Responding to allegations that digital video recorders (DVRs) marketed by DISH Network continue to infringe upon patents held by TiVO, a Texas federal judge declined to hold DISH Network immediately in contempt of an injunction that bars the incorporation of infringing software in DISH DVR products. U.S. District Court Judge David Folsom, however, scheduled a bench trial on February 17-18, 2009 to determine if DVR technology workarounds developed by DISH in response to the injunction continue to violate patents held by TiVO. The court’s action late last week opens a new battle front in the long-running legal war between TiVO—the pioneer of “time warp” technologies that enable DVR users to pause live television broadcasts and to watch one program while recording another—and direct broadcast satellite service provider DISH Network, which was accused in 2004 of developing DVR products that infringe upon patents held by TiVO. After ruling in TiVO’s favor in 2005, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued an injunction that prohibited DISH from incorporating patented TiVO technologies into its DVR products. Efforts by DISH to turn back the injunction failed in January as a three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit Appeals Court upheld the lower court ruling. Last month, the Supreme Court denied DISH’s appeal, thus guaranteeing enforcement of the injunction and the imposition of nearly $105 million in damages. DISH Network, which has already paid the damage award, has since developed technology workarounds for its current DVR products that, according to the company, comply with the terms of the lower court injunction. Maintaining, however, that the DISH workarounds continue to infringe TiVO patents, TiVO praised the decision of the court to schedule a trial, adding through a spokesman that said: “we remain confident . . . we will prevail.” DISH, which is also seeking a judgment from a Delaware federal court on the validity of its DVR software workarounds, also said it looked forward to the trial, adding: “we are pleased that the district court did not find us in contempt on the face of the injunction.”