By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in nCube Corporation (now Arris Group, Inc.) v. SeaChange International Inc., C.A. No. 01-011-LPS (D.Del., October 9, 2012), the Court denied the motion of Plaintiff Arris Group, Inc. (“Arris”) seeking to hold Defendant SeaChange International Inc. (“SeaChange”) in contempt of the permanent injunction order entered by the Court in 2006 after Arris obtained a jury verdict in its favor that SeaChange had willfully infringed the asserted claims of its patent – U.S. Patent No. 5,805,804 (“the ‘804 patent”). In denying Arris’ motion for contempt, the Court found that (1) Arris failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that there is no colorable difference between SeaChange’s modified ITV system and SeaChange’s old ITV system that was previously found to infringe; and (2) Arris failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that SeaChange’s modified ITV system actually infringes claim 4 of the ‘804 patent. Id. at 3-9.
Although the Court denied the motion for contempt, the Court made it clear that its findings and ruling do not include a finding that SeaChange’s modified ITV system does not infringe the ‘804 patent and/or any finding about whether Arris would be able to prevail under the lower preponderance of the evidence standard in a new action asserting that SeaChange’s modified ITV system infringes the ‘804 patent. Id. at 11-12.
A complete copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.