Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Ncube Corporation v. Seachange International Inc.

Ncube Corporation v. Seachange International Inc.

Ratings: (0)|Views: 131|Likes:
Published by Ilya
.
.

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Ilya on Oct 19, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/25/2013

pdf

text

original

 
United States Court of Appealsfor the Federal Circuit
 ______________________ NCUBE CORPORATION (now known as ARRISGroup, Inc.),
 
 Plaintiff-Appellant,
 
v.
 
SEACHANGE INTERNATIONAL INC.,
 
 Defendant-Appellee.
 
 ______________________ 
2013-1066
 ______________________ 
 Appeal from the United States District Court for theDistrict of Delaware in No. 01-CV-0011, Judge Leonard P.Stark.
 ______________________ 
Decided: October 10, 2013
 ______________________ 
G
REGORY 
 A.
 
C
 ASTANIAS
, Jones Day, of Washington,DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief were R
 YAN
D.
 
N
EWMAN
; and K 
RISTA 
S.
 
S
CHWARTZ
andI
SRAEL
S
 ASHA 
M
 AYERGOYZ
, of Chicago, Illinois. Of counselwas M
 ARY 
B.
 
G
RAHAM
, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell,LLP, of Wilmington, Delaware.S
TEVEN
M.
 
B
 AUER
, Proskauer Rose, LLP, of Boston,Massachusetts, argued for defendant-appellee. With himon the brief were K 
IMBERLY 
 A.
 
M
OTTLEY 
,
 
J
USTIN
J.
 
D
 ANIELS
and T
HOMAS
H
OEHNER
. Of counsel was M
ELANIE
 
 
NCUBE CORPORATION
v.
SEACHANGE INTERNATIONAL INC
.2
K.
 
S
HARP
, of Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, of Wilmington, Delaware.
 ______________________ 
Before R
 ADER
,
 
Chief Judge,
P
ROST
and T
 ARANTO
,
 
Circuit Judges.
P
ROST
,
Circuit Judge
.On July 31, 2009, ARRIS Group, Inc. (“ARRIS”)
1
fileda motion to hold SeaChange International Inc.(“SeaChange”) in contempt of a permanent injunctionorder. The United States District Court for the District of Delaware found that ARRIS failed to meet its burden of showing contempt by clear and convincing evidence anddeclined to hold SeaChange in contempt. ARRIS appeals.Because the district court did not abuse its discretion indenying the contempt motion, we affirm.I ARRIS and SeaChange are providers of video-on-demand products and services. ARRIS owns U.S. PatentNo. 5,805,804 (“’804 patent”), which discloses and claims amedia server capable of transmitting multimedia infor-mation over any network configuration in real time to aclient that has requested the information. The patentedtechnology allows a user to purchase videos that are thenstreamed to a device such as a television. ARRIS commenced the present litigation on January8, 2001, alleging the infringement of certain claims of the
1
When the underlying litigation in this case began, ARRIS was known as nCUBE Corporation. Eventually,nCUBE Corporation was acquired by C–COR Corpora-tion. Subsequently, ARRIS purchased C–COR. Forclarity’s sake, we refer to nCUBE, C–COR, and ARRIScollectively as ARRIS.
 
NCUBE CORPORATION
v.
SEACHANGE INTERNATIONAL INC
. 3
’804 patent by SeaChange’s Interactive Television (“ITV”).On May 28, 2002, the jury returned a verdict in ARRIS’sfavor, finding that SeaChange willfully infringed theasserted claims in the ’804 patent. We later affirmed the jury verdict and the district court’s subsequent decision toenhance the damages award.
See
 
nCube Corp. v.SeaChange Int’l, Inc.
, 436 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2006).Following our affirmance, on April 6, 2006, the dis-trict court entered a permanent injunction enjoiningSeaChange from selling products that infringe the ’804patent. Specifically, SeaChange was enjoined from “mak-ing, using, selling, or offering to sell . . . the SeaChangeInteractive Television System . . . as well as any devicesnot more than colorably different therefrom that clearlyinfringe the Adjudicated Claims of the ’804 patent.”
nCube Corp. v. SeaChange Int’l, Inc.
, 809 F. Supp. 2d 337,341-42 (D. Del. 2011).Seven days after the 2002 jury verdict, and approxi-mately four years before the entry of the permanentinjunction, SeaChange began to modify its ITV system.Soon after, SeaChange released a system that it views asoutside the scope of the ’804 patent. Naturally, ARRISdisagrees. The parties attempted to resolve their differ-ences without litigation, but failed. On July 31, 2009, ARRIS filed a motion in the United States District Courtfor the District of Delaware seeking to hold SeaChange incontempt of the permanent injunction alleging thatSeaChange’s modifications were minor changes that didnot remove any key components or the relevant function-ality that formed the basis for the jury’s infringementverdict. The district court found that ARRIS failed toprove contempt by clear and convincing evidence and,therefore, declined to hold SeaChange in contempt. ARRIS appeals.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->