PMC v. Google (22-1250): Federal Circuit Appeal Voluntarily Dismissed After 774 Days
Personalized Media Communications asserted US9674560B1 — a signal processing apparatus and methods patent — against Google at the Federal Circuit in an invalidity/cancellation appeal. After 774 days of proceedings, both parties agreed to dismiss under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), with each side bearing its own costs.
A high-stakes signal processing appeal that ends by mutual agreement
Personalized Media Communications, LLC (PMC) filed this Federal Circuit appeal on 10 December 2021, challenging a patentability determination concerning US9674560B1 — a patent covering signal processing apparatus and methods. The respondent, Google, LLC, was represented by Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, while PMC retained Kheyfits Belenky LLP. The underlying dispute centred on an invalidity/cancellation action, consistent with a post-grant review or inter partes review proceeding before the USPTO.
The case closed on 23 January 2024 when both parties agreed to dismiss the appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b). The court’s order reflects a joint stipulation: proceedings are dismissed and each side bears its own costs. The basis of termination is recorded as voluntary dismissal. Critically, the public record does not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice — a distinction that carries significant consequences for whether PMC may re-assert the patent or re-challenge the underlying PTAB ruling in future proceedings.
The 774-day duration before dismissal suggests the parties engaged in substantive appellate litigation — including likely briefing — before reaching their agreement. What prompted the mutual withdrawal at this late stage is not disclosed in the public record; possible drivers include a private settlement on licensing terms, a strategic reassessment of claim strength, or commercial considerations tied to Google’s evolving product portfolio. The absence of a merits ruling leaves the validity of US9674560B1 unresolved at the Federal Circuit level.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 774 days
774 days — longer than the Federal Circuit median for voluntary dismissals
Voluntarily dismissed: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Fed. R. App. P. 42(b): dismissal by agreement, not on the merits
Rule 42(b) allows parties to jointly stipulate to dismiss an appeal without the court adjudicating the underlying legal questions. The Federal Circuit issues no merits ruling — the patentability challenge to US9674560B1 remains unresolved at appellate level. This is a procedural exit, not a substantive vindication for either side. The cost order (each side bears its own) is standard for agreed dismissals and carries no fee-shifting signal.
No merits adjudicationPublic record is silent on prejudice — the distinction matters
A dismissal with prejudice bars re-litigation of the same claims; a dismissal without prejudice preserves the right to re-file or re-challenge. The court order in Case 22-1250 does not specify either. For patent practitioners and licensees, this ambiguity is material: PMC’s ability to revive the underlying validity dispute — or to assert US9674560B1 in parallel infringement proceedings — may depend on which applies. Counsel should review the full stipulation and any underlying PTAB final written decision for preclusive effect.
Prejudice status unconfirmedNo Federal Circuit vindication — but no adverse validity ruling either
For PMC, the voluntary dismissal means the underlying PTAB cancellation finding (if adverse) is not reversed by the Federal Circuit. However, it also means PMC avoided a potentially unfavourable appellate opinion on the merits of US9674560B1. The patent’s commercial value and enforceability hinge on the status of the underlying PTAB proceeding and whether any claims survived. PMC retains optionality only if the dismissal was without prejudice.
Validity question unresolvedGoogle avoids Federal Circuit precedent — but gains no confirmed invalidity ruling
Google exits the Federal Circuit appeal without a binding merits decision affirming cancellation of US9674560B1. While the agreed dismissal may reflect a privately negotiated resolution — such as a licensing arrangement or covenant not to sue — Google cannot rely on this dismissal as a published invalidity ruling to shield itself or third parties in future signal processing patent disputes. The sector implication: US9674560B1 remains a live risk variable for competitors in signal processing and content delivery.
No binding invalidity rulingFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Personalized Media Communications, LLC | Company | Patent licensing entity — holder of US9674560B1 (signal processing apparatus and methods)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Google, LLC | Company | Google, LLC — global technology company and respondent in PTAB/Federal Circuit invalidity proceedingsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Dmitry Kheyfits | Attorney | Counsel for Personalized Media Communications, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Kheyfits Belenky LLP | Law Firm | Representing Personalized Media Communications, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Erika Arner | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order reflects a pure procedural exit: no claim construction, no validity finding, and no precedential guidance on signal processing patent scope. The phrase ‘The parties having so agreed’ confirms this was a joint stipulation — neither party was compelled to withdraw. The cost allocation (‘each side shall bear their own costs’) is neutral and standard for Rule 42(b) dismissals. Practitioners should note that this order creates no estoppel or res judicata on the merits of US9674560B1’s patentability at the Federal Circuit level.
US9674560B1 — Signal Processing Apparatus and Methods
US9674560B1 is a US patent held by Personalized Media Communications, LLC, covering signal processing apparatus and methods — a broad technical domain encompassing the receipt, processing, and distribution of content signals. The underlying application number (08/447611) suggests a lineage traceable to mid-1990s filing activity, consistent with PMC’s well-documented portfolio of foundational broadcast and interactive media patents. Patents in this family have historically claimed priority to some of the earliest digital signal processing and personalised content delivery inventions.
For the signal processing and digital media sector, US9674560B1 represents a category of foundational IP that can create broad assertion risk across streaming, broadcasting, and content delivery infrastructure. PMC has a documented history of asserting patents in this portfolio against major technology and media companies. The unresolved validity status following this Federal Circuit dismissal means competitors — particularly those operating signal processing pipelines, conditional access systems, or personalised content delivery platforms — should not assume the patent is off the table.
Should your R&D team run an FTO against US9674560B1?
Any company developing or commercialising signal processing technology — including streaming platforms, broadcast infrastructure providers, conditional access system vendors, and digital content delivery networks — should evaluate exposure to US9674560B1. The patent’s unresolved validity status at the Federal Circuit, combined with PMC’s active licensing history, makes it a material risk for product teams building in adjacent technical spaces. An FTO is especially warranted if your product involves processing, routing, or personalising content signals.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claims of US9674560B1 against your product architecture, identify relevant prior art that was not raised in the IPR, and flag claim elements that intersect with your signal processing stack. Eureka also monitors PMC’s broader patent portfolio for continuation filings and new assertion activity, giving your IP team early warning before a demand letter lands.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9674560B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit appeals in signal processing patent validity disputes
Federal Circuit appeals involving signal processing and broadcast patent invalidity actions — particularly PMC portfolio patents and comparable PTAB IPR appeals involving content delivery technology.
What this case signals for the signal processing IP landscape
PMC v. Google’s quiet exit at the Federal Circuit leaves a validity gap that competitors and licensees cannot ignore.
Voluntary dismissals at the Federal Circuit rarely signal clean resolution
A Rule 42(b) dismissal after 774 days of appellate litigation typically suggests either a private settlement or a strategic withdrawal. Neither outcome resolves the underlying patent validity question publicly. Companies operating in signal processing and content delivery should treat US9674560B1 as a patent with unresolved enforceability status — not a cancelled or confirmed-valid one.
Cost neutrality signals negotiated exit — not litigation fatigue
When both sides absorb their own costs in a dismissal of this duration, it is consistent with a structured agreement rather than one party capitulating. Patent teams monitoring PMC’s licensing activity or Google’s freedom-to-operate position in signal processing should factor in the possibility of a private covenant or licence behind this dismissal.
Personalized v Google — key questions answered
The dismissal under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) means the Federal Circuit issued no merits ruling on the patentability of US9674560B1. The underlying validity question — likely decided at the PTAB level — is not affirmed or reversed by this order. The patent’s enforceability status depends on the PTAB final written decision and whether any claims survived cancellation.
The public court order in Case 22-1250 does not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice. This distinction is legally significant: a with-prejudice dismissal bars re-litigation, while a without-prejudice dismissal preserves future options. Practitioners should review the full stipulation and PTAB record to assess preclusive effect on related proceedings.
US9674560B1 is a patent held by Personalized Media Communications, LLC, covering signal processing apparatus and methods. It is part of PMC’s large portfolio of foundational patents in broadcast, interactive media, and digital signal processing, with application lineage traceable to the mid-1990s. The patent has been asserted in multiple proceedings against major technology companies.
The 774-day duration suggests substantive appellate proceedings — likely including full briefing — occurred before the parties reached their agreement to dismiss. The public record does not explain the specific drivers. The duration is consistent with a late-stage negotiated resolution, possibly involving licensing terms, a covenant not to sue, or a commercial settlement not disclosed in court filings.
No. A Rule 42(b) voluntary dismissal produces no precedential opinion. The Federal Circuit did not adjudicate the merits of the patentability dispute, so the order has no binding effect on how courts or the PTAB should treat US9674560B1 or related signal processing patents in future proceedings. Third parties cannot rely on this dismissal as an invalidity determination.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.