DISH - TiVO Case: Stay granted pending appeal

**rdf249** · 07-01-2009 07:08 PM

This thread is solely for discussion of the granting of the stay pending the resolution of the appeal. It is not intended to be, nor will it be, a full discussion of all aspects of the litigation, the patent system, and etc. Given the past history of the Tivo vs. Echostar thread(s), we will take steps to ensure that the discussion remains on topic. If you cannot abide by those rules, do not post in this thread. Thank you.

Press release issued by DISH / ECHO today:

DISH Network and EchoStar Statement Regarding Tivo
ENGLEWOOD, Colo., July 1, 2009 /PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX News Network/ -- DISH Network Corporation (Nasdaq: DISH) and EchoStar Corporation (Nasdaq: SATS) issued the following statement regarding today's ruling in EchoStar Communications Corporation vs. Tivo:
We are pleased that the Federal Circuit has blocked the district court's injunction pending our appeal. The Federal Circuit found that EchoStar "met its burden of demonstrating the requisites for a stay," including, at a minimum, that we have a substantial case on the merits. As a result of the stay, our customers can continue using their DISH DVRs.

Any thoughts on what this means? Chance that the contempt ruling gets overturned?

**Smith, P.** · 07-01-2009 07:57 PM

Hope not.

**space86** · 07-01-2009 08:05 PM

Question why don't the Dish models 622, 722, and new 922
not infringe on TiVo's patent?

**LER** · 07-01-2009 08:08 PM

Originally Posted by space86

Question why don't the Dish models 622, 722, and new 922
not infringe on TiVo's patent?

They might. That hasn't been determined yet. This suit is from before the 622/722/922 existed.

**rockymtnhigh** · 07-01-2009 08:11 PM

Thanls for posting this news release. The update thread has been updated.

Please keep discussion limited to this ruling. Thank you.

**rockymtnhigh** · 07-01-2009 08:13 PM

Those that are following this -- the press release says in the case of Echostar v. Tivo; but from reading that, I am assuming that was a typo? This is referring to the Tivo v. Echostar litigation (the original suit). Please correct me if I am wrong. I do not have access to Pacer. And the second case was just transferred from Delaware to Folsom's court in Eastern Texas.

**jacmyoung** · 07-01-2009 08:34 PM

http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/motions...4.7-1-09.1.PDF

I will go dig up the last 2006 stay order, at least the quote from it for comparison.

**Smith, P.** · 07-01-2009 08:45 PM

they needs to teach another lesson and better do that hard way

**jacmyoung** · 07-01-2009 08:46 PM

When the appeals court granted the stay in 2006 during the last appeal, this is the quote:

Because EchoStar’s DVR was found to infringe both the hardware and software claims, to obtain a stay of the injunction, EchoStar must show that it is likely to prevail on its arguments concerning both sets of claims. Based upon our review of the motions papers, and without prejudicing the ultimate determination of this case by the merits panel, EchoStar has met its burden of showing that there is a substantial case on the merits and that the harm factors militate in its favor. Thus, the motion for a stay is granted.

Notice last time E* demonstrated both substantial case on the merits and the harm factors militate in its favor.

This time however as I suspected, the harm factors would not be in E*'s favor, the appeals court did not mention such factors in favor of E*. Therefore to get a stay, E* had to "establish a strong likelihood of success on the merits."

It appears E* had established just that, short of demonstrating harm factors in its favor:

To prevail, a movant must establish a strong likelihood of success on the merits or, failing that, must demonstrate that it has a substantial case on the merits and that the harms factors militate in its favor.

Without prejudicing the ultimate disposition of this case by the merits panel, we determine based upon the arguments raised in the motions papers that EchoStar has met its burden of demonstrating the requisites for a stay of the order, pending appeal.

**rockymtnhigh** · 07-01-2009 09:03 PM

Thanks jacy for that link and your post.

Guys, I have already had to delete one post and the dang thread has not been open an hour. This is not the same thread we had before; it is open strictly to discuss this news event. Show a little respect, so we can actually keep it open until it runs its course. THANK YOU.