Claims construction is irrelevant to the four factor test. The four factor test is only based on a likelihood of success and does not rely upon claim construction that has been determined by Folsom's court and reviewed by the CAFC... and don't forget upheld by the patent re-exam. Of course...

I find it interesting that you argue something alternate to the point that doesn't matter to the discussion. You were clearly proven wrong. The injunction was shot down, yes, but the point is that the courts still applied the four factor test for injunctions. There are literally thousands of...

Be careful with the personal attacks and focus more on researching your false asssertions. I will stick to proving you wrong. The four-factor test is regarding injunctive relief. It should be obvious that preliminary or permanent doesn't matter because at either point it is still an injunction...

Of course, and that right is not waived. But a PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION is determine preliminarily before any jury determines any decision. It is done by the judge based on the four-factor test that you should be aware of... all TiVo needs is a likelihood of success and I would argue that if the...

Regarding lines of code, that is indeed irrelevant and as anyone knows trivial code changes such as indirect parsing in the header versus direct parsing are not patentable based on the doctrine of equivalents in patent law. In terms of lines of code, I have programming experience and there are...

We are talking about a preliminary injunction. Not a permanent injunction. All that must be shown is likelihood of success on the merits. If, say Time Warner DVR's infringe on the same claims that the jury, Folsom, the CAFC and patent re-exam all upheld, TiVo can use that to demonstrate the...

Yes. It can. :-) Folsom's rulings and subsequent appeals can be used to strengthen TiVo's position in the four-factor test for granting a preliminary injunction. If it is shown that the technology of other DVR's are likely not to be colorably different than those ruled upon in the E* case, it...

Your arrogance is completely unfounded. Stop embarassing yourself and drop the conspiracy theory BS. It is cluttering this thread and it is nonsense.

Completely wrong so I must correct you. If TiVo can establish that the same technology exists in competitor DVR's, they can receive an injunction against them based on the Doctrine of Equivalents. Simple as that.

This is just a quote from the filing the other day by Echostar telling Folsom exactly that. It is only to comply with Folsom's modified injunction and I don't believe it means conclusively that Echostar believes that it can't workaround the injunction.