Tech & Telecom Weekly - August 9, 2021

In the Courts

On August 6, 2021, Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas reversed a $308.5 Million jury verdict against Apple on the ground that the patent owned by plaintiff Personalized Media Communications (PMC) “is unenforceable for reason of prosecution laches.” Judge Gilstrap found that PMC delayed filing its patent for several years in order to drive up potential damages, which he called a “conscious and egregious misuse of the statutory patent system.” The technology at issue is software used in iTunes to decrypt movies, music, and apps. He ordered that PMC “shall take nothing” and that Apple as prevailing party “shall recover its costs from PMC.”  Personalized Media Commc’ns v. Apple, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-01366-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.).

Also on August 6, but in the Northern District of California, plaintiffs filed a motion for settlement approval in their lawsuit against Plaid, Inc., a fintech startup. Plaid has agreed to pay $58 Million to settle the putative class action alleging that it uses an interface that makes consumers believe they are interacting with a financial institution and thus “lulls users into a false sense of security.” This system masks the fact that Plaid, and not a bank, is collecting the users’ financial information. On April 30, 2021, Judge Donna Ryu dismissed much of the case but sustained claims under the California Anti-Phishing Act of 2005, Sections 1709 and 1710 of the California Civil Code (fraud and deceit), and for invasion of privacy in violation of the California constitution. Plaintiffs’ attorneys seek $14.5 Million in fees. In re Plaid Inc. Privacy Litig., No. 4:20-cv-03056-DMR (N.D. Cal.).

For more information about these cases, please contact Stephanie Joyce.