Sat, Sep 20, 2014, 2:41 PM EDT - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

TiVo Inc. (TIVO) Message Board

  • init_2_winitall init_2_winitall Oct 13, 2011 8:56 PM Flag

    TiVO v ATT Claim Construction Order is out - a complete WIN for TiVo

    Posted on PACER tonight, this is a big win

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • This has got to force a short squeeze.

      fast_eddie

    • Read most of the document. Court ruled for Tivo on almost every claim/construction. The discussion sections were illuminating, showing ATT grasping for straws in some places. Wow.

    • If anyone wants the full text, I put it up on Scribd at http://www.scribd.com/doc/68754738/TiVo-v-ATT-Claims-Construction

      I couldn't figure out how to post it on Yahoo since it complained about too many characters.

    • This is, obviously, a huge win for Tivo. I see a big pop on this news, maybe a short squeeze, and then a buyout.

      Near term target is $13, buyout price is $25.

      Only question is when.

      fast_eddie

    • 5. The Court previously considered “buffer,” “obtains a buffer,” and “obtains data stream buffers” during the Echostar litigation and construed “buffer” to mean “memory where data can be temporarily stored for transfer.” Echostar CC Order at 22-24. This Court applied this construction to “obtains a buffer” and “obtains data stream buffers.” The Court is not persuaded that its previous construction should be changed. The Court therefore adopts its prior construction of “buffer” to mean “memory where data can be temporarily stored for transfer.” Because of the Court’s prior construction of “source object” and “buffer,” the Court finds that the phrase “said source object is automatically flow controlled by said transform object” needs no further construction.
      6. The Court previously considered “automatically flow controlled” during the Echostar litigation and construed “automatically flow controlled” to mean “self-regulated.” Echostar CC Order at 24. The Court does not find that Plaintiff redefined “transform object” and “automatic flow control” during reexamination and is not persuaded that its previous construction should be changed. The Court therefore adopts its prior construction of “buffer” to mean “memory where data can be temporarily stored for transfer.”
      7. In light of the Court’s prior construction of the terms “sink object,” “buffers,” and “transform object,” no further construction is required for “wherein said sink object obtains data stream buffers from said transform object and outputs said streams to a video and audio decoder.”
      8. In light of the Court’s prior construction of the terms “control object,” “source object, “transform object,” and “sink object,” no further construction is required for wherein said control object sends flow command events to said source, transform, and sink objects.”

    • 1. With respect to the term “accepts broadcast data,” Defendants’ proposed construction improperly adds limitations that are not contemplated by the specification or claims. There is no disclosure that the patentee intended to limit “broadcast data” only to data that is transmitted to all users. The Court therefore construes “accepts broadcast data” to mean “accepts data that was transmitted.”
      2. Accordingly, the Court is not persuaded that its previous construction should be changed. The Court therefore adopts its prior construction of “parse” to mean “analyze.” Similarly, the Court adopts its prior construction and construes “parses video and audio data from said broadcast data” to mean “analyzes video and audio data from the broadcast data.” Finally, the Court finds that “physical data source . . . parses video and audio data from said broadcast data, and temporarily stores said video and audio data” does not need further construction in light of the Court’s construction of the terms “parse” and “parses video and audio data from said broadcast data.”
      3. The Court does not find that Plaintiff narrowed the scope of the term “object” during reexamination and is not persuaded that its previous construction should be changed. The Court therefore adopts its prior construction of “object” to mean “a collection of data and operations.”
      The Court further construes “source object” to mean “ a collection of data and operations that (1) extracts video and audio data from a physical data source, (2) obtains a buffer from a transform object, (3) converts video data into data streams, and (4) fills the buffer with the streams.”
      Finally, in light of the Court’s prior construction of the terms “source object” and “physical data source,” no further construction is required for “wherein said source object extracts video and audio data from said physical data source.”
      4. The Court, however, agrees with Defendants that “stores and retrieves data streams onto a storage device” may be confusing. The Court thus will construe “wherein said transform object stores and retrieves data streams onto a storage device” to mean “wherein said transform object stores data streams onto a storage device and retrieves data streams from the storage device.”

      • 1 Reply to init_2_winitall
      • I think point (2) is big news. I'm surprised "parse" didn't get reconstructed to include breaking something up into component parts. Redefinition like that would have been a rather large negative to TiVo, so this is really a big win compared to what I expected.

        You probably have to be a geek about legal stuff to understand why the definition of "parse" matters, or even care anyways, but I definitely expected the new suits to be harder than Dish as a result of a more specific "parse" definition. I like the odds a lot better now that the case is just rehashing the same thing argued in Dish.

 
TIVO
13.37-0.03(-0.22%)Sep 19 4:15 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.