TIVO lawsuit update (1 Viewer)

Register Today to see less ads! It's Free!
Register Today to see less ads! It's Free!

wolfjc

SatelliteGuys Pro
Apr 23, 2006
677
0
Cincinnati
Tivo wins

From DBSTalk:

"In sum, because of a failure of proof of literal infringement, we reverse the
judgment of infringement of the hardware claims with respect to all of the accused
devices. We remand for any further proceedings that may be necessary with respect to
those claims. We affirm the judgment of infringement of the software claims with
respect to all of the accused devices. Because the damages calculation at trial was not
predicated on the infringement of particular claims, and because we have upheld the
jury’s verdict that all of the accused devices infringe the software claims, we affirm the
damages award entered by the district court.
The district court’s injunction was stayed during the course of these proceedings.
The stay that was issued pending appeal will dissolve when this appeal becomes final.
At that time, the district court can make a determination as to the additional damages, if
any, that TiVo has sustained while the stay of the permanent injunction has been in
effect.
Each party shall bear its own costs for this appeal.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and REMANDED. "

""At several points, TiVo argues that even if this court were to overturn the jury’s verdict of literal infringement, there would still be ample evidence of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. There are two problems with upholding the judgment on the hardware claims on that basis. First, the jury was told that if it found literal infringement it should not make a determination as to whether there was infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, so there was no verdict on the issue of equivalents with regard to the hardware claims. Second, we have construed two of the claim limitations more restrictively than the trial court’s instructions permitted. For that reason, even if the jury had reached a verdict with respect to the doctrine of equivalents we could not sustain that verdict merely upon finding that substantial evidence supported it. At this juncture, we could uphold the judgment on the basis of the doctrine of equivalents only if we were to conclude that no reasonable jury, given proper instructions, could reach any verdict other than to find infringement by equivalents. The parties, however, have not briefed that issue in any detail, and we therefore do not address it. More generally, we do not decide what further proceedings, if any, are appropriate in the district court regarding the equivalents issue. Instead, we leave that issue for the district court to resolve in the event that, on remand, TiVo decides to continue to pursue the hardware claims in light of this decision."

Here is the URL Federal Circuit Opinions, Orders & Decisions
 

abricko

SatelliteGuys Pro
Feb 12, 2006
559
0
Greater Los Angeles area.
Probably another reason why E* split companies, the hardware div will take the hit for this... I still think it's lame Tivo won.

It'd be like saying google should be able to sue every search engine and win because they are the best search engine and people use the word "google" when describing general searching / household name.

I'm very sad for this judgment, if E* had ripped off Tivo wouldn't our DVRs already be even better and contain more Tivo features? The DVR is a generic idea, now if dish added suggestions, totally cloned the UI and included those annoying sounds, added thumbs buttons or a user rating system... I could easily say yeah they did rip them off.
 

harshness

SatelliteGuys Master
May 5, 2007
16,786
2,839
Salem, OR
How does this constitute an Echostar victory? While one part, the hardware claims, was dismissed, the software infringement remains. Obviously, Echostar can work around the infringement, but TiVo gets compensation up to the point that Echostar removed the offending software code, right?

Are we to assume that "Broadcom DVRs" includes all current DISH DVRs?
 
Register Today to see less ads! It's Free!

Ken F

SatelliteGuys Pro
Mar 8, 2004
717
0
How does this constitute an Echostar victory? While one part, the hardware claims, was dismissed, the software infringement remains. Obviously, Echostar can work around the infringement, but TiVo gets compensation up to the point that Echostar removed the offending software code, right?

Are we to assume that "Broadcom DVRs" includes all current DISH DVRs?
That's a good bet, yes.

Dish Network owes TiVo ~$74 million for past infringement up until April, 2006. The court will have to decide what TiVo is owed for the infringement from April, 2006 to February, 2008. That could be another $100 million.

That money is for past infringement. Dish Network must still license the TiVo patents if it wants to allow continued operation of the DP-501, DP-508, DP-510, DP-721, DP-921, DP-522, DP-625, DP-942, and any other DVRs whose implementations "are not more than colorably different from any of these products." Infringing products are said to fall into two categories -- "50x" DVRs and "Broadcom" DVRs."

Dish Network has 30 days from the day the appeal is finalized to either (1) reach a licensing agreement with TiVo, potentially for hundreds of millions of dollars, or (2) disable the DVR functionality on the DP-501, DP-508, DP-510, DP-721, DP-921, DP-522, DP-625, DP-942 DVRs, and any other DVRs whose implementations "are not more than colorably different from any of these products." Being Broadcom-based, the ViP622 and ViP722 likely fall into that category as well.
 
Last edited:

TheTony

SatelliteGuys Pro
May 19, 2004
159
0
I think Scott needs to correct the headline on the main page. Ruling in favor of E* means they won the case. The overturned ruling means Tivo comes out victorious, this time.
 

Derwin0

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
Lifetime Supporter
Aug 16, 2004
37,931
16,340
Griffin, GA
At least by tossing the hardware patent, all Dish has to do is alter the software. That's a hell of a lot easier to do than change the hardware.
 

rjruby

Pub Member / Supporter
Sep 13, 2003
957
129
Nazareth, PA
If the information in that ruling is the type of evidence presented to a jury, I cannot comprehend how any of them could reach a verdict.

The complexity and technical jargon reminds me of the DNA evidence presented during the OJ trial.
 

socalpanman

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Feb 12, 2005
501
2
San Rafael CA
Front page headline makes no sense.
"Tivo Beats Echostar" but the tag line is
The ruling has come out and the court has reversed its decission and now rules in favor of Echostar. "
After reading the court's summary E* is hurt by this.
Maybe this was the reason behind their holding pattern. Resources now have to be redirected.
Amazing no immediate press release in response for their stockholders from Echostar on this.
 

TheTony

SatelliteGuys Pro
May 19, 2004
159
0
At least by tossing the hardware patent, all Dish has to do is alter the software. That's a hell of a lot easier to do than change the hardware.

They already have.

The decision, however, will have no effect on our current or future customers because EchoStar’s engineers have developed and deployed ‘next-generation’ DVR software to our customers’ DVRs. This improved software is fully operational, has been automatically downloaded to current customers, and does not infringe the Tivo patent at issue in the Federal Circuit’s ruling.

All DISH Network customers can continue to use their DVRs without any interruption or changes to the award-winning DVR features and services provided by DISH Network.
 
Register Today to see less ads! It's Free!

Users who are viewing this thread

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Latest posts

Top