Advanced Television

TiVo hits Comcast in another patent battle

January 15, 2019

By Chris Forrester

TiVo has opened another round of patent claims against Comcast over its set-top IP.

The lawsuit has been filed in a California court under TiVo’s owners, Rovi Corp, and the new complaint relate to advanced DVR functionalities, such as cloud or network recording and whole-home or multi-room DVR arrangements.

“Litigation is always a last resort, but Rovi is committed to taking the necessary actions to ensure Comcast renews its long-standing license for the use of our intellectual property,” said Raghu Rau, CEO. “The patents involved in the new complaint represent a very small component of Rovi’s worldwide patent portfolio. Regardless of size, we have a commitment to our stakeholders, licensees and customers to take all necessary action to protect this portion of our patent portfolio.”

The company added: “Over the past quarter century, Rovi has invested over a billion dollars in the research and development of our products and portfolio.  Hundreds of media and entertainment leaders around the world value Rovi’s innovations and recognize them by selecting our products and services and licensing our intellectual property.  Until 2016, Comcast was one of those companies, enhancing their customers’ entertainment experience with TiVo technology.  After numerous attempts at negotiations, Rovi had no choice but to defend its intellectual property from unlicensed use in court.”

Comcast responded by saying: “Rovi has in recent years deployed its increasingly obsolete patent portfolio in an unsuccessful litigation campaign seeking to charge Comcast and our customers for technology that Rovi did not invent. Rovi launched this campaign in April 2016 by asserting infringement of 15 patents – 14 of which have been held to be invalid and/or not infringed by Comcast, or have been withdrawn by Rovi. While we haven’t had an opportunity to review Rovi’s latest complaint, we will continue to defend ourselves against allegations we determine to be meritless.”

Categories: Articles, Policy, PVR, Regulation