TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Communications Corp., 446 F.Supp.2d 664 (E.D.Tex. 2006).
Judge: David Folsom
Holding: Plaintiff's Motion for Injunction GRANTED; Defendants' Motion to Stay Any Injunction Pending Appeal should be DENIED.
As noted last week, one day after denying the request for an injunction in the Paice v. Toyota case, Judge Folsom granted the request for injunction in the TiVo v. Echostar case and denied the motion to stay the injunction pending appeal. Why the difference? Judge Folsom explains in the introduction to Section IV of his opinion:
Plaintiff has demonstrated both that it continues to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction and that there is no adequate remedy at law. Defendants 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. Loss of market share in this nascent market is a key consideration in finding that Plaintiff suffers irreparable harm – Plaintiff is losing market share at a critical time in the market’s development, market share that it will not have the same opportunity to capture once the market matures.
As also noted last week, the Federal Circuit issued a temporary stay of the injunction.