Defendant
2 cases as defendant.
Personalized Media Communications, LLC (PMC) is a privately held patent assertion entity founded in 1981 and headquartered in Sugar Land, Texas. The company does not manufacture products or provide services; its business model consists of licensing and litigating a large portfolio of patents derived from applications originally filed in the 1980s. Sources describe PMC as a "family-run business" with a small number of employees. The company states it holds over 100 issued patents relating to the control of networked equipment.
PMC's operations focus exclusively on patent monetization. The company's patent portfolio covers technologies related to digital rights management (DRM), targeted advertising, and personalized content delivery. PMC's declared strategy has been to prosecute its patents over a long period to prolong their enforceability, waiting to assert them until the claimed technologies become widely adopted by other companies. PMC's website lists numerous licensees, including Cisco, Sony, Motorola, and DirecTV.
The company's litigation posture is that of a non-practicing entity (NPE) asserting its patents against technology companies. As the case data indicates, PMC is frequently a plaintiff in patent infringement suits, often filing in plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions like the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Its defendant cases arise from declaratory judgment actions or challenges to its patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, typical defensive measures taken by accused infringers.
PMC has been involved in high-stakes litigation against major technology companies. A notable case was its suit against Apple, filed in 2015 in the Eastern District of Texas, which initially resulted in a $308.5 million jury verdict in PMC's favor for infringement of a DRM-related patent by Apple's FairPlay technology. However, the verdict was later overturned when the patent was found unenforceable due to "prosecution laches," an unreasonable delay in the patent's prosecution. The company has also filed prominent suits against Google and Netflix.
In an Inter Partes Review proceeding, the PTAB initially invalidated several claims of the '091 patent. The Federal Circuit later overturned that ruling, finding the Board had used an incorrect claim construction.
This Supreme Court case between Google and PMC was related to the scope of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. After hearing arguments, the Court remanded the case in light of its decision in a related matter.