Publicly traded Prism Technologies Group, Inc. (PTG) has seen two of its key campaigns crippled by invalidity rulings, as the NPE’s struggle to stay in business in spite of rapidly dwindling resources may ultimately blunt the potential impact of a recent appeal victory. In late July, PTG subsidiary Secure Axcess LLC dismissed cases against nearly all of its campaign defendants with prejudice after the Federal Circuit upheld a ruling by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that cancelled all but one of the asserted patent’s claims. Meanwhile, in the campaign waged by PTG subsidiary Prism Technologies LLC, the Federal Circuit upheld in late June the invalidation of two patents-in-campaign under Alice in a victory for T-Mobile, later declining to overturn a previous, $30M verdict against Sprint involving those same patents. However, Sprint continues to fight that ruling, and PTG’s litigation costs continue to accumulate even as recent reporting on its financial results indicate that it is running out of cash.
The Federal Circuit has affirmed an October 2015 non-infringement verdict for T-Mobile in a case (8:12-cv-00124) brought by Prism Technologies LLC, also ruling that the asserted patents (8,127,345; 8,387,155) are invalid under Alice (2016-2031, 2016-2049). In an opinion issued on June 23, the Federal Circuit held on cross-appeal by T-Mobile that the ‘345 and ‘155 patents are invalid as directed to the abstract idea of “providing restricted access to resources” without the addition of an inventive concept. The Federal Circuit then denied Prism’s appeal of the non-infringement verdict as moot in light of its invalidity ruling.
The District of Nebraska has denied several post-trial motions in the wake of T-Mobile’s October 2015 victory over Prism Technologies, LLC, declining the NPE’s request to overturn a verdict of non-infringement (8:12-cv-00124). In that same ruling, issued on April 6, District Court Judge Lyle Strom also denied Prism’s motion for new trial, T-Mobile’s motion for a judgment of patent invalidity, and T-Mobile’s motion for attorney fees.
Access to the full article is currently available to RPX members only. Please contact us if you need further information.