Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> FileWrapper
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Intellectual Property Law
: FileWrapperAnother issue headed for en banc review by the Federal Circuit: How to assess redesigned products
By McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C.
In an order Friday, the Federal Circuit granted en banc review of its second case in the past three weeks and its third over the past three months. This time it's a case involving Tivo relating to the contempt proceedings against Echostar relating to Tivo's DVR patents. After Echostar was found to infringe Tivo's patent and was permanently enjoined from infringement, it redesigned its DVR software. Tivo asked the district court to hold Echostar in contempt for violating the injunction. The district court agreed with Tivo, and the Federal Circuit affirmed.
That opinion has now been vacated, and the Federal Circuit has granted en banc review to address whether and in what circumstances a contempt proceeding is appropriate to address alleged infringement of a newly accused device. Specifically, the questions presented are:
- Following a finding of infringement by an accused device at trial, under what circumstances is it proper for a district court to determine infringement by a newly accused device through contempt proceedings rather than through new infringement proceedings? What burden of proof is required to establish that a contempt proceeding is proper?
- How does 'fair ground of doubt as to the wrongfulness of the defendant's conduct' compare with the 'more than colorable differences' or 'substantial open issues of infringement' tests in evaluating the newly accused device against the adjudged infringing device? See Cal. Artificial Stone Paving Co. v. Molitor, 113 U.S. 609, 618 (1885); KSM Fastening Sys., Inc. v. H.A. Jones Co., 776 F.2d 1522, 1532 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
- Where a contempt proceeding is proper, (1) what burden of proof is on the patentee to show that the newly accused device infringes (see KSM, 776 F.2d at 1524) and (2) what weight should be given to the infringer's efforts to design around the patent and its reasonable and good faith belief of noninfringement by the new device, for a finding of contempt?
- Is it proper for a district court to hold an enjoined party in contempt where there is a substantial question as to whether the injunction is ambiguous in scope?
Consistent with its typical practice in en banc cases, the Federal Circuit is permitting amicus briefs on these issues.
To read the full order granting en banc review in Tivo, Inc. v. Echostar Corp., click here.
To read our post regarding the original appeal, click here.
Full post as published by FileWrapper on May 17, 2010 (boomark / email).
Privacy Protection Act 42 USC 21A
Federal Newsroom Law
Federal Adoption Tax Credit
Financial Incentive for Adoptive Parents
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
TEA-21 - Plus Law 105-178
Specialty Lamp International
Recalls Counterfeit Circuit Breakers
Mr. Brown Instant Coffee
Possible Melamine Contamination Prompts Canadian Agency to Issue Warning
FDA Issues Update on Safety Review Orlistat
Orlistat FDA Issues Update on Safety Review
Aurora Loan Faces Class Action over Mortgage Review Services
Aurora Loan Faces Class Action over Mortgage Review Services
FDA Review of Prostate Cancer Treatment Prompts Warning of Risk for Diabetes
Prostate Cancer Treatment FDA Review Prompts Warning of Risk for Diabetes
Xigris
Study Prompts FDA Safety Review

En Banc Federal Circuit: Adjudged Infringers and their "New" Products
More opinions on the Lynne Stewart sentencing as Second Circuit denies en banc review
Federal Circuit Grants En Banc Review in Tafas v. Doll
En Banc Review Sought In 7th Circuit License Plate Case
Lots of interesting discussion in Second Circuit's refusal to go en banc in federal capital case









