# Appeals Court Overturns $78.9 Million Patent Verdict Against DirecTV



## Draconis (Mar 16, 2007)

Interesting.



> Appeals Court Overturns $78.9 Million Patent Verdict Against DirecTV
> http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200804181205DOWJONESDJONLINE000828_FORTUNE5.htm
> 
> April 18, 2008: 12:05 PM EST
> ...


----------



## beavis (Jun 9, 2005)

"DirecTV is a digital television company."

Wayta use up white space. :grin:


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

> Finisar Corp., Sunnyvale, Calif., is a fiber-optics and high-speed data network company. It sued DirecTV over a patent it holds for a feature that automatically anticipates popular programming and then broadcasts it on some satellite or cable channels.


OK, I'm drawing a blank. Has DirecTV ever done this? If so, what was it that they were doing? I've never heard of this before. Of course, if there was an injunction before they were actually doing it, that would explain that. In reality, it could just be my memory (or lack thereof! ) that is keeping me from making a connection as to what they're talking about.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Does this maybe have something to do with the active channel or the interactive mix channels?


----------



## AlbertZeroK (Jan 28, 2006)

Maybe this the TIVO stuff where one of the premium channels was automatically downloading movies for you?


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

I'm thinking this has a lot to do with DoD.

Some magic computer figures that movie/tv episode XYZ is going to be hot on Friday night so, it selects it and beams it down (or makes it available) from one of the sats at crazy high download speeds. Or it automatically sends it down to your DVR in the early morning hours of Thur/Fri.


----------



## JFHughes08088 (Mar 24, 2007)

Can someone pipe in here who knows what this is about?


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

AlbertZeroK said:


> Maybe this the TIVO stuff where one of the premium channels was automatically downloading movies for you?


Oh, I almost forgot... Or on the Directv plus DVR's... Maybe it has to do with the showcases it automatically sends us....


----------



## davemayo (Nov 17, 2005)

Here's the CAFC opinion. You can read it and figure out for yourself what the patents cover.


----------



## cweave02 (Oct 12, 2007)

davemayo said:


> Here's the CAFC opinion. You can read it and figure out for yourself what the patents cover.


Basically, ythe case was thrown out because the Judge did not know what thay were talking about, and in an effort to 'dumb down' the technical jargon for him, the y played fast and loose with some of the terms.

This is the article explaining the case:

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1208515563346

Synopsis:

"the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit threw out the verdict because terms used to describe the patent at issue were interpreted too broadly by the district court. The case is now headed back to Texas for another go-around. 
. . . 
The company makes high-speed data transmission equipment and claimed that satellite provider DirecTV infringed on its patents with its direct broadcast satellite system. "

Apparently this is a common problem.

"While the ruling has a big impact on Finisar and DirecTV, observers were not surprised by the outcome because the appeals court frequently vacates verdicts based on disagreements with the trial court's claims construction -- the portion of a patent trial where the terms of the patents in question are defined.

A recent study by David Schwartz, an assistant professor at The John Marshall Law School, found that over the last decade, 38 percent of the cases had at least one term found on appeal to have been wrongly construed. He also found that 30 percent of the cases had to be reversed or vacated because of an erroneous claim construction, according to the results of the study reported on the Patently-O blog. "

So . . . why not get judges who understand patents to serve on the Federal Circuit? Maybe because the political appointees have money but not sense???


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

From what I'm seeing, the original post in this thread quotes an article, not a press release, and has been redacted.


----------



## 66stang351 (Aug 10, 2006)

Wow, they are talking about guide data. They are suing because of the system DIRECTV uses to transmit the guide data. Basically they send the next three hours often. Then each later section is sent less often...the further out the less often it is sent. Therefore the most "popular" data...the immediate future... is sent more often and less "popular" data...guide data for tomorrow, next week, etc...is sent less times. They split it up into tiers of "popularity" by 3 hour increments and send each tier less frequently. Say the first 3 hours gets sent every 5 minutes, then the next 3 hours gets sent every 10 minutes, next 3 hours every 15 minutes, etc.


----------



## 66stang351 (Aug 10, 2006)

Sorry for the double post, but I wanted to get off of 666.....


----------



## dodge boy (Mar 31, 2006)

66stang351 said:


> Sorry for the double post, but I wanted to get off of 666.....


My lucky number.....


----------



## ClevelandRob (Jun 22, 2006)

dodge boy said:


> My lucky number.....


Of course it is. You are from Ohio and a U of M fan.... :nono2:


----------



## JFHughes08088 (Mar 24, 2007)

The issue is with the way D* transmits data, not a specific function.


----------



## davidrumm (Dec 2, 2005)

Here is the US Court of appeals site with the Opinion and Order. http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/dailylog.html


----------



## gully_foyle (Jan 18, 2007)

66stang351 said:


> Wow, they are talking about guide data. They are suing because of the system DIRECTV uses to transmit the guide data. Basically they send the next three hours often. Then each later section is sent less often...the further out the less often it is sent. Therefore the most "popular" data...the immediate future... is sent more often and less "popular" data...guide data for tomorrow, next week, etc...is sent less times. They split it up into tiers of "popularity" by 3 hour increments and send each tier less frequently. Say the first 3 hours gets sent every 5 minutes, then the next 3 hours gets sent every 10 minutes, next 3 hours every 15 minutes, etc.


Seems like a bit of a stretch as to the use of "popular." As in "most current" = "most popular." I'm pretty sure the patent examiner had no inkling they'd try to interpret it that way.


----------



## 66stang351 (Aug 10, 2006)

kcmurphy88 said:


> Seems like a bit of a stretch as to the use of "popular." As in "most current" = "most popular." I'm pretty sure the patent examiner had no inkling they'd try to interpret it that way.


It is also a stretch to call Guide Data "Programing", but I am sure that this is what they are referring to. I read through quite a bit of the PDF attached and they never came right out and said what the original violation was. The only thing referenced that meets the conditions of the patent is the way they transmit guide data though.


----------



## highheater (Aug 30, 2006)

cweave02 said:


> So . . . why not get judges who understand patents to serve on the Federal Circuit? Maybe because the political appointees have money but not sense???


Heck most CEOs of technology companies don't even understand their own technology and you want a judge to?


----------



## jrinck (Apr 3, 2008)

This had to do with when they had Tanya Memme as the channel 201 babe. On Thursday mornings at 2:30AM, she would carefully disrobe during the telecast. This was a separate broadcast on a random channel in the 1000s range.

Once Tanya left, this whole patent became completely irrelevant.


----------



## davemayo (Nov 17, 2005)

highheater said:


> Heck most CEOs of technology companies don't even understand their own technology and you want a judge to?


The judges on the Federal Circuit do understand patent law. But that is an appeals court, not a trial court. The trial court judges are the same judges that hear all kinds of cases, including criminal cases. The Federal Circuit hears all appeals of patent cases, so they have developed an expertise in patent law since 1982 when the court was established by Congress. Some companies have been pushing for an all-patent trial court that would only hear patent cases, with no success thus far.


----------

