The lawsuit that Dish filed against TiVo in Delaware has been transferred to Texas.
TIVO vs E*
- Thread starter Juan
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 2K
- Views 170K
- Status
Uhh, what are you talking about "difficult for you." What was difficult for me? The decision? The one where I accurately predicted that the case would be transferred and you disagreed?
jacmyoung said:
Oh, I see, you think I was gone because I was suspend or something. Hahaha. Sorry jac, hate to disappoint you, but I do have a life outside message boards. I highly suggest it.
The rest of your post? Eh. Nothing worth commenting on.
Difficult for you to be banned time after time here and over there.
I have said it would be difficult for E* to prevent a transfer, the only thing I disagreed with you was when you kept saying "the case has been transferred" over and over in the past, which was not until yesterday.
Predicting a transfer was not much a prediction when people all agreed it was likely.
Then go have your wonderful life, don't try to ruin it for yourself again here, you deserve better obviously
I can't help but wonder why you always seemed so concerned about our readers, show them your life and maybe if it is a great one they will follow you.
nobody, you were banned, but I inadvertently gave you 3 days and not a permanent ticket. But there are no more warnings.
Jacmyoung - you are the one who just provoked this. So cut it out, now.
Jacmyoung - you are the one who just provoked this. So cut it out, now.
One of the "analysts" note:
All the innovation in the TiVo DVRs will be difficult to help TiVo, they need licensing agreement with cable and DBS, and selling user data.
The one bright area IMHO is TiVo's alliance with companies such as Amazon, Netflix and Blockbuster...
All the innovation in the TiVo DVRs will be difficult to help TiVo, they need licensing agreement with cable and DBS, and selling user data.
The one bright area IMHO is TiVo's alliance with companies such as Amazon, Netflix and Blockbuster...
Just noticed this one, why was this case not transferred to Judge Folsom?
The most compelling reason for the DE judge to transfer is Judge Folsom's experience in this litigation. Now Judge Ward will take over the new case?
Judge Ward has significant experience in determining damage awards after finding of contempt. Hmmmm. Makes one wonder.
Sorry, if Judge Ward will be the presiding judge on this new case, he will be to decide if the new design no longer infringes or not, nothing to do with anything else, not even anything to do with contempt, much less any damages.
This new case is a declaratory judgment suit, no more, no less. A declaratory judgment suit has no court orders attached to it, that is why it is called a declaratory judgment.
Judge Folsom will be the one to decide any damages under the old case.
However there is a relation between the two cases, that is, for the declaratory judgment case to move forward, Judge Folsom must not have ruled that the new design still infringes (hence E* is in contempt). Therefore the mere fact this new case is on the books is not a good sign for TiVo.
Why couldn't Judge Folsom rule the new design still infringes, yet leave newer boxes to Judge Ward?
E* filed this declaratory judgment suit to ask the court to declare that their "redesigned DVRs" (the DVRs with the newly-designed software downloaded to them) non-infringing.
If Judge Folsom should find E* in contempt, it means he will have agreed that TiVo had proven by clear and convincing evidence the "redesigned DVRs" still infringe. Of course if this is the case, the new declaratory judgment case will be moot. This much E* said so themselves.
If you meant the VIP DVRs, they are not part of this litigation, TiVo did not sue E* for infringement by the VIP DVRs, nor had TiVo ever clearly alleged in any public statements that the VIP DVRs infringed. Additionally, E* never claimed they "redesigned" the VIP DVRs by downloading the newly-designed software. Therefore this declaratory judgment suit does not concern the VIP DVRs.
But it is possible the VIP DVRs can be brought into the Judge Folsom's current case in the future, but I won't even bother to waste time on this one at this point.
Since E*’s non-infringement declaratory judgment suit is now formally on track at the Texas court, I have looked at a few legal descriptions on the non-infringement declaratory judgment cases. The quotes below are of particular interest:
I take the highlighted part to say that, the effort and expenses E* put in from 5/30/08 to the end of the 2/2009 hearing will be a guaranteed value towards the final resolution of this new declaratory case. If Judge Folsom is to deny TiVo’s contempt motion, therefore making TiVo’s suit "look dismal," TiVo will not be able to easily drop the litigation, since E* is the plaintiff in the new suit.
The above quote seems to tell us what TiVo will likely do in response to this new case. If TiVo cannot get the TX court to dismiss this new case, TiVo must then file a counterclaim asserting that the redesigned DVRs are an infringement. Meaning TiVo cannot dictate the timing of another new lawsuit of their own. If TiVo does not file a counterclaim in this new case, TiVo will not be able to file its own separate suit against the redesigned DVRs in the future.
In other words, this non-infringement declaratory judgment suit is a tactical tool to allow E* to do a few things:
1) It saves E* money, the efforts made in the past year will not be wasted, they will be used in this new case.
2) E* can dictate the format of this case, they can demand a jury trial, or agree to a bench trial, or decide to withdraw the case at their own discretion. It is their guaranteed due process right.
3) TiVo cannot avoid being dragged into this new case.
4) TiVo must file a counterclaim, if not, TiVo will not be able to file another lawsuit later to assert infringement by the redesigned DVRs.
I take the highlighted part to say that, the effort and expenses E* put in from 5/30/08 to the end of the 2/2009 hearing will be a guaranteed value towards the final resolution of this new declaratory case. If Judge Folsom is to deny TiVo’s contempt motion, therefore making TiVo’s suit "look dismal," TiVo will not be able to easily drop the litigation, since E* is the plaintiff in the new suit.
The above quote seems to tell us what TiVo will likely do in response to this new case. If TiVo cannot get the TX court to dismiss this new case, TiVo must then file a counterclaim asserting that the redesigned DVRs are an infringement. Meaning TiVo cannot dictate the timing of another new lawsuit of their own. If TiVo does not file a counterclaim in this new case, TiVo will not be able to file its own separate suit against the redesigned DVRs in the future.
In other words, this non-infringement declaratory judgment suit is a tactical tool to allow E* to do a few things:
1) It saves E* money, the efforts made in the past year will not be wasted, they will be used in this new case.
2) E* can dictate the format of this case, they can demand a jury trial, or agree to a bench trial, or decide to withdraw the case at their own discretion. It is their guaranteed due process right.
3) TiVo cannot avoid being dragged into this new case.
4) TiVo must file a counterclaim, if not, TiVo will not be able to file another lawsuit later to assert infringement by the redesigned DVRs.
Tivo Stock up $2 (29%) in after hours trading right now, but still no press releases yet.
Stocks keep moving, TiVo still climbing slowly (30%+now), Dish dropping a bit (4%)
Stocks keep moving, TiVo still climbing slowly (30%+now), Dish dropping a bit (4%)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
TIVO INC.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DISH NETWORK CORPORATION,
et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:04-CV-01 (DF)
AMENDED FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
Pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and in accordance with the jury verdict delivered on April 13, 2006 and the Federal Circuit mandate issued April 18, 2008, and with the Court’s contemporaneously filed opinions and orders, the Court hereby enters judgment for Plaintiff against Defendants for willful infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,389 (“the ’389 Patent”) claims 31 and 61 (“the Infringed Claims”) by Defendants’ following DVR receivers (collectively the “Infringing Products”): DP-501, DP-508, DP-510, DP-522, DP-625, DP-721, DP-921, and DP-942. The jury in this case found EchoStar’s infringement to be willful, but the Court, finding that Echostar did not act in bad faith and that this is not an “exceptional case,” has determined that there should be no enhancement of damages and no award of attorneys fees pursuant
to 35 U.S.C. Sections 284 and 285. The Court also enters judgment for Plaintiff on Defendants’ counterclaims for declaratory judgment of non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Plaintiff shall have and recover from Defendants,
jointly and severally, the total sum of $73,991,964.00, together with prejudgment interest at the rateof prime, said prejudgment interest in the total sum of $5,367,544.00, together with supplemental damages in the amount of $10,317,108.00, together with post-judgment interest on the entire sum calculated pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961. In addition, Plaintiff shall have and recover from
Defendants, jointly and severally, the sum of $103,068,836 in damages accrued during the stay of this Court’s injunction, together with post-judgment interest on that sum calculated pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961. The amounts awarded in this judgment shall bear interest from the date of judgment at the lawful federal rate.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that each Defendant, its officers, agents, servants, employees,
and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice hereof, are hereby restrained and enjoined, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283 and Fed. R. Civ. P.
65(d), from making, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing in the Untied States, the Infringing Products, either alone or in combination with any other product and all other products that are only colorably different therefrom in the context of the Infringed Claims, whether individually or in combination with other products or as a part of another product, and from otherwise infringing or inducing others to infringe the Infringed Claims of the ‘389 Patent.
Defendants are hereby FURTHER ORDERED to, within thirty (30) days of the issuance
of this order, disable the DVR functionality (i.e., disable all storage to and playback from a hard disk drive of television data) in all but 192,708 units of the Infringing Products that have been placed with an end-user or subscriber. The DVR functionality, storage to and playback from a hard disk drive, shall not be enabled in any new placements of the Infringing Products.
Defendants shall forthwith provide written notice of this judgment, and the injunction
ordered herein, to their officers, directors, agents, servants, representatives, attorneys, employees,subsidiaries and affiliates, and those persons in active concert or participation with them, including any and all manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and service providers who have been involved in the making, using, selling, offering for sale or importing of any Infringing Products, and to all other persons or entities involved in any way with the making, using, selling, offering for sale or importing of any Infringing Products. Defendants shall take whatever means are necessary or appropriate to
ensure that this order is properly complied with. This injunction shall run until the expiration of the ’389 Patent.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall inform this Court of any further attempt
to design around the ’389 Patent and shall seek approval from this Court before any such design- around is implemented.
This Court retains jurisdiction over Defendants to enforce any and all aspects of this
Judgment and Permanent Injunction, including the award of monetary sanctions for EchoStar’s contempt of this Court’s injunction.
The Court further retains jurisdiction to award Plaintiff amounts for supplemental damages, interest, costs, attorneys fees and such other or further relief as may be just and proper. All relief not specifically granted herein is denied. All pending motions not previously ruled on are denied. This is a Final Judgment and is appealable.
SIGNED this second day of June, 2009
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
TIVO INC.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DISH NETWORK CORPORATION,
et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:04-CV-01 (DF)
AMENDED FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
Pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and in accordance with the jury verdict delivered on April 13, 2006 and the Federal Circuit mandate issued April 18, 2008, and with the Court’s contemporaneously filed opinions and orders, the Court hereby enters judgment for Plaintiff against Defendants for willful infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,389 (“the ’389 Patent”) claims 31 and 61 (“the Infringed Claims”) by Defendants’ following DVR receivers (collectively the “Infringing Products”): DP-501, DP-508, DP-510, DP-522, DP-625, DP-721, DP-921, and DP-942. The jury in this case found EchoStar’s infringement to be willful, but the Court, finding that Echostar did not act in bad faith and that this is not an “exceptional case,” has determined that there should be no enhancement of damages and no award of attorneys fees pursuant
to 35 U.S.C. Sections 284 and 285. The Court also enters judgment for Plaintiff on Defendants’ counterclaims for declaratory judgment of non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Plaintiff shall have and recover from Defendants,
jointly and severally, the total sum of $73,991,964.00, together with prejudgment interest at the rateof prime, said prejudgment interest in the total sum of $5,367,544.00, together with supplemental damages in the amount of $10,317,108.00, together with post-judgment interest on the entire sum calculated pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961. In addition, Plaintiff shall have and recover from
Defendants, jointly and severally, the sum of $103,068,836 in damages accrued during the stay of this Court’s injunction, together with post-judgment interest on that sum calculated pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961. The amounts awarded in this judgment shall bear interest from the date of judgment at the lawful federal rate.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that each Defendant, its officers, agents, servants, employees,
and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice hereof, are hereby restrained and enjoined, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283 and Fed. R. Civ. P.
65(d), from making, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing in the Untied States, the Infringing Products, either alone or in combination with any other product and all other products that are only colorably different therefrom in the context of the Infringed Claims, whether individually or in combination with other products or as a part of another product, and from otherwise infringing or inducing others to infringe the Infringed Claims of the ‘389 Patent.
Defendants are hereby FURTHER ORDERED to, within thirty (30) days of the issuance
of this order, disable the DVR functionality (i.e., disable all storage to and playback from a hard disk drive of television data) in all but 192,708 units of the Infringing Products that have been placed with an end-user or subscriber. The DVR functionality, storage to and playback from a hard disk drive, shall not be enabled in any new placements of the Infringing Products.
Defendants shall forthwith provide written notice of this judgment, and the injunction
ordered herein, to their officers, directors, agents, servants, representatives, attorneys, employees,subsidiaries and affiliates, and those persons in active concert or participation with them, including any and all manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and service providers who have been involved in the making, using, selling, offering for sale or importing of any Infringing Products, and to all other persons or entities involved in any way with the making, using, selling, offering for sale or importing of any Infringing Products. Defendants shall take whatever means are necessary or appropriate to
ensure that this order is properly complied with. This injunction shall run until the expiration of the ’389 Patent.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall inform this Court of any further attempt
to design around the ’389 Patent and shall seek approval from this Court before any such design- around is implemented.
This Court retains jurisdiction over Defendants to enforce any and all aspects of this
Judgment and Permanent Injunction, including the award of monetary sanctions for EchoStar’s contempt of this Court’s injunction.
The Court further retains jurisdiction to award Plaintiff amounts for supplemental damages, interest, costs, attorneys fees and such other or further relief as may be just and proper. All relief not specifically granted herein is denied. All pending motions not previously ruled on are denied. This is a Final Judgment and is appealable.
SIGNED this second day of June, 2009
Looks like Dish will start a huge upgrade push for free to 622/722 campain right away. They have 30 days. I wonder how many of the infringing units are left. Some were already replaced with the Purple card update.
Tivo's initial stock surge seems to be settling back down some, up 24.5% right now.
Tivo's initial stock surge seems to be settling back down some, up 24.5% right now.
The next contempt hearing were be on the newer models. The chances are that they use the same infringed processes. Charlie would be throwing good money after bad.
- Status
