A student-run resource for reliable reports on the latest law and technology news

Supreme Court Denies Echostar’s Appeal; TiVO Awarded $104 million in Damages
Docket Page

On Monday, October 6, 2008, the Supreme Court denied Dish’s (formerly EchoStar) appeal of TiVO, Inc. v. EchoStar, 516 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2008), bringing the long patent infringement suit to a close.  By refusing to hear argument, the Court upheld both the district and Federal Circuit decisions, which found Dish had infringed TiVO’s patented DVR software and awarded TiVO $74 million in damages. Dish will be forced to pay TiVO $104 million – the amount of the 2006 judgment plus interest.

Dish Network had successfully argued for a stay of the district court injunction pending appeal; the Court’s actions this week would restore the order against operating or selling the infringing DVRs. Earlier this year, Dish claimed to have developed a non-infringing workaround which would allow the company to continue providing DVR service to customers.

Jacqui Cheng of ars technica provides commentary, noting that litigation is likely to continue as TiVO has a pending motion for contempt which will effectively subject the workaround to a noninfringement test.

Previously: Federal Circuit Upholds Damages Award Against EchoStar

Posted On Oct - 9 - 2008 1 Comment

Categories

Patent, Supreme Court

Tags

Related Posts

  • No related posts found

One Response so far.

  1. [...] Update: TiVO v. Echostar [...]

  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • GooglePlay
Icon-news

Flash Digest: News i

D.C. District Court rules that FOIA requests apply to officials' ...

color_profiling1-309884_203x203

Federal Circuit Appl

The court first considered the device profile claims. Digitech argued ...

unlock_cell_phone

Unlocking Cell Phone

The passage of this bill marks the initial step in ...

gmailopenlock_zpsa33107c7

SDNY Magistrate Gran

In the decision, Magistrate Judge Gabriel Gorenstein discussed the warrant ...

books

Creating full-text s

Judge Parker went on to explain that copyright is “not ...