Court ruling today in TiVo case.
- Thread starter Curtis0620
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 114
- Views 16K
so what does this mean??
In sum, we vacate the court’s holding of contempt of the infringement provision and remand for the court to make a finding concerning any colorable difference be-tween the previously adjudicated infringing devices and the newly accused devices. We vacate in part the dam-ages awarded for continued infringement. We affirm the district court’s finding of contempt of the disablement provision of the court’s injunction and the sanctions imposed by the district court.
AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED
In sum, we vacate the court’s holding of contempt of the infringement provision and remand for the court to make a finding concerning any colorable difference be-tween the previously adjudicated infringing devices and the newly accused devices. We vacate in part the dam-ages awarded for continued infringement. We affirm the district court’s finding of contempt of the disablement provision of the court’s injunction and the sanctions imposed by the district court.
AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED
One of the judges in this weeks Microsoft Supreme court hearing pointed out the need for clearer standards to separate "the sheep from the goats" (valid patents vs patents that were issued but preexisting knowledge should make them invalid). That issue will likely surface in the next round of this legal fight.
That's clear as mud. So what does it mean. TIVO is screwed on it's bogus patent? But what does it mean to E*? If they aren't infringing then how can they be in contempt of infringing. Got a feeling we will be hearing more on this subject. May TIVO go bankrupt over it's own patent rip offs.
I have to admit I can not get the true meaning of this decision. If you guys who posted do get it, can you put in English? 
Curtis will say its the end for DISH because he works for Tivo. But in glancing over it quick, looks like a split decission and means this leagal battle will continue on for a few more years.
Tivo shares are flying upward, so somebody thinks its good news for them.
If I had to guess, it looks like it says...Dish: you owe them old money....you don't owe them new money....and will are STILL punting on the whole patent thing.
If I had to guess, it looks like it says...Dish: you owe them old money....you don't owe them new money....and will are STILL punting on the whole patent thing.
it says there were two provisions. one was vacated and the other was not.
vacate the court’s holding of contempt of the infringement provision plus no damages for this
We affirm the district court’s finding of contempt of the disablement provision plus sanctions (625s should have DVR disabled)
vacate the court’s holding of contempt of the infringement provision plus no damages for this
We affirm the district court’s finding of contempt of the disablement provision plus sanctions (625s should have DVR disabled)
Time to change the infringing ones for VIP's since they don't infringe on the patent.
In my mind, it basically means that E* pays $$$ for not disabling the DVRs in question (regardless if they infringed or not), and the case if remanded back to the District Court for see if their software changes are/were merely colorably different. It also means that Tivo will begin additional litigation strategies (i.e., VIP series DVRs - to include Season Pass infringment) against E*, and others, and this case will never truly end. To be honest, "Clear as Mud" sums it up quite nicely. It also means that Jacmyoung will be back to posting his endless spin on this issue.
Hee is the statement from TIVO... (Nothing yet from DISH)
TiVo Statement on Decision by U.S. Court of Appeals in Lawsuit Against EchoStar
ALVISO, CA, Apr 20, 2011 (MARKETWIRE via COMTEX) --TiVo Inc. (NASDAQ: TIVO), the creator of and a leader in advanced television services including digital video recorders (DVRs) for consumers, content distributors and consumer electronics manufacturers, offered the following statement today on the ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals in its lawsuit against EchoStar Communications Corporation:
"We are pleased that the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sitting en banc affirmed the district court's finding of contempt and award of sanctions against EchoStar for failing to comply with the district court's injunction. This marks the second time that the district court's contempt ruling has been upheld by the Court of Appeals. We look forward to the permanent injunction against EchoStar and Dish Network finally being enforced with respect to the DVRs they must now disable. This ruling also paves the way for TiVo to receive substantial damages and contempt sanctions regarding the DVRs that EchoStar and Dish Network failed to disable. With respect to the remand of the infringement provision of the District's Courts order, we intend to pursue the most rapid path to resolution. We will continue our efforts to protect our intellectual property from further infringement by EchoStar and Dish Network."
TiVo Statement on Decision by U.S. Court of Appeals in Lawsuit Against EchoStar
ALVISO, CA, Apr 20, 2011 (MARKETWIRE via COMTEX) --TiVo Inc. (NASDAQ: TIVO), the creator of and a leader in advanced television services including digital video recorders (DVRs) for consumers, content distributors and consumer electronics manufacturers, offered the following statement today on the ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals in its lawsuit against EchoStar Communications Corporation:
"We are pleased that the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sitting en banc affirmed the district court's finding of contempt and award of sanctions against EchoStar for failing to comply with the district court's injunction. This marks the second time that the district court's contempt ruling has been upheld by the Court of Appeals. We look forward to the permanent injunction against EchoStar and Dish Network finally being enforced with respect to the DVRs they must now disable. This ruling also paves the way for TiVo to receive substantial damages and contempt sanctions regarding the DVRs that EchoStar and Dish Network failed to disable. With respect to the remand of the infringement provision of the District's Courts order, we intend to pursue the most rapid path to resolution. We will continue our efforts to protect our intellectual property from further infringement by EchoStar and Dish Network."
Excuse me. I never said that.
This means the DISH will have to reach a licensing deal. Which is now more expensive than if they would have initially.
Thats why I said WILL say as you haven't said it yet.
But I agree with you, DISH should have gone for a licensing deal a long long time ago. DISH would be better off and TIVO would be better off.
What it really means, is that it's going to cost a little more when Dish buys out TiVO
Looks like a new standard has been set for patent contempt. A big deal in the patent business. The court states they are changing their previously established rules and adopting a new standard.
?
"[FONT=Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook][FONT=Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook]KSM crafted a special rule for patent infringement cases, in that it required a threshold inquiry on the propriety of initiating a contempt proceeding. We recognize now that that inquiry confuses the merits of the contempt with the propriety of initiating contempt proceedings. Moreover, as a practical matter, district courts do not separately determine the propriety of a contempt proceeding before proceeding to the merits of the contempt itself. As a result, we will telescope the current two-fold [/FONT][/FONT]KSM [FONT=Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook][FONT=Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook]inquiry into one, eliminating the separate determination whether contempt proceedings were properly initiated. That question, we hold, is left to the broad discretion of the trial court to be answered based on the facts presented." [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook][FONT=Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook][/FONT][/FONT]
?
"[FONT=Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook][FONT=Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook]KSM crafted a special rule for patent infringement cases, in that it required a threshold inquiry on the propriety of initiating a contempt proceeding. We recognize now that that inquiry confuses the merits of the contempt with the propriety of initiating contempt proceedings. Moreover, as a practical matter, district courts do not separately determine the propriety of a contempt proceeding before proceeding to the merits of the contempt itself. As a result, we will telescope the current two-fold [/FONT][/FONT]KSM [FONT=Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook][FONT=Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook]inquiry into one, eliminating the separate determination whether contempt proceedings were properly initiated. That question, we hold, is left to the broad discretion of the trial court to be answered based on the facts presented." [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook][FONT=Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook][/FONT][/FONT]
so is that really why my 625's DVR functions worked damned near flawlessly.... and my 722k's don't? hmmmm I might have to beg Tivos' pardon then... or invite the plague of lucusts upon them that what caused us to get crappy functionality in the newer units..
and before the odd ball amongst says their 722k does fine ... I dare you to pause ... step forward several times, try a step back, and then unpause and skip back. (when you're in pause mode, the Skip buttons are supposed to single step / frame by frame in what ever the box's definition of a frame is) I've had problems with this from day one (for me that's Dec 10th 2010) and the backwards jump that occurs when the "skip" functions mess up is some weird marker or placeholder.. I had tried to check out a scene in a movie.. the first time it backed up on me, it was 10 minutes back.. skipped forward to that scene again, the second time it happened it went back to the exact same spot in that movie, but because I was watching it live, it was now 15 minutes back.. then it happened again.. it jumped back to that same spot now more than 20 minutes back.. etc.. it exists, its not "just me"
This was ruling for contempt and nothing else. The infringement issue was sent back to the lower court.
