Litigation summary

Litigation History of U.S. Patent No. 8,191,091

As of May 10, 2026, U.S. Patent No. 8,191,091, assigned to Personalized Media Communications, LLC (PMC) and now held by Contentnexus LLC, has been the subject of significant and high-stakes litigation against major technology companies. The patent, which has a priority date of November 3, 1981, has been asserted in multiple district court cases and has been reviewed by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), and the U.S. Supreme Court.

A central issue in the litigation has been the doctrine of "prosecution laches," which concerns unreasonable and inexcusable delays in a patent's prosecution that prejudice an alleged infringer.

Key litigation involving this patent includes:

1. Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Apple Inc.

• Plaintiff: Personalized Media Communications, LLC
• Defendant: Apple Inc.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
• Case Number: 2:15-cv-01366
• Filing Date: July 2015
• Status/Outcome: This case has a complex history.
  • In March 2021, a jury returned a unanimous verdict, finding that Apple's FairPlay digital rights management (DRM) technology infringed on claims 13-16 of the '091 patent and awarded PMC over $308 million in damages.
  • However, in a subsequent bench trial, District Judge Rodney Gilstrap overturned the jury's verdict. On August 5, 2021, the court found the '091 patent unenforceable due to prosecution laches, ruling that PMC had engaged in a "deliberate strategy of delay" to wait until its technology was widely adopted before enforcing its patent rights.
  • PMC appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Case No. 21-2275). On January 20, 2023, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, agreeing that the patent was unenforceable.
  • PMC subsequently appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the status of this appeal is not specified in the provided information.

2. Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Google LLC

• Plaintiff: Personalized Media Communications, LLC
• Defendant: Google LLC
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
• Case Number: 2:19-cv-00090
• Filing Date: March 21, 2019
• Status/Outcome: This case was initiated after what PMC described as ten years of unsuccessful licensing negotiations with Google. Public records indicate the case was closed on November 12, 2020, though the specific terms of the resolution (e.g., settlement, dismissal) are not detailed.

3. Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Netflix, Inc.

• Plaintiff: Personalized Media Communications, LLC
• Defendant: Netflix, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
• Case Number: 1:20-cv-03708
• Filing Date: May 13, 2020
• Status/Outcome: PMC sued Netflix for infringing on patents related to adaptive video streaming technology. In July 2020, the court denied Netflix's motion to dismiss, allowing the case to proceed. The case was terminated on January 23, 2024.

4. PTAB Inter Partes Review (IPR)

• Petitioner: Unified Patents, LLC
• Patent Owner: Personalized Media Communications, LLC
• Jurisdiction: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
• Case Number: IPR2016-00755
• Filing Date: The case was instituted based on a petition filed in 2016.
• Status/Outcome: In September 2017, the PTAB initially invalidated several claims of the '091 patent. However, the Federal Circuit later overturned that ruling, finding that the Board had used an incorrect claim construction. This reversal allowed the district court case against Apple to proceed to trial.

5. Google LLC v. Personalized Media Communications, LLC

• Petitioner: Google LLC
• Respondent: Personalized Media Communications, LLC
• Jurisdiction: U.S. Supreme Court
• Case Number: 23-230
• Status/Outcome: This case appears to be related to Gonzalez v. Google, which addresses the scope of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The Supreme Court heard arguments in February 2023. On May 18, 2023, the Court remanded the case, suggesting that in light of its decision in a related case (Twitter v. Taamneh), little of the plaintiff's case remained viable without needing to address the Section 230 question directly.