The Briefing: Netflix Defamation Lawsuit About Inventing Anna – Not an Imposter
The Briefing: Netflix Defamation Lawsuit About Inventing Anna – Not an Imposter (Podcast)
(Podcast) The Briefing: Netflix to Pay $2.5M to GoTV for Patent Infringement
The Briefing: Netflix to Pay $2.5M to GoTV for Patent Infringement
(Podcast) The Briefing: Tattoos, Tiger King, and Copyright Lawsuits – Oh My – Cramer v. Netflix
The Briefing: Tattoos, Tiger King, and Copyright Lawsuits – Oh My – Cramer v. Netflix
Podcast: The Briefing - Is Linda Fairstein’s Portrayal in Netflix’s “When They See Us” Fair?
The Briefing: Is Linda Fairstein’s Portrayal in Netflix’s “When They See Us” Fair?
Podcast: The Briefing by the IP Law Blog - Netflix Settles Defamation Dispute with Docu Film Subjects
The Briefing by the IP Law Blog: Netflix Settles Defamation Dispute with Docu Film Subjects
Managing Employee Burnout: Netflix's Beef – Hiring to Firing Podcast
Podcast: The Briefing by The IP Law Blog - Court Rules Litigation Funding Not Relevant in Netflix v. GoTV
The Briefing by The IP Law Blog: Court Rules Litigation Funding Not Relevant in Netflix v. GoTV
Podcast - The Briefing by the IP Law Blog: Defamation by Docudrama – Inventing Anna
The Briefing by the IP Law Blog: Defamation by Docudrama – Inventing Anna
Podcast: The Briefing by the IP Law Blog - Unofficial Bridgerton Musical – Fair Use or Infringing Fan Fiction
The Briefing by the IP Law Blog: Unofficial Bridgerton Musical – Fair Use or Infringing Fan Fiction
Podcast: The Briefing by the IP Law Blog - Could Netflix Be Liable in "When They See Us" Defamation Case?
The Briefing by the IP Law Blog: Could Netflix Be Liable in "When They See Us" Defamation Case?
Podcast: The Briefing by the IP Law Blog - Defamation Lawsuit Against Netflix Dropped + NY Protects Dead Celebrities
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently dismissed and terminated inter partes review challenging claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,495,167 (“the ’167 patent”). Netflix, Inc. v. Owner, IPR2022-01568, Paper 29 (PTAB March...more
Netflix has been ordered to pay GoTV Streaming $2.5 Million in damages for infringing one of its wireless technology patents. Scott Hervey and Eric Caligiuri discuss this update on this episode of The Briefing....more
In a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed two Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) patentability decisions, holding that the PTAB did not abuse its discretion by not addressing arguments not clearly presented...more
Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, Nos. 2022-1203, -1204 (Fed. Cir. (PTAB) Oct. 25, 2023). Opinion by Chen, joined by Linn. Dissenting opinion by Dyk. Netflix appealed two IPR final written decisions determining that Netflix failed...more
Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, Appeal Nos. 2022-1203, -1204 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 25, 2023) In its only precedential patent opinion this week, the Federal Circuit issued a cautionary note to petitioners in inter partes reviews. ...more
NETFLIX, INC. v. DivX, LLC - Before Hughes, Stoll, and Stark. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Petitioner was not required to explicitly identify secondary reference’s “field of endeavor” using...more
PTAB petitioners frequently assert that claims are invalid as obvious over a combination of prior art references. A threshold requirement in any obviousness inquiry is whether the prior art constitutes analogous art. On...more
A court denied Netflix’s request for GoTV Streaming to supply documents relating to the source of its patent litigation funding. Scott Hervey and Eric Caligiuri discuss this dispute on this episode of The Briefing by the IP...more
Absent exceptional circumstances, the Federal Circuit will generally not consider arguments that a party failed to present in the tribunal under review. In Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, the Federal Circuit held that IPR...more
In GoTV Streaming, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., 2-22-cv-07556 (CDCA May. 24, 2023) (Shashi H. Kewalramani), the Central District of California denied Defendant Netflix’s attempts to compel Plaintiff GoTV Streaming to provide...more
On December 15, in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Netflix, Inc. (nonprecedential), the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) determination that a claim of Uniloc’s U.S. 6,584,229 patent was unpatentable as...more
On August 5, 2022, the Federal Circuit in Thaler v. Vidal ruled that an artificial intelligence (AI) system cannot be listed as a named inventor on a patent application, affirming the United States Patent and Trademark...more
Precedential Federal Circuit Opinions - REALTIME ADAPTIVE STREAMING LLC v. NETFLIX, INC. [OPINION] (2021-1484, 2021-1485, 2021-1518, 2021-1519, July 27, 2022) (Newman, Reyna, and Chen) - Chen, J. Affirming district...more
Summary: Courts may use their inherent equitable powers to award attorneys’ fees for bad faith conduct....more
Sometimes just because the rules permit something doesn’t mean doing it is a good idea. As our latest case-of-the-week shows, the result could be an award of attorney fees. Case of the week: Realtime Adaptive Streaming...more
This post summarizes some of the significant developments related to patent litigation in federal district courts of Texas for the month of October 2021....more
Under the Board’s rules, a patent owner gets to have the last word in a PTAB proceeding by filing a sur-reply to the petitioner’s reply. Sur-replies may only respond to arguments raised in the reply, and the “sur-reply … may...more
Just two weeks into the name, image, and likeness (NIL) era in college sports, and we are already starting to see not only novel and creative partnerships, but also the emergence of legal gray areas and pitfalls for college...more
Arctic Cat v. Bombardier deals with obviousness, patent marking, reasonable royalties, willfulness and enhanced damages. The panel affirms all of the district court’s rulings other than as to patent marking, which it remands...more