Hulu takes on TiVo over patents
Subscription video service Hulu has taken on television set-top box maker TiVo in a lawsuit brought in California.
Filed at the US District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, on Tuesday, May 23, the suit sought declaratory judgment of patent non-infringement.
It is also seeking a finding of breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Hulu has asked the court to find that it isn’t required to renew an expired licensing deal with TiVo, arguing that the patents involved are expired, are no longer of value, or are linked to a service Hulu no longer offers.
According to the claim, after “years of negotiations” during which Hulu consistently denied infringing any patents belonging to Rovi, TiVo’s predecessor, Rovi sued Hulu alleging infringement of three patents in July 2011.
“Hulu was never found liable for any infringement, but to avoid spending time and resources in an expensive litigation, Hulu entered into a settlement and licence agreement with Rovi (now rebranded as TiVo),” it said.
Now, the subscription video service has argued that of the three patents asserted against it, one of the patents has expired, another was held invalid as unpatentable, and the final patent was alleged by Rovi to be infringed by a service that Hulu no longer offers.
The final patent, US number 7,769,775, which is called “Search engine for video and graphics with access authorisation”, is one for which Hulu is seeking a declaratory finding of non-infringement.
“The ‘775 patent purported to solve problems related to searching across websites on the internet for graphic and video content in the late 1990s,” said the claim.
Hulu said its current system is completely different from the system and method claimed in the patent.
It said: “Hulu does not need to search the internet for videos, and then automatically crawl the internet to search for information about the videos Hulu provides, because Hulu’s system does not search the internet for its video content, and Hulu’s system only works by obtaining input from content providers.”
Hulu is seeking a judgment that it hasn’t infringed, a judgment that TiVo is in breach of the licence agreement, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories like this sent straight to your inbox.
Today’s top stories:
Nearly half of brand owners unsure about TM strategy post-Brexit: Hogan Lovells
Nestlé Purina sued over bacon trademark
Bayern midfielder Arturo Vidal wins TM dispute over energy drink
O’Melveny appoints IP counsellor
