This is a request for a declaratory judgment. It's like asking the court to tell you that something is or is not legal. Tivo has an injunction requiring Dish to not sell any DVR that infringes. Tivo hasn't sued over whether or not Dish's new DVRs infringe its timeshifting patent. But because of the injunction, all Tivo has to do to allege infringement of Dish's new DVRs is raise them before the court that issued the current injunction.
All Dish has done is raised the issue first, in the court of their choice; the idea is that the court in Texas will be bound by the decision of the court in Delaware. If Tivo raises it in Texas now, the court there should wait until the action commenced in Delaware has been decided. But Dish is the plaintiff in that action, so they have more control over the timing of that action.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Jake @ May 31st 2008 9:50PM
Sorry, not quite it. This is to save Dish money.
This is a request for a declaratory judgment. It's like asking the court to tell you that something is or is not legal. Tivo has an injunction requiring Dish to not sell any DVR that infringes. Tivo hasn't sued over whether or not Dish's new DVRs infringe its timeshifting patent. But because of the injunction, all Tivo has to do to allege infringement of Dish's new DVRs is raise them before the court that issued the current injunction.
All Dish has done is raised the issue first, in the court of their choice; the idea is that the court in Texas will be bound by the decision of the court in Delaware. If Tivo raises it in Texas now, the court there should wait until the action commenced in Delaware has been decided. But Dish is the plaintiff in that action, so they have more control over the timing of that action.