Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
CommunitySub-MenuPublishersChannelsProductsSub-MenuBlog ProBlog PlusBlog PremierMicrositeSyndication PortalsAboutContactResourcesSubscribeSupport
Join
Search
Close

Dish Network Hit with $469 Million Verdict in Patent Lawsuit Surrounding “AutoHop” Feature

By Patrick Muffo on March 15, 2023
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
glenn-carstens-peters-EOQhsfFBhRk-unsplash

The best inventions cure a historical illness. Ibuprofen for headaches, caffeine for fatigue, and of course—DISH Network’s “AutoHop” feature for skipping commercials. DISH introduced this new feature with great fanfare, including a kangaroo mascot and—ironically—several commercials of its own. But a jury in Utah found last week that Dish infringed the claims of two patents owned by ClearPlay and found damages in the amount of $469 million. A portion of the jury verdict form is below:

ClearPlay relied on a “reasonable royalty” damages theory in reaching this gargantuan number. That theory is ubiquitous in patent damages jurisprudence and looks to fifteen separate factors, none of them dispositive. In sum, however, it tries to determine what the parties would have agreed was a “reasonable royalty” had they hypothetically negotiated a licensing agreement at the moment of first infringement.

DISH launched AutoHop in 2012, meaning the damages period continued from 2012 until present day. The large damages award can then be explained by a daunting eleven years of infringement to account for. That comes out to more than $42.6 million per year.

To me this seems a bit steep and not reflective of the hypothetical negotiation analysis. DISH did not acquire any technology from ClearPlay—it built the AutoHop feature itself or through collaboration with another developer. The hypothetical negotiation only provided DISH with a license to use the technology and not the technology itself. So the question becomes—would DISH really have paid $42.6 million per year for the right to create its own commercial-skipping technology? Could it not have achieved the same goal of skipping commercials with a different function that avoided ClearPlay’s patent?

DISH will naturally ask these questions on appeal to the Federal Circuit, which has increasingly affirmed more district court cases in recent years. But the lengthy damages period will no doubt be a thorn in DISH’s side as it tries to negotiate a settlement during the appellate process.

Photo of Patrick Muffo Patrick Muffo
Read more about Patrick MuffoEmail
  • Posted in:
    Featured Posts, Intellectual Property, Technology, Trademark
  • Blog:
    Gadgets, Gigabytes & Goodwill Blog
  • Organization:
    Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

LexBlog, Inc. logo
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
Real Lawyers
99 Park Row
  • About LexBlog
  • Careers
  • Press
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Privacy Policy
  • Editorial Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Service
  • RSS Terms of Service
  • Products
  • Blog Pro
  • Blog Plus
  • Blog Premier
  • Microsite
  • Syndication Portals
  • LexBlog Community
  • 1-800-913-0988
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
  • Resource Center

New to the Network

  • The Benefit of Benefits
  • Employment Class Actions: A General Counsel Briefing
  • U.S. Legal Insights for Korean Businesses
  • Latin American Blog
  • Intellectual Property Law Blog
Copyright © 2023, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo