TiVo Wins Patent Fight With EchoStar

By Greg Tarr -- TWICE, 4/14/2006

Englewood, Colo.— A Texas jury ruled that satellite TV provider EchoStar violated a provision of TiVo’s digital video recorder patents, awarding the DVR company $74 million in damages.

TiVo charged that EchoStar’s digital video recorders allegedly violated its patent for allowing one show to be viewed while recording another.

EchoStar quickly fired off a statement denying the charge and said it would appeal the decision through a trial slated for February 2007.

TiVo, DirecTV Extend Deal
New York — TiVo and DirecTV said they would extend for three years an agreement providing service and support to subscribers of DirecTV/TiVo equipment.

“This is the first step in a very long process and we are confident we will ultimately prevail,” a formal statement from EchoStar said. “Among other things, we believe the patent — as interpreted in this case — is overly broad given the technology in existence when TiVo filed its patent. We believe the decision will be reversed either through post-trial motions or on appeal.”

EchoStar said the Patent Office is in the process of re-examining TiVo's patent, “having determined there is a substantial question concerning the validity of the patent.”

EchoStar said customers of its DISH Network DVR services can continue to use the receivers and DVRs in their homes. The company also pointed out that TiVo dropped another patent infringement claim against EchoStar's Dishplayer 7200 DVR.

“EchoStar looks forward to trial of its DVR patent case against TiVo in February 2007,” read a statement.

DISH Offers Money-Back Guarantee
Englewood, Colo — EchoStar is offering new subscribers a money-back guarantee that will allow them try DISH Network risk-free 30 days, while promising a refund if they are not completely satisfied.

Days before the verdict, EchoStar reached an agreement with TiVo extending a previous agreement to allow subscribers of DirecTV/TiVo DVR products to continue receiving service and support through 2010. The agreement also included a provision that the two companies would not seek patent infringement claims against each other.