Phosita IP Blog


As reported by Gamezone on January 4, a new rumor has surfaced about the development of the next generation Xbox, or Xbox 720 – a clever twist on the current Xbox 360 title, due to a patent recently granted to Microsoft. 

United States Patent No. 8,083,593 was issued on December 27, 2011, and describes the implementation of a DVR system allowing for the recording of media, including television programs. The following abstract briefly describes the DVR application as implemented in the new system:

                “An integrated gaming and media experience is disclosed, including recording of content on a gaming console. A digital video recorder (DVR) application running alongside a television client component allows users to record media content on the gaming console. The DVR application also integrates itself with the console menu. Once integrated, users can record media content while playing games. Alternatively, users can record content when the gaming console is turned off. The recorded content can include television programming, gaming experience (whether local or online), music, DVDs, and so on. When in the recording state, users can also switch between various other media modes, whether gaming, television, and so on.”

Although the new Xbox 720 sounds pretty cool, this patent gives rise to yet another issue in the current controversy between Microsoft and TiVo regarding digital video recorder (DVR) technology. As you may have heard, Microsoft filed a lawsuit back in January 2011 and in subsequent motions alleged that TiVo violated seven of Microsoft’s patents concerning digital video recording.  There is currently, however, a stay on the case due to the court’s having granted TiVo’s request for reexamination of the allegedly infringing patents. See Microsoft Corp. v. Tivo Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52619 (N.D. Cal., May 6, 2011).

What really makes this interesting is that AT&T (one of Microsoft’s major customers) was sued in 2009 for infringing TiVo’s DVR patents 6,233,389, 7,493,015, and 7,529,465 which ultimately resulted in a settlement on January 3, 2012.  Forbes reports that TiVo will receive approximately $215 million from AT&T with $51 million up front and recurring quarterly payments until 2018 to cover the rest. To add to the controversy, it has been suggested that Microsoft filed its suit in January 2011 in response to TiVo’s suit against AT&T because AT&T’s technology runs Microsoft’s Mediaroom client software. Thus, it raises the question that since AT&T settled and AT&T’s technology uses Microsoft’s technology, is it still feasible that Microsoft could win its suit against TiVo and be able to defend against TiVo’s counterclaim of patent infringement? Although I have not researched in depth the patents at issue in these cases, the settlement by AT&T, if anything, might shed some light on how Microsoft’s case will unfold once reexamination is complete.
Now back to the important stuff: video games. In light of all this litigation surrounding DVR technology, it seems like the video game community might have to wait even longer than the 2013-2015 projected release date of the Xbox 720 so that Microsoft can incorporate the rumored DVR feature without the risk of impending litigation. If Microsoft ends up winning the suit against TiVo before then, however, I, for one, hope that Microsoft passes some of the winnings on to the consumer in the form of discounted prices for the new system.

 Image by Fanchile on Flickr Creative Commons- some rights reserved.



DC On Film Row

About DC on Film Row

DC on Film Row is a free event space open to everyone in our community.

We like to say that the space is a “home for creatives and innovators, home builders and the homeless, celebrators and the celebrated” so people understand that we are inclusive and want everyone from throughout our community using our space.

Our goal is to celebrate the incredible diversity of creativity, innovation, and passion within Oklahoma City and to provide a venue—free of charge—to those groups and individuals working to bind us all together and make our home a cooler and better place. No strings attached—no extensive rules to follow. We simply ask that all of our neighbors be honored and that all viewpoints be respected. Our criteria for use is simple: If the event, group, or meeting is something which strengthens our community and brings us all together, the space is available for use.

The space has hosted everything from charitable fundraisers to an underground nightclub party to celebrate Canterbury Choral Society’s 45th anniversary season. We host dinners for the OKC homeless population most Monday evenings where upwards of 250 people are served—we provide the space and soft drinks and a local church provides the food. We’ve hosted university planning retreats and monthly local rock concerts.

Every Wednesday, we open up the courtyard for lunch, invite a local food truck to set up outside our gates, and welcome our downtown neighbors into the space for a bit of socialization.

Our never-ending soda fountain seems to be the biggest hit with some of our neighbors while others spend time playing pool or simply chatting about what is happening on the weekend.

For October we turn the space into a haunted house and invite the neighborhood children to come out and trick-or-treat.

Got an idea for how to use the space? Just ask us – we’re almost certain to say yes!

Dunlap Codding Sponsors the 2015 Women in Law Conference

Dunlap Codding Sponsors the 2015 Women in Law Conference

The Oklahoma Bar Association’s Women in Law Committee held its annual Women in Law Conference on September 18, 2015, in Oklahoma City. Dunlap Codding was a proud sponsor of the event. The conference topic this year was Fearless Leadership and featured keynote speaker, Carey Lohrenz, the first female Tomcat F-14 Fighter pilot. The conference also included discussions by panels of leading female attorneys from the community, the Oklahoma Bar Association, the Oklahoma legislature, and the Oklahoma judiciary. 

Jordan Sigale Quoted in Bloomberg BNA Article re Apple v. Samsung

Bloomberg BNA reported on September 18, 2015, that “Samsung must remove or replace Apple-patented features from its smartphones and tablets, according to a Sept. 17 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Fed. Cir., 2014-1802, 9/17/15).”  The court was divided in this ruling, offering three separate opinions.  The majority, however, held that Apple had shown a connection between the patented feature and downstream sales, noting that the patent features were important to consumers.  In a concurring view, Judge Jimmie V. Reyna “said that a patentee’s reputational harm will “certainly” occur “when customers find the patentee’s innovations appearing in a competitor’s products.””

Jordan Sigale said, “The real crux of the majority’s opinion is its holding that to prove irreparable harm the patentee need not prove in a multi-featured product that the infringing feature was the sole feature driving consumer demand for the product.”

Disputes between Apple and Samsung include two cases tried in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on different sets of patents, according to Bloomberg.  “The U.S. Supreme Courot in eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange LLC, 547 U.S. 388, 78 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1577 (2006) (72 PTCJ 50, 5/19/06), chastised the appeals court for defaulting to an injunction for patent infringement, absent a “sound” reason for denying it.”   In the case at hand, “[u]nderlying the three opinions is a dispute in the Federal Circuit about injunctions generally.” 

Sigale put the differing views in perspective, as to how eBay addresses the circumstances of cases like this specifically.  “As much as the Supreme Court made clear in eBay that injunctive relief should not automatically follow every finding of patent infringement, the Federal Circuit made clear today in Apple IV that not every infringing feature in a multi-feature product should receive an automatic pass on irreparable harm either.”

Bloomberg noted that the Federal Circuit, should it decide to take the case en banc, “may have more to resolve than what to do with injunctions on multi-featured products specifically.  The court’s decision vacates the denial of a permanent injunction and remands for further proceedings.”