Echostar Satellite, et al v. NDS Group PLC, et al
Filing
1324
AMENDED FINAL JUDGMENT by Judge David O. Carter, Related to: Judgment 1203 : Therefore, pursuant to the Ninth Circuit's order, the Court VACATES the Final Judgment entered on February 13, 2009 and ENTERS Amended Final Judgment as follows: 1. Plaintiffs EchoStar and NagraStar recover the sum of $1,500.00 in statutory damages from Defendants NDS. 11. The Court denies all relief not granted in this judgment. 12. This is a FINAL JUDGMENT (rla)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
SOUTHERN DIVISION
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
ECHOSTAR SATELLITE CORP.,
et al.,
Case No. SA CV 03-950 DOC (JTLx)
AMENDED FINAL JUDGMENT
Plaintiffs and Counterclaim
Defendants,
v.
NDS GROUP PLC, et al.,
Defendants and Counterclaim
Plaintiffs.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
AMENDED FINAL JUDGMENT
CASE NO. SA CV 03-950 DOC (JTLX)
N
1
AMENDED FINAL JUDGMENT
2
On April 9, 2008 a jury trial in this matter commenced and was concluded on May
3
7, 2008. The jury reached a verdict in this case on May 13, 2008, which was accepted by
4
the Court on May 15, 2008, finding in favor of Plaintiffs EchoStar Satellite L.L.C. (n/k/a
5
DISH Network, L.L.C.), EchoStar Communications Corporation (n/k/a Dish Network
6
Corporation), EchoStar Technologies Corporation (n/k/a EchoStar Technologies, L.L.C.)
7
(collectively “EchoStar”), and Plaintiff NagraStar L.L.C. (“NagraStar”, collectively with
8
EchoStar, “Plaintiffs”) and against Defendants NDS Group PLC and NDS Americas, Inc.
9
(collectively “NDS”) on Plaintiffs’ claims under the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. §
10
605(a), and the California Penal Code §§ 593d(a) and 593e(b), and on Defendants NDS’s
11
counterclaim against Plaintiffs under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act, California
12
Civil Code § 3426. The jury found in favor of NDS on Plaintiffs’ claims for violations of
13
the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 1201(a)(1) and 1201(a)(2), and the
14
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c).
15
Plaintiffs’ claim for violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200 was
16
submitted to the Court for determination. After consideration of the evidence, the Court
17
found in favor of Plaintiffs and held that NDS violated section 17200 of the California
18
Business and Professions Code and entered a permanent injunction against NDS [Docket
19
No. 1135].
20
Both the Communications Act and California Penal Code provide that Plaintiffs
21
may elect between actual damages and statutory damages. Plaintiffs elected to recover
22
statutory damages under the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 605(a), and California
23
Penal Code § 593e(b). Plaintiffs elected to recover actual damages under California Penal
24
Code § 593d(a), which are to be trebled pursuant to statute.
25
On December 4, 2008, this Court issued an Order [Docket No. 1191] modifying the
26
permanent injunction against NDS and awarding to Plaintiffs EchoStar and NagraStar
27
reasonable attorney’s fees of $12,972,547.91 such reasonable costs as will be awarded by
28
the Clerk from Defendants NDS. The Court also awarded to Defendants NDS reasonable
-2-
AMENDED FINAL JUDGMENT
CASE NO. SA CV 03-950 DOC (JTLX)
1
2
3
4
5
6
attorney’s fees of $8,968,118.90 and no costs from Plaintiffs.
The Court additionally declined to grant attorney’s fees to Defendants John Norris,
Christopher Tarnovsky, George Tarnovsky, and Stanley Frost.
On February 13, 2009, the Court entered Judgment in this action reflecting the
above [Docket No. 1203].
On August 4, 2010, the Ninth Circuit reversed the Court’s December 4, 2008 Order
7
on attorney’s fees and remanded the action to the Court, instructing the Court to enter
8
judgment awarding Defendants NDS $17,936,237.80 in district court attorney’s fees,
9
awarding Defendants NDS reasonable district court and appellate costs, and awarding no
10
district court or appellate attorney’s fees or costs to Plaintiffs EchoStar. EchoStar
11
Satellite Corp. v. NDS Group PLC, 390 F. App’x. 764 (9th Cir. 2010). On September 7,
12
2011, the Ninth Circuit granted the application for attorney’s fees on appeal filed by
13
Defendants NDS and referred the determination of the appropriate amount of fees on
14
appeal to the Ninth Circuit Appellate Commissioner. On January 17, 2012, the Supreme
15
Court denied EchoStar’s petition for writ of certiorari. EchoStar Satellite LLC. v. NDS
16
Group PLC, No. 11-712, __ S. Ct. __ (Jan. 17, 2012). On February 3, 2012, the Ninth
17
Circuit issued mandate in this action. On February 6, 2012, the Ninth Circuit granted
18
NDS’s motion for appellate costs in the amount of $1,083.70.
19
Therefore, pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s order, the Court VACATES the Final
20
Judgment entered on February 13, 2009 and ENTERS Amended Final Judgment as
21
follows:
22
1.
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs EchoStar and NagraStar recover the sum of $1,500.00 in statutory
damages from Defendants NDS.
2.
In addition to the above amounts, Plaintiffs EchoStar recover $137.07 in
damages from Defendants NDS.
3.
In addition to the above amounts, Plaintiffs EchoStar recover restitution in
the amount of $284.94 from Defendants NDS.
4.
Plaintiffs EchoStar recover no attorney’s fees or costs from Defendants
-3-
AMENDED FINAL JUDGMENT
CASE NO. SA CV 03-950 DOC (JTLX)
1
2
3
4
5
6
NDS.
5.
Defendants NDS recover from Plaintiffs EchoStar $17,936,237.80 in
attorney’s fees incurred before the District Court.
6.
In addition to the above amounts, Defendants NDS recover from Plaintiffs
EchoStar reasonable district court costs as will be awarded by the Clerk.
7.
In addition to the above amounts, Defendants NDS recover from Plaintiffs
7
EchoStar appellate costs of $1,083.70 as granted by the Ninth Circuit on February 6,
8
2012. Defendants NDS also recover from Plaintiffs EchoStar reasonable appellate
9
attorney’s fees as determined by the Ninth Circuit.
10
8.
Defendant NDS Group, PLC, its parents, subsidiaries, partners, joint
11
venturers or other associated entities, their assigns, successors, trustees, receivers, or any
12
of their owners, principals, officers, directors, executives, employees, contractors,
13
consultants, agents, attorneys, or anyone acting in concert with any of them, or anyone
14
else with notice of this Order is hereby ENJOINED AND PROHIBITED from engaging
15
in any of the following or assisting others in any of the following:
16
(1)
Intercepting or receiving, anywhere in the United States, or assisting anyone
17
in the United States, in intercepting or receiving, EchoStar’s satellite
18
television signal without authorization;
19
(2)
In the State of California, for the purpose of intercepting or using
20
EchoStar’s signal, knowingly and willfully making an unauthorized
21
connection to EchoStar’s satellite television system, knowingly and
22
willfully connecting or assisting another in connecting an unauthorized
23
device to EchoStar’s satellite television system, knowingly and willfully
24
making unauthorized modifications to an unauthorized device, or knowingly
25
and willfully obtaining and using an unauthorized device to gain access to
26
EchoStar’s signal; and
27
28
-4-
AMENDED FINAL JUDGMENT
CASE NO. SA CV 03-950 DOC (JTLX)
1
(3)
Knowingly and willfully manufacturing, assembling, or possessing a device,
2
in the State of California, designed to decode EchoStar’s signal without
3
authorization.
4
5
6
9.
Defendants John Norris, Christopher Tarnovsky, George Tarnovsky, and
Stanley Frost shall not recover attorney’s fees or costs in any amount.
10.
Post-judgment interest is payable on all of the above amounts allowable by
7
law at the rate of to be determined by the Clerk (the rate applicable to post-judgment
8
interest on the date of entry of this judgment pursuant to 28 USC § 1961, calculated daily
9
and compounded annually, from the date the judgment is entered until the date this
10
judgment is satisfied).
11
11.
The Court denies all relief not granted in this judgment.
12
12.
This is a FINAL JUDGMENT.
13
14
IT IS SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED.
15
16
17
18
Dated: February 22, 2012
_______________________________________
DAVID O. CARTER
United States District Court Judge
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-
AMENDED FINAL JUDGMENT
CASE NO. SA CV 03-950 DOC (JTLX)
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?