1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

TiVo vs EchoStar: Echostar found to be in Contempt

Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by Curtis52, Jun 2, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jun 2, 2009 #1 of 2012
    Curtis52

    Curtis52 Hall Of Fame

    1,487
    0
    Oct 13, 2003
    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
     
  2. Jun 2, 2009 #2 of 2012
    Curtis0620

    Curtis0620 Hall Of Fame

    1,491
    24
    Apr 22, 2002
    TiVo share price is shooting up in after hours.
     
  3. Jun 2, 2009 #3 of 2012
    Michael P

    Michael P Hall Of Fame

    3,107
    21
    Oct 27, 2004
    So does this affect the other models not on the infringing list?
     
  4. Jun 2, 2009 #4 of 2012
    Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    0
    Mar 25, 2002
    Tivo is only up 45% after hours. :eek2:
    10 days of Tivo vs. 10 days of Dish.
    [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  5. Jun 2, 2009 #5 of 2012
    Lostinspace

    Lostinspace AllStar

    60
    0
    Oct 24, 2007
    $187,373,908 and counting. OUCH.
     
  6. Jun 2, 2009 #6 of 2012
    Curtis52

    Curtis52 Hall Of Fame

    1,487
    0
    Oct 13, 2003
    There would need to be another contempt hearing to look at the newer models. The chances are that they use the same infringed processes.
     
  7. Jun 2, 2009 #7 of 2012
    Curtis52

    Curtis52 Hall Of Fame

    1,487
    0
    Oct 13, 2003
    Plus interest back several years and the sanctions for contempt haven't even been set yet. That happens in July.
     
  8. Jun 2, 2009 #8 of 2012
    phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    15,012
    307
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    Well, we should have this resolved in another 6 to 8 months and 600 posts. But IMHO the critical wording here is likely to be:
    Whether that means the software in the 922 should make for some interesting discussion. Regardless, my two 508's stored in a closet are doorstops unless Charlie can come to some agreement with TiVo.
     
  9. Jun 2, 2009 #9 of 2012
    Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    0
    Mar 25, 2002
    TIVO statement:
    http://custom.marketwatch.com/custo...p?guid={EEC65BB1-929C-465A-A9CB-ADBAE7AA395E}
    More...
     
  10. Jun 2, 2009 #10 of 2012
    bobukcat

    bobukcat Hall Of Fame

    1,965
    2
    Dec 20, 2005
    I'm sure it's mentioned somewhere in the ridiculously long previous thread on this subject but when does that '389 patent expire?
     
  11. Jun 2, 2009 #11 of 2012
    Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    247
    Nov 15, 2005
    Curtis52, thanks for the finding and the post!

    I've closed the other discussion thread with a pointer to here.

    Cheers,
    Tom
     
  12. Jun 2, 2009 #12 of 2012
    Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    247
    Nov 15, 2005
    I think something like 2017/2018?
     
  13. Jun 2, 2009 #13 of 2012
    Curtis52

    Curtis52 Hall Of Fame

    1,487
    0
    Oct 13, 2003
    07-30-2018
     
  14. Jun 2, 2009 #14 of 2012
    phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    15,012
    307
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    So does this mean that the new Dish Network, which is theoretically independent of the new Echostar which may not have any lawful DVR's to sell to Dish, can start offering TiVo products?
     
  15. Jun 2, 2009 #15 of 2012
    Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    247
    Nov 15, 2005
    I'm guessing at this point, Dish/Echostar had better settle on an agreement with TiVo in 29 days...

    Cuz I bet Dish won't be able to get another stay and won't be able to get the units replaced in 30 days, and won't be able to get TiVo units out in 30 days either...

    Cheers,
    Tom
     
  16. Jun 2, 2009 #16 of 2012
    bobukcat

    bobukcat Hall Of Fame

    1,965
    2
    Dec 20, 2005
    Thanks, obviously none of these receivers are going to be usable at that point anyway. It just gets curiouser and curiouser.....I predict a settlement (in the next 18 months or 1200 posts) :lol:
     
  17. Jun 2, 2009 #17 of 2012
    bobukcat

    bobukcat Hall Of Fame

    1,965
    2
    Dec 20, 2005
    LOL - that'll be the day! :eek2:
     
  18. Jun 2, 2009 #18 of 2012
    tnsprin

    tnsprin Hall Of Fame

    2,129
    0
    Mar 15, 2003
    I am sure that Dish has had some plans in mind if they lost this contempt case.

    I suspect that for one think they will push to have the Tivo patent ruled on by the PTO. That was on hold I think.

    But obviously they have to do something for the DVR's they have been ruled as violating. This includes most of the SD receivers they have in service. If they allow them all to be disabled for more than a little while, they will be losing lots of customers. I don't know if they have another design around ready that think they can get the judge to allow. Replacing all the SD DVR's is way to expensive and iffy since the other current DVR receivers may also be ruled against in the future if nothing changes.

    Of course they may just give in and license Tivo's patent.

    So we need to hear something from Dish before 30 days are out on what they plan to do.
     
  19. Jun 2, 2009 #19 of 2012
    Curtis52

    Curtis52 Hall Of Fame

    1,487
    0
    Oct 13, 2003
    It isn't on hold. A patent examiner is looking at Dish's latest reexamination request. Dish lost the previous reexamination at the patent office. It doesn't matter though. A patent reexamination isn't final until all appeals are exhausted. That can take years. It can go all the way to the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the law requires that the patent be considered valid.
     
  20. Jun 2, 2009 #20 of 2012
    phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    15,012
    307
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    Hmmmm. Well I see a possible scenario like this. TiVo offers a deal to Dish Network where it would license Dish Network for it's customers to use whatever Echostar boxes it has sold or leased or will sell or lease and TiVo would start developing products for Dish Network. Charlie and any other officer or employee associated with both Echostar and Dish would face a conflict of interest and couldn't participate in the decision making.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page