Opinion ID: 765
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: In all the claims.

Text: Tivo simply provided no evidence for a reasonable jury to make any infringement finding limited to either the hardware or software claims. Nor were Echostar’s statements about the PID filter limited to either software or hardware claims. Both types of claims stood and fell together. At trial, the jury returned a verdict of infringement based on the record. That record is entirely different from the theories, evidence, and positions in the contempt proceeding. Tivo should not be able to bootstrap its new, previously abandoned infringement theory to that verdict. If Tivo believes that Echostar’s new design still infringes its patent, it should file a new infringement suit, not attempt to short circuit a full proceeding. In its current form, this decision discourages good faith efforts to design around an infringement verdict. 2009-1374 9