Court Order issued in TiVo vs. Echostar scheduling contempt hearing

[Thomas22]

Sponsored Links

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
TIVO INC., a Delaware Corporation

V.

ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, a Nevada Corporation, ET AL.

ORDER

Pursuant to the Court’s April 23, 2008 Order, Plaintiff TiVo Inc. submitted topics for discussion at the status conference on May 30, 2008. One of the topics discussed at the status conference was enforcement of the Court’s Permanent Injunction. Specifically, TiVo requests a hearing at the earliest possible date to determine the following: (1) whether Defendant EchoStar Communications Corporation should be held in contempt for its failure to disable the DVR functionality in the Infringing Products and for its placement of new infringing DVRs; and (2) with respect to EchoStar’s modified software,1 whether TiVo should be allowed permission to serve limited discovery to obtain additional technical information before bringing a motion for an order to show cause why EchoStar is not in contempt for the continuing use of the Infringing Products, changed only by downloading modified software.

The Court has set for hearing September 4, 2008 the first issue of whether EchoStar has disabled the DVR functionality with respect to the Infringing Products as required by the Court’s Permanent Injunction.2 The second issue outlined above, namely TiVo’s request to take limited discovery regarding EchoStar’s allegedly new software, is denied at this time. In the interest of judicial economy, the Court will determine first whether EchoStar should be held in contempt for its failure to disable the DVR functionality in the Infringing Products and for its placement of new infringing DVRs as urged by TiVo or whether, as urged by EchoStar, the language of the Court’s
Permanent Injunction allows EchoStar to comply with the spirit of the injunction by changing the software so that the products no longer infringe. TiVo may renew its request to serve limited discovery regarding EchoStar’s modified software after the Court’s decision on the first issue.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

1. EchoStar asserts it has complied with the Court’s Permanent Injunction by replacing its1
existing infringing software with redesigned software based on a novel approach.
2. At the September 4 hearing, the Court will also consider the damages that TiVo incurred2
during the period that the injunction was stayed.

[Tyralak]

Do we REALLY need another thread on this? I mean, honestly, aren't the 6 or so threads about this subject enough? Just add it to the main troll-filled thread.

[mike123abc]

Well it is interesting to note that the court says it will make a decision on whether changing out the software on existing DVRs is allowed. I guess if the court decides against allowing the software to be changed there is no reason to have TiVo review the software.

Of course if the court decides that changing the software is allowed, then TiVo will have to essentially start over and prove the new software still infringes. :Sigh: this case looks to go on forever...

[kstuart]

A court has already ruled that EchoStar DVR hardware does not violate any TiVo patents.

In order for EchoStar's DVR hardware to not violate TiVo's patents, it must thereby be possible for EchoStar to have software which does not infringe.

So, it would illogical to rule that changing the software could not possibly remove the infringement.

It would be like saying " your company's new car model does not infringe any patents as long as you don't put a motor in it ". Such a claim is nonsensical.

PS The notice above also means that nothing will happen before September 4 (regarding this TiVo dispute).

[pabeader]

come on charlie, just buy the jerks and move on

[HalfFull]

Originally Posted by pabeader

come on charlie, just buy the jerks and move on

How about this....Charlie buys Tivo, throws the existing case so EchoTivoStar wins, and then goes after Motorola, Direct, etc and makes another Billion!

[Curtis0620]

How about this:

DISH turn off all your DVR's. TiVo says no to any licensing agreement since DISH has been a total a$$ about this.

[RandallA]

Originally Posted by Curtis0620

How about this:

DISH turn off all your DVR's. TiVo says no to any licensing agreement since DISH has been a total a$$ about this.

This will seal the end for Echostar thus it's not happening. The courts won't do it.

[Thomas22]

Originally Posted by RandallA

This will seal the end for Echostar thus it's not happening. The courts won't do it.

Judge Folsom:

Although the injunction will likely result in some degree of customer loss and will impact Defendants’ ability to compete in the market, Defendants will not be irreparably harmed. Again, Defendants’ core business is not the supply of DVRs. Defendants have not demonstrated that an injunction on the infringing products would have a severe financial impact on their core business or will lead to loss of employees. Defendants’ authorized retailers will still be able to sell and service Defendants’ non-infringing products. Conversely, absent an injunction, Plaintiff faces ongoing irreparable injury as detailed above.

[Sean Mota]

Although the injunction will likely result in some degree of customer loss and will impact Defendants’ ability to compete in the market, Defendants will not be irreparably harmed. Again, Defendants’ core business is not the supply of DVRs. Defendants have not demonstrated that an injunction on the infringing products would have a severe financial impact on their core business or will lead to loss of employees. Defendants’ authorized retailers will still be able to sell and service Defendants’ non-infringing products. Conversely, absent an injunction, Plaintiff faces ongoing irreparable injury as detailed above.

Whomever wrote the above is not in touch with reality!