(AP) -- TiVo Inc. prevailed yet again in a long-running dispute with Dish Network Corp. over patents for digital video recorders, as a federal appeals court cleared the way Thursday for TiVo to collect hundreds of millions of dollars. TiVo shares jumped more than 50 percent. googletag.cmd.push(function() googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1449240174198-2'); ); Despite repeatedly losing, however, Dish said it will seek a review of the three-judge panel's decision by the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.TiVo said the decision, if it stands, would let it collect at least $300 million from Dish - about $100 million in damages and interest, and the rest in contempt sanctions that TiVo already has been awarded. That would be on top of about $100 million in damages that Dish had already paid TiVo in earlier litigation.TiVo has struggled with being consistently profitable, and being able to collect such an amount would help get it into the black. TiVo came out with its DVR in 1999 and "TiVo" became a verb synonymous with recording TV, but it has faced intense competition from generic DVRs offered by Dish and other subscription TV providers.The company also has sued AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc., charging them with infringing on certain DVR patents. Microsoft Corp. has waded into the fight on AT&T's side."The courts have ruled in TiVo's favor numerous times over the past five years, which should help ... in the company's litigation against AT&T, Verizon, and Microsoft," Tony Wible, an analyst from Janney Montgomery Scott, said in a research note.At issue is a TiVo patent on technology for storing and retrieving video on DVRs, which lets viewers pause, rewind and replay live TV. TiVo sued Dish in 2004 for patent infringement for using a similar technology on its DVRs, a case Dish lost on appeal. Dish paid TiVo $104.6 million in damages and interest and was barred from using the technology.While the case was going on, Dish crafted a redesigned technology that it said did not infringe on TiVo's patent. But the U.S. District Court in Marshall, Texas, disagreed and ordered Dish to pay TiVo additional damages - this time at $103 million plus interest, along with about $200 million in contempt sanctions.Dish appealed again, losing that bid on Thursday. Dish said that it is planning a second redesign of its technology and will seek approval from the district court to use it.Dish said in a statement that it's disappointed in the ruling but gratified that one of the three appellate judges sided with its position and issued a dissenting opinion Thursday.Two of the judges found that the lower court applied the right standard in analyzing whether Dish's redesigned technology still infringed on TiVo's patent. But the dissenting judge, Randall Rader, said the court is punishing a company that has made a good faith effort at a redesign.Dish is counting on a better outcome if the entire appeals court grants the review it has requested.Wible believes Dish would lose before the full appeals court as well and would end up paying a license fee to use TiVo's technology on Dish's DVRs or face having to disable the boxes. Comcast Corp. and Cox Communications Inc. already license TiVo's software.Analysts have been perplexed at Dish's intransigent stance on TiVo, which Dish has repeatedly. But Dish has refused to give up.TiVo said the $300 million it was awarded covers Dish's infringement through July 1. The Alviso, Calif.-based company said it will seek damages for Dish's continued infringement since then.Last August, TiVo sued AT&T and Verizon over the same patent and two others that allow multiroom viewing and correct overshooting when viewers fast-forward TV. Microsoft, whose Mediaroom software is used in AT&T's set-top boxes, sued TiVo in January, alleging that TiVo has violated Microsoft patents related to such things as an on-screen TV guide.Shares of TiVo rose $5.62, or 55 percent, to $15.83 in afternoon trading Thursday. Dish Network, based in Englewood, Colo., lost $1.01, or 4.7 percent, to $20.70. 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Microsoft Files Patent Infringement Suits Against TiVo
On January 19, 2010, Microsoft filed a lawsuit against TiVo, Inc. for patent infringement.[16] TiVo had also filed a lawsuit against Microsoft for patent infringement. The companies agreed to end their respective lawsuits in March 2012.[17]
Pennington sued UofA for infringement of patent No. 6,111,170, which claims a new variety of fescue grass. Pennington argued that 11th Amendment immunity here would violate due process because the state of Arkansas provided no other adequate mechanism for pursuing claims against the state. The CAFC disagreed, citing Florida Prepaid for the proposition that abrogation of state immunity requires a specific abrogation by Congress based on a finding that the available Arkansas procedures are inadequate. Congress has made no such finding.
The fact that Iancu represented TiVo, a patent owner, against big tech in Silicon Valley will undoubtedly lead to a warm reception in certain patent owner segments of the patent community. Iancu and his firm have a reputation for suing big tech while representing patent owners, and he himself also served as counsel for San Jose-based touch feedback tech firm Immersion Corporation in a patent infringement suit against Japanese tech conglomerate Sony Corporation (NYSE:SNE) involving video game controller patents which ended up netting $150 million for Immersion in March 2007.
Turner has also represented a number of defendants in patent cases. This has been especially true in the last two years since he moved to the law firm of Kirkland and Ellis. Since the move, he has defended clients like Intel and Facebook against patent infringement lawsuits.
Patents 6,044,471 and 6,785,825 disclose methods for limiting the unauthorized use of computer software, referred to as product activation. z4 Techs brought an action against Microsoft for infringement of these patents. Following a jury verdict finding infringement, z4 Techs moved for a permanent injunction.
Patent 5,026,109 relates to a segmented cover system utilizing a series of cover sections. Sundance brought an action against DeMonte for infringement of this patent. Following a jury verdict finding infringement, Sundance moved for a permanent injunction.
Patents 6,007,609, 6,045,115, and 5,937,895 disclose embodiments of an apparatus which safely control the discharge of pressurized fluids from the outlet of pressurized tanks. Praxair brought an action against ATMI for infringement of these patents. Following a jury verdict finding infringement, Praxair moved for a permanent injunction.
Patent 5,845,265 relates to used and collectible goods offered for sale by an electronic network of consignment stores. MercExchange brought an action against eBay for infringement of this patent. Following a finding of infringement, MercExchange moved for a permanent injunction. MercExchange renewed its request for a permanent injunction after the eBay Inc. v. MercExchange Supreme Court decision required courts to apply the four-factors test.
Patent 6,295,075 relates to a method of communicating between host computers and remote terminals. ResQNet.com brought an action against Lansa for infringement of this patent. Following a jury verdict finding infringement, ResQNet.com moved for a permanent injunction.
Patent 4,835,763 and reissue patent 36,633 relate to telecommunications networks. Telcordia Technologies brought an action against Cisco Systems for infringement of these patents. Following a jury verdict finding infringement, Telcordia Technologies moved for a permanent injunction or, in the alternative, an order requiring Cisco to pay an ongoing royalty.
Reissue patents 38,812 and 37,885 relate to slot machine technologies. IGT brought an action against Bally Gaming for infringement of these patents. Following a finding of infringement, IGT moved for a permanent injunction.
Patent 6,661,755 relates to optical disc drives. Ricoh brought an action against Quanta Computer for infringement of this patent. Following a jury verdict finding infringement, Ricoh moved for a permanent injunction.
Patent 6,757,710 relates to a one-click online payment system. Cordance brought an action against Amazon.com for infringement of this patent. Following a jury verdict finding infringement, Cordance moved for a permanent injunction.
Patents 5,353,530 and 6,944,978 relate to quick mounting snow plow assemblies. Douglas Dynamics brought an action against Buyers Products Company for infringement of these patents. Following a finding of infringement, Douglas Dynamics moved for a permanent injunction.
Patents 7,015,868, 7,123,208, 7,394,432, and 7,397,431 relate to antennas made of multilevel structures. Fractus brought an action against Samsung for infringement of these patents. Following a jury verdict finding infringement, Fractus moved for a permanent injunction.
Patents 6,502,135 and 7,490,151 relate to a method of transparently creating a virtual private network (VPN) between a client computer and a target computer. VirnetX brought an action against Apple for infringement of these patents. Following a jury verdict finding infringement, VirnetX moved for a permanent injunction.
Patents 7,469,381, 7,844,915 and 7,864,163 relate to embodiments of a touchscreen user interface software feature. Apple brought an action against Samsung for infringement of these patents. Following a jury verdict finding infringement, Apple moved for a permanent injunction.
Patents 6,201,839 and 6,438,180 relate to methods, devices, and systems for improved accuracy in the detection of recorded data when certain types of errors are likely due to the recording medium and reading mechanism. The inventions disclosed in these patents were supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant ECD-8907068. Carnegie Mellon University, holder of these patents, brought an infringement action against Marvell Technology Group. Following a jury verdict finding infringement, Carnegie Mellon moved for a permanent injunction. 2ff7e9595c
Comments