They are headed after the biggest channel provider first in going after DISH. Then if they win there , they will go after the other cable providers next.
Tivo Statement on Echostar Lawsuit
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 74
- Views 10K
They are headed after the biggest channel provider first in going after DISH. Then if they win there , they will go after the other cable providers next.
Don't hold your breath that Charlie will settle with TiVo.
The PTO's initial action has nothing to do with the E* workaround, the PTO does not get involved with the lawsuit and decide if the workaround is successful or not. The courts will do such work.
But if your above statement is true, you have just refuted your own comment below:
Because if you are correct (which you are not) that the PTO has ruled the E* workaround doesn't infringe, it naturally refutes Judge Folsom's own ruling that the workaround still infringes, if so, how can you conclude this PTO "ruling" has "little effect"?
But this PTO initial action will have a significant impact on the current litigation because E* will used it to the fullest extent, the letter E* sent to Judge Folsom yesterday already indicated that.
TiVo is given 2 months to respond to the PTO initial action, and TiVo is required to provide full copies of their PTO responses to E*.
In this PTO initial action, the PTO interpreted the software claims in the same ways E* interpreted during the contempt proceedings. We are talking the office that granted TiVo this patent that agreed with E* on how to interpret the claims.
Of course TiVo will have the opportunity to respond and maybe even to refute the PTO's interpretations, but the problems are, for one thing the PTO interpretations are based on TiVo's own patent application and prosecution history, in other words based on what TiVo said years ago when they tried to have their patent granted by the PTO.
The other thing is, when TiVo tries to respond, if they want to take the positions in order to succeed in overturning the PTO's claim rejection decision, they will likely have to abandon some of the positions they took during the contempt proceedings when they argued on the contempt issues. Conversely, if TiVo maintains the positions they held during the contempt proceedings, they face a near certainty that their software claims will be rejected.
Two months are within the appeals court's schedule, in fact judging from the current appeal movement, the appeals court will likely not be able to render a ruling in November as they initially planned to. There were just too many new issues kept popping up, such as this new PTO action, and the Judge Folsom's upcoming decision on the sanctions, which he wanted to be incorporated into the appeal.
E* is waiting for TiVo to fire their shots at the PTO, and you can be assured E* will exploit TiVo's PTO filing in front of the appeals court to its full advantage.
IMHO, what awaits TiVo in the next two months will be the most challenging for TiVo.
If this is the quote you are reading into:
Then this is the most poorly written sentence I have read so far, shame on them for not understanding what this PTO initial action is, and for not making the grammar school grades
For these reasons I will take anything else said in that report with a giant grain of salt.
Last edited:
The Wall Street Journal is confused. The patent office hasn't made any rulings on the workaround. The ruling only pertains to TiVo's patent. The patent office couldn't care less about Dish's products. That's not their job. It is true however that the same two claims that the patent office has preliminarily ruled as invalid are the same two claims that Dish was found to still infringe with their workaround. That happened in a courtroom. The patent office had nothing to do with it.
Long before the TiVo patent ever gets finally declared invalid (if it ever happens), Dish will have paid hundreds of millions of dollars in contempt sanctions and all of their DVRs will have been disabled. Patent validity discussion wasn't even allowed at the contempt hearing because the issue is irrelevant. For the same reason, it isn't relevant at the appeal.
Not sure this is true
If the patent is invalid then it is hard to infringe on something isn't valid. It may be a new case entirely. It may be that the verdict will no longer be valid and it has to be re-adjudicated.
If the patent is invalid then it is hard to infringe on something isn't valid. It may be a new case entirely. It may be that the verdict will no longer be valid and it has to be re-adjudicated.
If the patent is ever ruled invalid, it will take years. This case will be finished long before then. Infringment cases don't get readjudicated once all appeals have been exhausted. It's called "finality".
Wikipedia
Yes and it will all be resolved and final long before TiVo's patent is ever ruled invalid.
I fully agree. The matter at hand is that E* was found to have infringed and subsequently violated a court order and judged to be in contempt. Whether the Tivo patents are invalidated by the USPTO years from now is a non-issue.
The mistake Thomass22 made, or if he was trying to mislead, is that he said E* will disable the DVRs and pay big, before the patent vailidity issue will be resolved.
If the appeals court overturns the district court ruling and order, E* likely will not be ordered to disable the DVRs and pay big, we have not reached that point yet.
Secondly, depending on the timing, judging by the speed of the courts, it is possible the PTO will make a final action before any final damages are concluded, remember E* still has a few venues even after this appeal. In such case, if the PTO's final action is to reject the software claims, E* can motion the court to stay all pending proceedings, until TiVo finishes their appeal of the PTO action and only if TiVo wins on their appeal, then the court may reinstate the pending proceedings, and that can take years.
TiVo just filed a letter response to Judge Folsom regarding the PTO initial rejection. TiVo devoted most of the time arguing the PTO initial rejection was normal, and TiVo would reaffirm the claims just like the last time, and the rejection should have no bearing on the current litigation.
Except that the above was not E*'s point, E* themselves admitted the PTO rejection was not final and had no bearing on the current litigation. The point was how the PTO interpreted the software claims term "parses audio and video data". It interpreted the term to mean detecting start codes and building index table with such start codes.
TiVo argued during the contempt proceedings that start codes and index table were "irrelevant" to the software claims, and this was the central assertion that the judge bought from TiVo when he found the new design still infringed.
Yet reading the TiVo letter today, one noticed TiVo had absolutely no courage to again assert that detecting start codes and building index table are "irrelevant" to the software claims. Of course TiVo cannot, because the PTO said the start codes and indexing are central issue and necessary for the software claims to exist.
Now folks can see the relevance of this reexamination and the PTO's initial rejection. E* made it part of Judge Folsom's sanctions decision record, TiVo is now forced to respond, regardless what will be the judge's reaction, since the sanctions issue will be part of the appeal process, so will both E* and TiVo's reactions to the PTO interpretation of the term "parses audio and video data". TiVo said start codes and indexing were irrelevant during the contempt hearing, now after the PTO agreed with E*, TiVo cannot reassert that the start codes and indexing are irrelevant. This much is now part of the record that will be part of the appeal, because Judge Folsom wanted it that way.
One might ask why then didn't TiVo reassert the start codes and indexing are irrelevant in this letter? Because had TiVo done so it would have undermined its effort to validate their software claims in front of the PTO. This is the true value of the E*'s reexamination.
Except that the above was not E*'s point, E* themselves admitted the PTO rejection was not final and had no bearing on the current litigation. The point was how the PTO interpreted the software claims term "parses audio and video data". It interpreted the term to mean detecting start codes and building index table with such start codes.
TiVo argued during the contempt proceedings that start codes and index table were "irrelevant" to the software claims, and this was the central assertion that the judge bought from TiVo when he found the new design still infringed.
Yet reading the TiVo letter today, one noticed TiVo had absolutely no courage to again assert that detecting start codes and building index table are "irrelevant" to the software claims. Of course TiVo cannot, because the PTO said the start codes and indexing are central issue and necessary for the software claims to exist.
Now folks can see the relevance of this reexamination and the PTO's initial rejection. E* made it part of Judge Folsom's sanctions decision record, TiVo is now forced to respond, regardless what will be the judge's reaction, since the sanctions issue will be part of the appeal process, so will both E* and TiVo's reactions to the PTO interpretation of the term "parses audio and video data". TiVo said start codes and indexing were irrelevant during the contempt hearing, now after the PTO agreed with E*, TiVo cannot reassert that the start codes and indexing are irrelevant. This much is now part of the record that will be part of the appeal, because Judge Folsom wanted it that way.
One might ask why then didn't TiVo reassert the start codes and indexing are irrelevant in this letter? Because had TiVo done so it would have undermined its effort to validate their software claims in front of the PTO. This is the true value of the E*'s reexamination.
Last edited:
