Echostar Satellite, et al v. NDS Group PLC, et al, No. 8:2003cv00950 - Document 1324 (C.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: 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)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Echostar Satellite, et al v. NDS Group PLC, et al Doc. 1324 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) Dockets.Justia.com 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)
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
