Skip to content
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Services
    • Patentability Search
    • Patent Invalidity Search
    • Freedom To Operate
    • Chemical Structure Search
    • Patent Sequence Search
    • Patent Infringement Search
    • Patent Landscape Analysis
    • Portfolio Analysis
    • Infringement Contentions
    • Invalidity Contentions
  • Careers
  • Blog
  • Contact
Edit Content

Location

#429, Global Business Park, NH22, SAS Nagar, INDIA

Call Us

+1 872 292 2757

Email Us

[email protected]

Linkedin Youtube X-twitter

Alice in Patentland: Affinity v. Netflix

By Citius Minds
  • May 9, 2016
  • 8 Comments
Plaintiff Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC
Defendant Netflix, Inc.
Case 1:15-cv-849-RP
Court Western District of Texas Austin Division
Judge Robert Pitman (United States District Judge)
Motion Motion to Dismiss
Decision DENIED
Decision Date May 6, 2016
Background – Netflix challenged Affinity Labs’ U.S. Patent No. 9,094,802 stating that its claims simply recite a well-known idea of segmenting and formatting data for communication at different rates. Accordingly, Netflix argued that the patent is directed at patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Technology Involved: The US’802 patent discloses a streaming technology generally known as Hypertext Transfer Protocol adaptive bitrate (HTTP ABR) streaming. In HTTP ABR streaming, the video/audio source is cut into many short segments (“chunks”) that are formatted for delivery. The video/audio is received by the user’s device as a series of downloads of these segments or chunks. A playlist file that is sent to the user’s device at the inception of streaming includes a list of network locations, or URLs, that tell the user’s device where and in what order the user’s device should request the segments of the video/audio. The “adaptive” part of the technology is achieved by formatting the video/audio source into multiple bitrate files, generating segments of various sizes of the video. The user’s device can then choose between the segments of different sizes based upon the device’s current network connection or the device’s CPU performance.

Trial Proceedings – The court conducted a 2-step Alice test to check the validity of US’802.

Step 1: Determining whether the asserted claims are directed to an abstract idea.

Finding: The court found the claims at issue stand apart because they do not merely recite the performance of some business practice known from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet. Instead, the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.

At the motion to dismiss stage of the litigation, the parties had neither engaged in claim construction nor developed a factual record, therefore, the Court could not say as a matter of law that every plausible construction of the US’802 patent’s claims would be directed at an patent-ineligible abstract concept.

Step 2: Determining the presence of “inventive concept” i.e., an element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the abstract idea itself.

Finding: The Court found that the Defendant had not met its burden to show that every possible plausible construction of each of the twenty claims asserted therein render the patent ineligible. Prior to a claim construction hearing, the Court was unable to assess whether the US’802 patent claims a sufficiently inventive concept to render it a patent-eligible application.

Conclusion: Defendant Netflix, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss, filed November 18, 2015 was DENIED due to unavailability of all possible plausible constructions of the twenty asserted claims. Without the assessment of whether the US’802 patent is directed at an abstract idea or whether the US’802 patent claims a sufficiently inventive concept to render it a patent-eligible application, the court could not say, as a matter of law, that the US’802 patent was invalid.

Prev Post

Facebook re-imagines emoji by turning us into them!

Next Post

Alice in Patentland: Device Enhancement v. Amazon

8 Comments

  • Dannie

    I really like it when folks get together and share opinions. Great blog, stick with it!

  • Sang Haury

    You managed to hit the nail on the head and also defined out the whole thing without having side-effects. Will probably be back to get more. Thanks

  • Sosby

    Nicely put. Thanks.

  • Augustina

    Your articles are always so helpful, I’ll definitely be back.

  • Dontarrious

    What a pleasure to find someone who thinks through these issues.

  • Augustina

    Glad I’ve finally found something I agree with!

  • Jason

    Good job. Alice is really an extra-ordinary tool. Getting to read about the different cases helps a lot in understanding the mindset of the judges. Specially for Patent attorneys like me, we need to understand which arguments are effective and how the judge will react. Extremely helpful.

  • William

    Engaging and worth reading.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Search Here
Latest Post
image
Robotic Bees are now a thing
Apr 13, 2023
image
Artificial Cilia
Feb 3, 2023
image
Robot-Painted Art Car – A World’s First
Jan 12, 2023
Categories
  • Alice in Patentland (08)
  • Infographics (13)
  • Latest from the Greatest (118)
  • Laws & Processes (14)
  • Patent Litigation Roundup (08)
  • Patent Olympics (02)
  • Technology Analysis (21)
  • Weird Inventions (01)
  • Year in Review (09)
Free Call
+1 872 292 2757
Contact Us

Spam Blocked

382,857 spam blocked by Akismet

Get In Touch

  • Office 429, Global Business Park, Chandigarh-Ambala Expressway (NH-22), Zirakpur, Punjab 140603 India
  • +1 872 292 2757
  • [email protected]

Service Offerings

  • Patentability Search
  • Patent Invalidity Search
  • Freedom to Operate Search
  • Chemical Structure Search
  • Patent Sequence Search
  • Patent Infringement Search
  • Patent Landscape Analysis
  • Portfolio Analysis
  • Infringement Contentions
  • Invalidity Contentions

Quick Links

  • Home
  • About Us
  • Services
  • Blog
  • Career
  • Contact

Copyright © 2014-2025 Citius Minds Consulting
LLP.
All Rights Reserved.

Linkedin Youtube X-twitter
  • Policy & Privacy
  • Legal Disclaimer
  • We use cookies to improve your user experience. If you continue to use this website, you will be providing consent to our use of cookies. Feel free to view ourPrivacy Policy.
  • Disclaimer: This blog is a Non-Commercial Entity and does not derive any income from this website. The information available on the blog is for informational/educational purposes and is free for everyone.