Originally Posted by Speed Daemon
Remember that TiVo settled its AT&T and EchoStar suits. That means that TiVo has to pay all of their own legal expenses; only winners have legal fees reimbursed. And the money they're getting is contractual, which means that they must provide goods and services in exchange for that money. No goods and services delivered, no money paid. So TiVo got no free money, and has to pay all those legal bills.
I do not read anywhere that anyone indicated the legal fees were covered.
A settlement like this is designed to cover myriad of costs - only TiVo and Echo star know if "cost of legal fees" were built into that calculation. The only thing we do know is that under the terms of the settlement, DISH and EchoStar agreed to pay $500 million to TiVo.
The first $300 million to be paid up front while the other $200 million to be paid in six annual payments between 2012 and 2017.
As for TiVo, they granted DISH Network a license under its Time Warp patent.
all legal arguments and settled before an actual judgement could be rendered. That is the way the legal system works in most cases.
I suspect that if you go into the case record you find that the district court judge ordered several settlement talks. With such an order the litigants are required to enter into a settlement discussion and report the outcome to the court.
This is done by courts to ensure a fair settlement and eliminates the need for the court to calculate and apply damages.
Frankly, I would challenge you to find an intellectual property suit that didn't end in a settlement.
From the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit:
This court issued its en banc decision and opinion in this case on April 20, 2011. The judgment affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for additional pro-ceedings. In part, we affirmed the district court’s exercise of its discretion to impose sanctions against the appel-lants.
The sanctions referenced by the court includes the August 2006 permanent injunction requiring EchoStar to disable their infringing DVRs and the September 2009 ruling against EchoStar Corp. for violating that permanent injunction. In this case the District Court awarded TiVo Inc. $2.25 per DVR subscriber per month for the contempt period.
On May 2, 2011, prior to this court’s issuance of the mandate, the parties informed us that they had settled the case on April 29, 2011, and asked us to dismiss the appeal. The parties did not inform us that they had settled the matter before issuance of our decision nor do they inform us that they had agreed to a disposition of the matter dependent upon our decision. It is clear that if the parties had entered into such an agreement before issu-ance of our decision, it was counsel’s duty to inform this court of the agreement. Board of License Comm’rs of Tiverton v. Pastore, 469 U.S. 238, 240 (1985); see also Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 68 n.23 (1997) (citing Pastore) (“It is the duty of counsel to bring to the federal tribunal's attention, ‘without delay,’ facts that may raise a question of mootness.”) (emphasis in original). Clearly, they did not settle before our deci-sion.
Although the parties do not ask us to vacate our decision, at this stage, days before issuance of a mandate, we determine that granting the motion to dismiss, which would result in a modification or vacatur of our en banc judgment, is neither required nor a proper use of the judicial system.
In other words... The Federal Court had made an en banc (seven judges sitting) decision and was ready to issue a mandate to honor an in place injunction forcing Echostar to stop using their DVR's, the case was to then return to the district court for additional proceedings.
TiVo and Dish / Echostar settled (read Dish begged TiVo to settle) before that mandate could be issued. The court specifically found that the settlement did not vacate the courts findings and the request to dismiss the case was not proper and denied.
Look Speed Daemon if you do not understand the legal system, maybe you should refrain from posting on forums as some type of expert.
Did the settlement include legal fees? Lets look a the evidence:
TiVo v. Echostar United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
2006 - Echostar ordered to pay $74,000,000 + a Permanent Injunction against Echostar DVR's is ordered.
2009 - Echostar found in contempt on the Permanent Injunction and ordered to pay additional $90,000,000 plus court costs
Total judgement against Echostar to date $164,000,0000 plus court costs.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2010 - 3 Judges sitting: “clear and convincing evidence" to uphold the Contempt rulling
2011 - en banc sitting: Affirmed the district court’s exercise of its discretion to impose sanctions against the appel-lants.
So Echostar settles with TiVo for $500,000,000 when the origional judgement was @ $164,000,000 plus court costs. (this represents only three years of DVR usage under the mandate order - the next number would have been at least $100,000,000 more.)
So my math tells me that - yeah, Dish/Echostar did tack on a few dollars for legal fees, now that you ask.