Cases & Deals

DIRECTV wins patent appeal affirming its invalidity victory on summary judgment

Client(s) DIRECTV Group, Inc., The

Jones Day successfully represented The DIRECTV Group, Inc. in a patent infringement action and appeal involving direct broadcast satellite television.

On October 7, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed in full a summary-judgment ruling entered in favor of Jones Day client The DIRECTV Group, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The ruling, In re Acacia Media Technologies Corp., No. 2010-1081 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 7, 2010), absent reconsideration or grant of certiorari, ends over eight years of Acacia's intellectual property dispute with DIRECTV and dozens of co-defendants in which Acacia claimed that each defendant infringed one or more of four patents that Acacia owns. With the cases consolidated in multidistrict litigation, DIRECTV and its co-defendants sought summary judgment that each claim-in-suit was invalid for indefiniteness. The district court agreed and accordingly granted summary judgment to DIRECTV and its co-defendants.

In its October 7, 2010 order, which was issued only two days after oral argument, the Federal Circuit rejected Acacia's arguments on appeal, and affirmed in full the district court's summary judgment of invalidity. As a result, without any trial required, every single claim of the four Acacia patents asserted against DIRECTV has been held to be invalid.

The Jones Day team representing DIRECTV throughout the proceedings includes Kevin McBride and Louis Touton of the Firm's Los Angeles Office and, as lead counsel for DIRECTV on the appeal, Greg Castanias along with Jennifer Swize of the Firm's Washington, D.C. Office. Additional information about the case can be obtained by contacting Mr. McBride or Mr. Castanias.

Acacia Media Technologies Corporation v. Comcast Corporation et al., Case No. 3-04-cv-02308 (N.D. Cal.) (Judge Illston); In re Acacia Media Technologies Corp., Appeal No. 2010-1081 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 7, 2010)