Is this the end of the TIVO lawsuit ? If so, what effect will it have on our bills and how soon ?
TiVo's Stock Soaring On Thursday
TiVo's Stock Soaring On Thursday
TIVO lawsuit update
- Thread starter JH1949
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 124
- Views 24K
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
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
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.
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.
I posted it before you did. Can somebody combine our threads please ?
http://www.satelliteguys.us/dish-network-forum/123236-tivo-lawsuit-update.html
http://www.satelliteguys.us/dish-network-forum/123236-tivo-lawsuit-update.html
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?
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:
I wonder how this will affect Expressvu, as they use Echostar's DVR's.
US Federal Courts have no jurisdiction in Canada.
If E* can't provide me with DVR,then BYE BYE!! They can't expect people to remain in a contract. I'll sue them right along with TIVO!
They do have jurisdiction over Echostar who produces the hardware. If Echostar can't make them, then Expressvu can't use them.
Most likely, I doubt any of us will ever see our DVRs shut down... they probably have had a fix ready for awhile, just in case... it's SW at this point.
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.
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.
The complexity and technical jargon reminds me of the DNA evidence presented during the OJ trial.
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.
"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.
