Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

IP News

By Howard J. Shire and Matthew Berkowitz
June 28, 2010

Federal Circuit to Hear EchoStar Appeal En Banc

On May 14, 2010 the Federal Circuit granted Defendants-Appellants EchoStar Corporation, et al.'s petition for rehearing en banc, vacated its March 4, 2010 opinion affirming a district court's decision finding EchoStar in contempt of the court's permanent injunction order, 597 F.3d 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2010), and requested that the parties file new briefs addressing the following issues:

  1. Following a finding of infringement by an accused device at trial, under what circumstances is it proper for a district court to determine infringement by a newly accused device through contempt proceedings rather than through new infringement proceedings? What burden of proof is required to establish that a contempt proceeding is proper?
  2. How does “fair ground of doubt as to the wrongfulness of the defendant's conduct” compare with the “more than colorable differences” or “substantial open issues of infringement” tests in evaluating the newly accused devices against the adjudged infringing device?
  3. Where a contempt proceeding is proper, (1) what burden of proof is on the patentee to show that the newly accused device infringes and (2) what weight should be given to the infringer's efforts to design around the patent and its reasonable and good faith belief of noninfringement by the new device, for a finding of contempt?
  4. Is it proper for a district court to hold an enjoined party in contempt where there is a substantial question as to whether the injunction is ambiguous in scope?

The case originated in 2004 when Tivo sued EchoStar in the U.S. District Court for the Easter District of Texas, alleging that EchoStar's DVR receivers infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,233,389. Following a jury finding of infringement, the district court entered judgment on the verdict and issued a permanent injunction against EchoStar ordering it to: 1) stop making, using, offering to sell, and selling the receivers that had been found to infringe by the jury, and 2) disable the DVR functionality in existing receivers that had not already been placed with subscribers. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the liability findings with respect to some of the claims and noted that the permanent injunction would take effect following the court's decision. Tivo then moved the district court to find EchoStar in contempt of the court's permanent injunction based on its sale of redesigned DVR receivers. After a series of hearings, the district court held EchoStar in contempt and imposed sanctions of nearly $90 million, rejecting EchoStar's argument that the redesigned receivers were more than colorably different from the adjudged infringing devices.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Law Firms are Reducing Redundant Real Estate by Bringing Support Services Back to the Office Image

A trend analysis of the benefits and challenges of bringing back administrative, word processing and billing services to law offices.

New York's Latest Cybersecurity Commitment Image

On Aug. 9, 2023, Gov. Kathy Hochul introduced New York's inaugural comprehensive cybersecurity strategy. In sum, the plan aims to update government networks, bolster county-level digital defenses, and regulate critical infrastructure.

Bit Parts Image

Summary Judgment Denied Defendant in Declaratory Action by Producer of To Kill a Mockingbird Broadway Play Seeking Amateur Theatrical Rights

Risks of “Baseball Arbitration” in Resolving Real Estate Disputes Image

“Baseball arbitration” refers to the process used in Major League Baseball in which if an eligible player's representative and the club ownership cannot reach a compensation agreement through negotiation, each party enters a final submission and during a formal hearing each side — player and management — presents its case and then the designated panel of arbitrators chooses one of the salary bids with no other result being allowed. This method has become increasingly popular even beyond the sport of baseball.

Disconnect Between In-House and Outside Counsel Image

'Disconnect Between In-House and Outside Counsel is a continuation of the discussion of client expectations and the disconnect that often occurs. And although the outside attorneys should be pursuing how inside-counsel actually think, inside counsel should make an effort to impart this information without waiting to be asked.