Business
Middle District Court of Florida Denies Two Motions in Patent Infringement against Comcast Communications, LLC
Middle District Court of Florida Denies Two Motions in Patent Infringement against Comcast Communications, LLC.
About this update from Wherevertv Broadcasting Corp.
[{"type":"text","content":"\nFORT MYERS, Fla., Feb. 25, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- WhereverTV Broadcasting Corp. (OTCQB: TVTV), which delivers Over The Top (OTT) subscription television services to AppleTV, Amazon Fire TV Stick, Google Chromecast, smartphones, Tablets, computers and other devices, announces that Judge John E. Steele of the Middle District of Florida denies two motions filed by Comcast Communications, LLC.\n Judge John E. Steele denies Comcast Communications, LLC motions to Move to Eastern District of Pennsylvania on January 30, 2019 and their Motion to Dismiss on February 20, 2019. In regards to the Motion to Dismiss, Comcast arguments against infringing were based on three points, A) Adding or Deleting Channels B) Distinct Server Limitations and C) Streaming Video. As to point “A” the Court’s comments are as follows: The Court finds that plaintiff (WhereverTV) has plausibly alleged that the Xfinity platform provides a user-configurable interactive program guide (IPG) that allows users to add or delete channels. The Amended Complaint alleges that the IPG allows users to add or delete channels and add or delete favorite channels, also providing screenshots. This is adequate to place Comcast on notice of what activity it is accused of infringing. It is not appropriate for the Court to determine at this stage whether the accused method of adding or deleting channels could violate the ‘431 Patent without the benefit of claim construction. Thus, the motion to dismiss on this basis is denied. As to point “B” the Court’s comments are as follows: The Court finds that WhereverTV has plausibly alleged facts supporting that Comcast’s X1 Platform includes at least one server that is resident on a network containing descriptive program data about video content that is available form one or more MSOs and one or more non-MSOs, and that this server is distinct from at least one or more of the MSOs and one or more non-MSOs, as contemplated in Claim 1. Details about the operation of the servers may be obtained through discovery, but at this point plaintiff need not allege specific facts about the technical details of the accused products. Thus, the motion to dismiss on this basis is denied. As to point “C” the Court’s comments are as follows: The Court agrees with plaintiff (WhereverTV) t...