IP Law Daily, PATENT—Fed. Cir.: $2.5 million jury verdict against Netflix reversed on appeal; licensing entity’s streaming patents invalidated, (Feb 10, 2026)

By Saurabh Kashyap, B.A., M.A., LL.B., LL.M.

The district court erred in concluding at Alice step one that the asserted patent claims were not directed to abstract ideas.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a Central District of California judgment in a patent infringement lawsuit brought by a non-practicing licensing entity against Netflix, Inc., holding that all asserted claims of three related streaming technology patents were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The appellate court concluded that the asserted claims were directed to abstract ideas and failed to satisfy the requirements of patent eligibility under the Alice framework. Although the court reversed the district court’s determination that certain claims of one asserted patent were indefinite, it held that this correction did not affect the ultimate outcome. The Federal Circuit also vacated, without reaching the merits, the district court’s rulings dismissing inducement-of-infringement claims and denying a new trial on damages, and directed entry of judgment in Netflix’s favor (GoTV Streaming, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., No. 24-1669 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 9, 2026)).

Background. The plaintiff/appellant, GoTV Streaming, LLC, is a non-practicing entity that owns patents directed to methods and systems for delivering and rendering digital content on wireless devices. The defendant/cross-appellant, Netflix, Inc., operates a global streaming platform that delivers video content to millions of users across a wide range of devices, including smartphones, tablets, and televisions.

In this lawsuit, GoTV asserted its U.S. Patent Nos. 8,103,865 (the ’865 patent), 8,478,245 (the ’245 patent), and 8,989,715 (the ’715 patent). The patents generally described methods and systems in which a server received a request for content from a wireless device, accessed or generated a device-generic template for that content, tailored the template based on the requesting device's capabilities, and transmitted configuration and rendering information enabling the device to display the content.

GoTV filed suit against Netflix in October 2022 and later amended its complaint to add claims of induced infringement, relying on Netflix’s knowledge of the asserted patents from the filing of the original complaint. The district court dismissed the inducement claims, holding that GoTV failed to plausibly allege pre-suit knowledge. Netflix also moved for judgment on the pleadings under 35 U.S.C. § 101, arguing that the asserted claims were directed to abstract ideas. The district court denied that motion, concluding at Alice step one that the claims were not directed to abstract ideas and therefore did not proceed to step two.

In claim construction and summary judgment proceedings, the district court held that all claims of the ’865 patent were invalid as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on the phrase “discrete low level rendering command.” The case proceeded to trial on one claim each from the ’715 and ’245 patents. After a three-day trial, the jury found that Netflix infringed the asserted claim of the ’715 patent but did not infringe the asserted claim of the ’245 patent. The jury awarded GoTV $2.5 million in damages as a life-of-patent lump sum, beginning from the filing of the complaint. The district court denied GoTV’s post-trial motions, including challenges to Netflix’s damages evidence and requests for prejudgment interest from the date of patent issuance. Both parties appealed.

Patent eligibility. On appeal, the Federal Circuit first addressed Netflix’s cross-appeal challenging the district court’s Section 101 ruling. Treating claim 1 of the ’865 patent as representative, the court applied the two-step framework of Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014).

The Federal Circuit concluded that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of using a generic template of specifications that could be tailored to fit user-specific constraints. The court explained that this concept mirrored longstanding human practices, such as tailoring clothing patterns or adapting architectural plans to physical dimensions. Citing Broadband iTV, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 113 F.4th 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2024), the court noted that the use of templates for creating displays was routine and conventional well before GoTV’s priority date and could not constitute a patent-eligible advance. The court also relied on Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), which held that customizing information based on user characteristics was a fundamental practice and abstract in nature.

The court rejected GoTV’s contention that the claims were directed to improvements in computer or network functionality. It emphasized that the claims did not require new hardware or improvements to the ordinary functioning of servers, networks, or wireless devices. Instead, they relied on conventional computer operations to carry out the abstract idea. In this respect, the court distinguished the claims from those upheld in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016), which involved a specific improvement to computer database architecture, and analogized them to claims invalidated in Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017), which used result-focused functional language without describing how the results were achieved.

Inventive concept. Proceeding to Alice step two, the Federal Circuit examined whether the claims recited an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. The court concluded that the claims merely required ordinary computers and networks to gather, combine, and transmit information, and any efficiency or speed benefits flowed from the use of conventional technology. The court reiterated that such benefits could not confer eligibility, citing BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2018).

The Federal Circuit also rejected GoTV’s reliance on expert testimony purporting to identify an inventive concept. It held that conclusory assertions about improved efficiency or technical benefit were insufficient, citing Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Because the claims lacked any concrete implementation details that improved computer functionality, they failed Alice step two and were invalid under Section 101.

Indefiniteness. Although the Section 101 ruling was dispositive, the Federal Circuit addressed the district court’s indefiniteness holding. Applying Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898 (2014), the court reversed the finding that the phrase “discrete low level rendering command” was indefinite. The appellate court concluded that, when read in light of the specification, the term conveyed reasonable certainty to a person of ordinary skill in the art and referred to rendering commands tailored to the capabilities of a wireless device. The court adopted GoTV’s proposed construction but emphasized that this correction did not affect the ultimate outcome, given the claims’ ineligibility.

Inducement and damages. The Federal Circuit also vacated, without deciding the merits, the district court’s dismissal of GoTV’s inducement claims and its denial of a new trial on damages. On inducement, the court noted that GoTV raised substantial arguments that post-filing knowledge could support inducement claims asserted in an amended complaint, referencing In re Bill of Lading Transmission & Processing System Patent Litigation, 681 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2012). On damages, the court acknowledged GoTV’s arguments that certain evidence presented by Netflix may have improperly skewed the reasonable royalty analysis. The court declined to decide these issues because Netflix was entitled to judgment regardless.

Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

The Case is No. 24-1669.

Judge: Taranto, R.

Attorneys: Amir H. Alavi (Alavi & Anaipakos PLLC) for GoTV Streaming, LLC. Aliza George Carrano (Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP) for Netflix, Inc.

Companies: GoTV Streaming, LLC; Netflix, Inc.

MainStory: TopStory Patent FedCirNews GCNNews TechnologyInternet