TiVo 2007 Annual Report Download - page 76

Table of Contents
ongoing. Under the terms of the Company's agreement with Humax governing the distribution of certain DVRs that enable the TiVo service, the Company is
required to indemnify Humax against any claims, damages, liabilities, costs, and expenses relating to claims that the Company's technology infringes upon
intellectual property rights owned by third parties. On May 10, 2005, Humax formally notified TiVo of the claims against it in this lawsuit as required by
Humax's agreement with TiVo. On July 1, 2005, the defendants filed their answer and counterclaims. On May 10, 2006, the district court dismissed with
prejudice, EchoStar's claim of infringement against TiVo and Humax relating to patent 112 ("Method and System for Recording In-Progress Broadcast
Programs") and claims 21-30 and 32 relating to patent 186 ("Interruption Tolerant Video Program Viewing"). A claim construction hearing was held on
May 11, 2006. On July 14, 2006, the magistrate judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, issued a stay of the case pending the
USPTO completion of proceedings with respect to TiVo's request for reexamination of the 186, 685, and 804 patents. The USPTO has preliminarily rejected
each of the claims of the 186, 685, and 804 patents, but we cannot assure you that all of the patent claims ultimately will be rejected or that they will not be
amended and emerge from the USPTO reexamination proceedings. The Company intends to defend this action vigorously; however, the Company is
incurring material expenses in connection with this lawsuit and in the event there is an adverse outcome, the Company's business could be harmed. No loss is
considered probable or estimable at this time.
On January 3, 2007, Lycos, Inc. filed a complaint against the Company, Netflix, Inc., and Blockbuster, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia alleging infringement, inducement of others to infringe, and contributory infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,867,799 ("Information System
and Method for Filtering a Massive Flow of Information Entities to Meet User Information Classification Needs") and 5,983,214 ("System and Method
Employing Individual User Content-Based Data and User Collaboration Feedback Data to Evaluate the Content of an Information Entity in a Large
Information Communication Network.") On or about April 30, 2007, Lycos served the Company with the complaint. The complaint alleges that Lycos, Inc. is
the owner of these patents and has the right to sue and recover for infringement thereof. The complaint further alleges that the Company has infringed this
patent by making, using, selling, offering to sell and importing digital video recorder products that incorporate information filtering technology. The
complaint further alleges that defendants continue to willfully infringe such patents. On August 8, 2007, the court granted a motion by TiVo, Netflix, and
Blockbuster to transfer venue to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On February 28, 2008, a scheduling conference was held in
which the court set forth a procedural schedule through July 31, 2008. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter. The Company may
incur expenses in connection with this litigation that may become material in the future, and in the event there is an adverse outcome, Company's business
could be harmed. No loss is considered probable or estimable at this time.
Securities Litigation. The Company and certain of its officers and directors (TiVo defendants) were originally named as defendants in a consolidated
securities class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. This action, which is captioned Wercberger v.
TiVo et al., also names several of the underwriters involved in the Company's initial public offering (IPO) as defendants. This class action is brought on
behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's common stock from the time of the Company's IPO (October 31, 1999) through December 6, 2000.
The central allegation in this action is that the underwriters in the Company's IPO solicited and received undisclosed commissions from, and entered into
undisclosed arrangements with, certain investors who purchased the Company's stock in the IPO and the after-market, and that the TiVo defendants violated
the federal securities laws by failing to disclose in the IPO prospectus that the underwriters had engaged in these allegedly undisclosed arrangements. More
than 300 issuers have been named in similar lawsuits. In February 2003, after the issuer defendants (including the TiVo defendants) filed an omnibus motion
to dismiss, the court dismissed the Section 10(b) claim as to the Company, but denied the motion to dismiss the Section 11 claim as to the Company and
virtually all of the other issuer-defendants. On October 8, 2002, the Company's executive officers who were named as defendants in this action were
dismissed without prejudice.
On June 26, 2003, the plaintiffs in the suit announced a proposed settlement with the Company and the other issuer defendants. The proposed
settlement provided that the insurers of all settling issuers would guarantee that the plaintiffs recover $1 billion from non-settling defendants. Under the
proposed settlement, the maximum amount that could have been charged to the Company's insurance policy in the event that the plaintiffs recovered nothing
from the investment banks would have been approximately $3.9 million. On February 15, 2005, the Federal District Court preliminarily approved the
proposed settlement, and on April 24, 2006, the Federal District Court held the fairness hearing for the final approval of the settlement. On December 5, 2006,
the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit issued a decision in In re: Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation (Docket No. 05-3349-cv),
reversing the Federal District Court's finding that six focus cases involved in this litigation could be certified as class actions. Plaintiffs filed a petition for
rehearing and/or for en banc review of the Second Circuit's decision; however on April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit denied the plaintiff's petition. On June 25,
2007, the parties submitted a stipulation to
74