Federal court rules in favor of Indy company

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
A federal appeals court in Florida has upheld an Indianapolis-based company's right to sell distant networking programming to its customers, finding the company was acting in accordance with the Satellite Home Viewer Act (SHVA).

The unanimous opinion from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Monday, CBS Broadcasting Inc., et al. v. EchoStar Communications d.b.a. DISH Network, et al. No. 07-10020, ruled National Programming Service (NPS), a proposed intervenor-cross-appellant on the case, has the right to lease satellite equipment from EchoStar Communications Corp. even though EchoStar was involved in a lawsuit and had an injunction in place prohibiting the company from transmitting network programming to served and unserved customers.

Under SHVA, satellite carriers like NPS are able to get a compulsory, statutory license to engage in secondary transmission of copyrighted programming to unserved households - those that are unable to receive network programming at a specified level of intensity through the use of conventional rooftop antennas.

NPS saw an opportunity to step into the business after the injunction was placed against EchoStar. In 2006, NPS reached a deal with EchoStar about leasing its satellite equipment, which allowed NPS to use EchoStar's satellite transponder to retransmit distant network programming to unserved households that signed with NPS.

In 1998, several television networks and their affiliates sued EchoStar in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida claiming the company improperly provided distant network programming to served households - subscribers to the DISH Network satellite brand. An injunction was entered to stop the company from providing the programming under the SHVA's statutory license.

After the deal was reached between NPS and EchoStar, the television networks accused NPS of violating the injunction. The Florida federal court and now the 11th Circuit have ruled in favor of NPS.

The appellate court ruled NPS was lawfully transmitting network signals to unserved households pursuant to the act, said Todd Vare, partner at Barnes & Thornburg's intellectual property department who represented NPS in the suit.

"It's an important ruling in terms of how the court interpreted the statute," he said, adding it "allowed NPS to lease satellite equipment from somebody else without that somebody else somehow being subject to the statute."

The ruling also touched upon a public policy issue in the small-dish market. There were only two competitors - DISH Network and DIRECTV. If the injunction issued against EchoStar applied to NPS, then customers would have been left with only one provider and it would have essentially created a monopoly in the small-dish market, Vare said.

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This state's high court has spoken, the fair question is answered. Years ago the Seventh Circuit footnoted the following in the context of court access: "[2] Dr. Bowman's report specifically stated that Brown "firmly believes he is obligated as a Christian to put obedience to God's laws above human laws." Dr. Bowman further noted that Brown expressed "devaluing attitudes towards pharmacological or psycho-therapeutic mental health treatment" and that he made "sarcastic remarks devaluing authority of all types, especially mental health authority and the abortion industry." 668 F.3d 437 (2012) SUCH acid testing of statist orthodoxy is just and meet in Indiana. SUCH INQUISITIONS have been green lighted. Christians and conservatives beware.

  2. It was all that kept us from tyranny. So sad that so few among the elite cared enough to guard the sacred trust. Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law. Sophocles No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor. Theodore Roosevelt That was the ideal ... here is the Hoosier reality: The King can do no wrong. Legal maxim From the Latin 'Rex non potest peccare'. When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal. Richard Nixon

  3. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"

  4. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  5. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.