The jury did find wilful infringement. The only reason they didn't get treble damanges was some evidence not presented to the jury that may have allowed them to reconsider wilfulness.
But that was in 2006. I thought you were trying to show things that DISH has won recently?
Not true, the most important reason was the judge said this was not a "copying" case, because E* developed DVRs "many years before TiVo even existed as a company."
Why not 2006? Only the TiVo folks may brag about a 2006 win?
Expected. Hardly a victory.
They did win that one, hard or easy.
A flat-out lie. The hardware claims were remanded, and are still there for TiVo to follow up on. The only reason they remanded the claims was the jury was told that it was not necessary to find infringement by doctrine of equivalents if they found literal infringement. They would have certainly found both if instructed to do so. It's just a formality to get the hardware claims in the picture again.
No, stop calling a lie until you undstand what the appeals court did, they
reversed the hardware verdict, so the hardware claims, as we speak, are not infringed. You can wish for any future "hypothetical" scenario all you want, TiVo is not re-visiting the hardware claims and will not do so, why?
Because Judge Folsom when ordering his "bench trial" did decide to revisit the hardware claims at first, but TiVo said no, let's not do that. Once TiVo decided not to go after the hardware claims,
against the judge's own wish, it will be near impossible to go back to it.
Another lie. KSM allows newly-manufactured devices to escape prima facie contempt, but not already-manufactured, already-adjudicated devices. Please stop lying.
Again, you continue to use the "on the face" argument, just remember, the DE judge had refuted that idea of TiVo's, by dismissing TiVo. TiVo was using the same "on the face" argument in front of the DE judge.
I value the DE judge's opinion more so than TiVo's.
I have no idea why you put these (5 & 6) as separate points. They are the same thing.
Except Judge Folsom considers them two things, one is a colorable difference issue, the other is an infringement issue, I'd rather value Judge Folsom's opinion.
Let me see if I have this right. DISH tried to move the case to DE (if contempt is not found) and Judge Farnam in Delaware said that is better handled in TX. In other words, they accomplished nothing. In fact, you could argue that had they waited to file until after a decision from Folsom regarding contempt, they might have had a shot at the venue changed.
E* never tried to move anything, when one is the first-to-file, one is the first-to-file. TiVo is now trying to move it to the TX court, after the DE judge dismissed TiVo's motion.
So not only did they NOT win this (the case goes back to TX), they actually did damage to their case (the case will stay in TX regardless of the contempt decision).
You keep saying this, let me say it again, this case is still in the DE court. Stop saying it is now in the TX court when it is not.
One more thing, I know it is hard to get this through, if there is a contempt, this new DE case will be moot or dismissed.
No, there's not. If you keep lying about it, it doesn't make it true.
Then you are calling the USPTO lying, because I was only quoting them. The USPTO said there is now "substential new question" regarding the validity of the sofware claims.
That was not the question Curtis asked.
The completely outclassed circus clown legal team has had their gonads handed to them repeatedly in this case. Seriously, not only have they hurt DISH, they've probably hurt the reputation of the entire law firm with their inability to win anything in this case.
Please stop feeling bad for Charlie and his lawyers, feel bad for TiVo and their lawyers, after over a year, they could not get such a "no-brainer" contempt out of the judge no matter how they tried.
Oh, wait, there was one thing. They got an extra 2.5 hours in front of the judge last month. LOL.
Yes I missed that one. TiVo argued the good faith, bad faith issue was irrelevant, so no more time should be given. Regardless how you feel, Judge Folsom did give more time, because good faith issue was relevant.
