to limit disclosure. The Board has been asked to treat the agreement as business confidential information.
Sportradar AG et al.vsSportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
Sportradar has filed an IPR petition challenging SportsCastr’s U.S. Patent 10,805,687, asserting that the claims are obvious over several prior‑art streaming technologies. The petition also argues against discretionary denial, referencing Fintiv and the lack of a prior petition by the same party.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.