1. “Whether the district court committed legal and clear factual errors and otherwise abused its discretion in holding that Apple met its burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, that PMC’s conduct in prosecuting the ’091 Patent constituted an egregious misuse of the patent system causing an unreasonable and unexplained delay in prosecution, and so declaring the ’091 Patent unenforceable based on prosecution laches.” 2. “Whether the district court committed legal and clear factual errors and otherwise abused its discretion in holding that Apple met its burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, intervening rights during a period of unreasonable and unexplained delay, and so declaring the ’091 Patent unenforceable based on prosecution laches.”
“The district court determined that Personalized Media Communications successfully employed an inequitable scheme to extend its patent rights. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the patent unenforceable, we affirm. . . . the district court did not abuse its discretion by legally erring or making clearly erroneous factual findings in determining that Apple established both laches elements.”
