• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
109 results

Comcast Corporation et al v. Rovi Corporation et al

Docket 1:16-cv-03852, New York Southern District Court (May 23, 2016)
Judge J. Paul Oetken, presiding
Patent
DivisionFoley Square
FlagsSTAYED, ECF, PATENT-PILOT
Cause35:0001 Establishment of PTO
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Patent
6418556; 6725281; 7895218; 7996864; 8006263; 8046801; 8122034; 8433696; 8566871; 8578413; 8621512; 8713595; 8755666; 8768147; 9172987
64185566725281789521879968648006263804680181220348433696856687185784138621512871359587556668768147
9172987
Plaintiff Comcast Corporation
Plaintiff Comcast Cable Communications, LLC
Plaintiff Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC
...
cite Cite Docket

No. 101 OPINION AND ORDER: re: 90 MOTION for Reconsideration Notice of Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration ...

Document Comcast Corporation et al v. Rovi Corporation et al, 1:16-cv-03852, No. 101 (S.D.N.Y. May. 15, 2017)
Motion for Reconsideration
On June 1, 2016, Comcast1 filed a motion for preliminary injunction, seeking to enjoin Rovi2 from continuing to prosecute their patent infringement claims against Plaintiffs in the Eastern District of Texas and before the International Trade Commission (“ITC”).
Legal Standard “A motion for reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources.” Indergit v. Rite Aid Corp., 52 F. Supp.
“To prevail, the movant must demonstrate either (i) an intervening change in controlling law; (ii) the availability of new evidence; or (iii) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Id. (quoting Jacob v. Duane Reade, Inc., 293 F.R.D.
Comcast argues that these statements demonstrate that, despite Rovi’s prior assurances to this Court, Rovi is indeed seeking relief as to alleged unfair acts that occurred before the expiration of the Patent Agreement.
Comcast has not shown that Rovi is seeking relief in the ITC for any unfair act consisting of pre-expiration activity, including any stockpiling or testing of the allegedly infringing products.
cite Cite Document

No. 84 OPINION AND ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, Comcast's motion to enjoin Rovi from prosecuting ...

Document Comcast Corporation et al v. Rovi Corporation et al, 1:16-cv-03852, No. 84 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2016)
On June 10, 2016, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, or alternatively, to stay or transfer the present action, as the Eastern District of Texas was the first-filed forum.
(Id.) On October 25, 2016, the Eastern District of Texas granted Plaintiffs’ motions to change venue to this Court pursuant to a forum-selection clause in a contract between Comcast and Rovi.
The parties now agree that Plaintiff’s preliminary injunction motion is ripe for resolution by this Court to the extent it seeks to enjoin Rovi’s prosecution of its action in the ITC.
And while the Second Circuit’s case law requires that a party assert “rights or duties under the contract” in order for a dispute to arise under that contract, see Phillips v. Audio Active Ltd., 494 F.3d 378, Comcast argues that “[b]ecause this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over patent infringement cases and can hear the infringement claims Rovi asserts in the ITC, Rovi breached the Software Agreement by suing in the ITC.” (Dkt. No. 64 at 6; see also Dkt. No. 62 at 13-14.)
2d 708, 716 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), aff’d, 499 F. App’x 974 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (denying a preliminary injunction under Federal Circuit law where the movant “has failed to demonstrate that it is likely to prevail on the merits on appeal” and declining to “address the remaining factors”).
cite Cite Document

No. 75 OPINION AND ORDER re: 57 LETTER MOTION to Stay addressed to Judge J. Paul Oetken from Dana ...

Document Comcast Corporation et al v. Rovi Corporation et al, 1:16-cv-03852, No. 75 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 16, 2016)
Motion to Stay
For its part, Rovi seeks to dismiss, or alternatively, to stay or transfer this action to the EDTX based on its view that the law directs that this Court defer resolution of substantially similar matters to the first-filed forum.
Premature resolution of the application of the forum selection clauses to the ITC action would thwart the principles of comity and efficiency underlying the first-to-file rule.
In the interests of comity among the federal courts, and to avoid conflicting decisions and promote judicial efficiency, this determination should be made by the first-filed forum, the EDTX, by way of the currently pending motions to transfer.
Comcast argues that being “deprived of its bargained-for forum” is alone sufficient to demonstrate irreparable harm, and that in the absence of an injunction “Comcast will be forced to engage in burdensome, duplicative, and fast- paced litigation on multiple fronts.” (Dkt. No. 27, at 21.)
The Court finds that Comcast’s contentions concerning irreparable harm carry little weight in the face of the ability of the EDTX to first evaluate the merits of its claim and, if appropriate, transfer the case to the allegedly bargained-for forum.
cite Cite Document

No. 54 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 53 Letter, filed by Comcast STB Software I, LLC, Comcast Corporation, ...

Document Comcast Corporation et al v. Rovi Corporation et al, 1:16-cv-03852, No. 54 (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 14, 2016)
First, Defendants misstate the holding , and relevance to this case , of the Supreme Court's decision in Atlantic Marine Construction Company, Inc. v. United States District Court for the Western District of Texas , 134 S. Ct. 568 (2013) .
It did not hold , as Defendants represent, that a motion to transfer is the only proper way to enforce a forum selection clause.
To the contrary , neither Atlantic Marine nor the first-filed rule renders improper Plaintiffs' efforts to enforce their contractual rights in the parties' agreed upon (and jurisdictionally proper) forum Second , Plaintiffs respectfully submit that Defendants' motion to dismiss should be heard on July 12, 2016 or later.
Contrary to Defendants' assertion , their motion is not "procedurally dispositive" and does not raise any threshold issue that would obviate the need to hear Plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motion , including because the first-filed rule does not apply where , as here.
Counsel for the parties should be prepared to address the motion to dismiss at the hearing on July 12, 2016.
cite Cite Document

No. 19 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 17 Letter, filed by Comcast STB Software I, LLC, Comcast Corporation, ...

Document Comcast Corporation et al v. Rovi Corporation et al, 1:16-cv-03852, No. 19 (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 1, 2016)
No. 1: 16-cv-03852-AT May 27, 2016 The Honorable Analisa Torres United States District Court Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York , New York 10007-1312 Dear Judge Torres We represent Plaintiffs ("Comcast") in the above-referenced matter, in which Comcast seeks, among other relief, declaratory and injunctive relief concerning the breach by Defendants ("Ravi") of two different contracts between the parties.
In particular, Comcast and Ravi are parties to software and patent licensing agreements that require disputes between them to be litigated exclusively in New York .
Notwithstanding these clear forum selection clauses, Ravi has sued Comcast for patent infringement in two separate cases in the U S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and in a third action before the U.S. International Trade Commission (together, the "Ravi Actions"), thereby breaching the parties' agreements.
2 By letter emailed separately to Chambers in accordance with this Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, Comcast is seeking permission from the Court to electronically file its The Honorable Analisa Torres May 27, 2016 • Comcast's reply in further support of its preliminary injunction motion shall be filed 7 days from the date Defendants' opposition is electronically filed .
motion for a preliminary injunction and supporting papers in redacted form and certain of its exhibits under seal.
cite Cite Document

No. 18 AMENDED STANDING ORDER IN RE IMPLEMENTATION OF PATENT PILOT PROGRAM IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT ...

Document Comcast Corporation et al v. Rovi Corporation et al, 1:16-cv-03852, No. 18 (S.D.N.Y. May. 27, 2016)
-----------------------------------------------------)( It appearing that the Court has elected to participate in the Pilot Project for Patent Cases established pursuant to Pub L. No. 111-349, 124 Stat. 3674.
Effective November 21, 2011, the Court's participation in the Patent Pilot Project will commence and shall include pro se cases.
(3) When a non-designated judge informs the Assignment Committee and the Case Assignment Unit that he or she wishes to offer the case to a Pilot judge, the case shall be wheeled out to a Pilot judge in the ordinary manner from the deck referred to below.
That judge will have five business days in which to determine whether he or she will accept the case.
Equalization credit in the assignment category in which the patent case was initially assigned shall be provided to both the Pilot judge and the district judge from whom a case is reassigned.
cite Cite Document

No. 57 LETTER MOTION to Stay addressed to Judge J. Paul Oetken from Dana M. Seshens dated 6/22/2016

Document Comcast Corporation et al v. Rovi Corporation et al, 1:16-cv-03852, No. 57 (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 22, 2016)
Motion to Stay
Case l:l6—cv—O3852—JPO Document 57 Filed 06/22/16 Page 1 of 2 New York Paris Menlo Park Madrid Washington DC Tokyo Séo Paulo Beijing London Hong Kong Davis Polk Dana M. Seshens Davis Polk & Wardwell Lt P 450 Lexington Avenue New York NY 10017 212 450 4855 tel 212 701 5855 fax dana seshens@davispolk com Re.
As explained in Comcasts pending motion for a preliminary injunction, Rovi’s assertion of patent infringement claims in the ITC and in two cases in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas violated forum selection provisions of two separate agreements that require those claims be litigated in this Court.
Accordingly, Comcast brought this action for, among other things, breach of contract and declaratory judgment of noninfringement of the patents Rovi improperly asserts in the ITC and in Texas?
should the Court grant Comcast’s motion for a preliminary injunction and enjoin Rovi from prosecuting its patent infringement claims before the ITC, then Comcast’s requested stay will become unnecessary However.
the July 12, 2016 hearing on Comcast’s motion will take place after the deadline for Comcast to seek the statutory stay to which it is entitled if Rovis ITC action were to proceed.
cite Cite Document
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >>