Injunctive Relief

After TiVo won an injunction against Echostar in the Eastern District of Texas (TiVo v. EchoStar (E.D.Tex. 2006)), the CAFC stayed the injunction. The injunction was granted because they “compete directly with Plaintiff – Defendants market their infringing products to potential DVR customers as an alternative to purchasing Plaintiff’s DVRs. The availability of the infringing products leads to loss of market share for Plaintiff’s products.” The previous day, the same Judge (Judge David Folsum) denied Paice its injunction against Toyota in Paice v. Toyota (E.D.Tex. 2006). Toyota was found to infringe Paice’s patents on hybrid vehicles under the doctrine of equivalents, but Paice does not manufacture cars so, apparently, no injunction.

• Read more.

In Finisar Corp., v. The DirecTV Group, Inc., et al., District Judge Ron Clerk of the Eastern District of Texas denies injunctive relief, but granted over $117 million in damages, plus an on-going royaly of $1.60 per activated set-top box connected to DirectTV's satellite broadcasting system, payments made on a quarterly basis for the life of the patent.

• Final Judgement
• Read moer.
• Patent in suit
• Article reporting on payments made by DirectTV on the judgment.

Teva appealed a preliminary injunction from Abbott Laboraties ( 05-1433). The CAFC liked Teva's arguments questioning the validity of the asserted claims, vacating the injunction. The CAFC quoted the eBay decision regarding “equitable discretion.”

z4 Technologies won a jury award of damages against Microsoft ($115m) and Autodesk ($18m) for infringing software piracy patents 6,044,471 and 6,785,825. Microsoft's infringement was found willful. But the same Eastern District of Texas court has ruled (6:06-CV-142), in light of the recent ruling by the Supreme Court in the eBay case, that a permanent injunction against Microsoft is not within “the principles of equity.”

• Also here