TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Corp. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (2004 - 2011) Parties: 1 - Plaintiff: TIVO, INC2 - Defendant: EchoStar Communications Corporation and its consortium (Echostar DBS Corporation, Echostar Technologies Corporation, Echosphere Limited Liability Company and EchoStar Satellite LLC) Brief introduction to the case: This case concerns tivo company (a developer and provider of software and technologies enabling search, navigation and access to content across sources including linear television, television on demand and broadband video) which introduced a revolutionary DVR (digital video recorder) device to the market in March 1999, so in January 2004 – TiVo files suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against EchoStar for infringement of TiVo's '389 patent. on which this patented DVR technology allows television users to "time shift" television signals, that is, to record a television program in digital format and allow the user to replay, pause, fast forward or rewind while the program is playing on the user's TV. The technology allows time shifting for both previously recorded programs and programs currently being recorded. so later the first court judgment was in favor of tivo, then after that EchoStar makes insignificant changes to their software and continues their infringement, then they appeal, do patent examination and extend the case to the Supreme Court. Proceedings: - On April 2006 A jury in the Eastern District of Texas finds that EchoStar willfully infringed TiVo's patent claims and grants TiVo...... middle of paper ......ogy patent) as the The above facts show that he had changed its features and design, then he appealed and also filed a lawsuit against Tivo, the main plaintiff in this case. Ruling: The district court affirmed plaintiff's claims, due to a failure to prove literal infringement, we vacate the judgment of infringement of material claims with respect to all defendant devices. We refer for any further proceedings that may be necessary regarding these claims. We affirm the judgment of infringement of the software claims with respect to all accused devices. Because the calculation of damages at trial was not based on the violation of particular claims, and because we upheld the jury's verdict that all of the defendant devices infringed the software claims, we affirm the award of damages by the district court.