Does “no” mean no when courts enforce patents? It should. But that’s an open question today. It was debated last month before a full session of the court that hears most patent appeals, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in Washington.
The case is TiVo v. EchoStar, and it focuses on TiVo Inc.’s revolutionary, time-shifting technology for letting us watch the TV shows we want, when we want, rather than when they’re broadcast live. TiVo invented that technology. After the usual multiyear patent trial, EchoStar Corp. was found to have willfully infringed the valid patent. The trial court thought it wrapped up that case with a judgment that included an order that EchoStar turn off the key time-shifting feature — a digital video recorder (DVR) — of those set-top receiver boxes EchoStar had convinced customers to buy and install in their homes. These boxes were like mini-Trojan horses into which EchoStar could stream TV service for an ongoing subscription price much greater than the price for the box.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]