Google & PMC Federal Circuit Appeal Voluntarily Dismissed After 783 Days
Google, LLC and Personalized Media Communications, LLC jointly dismissed their Federal Circuit appeal challenging the patentability of US9674560B1, a signal processing patent. The case closed after 783 days with each party bearing its own costs — leaving the patent’s ultimate validity unresolved on the public record.
Agreed dismissal ends Federal Circuit signal processing patent appeal
Appeal No. 22-1207 was filed at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 1 December 2021, with Google, LLC and Personalized Media Communications, LLC (PMC) both listed as plaintiffs in an invalidity and cancellation action concerning US9674560B1 — a patent covering signal processing apparatus and methods. The case proceeded at the appellate level, with Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP representing the plaintiff side, led by attorney Erika Arner.
On 23 January 2024, the Federal Circuit issued an order recording the parties’ agreement to dismiss the proceeding under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b). The order specifies that each side shall bear their own costs. The public record does not expressly state whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice, a distinction that carries material consequences for whether the same claims can be relitigated.
A 783-day appellate proceeding ending in agreed dismissal typically suggests the parties reached some form of resolution — commercial, licensing, or strategic — that made continued litigation uneconomical or unnecessary. What precisely drove the agreement, and whether any licence or settlement terms were exchanged, remains unknown from the public record. The underlying patentability questions concerning US9674560B1 were not adjudicated by the Federal Circuit.
Filing to resolution in 783 days
783 days from filing to voluntary dismissal at the Federal Circuit
What the voluntary dismissal under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) means
Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) dismissal: what it means
Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure allows parties to dismiss an appeal by filing a signed agreement. The Federal Circuit’s order confirms the parties ‘so agreed,’ making this a consensual exit rather than a court-imposed outcome. No merits ruling was issued — the court did not decide patentability or validity of US9674560B1. The patent record at the USPTO is unaffected by the dismissal itself.
Agreed dismissal — no merits rulingWith or without prejudice? The public record is silent
A dismissal with prejudice bars refiling the same claims; a dismissal without prejudice preserves that right. The court’s order here does not specify either. Under Rule 42(b), dismissals at the appellate stage are typically treated as without prejudice to refiling at a lower tribunal unless the agreement states otherwise — but practitioners should not assume this without reviewing any underlying settlement terms, which are not publicly available.
Prejudice status: unconfirmedEach side bears own costs — a neutral financial outcome
The order expressly allocates costs symmetrically: each party bears their own. In Federal Circuit practice, cost awards in dismissed appeals can sometimes signal which party had stronger leverage — a mutual bear-own-costs arrangement is consistent with a negotiated resolution in which neither side conceded. It does not, however, indicate financial equivalence in any broader settlement that may have occurred outside the court record.
No cost award to either partyUS9674560B1 patentability left unresolved
Because the Federal Circuit dismissed without ruling on the merits, the patentability or validity of US9674560B1 was not adjudicated at this level. Third parties cannot rely on this dismissal as a validity determination. Companies in the signal processing and content delivery space should independently assess the patent’s claim scope and any inter partes review or ex parte reexamination history to understand current enforceability.
Validity: not adjudicatedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Google, LLC | Company | Google, LLC — co-party to Federal Circuit appeal over signal processing patent US9674560B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Defendant | Company | No defendant identified in the public case record for this Federal Circuit appeal proceedingSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Erika Arner | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge / | Chief Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The Federal Circuit’s order is narrow and procedural: it records the parties’ agreement and dismisses the appeal under Rule 42(b), with costs borne equally. No patentability finding was made. The phrase ‘the parties having so agreed’ confirms this was a consensual exit, not a unilateral withdrawal. For practitioners, the operative consequence is that US9674560B1 received no appellate validity ruling — its enforceability against third parties is unchanged by this order.
US9674560B1 — Signal Processing Apparatus and Methods
US9674560B1, held by Personalized Media Communications, LLC, covers signal processing apparatus and methods — a broad technical domain associated with subscriber-specific content routing, signal decryption, and conditional access systems. The corrected application number US08/447611 suggests a filing lineage dating to the mid-1990s, consistent with PMC’s well-documented portfolio of foundational patents in personalised broadcasting and signal processing. Patents with this vintage and continuation history can carry broad claim scope that extends across modern digital delivery architectures.
PMC’s signal processing patents have been asserted against major technology and media companies over multiple decades, making this portfolio a persistent risk for any business operating in content delivery, streaming, conditional access, or encrypted signal handling. The Federal Circuit appeal involving Google suggests the patent withstood at least initial validity challenge, and the absence of a merits ruling means it remains a credible assertion vehicle. Competitors in the digital media and signal processing space should map their product architectures against the issued claims before dismissing this patent as legacy.
Should your team run an FTO against US9674560B1?
Any company developing signal processing apparatus, subscriber-specific content delivery systems, encrypted broadcast infrastructure, or conditional access technology should consider a freedom-to-operate review against US9674560B1 and related PMC family members. The patent’s application lineage from the 1990s and PMC’s demonstrated willingness to litigate against major technology companies — including a Federal Circuit-level challenge involving Google — make this a non-trivial risk for product and engineering teams.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s technical features against the claims of US9674560B1, surface related continuation and family patents in the PMC portfolio, and flag any co-pending PTAB proceedings that may affect the patent’s validity status. Claim monitoring alerts can notify your team if new assertions or reexamination actions affect this patent’s enforceability — keeping your FTO analysis current without manual tracking overhead.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9674560B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit signal processing and patentability appeal cases
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the signal processing IP landscape
PMC’s patent portfolio has a long enforcement history. A dismissed Federal Circuit appeal without a merits ruling keeps strategic uncertainty alive.
Agreed dismissals at the Federal Circuit rarely end the underlying dispute
When sophisticated parties like Google agree to dismiss a Federal Circuit invalidity appeal after over two years, it typically reflects a negotiated off-ramp — licensing, covenant-not-to-sue, or commercial agreement — rather than capitulation. The absence of a merits ruling means US9674560B1 survives in an indeterminate state, which may be exactly what PMC preferred.
Signal processing patent holders retain enforcement optionality post-dismissal
Without a with-prejudice bar or a Federal Circuit invalidity ruling, PMC retains the ability to assert US9674560B1 against other parties in the signal processing and content delivery sector. Companies developing apparatus or methods in this space — particularly those handling subscriber-specific or encrypted signal routing — should treat this patent as live and enforceable until proven otherwise.
Google v Defendant — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit appeal (No. 22-1207) was voluntarily dismissed by agreement of the parties on 23 January 2024 under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b). The case involved a patentability challenge to US9674560B1, a signal processing patent held by PMC. No merits ruling was issued. Each party bears its own costs.
A Rule 42(b) dismissal means the Federal Circuit did not adjudicate validity or patentability. The patent is unaffected by the dismissal — it neither gains nor loses enforceability as a result. The public record does not specify whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice, leaving open whether the same parties could re-litigate the same questions.
US9674560B1 is a patent held by Personalized Media Communications, LLC covering signal processing apparatus and methods. Its application lineage traces to the mid-1990s, consistent with PMC’s portfolio of foundational conditional access and personalised broadcast patents. PMC has used this portfolio in repeated assertions against major technology companies, making it a notable risk for signal processing and content delivery businesses.
The plaintiff side — which included both Google, LLC and Personalized Media Communications, LLC as listed parties — was represented by Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, with Erika Arner listed as attorney of record. No separate defendant or defendant counsel is identified in the public case record for this Federal Circuit proceeding.
No. The Federal Circuit’s dismissal order contains no validity finding. The court dismissed the proceeding by agreement without reaching the merits. Third parties cannot treat this dismissal as a validity determination. US9674560B1 should be treated as a live, potentially enforceable patent until a court or the USPTO issues a contrary ruling on its claims.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.