$2M Verdict: MyChoice Wins Patent Suit Against Taiv

Case Background

The legal battle centered on a high-stakes patent dispute between MyChoice, LLC and BarBoards, LLC (the Plaintiffs) and Taiv, Inc. (the Defendant). The conflict arose within the competitive landscape of commercial television technology, specifically focusing on systems designed to detect and replace content in real-time. MyChoice, an innovator in content curation, and BarBoards, its exclusive licensee, initiated the lawsuit to protect their intellectual property rights regarding U.S. Patent No. 10,708,658 (the '658 Patent). This patent covers technology that enhances video viewing experiences by automatically swapping out undesirable content such as standard commercials with substitute content tailored to user preferences.

Cause

The core of the litigation involved allegations of patent infringement. The Plaintiffs claimed that Taiv, Inc. had built its business model on technology that utilized the specific methods protected by the '658 Patent without permission. This included the sophisticated process of monitoring a media stream, detecting specific content segments like advertisements, and seamlessly triggering a switch to alternative video feeds based on stored user data.

Injury

MyChoice and BarBoards argued that Taiv’s unauthorized use of their patented technology had caused them significant financial injury and eroded their exclusive position in the market. By deploying infringing systems in bars and restaurants, Taiv allegedly captured revenue and market share that rightfully belonged to the patent holders. The Plaintiffs contended that this infringement was not merely accidental but was conducted with full knowledge of the '658 Patent, thereby undermining the value of their innovation.

Damages Sought

To remedy these injuries, the Plaintiffs sought monetary compensation in the form of a reasonable royalty for every infringing use of the technology. Furthermore, they pursued a finding of willful infringement, asserting that Taiv had acted with disregard for the Plaintiffs' established patent rights. A finding of willfulness opens the door for enhanced damages, reflecting the severity of the violation.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

Plaintiff(s): MyChoice, LLC | BarBoards, LLC

Defendant(s): Taiv, Inc.

Counsel for Defendant(s): Ryan Jared Marton | Carolyn C Chang | Hector Ribera | Phillip John Haack | Deron R Dacus

Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel

Claims regarding the '658 Patent

The Plaintiffs' legal team presented a detailed narrative describing how the '658 Patent revolutionized the "out-of-home" viewing experience. They explained that before this invention, venue owners relied on cumbersome manual methods to change channels during commercials. The '658 Patent introduced a "monitoring station" that could detect undesirable content in real-time and automatically switch to a preferred feed—such as trivia or venue-specific promotions—before returning to the live broadcast exactly when the action resumed.

Counsel for MyChoice and BarBoards argued that Taiv’s system mirrored these exact steps. They pointed to Taiv’s marketing materials, which promised venue owners the ability to "automatically detect TV commercials in real time" and switch to their own content. The Plaintiffs asserted that Taiv’s hardware and software performed every element of the asserted patent claims, specifically Claims 1, 5, 7, and 9. They emphasized that Taiv had been aware of the '658 Patent since at least June 2022, yet continued to market and install their infringing systems in thousands of venues, including many in Texas.

Defense Arguments regarding Invalidity and Non-Infringement

The defense vehemently denied these allegations. Taiv’s counsel argued that their technology operated differently from the method described in the '658 Patent and therefore did not infringe. They likely contended that their system’s method of detection or content substitution did not meet the strict definitions laid out in the patent claims.

Beyond denying infringement, the defense launched a counter-attack on the validity of the patent itself. They attempted to prove by "clear and convincing evidence" that the '658 Patent should never have been granted. This argument typically rests on the assertion that the invention was obvious or anticipated by earlier technologies (prior art). Taiv sought to invalidate Claims 1, 5, 7, and 9, arguing that the concepts of monitoring video streams and switching content were already known in the industry before MyChoice filed their patent application.

Jury Verdict

After hearing the evidence and considering the detailed instructions provided by the Court, the jury returned a unanimous verdict on 11th November 2025, in favor of MyChoice and BarBoards. The jurors rejected Taiv’s arguments regarding the invalidity of the patent and found that the Defendant had indeed infringed upon the Plaintiffs' intellectual property.

Infringement of Asserted Claims The jury affirmatively answered "Yes" to Question No. 1 on the Verdict Form for all asserted claims. They determined that MyChoice and BarBoards had proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Taiv infringed Claims 1, 5, 7, and 9 of the '658 Patent. This finding confirmed that the Taiv system utilized the protected methods for real-time content replacement and user preference management.

Validity of the Patent On the critical issue of patent validity, the jury sided with the Plaintiffs. In answering Question No. 2, the jury found that Taiv had failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that any of the asserted claims were invalid. By answering "No" for Claims 1, 5, 7, and 9, the jury upheld the enforceability of the '658 Patent, reinforcing MyChoice’s exclusive rights to the invention.

Willful Infringement The jury subsequently addressed the issue of intent in Question No. 3. Having found that the patent was valid and infringed, they considered whether Taiv’s actions were willful. The jury answered "Yes," concluding that Taiv had infringed the patent not by accident, but with knowledge and disregard for the Plaintiffs' rights. This finding of willfulness is significant as it allows the Court to potentially increase the damages awarded.

Damages Awarded Finally, the jury determined the appropriate compensation for the infringement. In Question No. 4, they were asked what sum of money would fairly and reasonably compensate MyChoice and BarBoards. The jury awarded a total of $2,000,000.00.

To clarify the nature of this payment, the jury specified in Question No. 5 that this amount represented a Lump Sum Royalty. This structure serves as a one-time payment for the past use of the patented technology, rather than an ongoing running royalty rate.

The verdict stands as a decisive victory for MyChoice and BarBoards, validating their technology and securing significant financial recompense for the unauthorized use of their innovations. The finding of willful infringement marks a serious rebuke of Taiv’s business practices and sets the stage for potential post-trial motions regarding enhanced damages or permanent injunctions to prevent further infringement.

Court documents are available upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com