Promptu Wins $240M in Comcast Patent Infringement Case

A federal jury in Pennsylvania returned a significant verdict in a long-running patent dispute involving voice recognition technology used in television interfaces. The jury awarded Promptu Systems Corp. $240 million after finding that Comcast willfully infringed one of two asserted patents covering voice-driven functionality. At the same time, jurors rejected Promptu’s remaining patent claim by concluding the asserted claims were invalid, eliminating liability on that patent. While the verdict was returned after years of litigation, the jury’s full findings were reported to remain under seal as of the following week, leaving post-trial motions and potential enhanced damages issues positioned as the next focal points.

The Technology and Patents at Issue

The dispute centered on two U.S. patents owned by Promptu: U.S. Patent No. 7,047,196 and U.S. Patent No. 7,260,538. Both patents are described as addressing voice-driven technology, with the asserted claims directed to voice-enabled interaction for television or related user interfaces. Promptu accused Comcast of incorporating the patented concepts into its products and services, seeking damages tied to the alleged use of voice recognition features and related interface functionality.

At trial, the jury differentiated between the two patents and their asserted claims. The jurors found the asserted claims of the ’196 patent invalid, which foreclosed infringement liability on that patent. Liability and damages were instead tied solely to the ’538 patent, where the jury found infringement. That split outcome highlights a common dynamic in multi-patent cases: even when a plaintiff prevails on infringement for one patent, the defendant may still succeed in narrowing exposure through invalidity findings on another asserted patent.

The Jury’s Findings on Infringement and Willfulness

Jurors awarded Promptu $240 million in damages on the ’538 patent and found Comcast’s infringement willful. Willfulness findings are consequential because they can support a request for enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284, subject to the court’s discretion and post-trial analysis. While enhanced damages are not automatic, a willfulness determination typically becomes a core issue in post-verdict briefing, including arguments about the accused infringer’s knowledge of the patent, the reasonableness of its conduct, and whether any remedial steps were taken once litigation began.

According to a statement released by Promptu’s counsel, the willfulness finding reflects the jury’s evaluation of the evidentiary record developed over years of litigation. The jury’s detailed reasoning was not publicly available immediately, as the full verdict was reported to remain under seal. Even so, the presence of willfulness alongside a substantial award positions the case for further litigation over the appropriate final judgment amount, including potential disputes over enhanced damages, interest, and other monetary components that can materially change the ultimate exposure.

Damages Implications and Post-Trial Trajectory

The $240 million award, limited to the ’538 patent, underscores the financial stakes associated with voice-driven interface technology and the alleged commercial value of implemented voice recognition features. In patent cases involving platform-level technologies, damages theories often focus on the economic contribution of the accused functionality to consumer demand or product value, licensing comparables, or other measures of a reasonable royalty. The jury’s award suggests it accepted a substantial valuation of the patented features in the context of Comcast’s accused offerings, notwithstanding the invalidation of the ’196 patent.

The case’s next phase is likely to include post-trial motions addressing the sufficiency of the evidence for infringement, validity, and willfulness, as well as any challenges to the damages model presented at trial. If the court sustains the verdict, appellate issues may focus on claim scope, the evidentiary basis for willfulness, and the legal and factual foundation for the damages amount. As stated in a statement by Promptu’s attorney Jacob Schroeder, “After nearly a decade of litigation, this verdict stands as a powerful affirmation of Promptu’s pioneering work in voice-powered TV interfaces,” reflecting Promptu’s view of the significance of the jury’s findings while further proceedings remain available to test the verdict’s durability.

Case Details

Case Name: Promptu Systems Corporation v. Comcast Corporation, et al.

Court Name: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Case Number: 2:16-cv-06516-JS

Plaintiff Attorney(s): Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP