Posts Tagged: "dish network"

Federal Circuit Rejects District Court Interpretation of ‘Prevailing Parties’ Under Section 285

On appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) held on April 21 that the district court erred in determining that DISH Network LLC and Sirius XM Radio Inc. (collectively, DISH and SXM) were not prevailing parties for purposes of collecting attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. In particular, the CAFC held that the Appellant’s were prevailing parties before the district court based on a judgment of noninfringement, although later vacated, and a holding of invalidity before the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board).

TiVo Files Patent Lawsuits against Comcast, Only Major U.S. Pay-TV Provider Without a TiVo Patent License

TiVo files patent lawsuits, the latest steps TiVo has taken in the hopes of resolving the renewal of a long-term licensing agreement that TiVo has already has already finalized with other major pay-television providers in the United States… TiVo’s recent litigation campaign against Comcast stems back to an unresolved licensing agreement that expired in April 2016 and which TiVo has attempted to renew with the major American pay-TV provider. Rovi first signed licensing agreements with the top pay-TV providers in the U.S., including Comcast, Dish Network, DirecTV and Time Warner, back in 2003 and 2004 with each deal lasting for a period of 12 years. In 2015 and 2016, around the same time that Rovi acquired TiVo for about $1.1 billion, the company began proactively engaging in licensing talks, again striking long-term deals like 10-year agreements with both AT&T and Dish. Of the top 10 pay-TV providers in the United States, Comcast is the last holdout who has not signed a licensing deal with TiVo.

Sling TV unveils cloud DVR tech giving Americans more reasons to ‘cut the cord’

On Thursday, December 15th, Dish Network (NASDAQ:DISH) subsidiary and over-the-top (OTT) television delivery service Sling TV unveiled a new cloud-based digital video recording (DVR) technology. Customers using Sling to access live television programming can store up to 100 hours of content including full-length movies, single episodes and entire television series. Automatic deletion of oldest-watched content and simultaneous recording options are also included with the service. Sling’s cloud DVR service appears to only be available to customers accessing Sling through Roku devices in this first rollout of the program and the DVR service only works with certain channels.

TiVo, DISH and EchoStar, The $500 Million Patent Settlement

Just 12 days ago the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its ruling in TiVo v. EchoStar, largely handing TiVo a victory in the epic saga between the two satellite TV giants. Earlier today TiVo Inc. (NASDAQ: TIVO), DISH Network Corporation (NASDAQ: DISH), and EchoStar Corporation (NASDAQ: SATS) announced today that they have settled all of their ongoing patent litigation. Under the terms of the settlement, DISH Network and EchoStar agreed to pay TiVo $500 million. On top of that the companies seem to have entered into a cross-promotion cooperation agreement.

Federal Circuit Hears TiVo v. Dish Oral Arguments En Banc

On Tuesday, November 9, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments in TiVo, Inc. v. EchoStar Corp. The case pits TiVo versus Dish, and any ruling from the Federal Circuit will necessarily define the extent to which a district court judge can rely on contempt proceedings to enforce an injunction rather than simply order a full blown new trial. In process the en banc oral argument in this case at the Federal Circuit did not substantially differ from the oral argument held at the Supreme Court the day earlier in the Costco copyright case, where the Supreme Court was struggling with the meaning of the phrase “lawfully made under this Title.” There are two phrases that will be at the center of resolving the TiVo case. The first is “fair ground of doubt,” and the second is “merely colorably different.”