DISH NETWORK AND ECHOSTAR STATEMENT REGARDING TIVO

...yes please :)

Speaking of the sanction issues, Judge Folsom awarded TiVo $206M enhanced damages, also awarded TiVo its attorney fees and costs, though actual amounts are undecided.

E* filed a letter citing "supplemental authority" in support of its position on the sanction issue, while we do not know what that "supplemental authority" is, we do know that TiVo had asked Judge Folsom to delay the attorney fees and costs assessment, TiVo also requested that the appeals court try to schedule this appeal apart from another unrelated appeal, to avoid "conflict".

Again we don't know what that "conflict" is, but what is interesting is, that other case was about the court awarding the defendants attorney fees and costs because the patentees/plaintiffs were found to change their theories, against the court instructions, to confuse the jury, eventually convinced the jury to find infringement in the patentees' favor.

After the jury verdict, the court realized it was fooled by the patentees, and reversed the jury verdict, instead awarded the defendants the costs. That case is now also pending appeal. How interesting that TiVo wanted the appeals court to schedule these two appeals hearings apart to void "conflict":)
 
it isnt snide. Read through the threads. ANY thread with the word Tivo in you seem to come and argue for honestly no reason. You're the one with the "snide" comments in your threads. Here are some recent examples





so get back on topic

Ice, EVERYONE argues for no reason in these Tivo threads...one would think that's what they are here for! lol... (that and pompous posturing)

Anyway, I agree that my commentary was inappropriate as you pointed out. Not snide, in fact they were actually very direct! But inappropriate none-the-less and you are correct in pointing that out...

apologies...backing out now...;)
 
Last but not the least, some comments below for the record, just to see how things may pan out.

At this point, I think E* has some very good evidence that TiVo misled Judge Folsom when they contended that the start code detection and indexing were irrelevant to the software claims, and TiVo did so knowingly.

The evidence is in how parties reacted to the PTO's initial action rejecting the software claims, specifically how the PTO interpreted the software claims' first step as "detecting start codes and building index of the codes..."

Noticed in such reactions, TiVo never once again contended that detecting start codes and build index...were "irrelevant". TiVo only said the PTO action was not final and was irrelevant to the appeal, of course the appeals court did not buy such argument. The reason TiVo did not say so was because they knew they could not mislead the PTO. The PTO knew exactly what the software clams first step discloses, that was why the software claims were granted in the first place, because they disclosed an invention of detecting start codes and building an index table...

TiVo of course as the patent owner had to know what their software claims had disclosed, yet they knowingly declared to Judge Folsom that their software claims had nothing to do with start code detection and building of index table, for one reason and one reason only, to try to capture E* in the contempt proceeding.

To me that is obstruction of justice, and the evidence is rather clear. I have read cases where the entire patents were ruled forever unenforceable by the courts due to the patentees' clear misconduct during the patent prosecutions.
 
The appeals court hearing schedule shows the TiVo. v. E* oral argument on 11/2. The "other case" I mentioned earlier TiVo wanted the appeals court to "set apart" from this case, is scheduled for 11/4.
 
On 9/22 TiVo inventors had a meeting with the PTO examiner, after TiVo presented their "primary consideration position" the examiner did not agree with them. In other words TiVo in their initial attempt failed to overcome the PTO's rejection of the software claims.

TiVo is now asking the PTO to extend the deadline by 30 days so they can come up with their "secondary consideration position" to try again to overcome the rejection of the software claims.
 
Yeah PTO

On 9/22 TiVo inventors had a meeting with the PTO examiner, after TiVo presented their "primary consideration position" the examiner did not agree with them. In other words TiVo in their initial attempt failed to overcome the PTO's rejection of the software claims.

TiVo is now asking the PTO to extend the deadline by 30 days so they can come up with their "secondary consideration position" to try again to overcome the rejection of the software claims.

Hope the PTO keeps giving them the thumbs down.
 
Hope the PTO keeps giving them the thumbs down.

The PTO actually did do that. TiVo filed another "DVR System" patent application in 2003, read very similar to this "Time Warp" patent. The PTO finally got around to process it in 2008, and so far they had rejected this 2003 patent three times, the most recent rejection in 06/09.
 
Last week the USPTO granted Tivo a patent on their closed caption, and just today they were granted a patent on their Season Pass process (filed in 1999).

How much longer before E* signs a licensing agreement with Tivo ~OR~ has their contempt of court order upheld? My guess is that one or both of these will happen in the next 45-days.
 
Last week the USPTO granted Tivo a patent on their closed caption, and just today they were granted a patent on their Season Pass process (filed in 1999).

How much longer before E* signs a licensing agreement with Tivo ~OR~ has their contempt of court order upheld? My guess is that one or both of these will happen in the next 45-days.

Do you know if Verizon FiOS will ever be available in Minnesota
 
Do you know if Verizon FiOS will ever be available in Minnesota

The better question is, does he like Verizon to sign an agreement to pay TiVo a license fee therefore settle the lawsuit with TiVo, so he can see his Verizon bill go up accordingly:) Or he'd rather TiVo get the court to order Verizon to disable his DVR?:)
 

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

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)

Top