Court Opinion

ID: 9387535
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-18 14:00:57.553142+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:14.080383
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1481   Document: 41     Page: 1   Filed: 04/18/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

                      DIVX, LLC,
                       Appellant

                            v.

                    NETFLIX, INC.,
                        Appellee
                 ______________________

                       2022-1481
                 ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
 Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2020-
 00614.
                  ______________________

                 Decided: April 18, 2023
                 ______________________

     NATHAN NOBU LOWENSTEIN, Lowenstein & Weather-
 wax LLP, Santa Monica, CA, argued for appellant. Also
 represented by PARHAM HENDIFAR, KENNETH J.
 WEATHERWAX.

    HARPER BATTS, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
 LLP, Menlo Park, CA, argued for appellee. Also repre-
 sented by JEFFREY LIANG, CHRISTOPHER SCOTT PONDER;
 MARK CHRISTOPHER FLEMING, Wilmer Cutler Pickering
 Hale and Dorr LLP, Boston, MA.
Case: 22-1481    Document: 41    Page: 2   Filed: 04/18/2023

 2                                 DIVX, LLC   v. NETFLIX, INC.

                  ______________________

     Before PROST, CHEN, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
 CHEN, Circuit Judge.
     Patent Owner DivX, LLC (DivX) appeals a decision by
 the Patent and Trial Appeal Board (Board) determining
 that claims 1–6, 9, 10, and 13–19 of U.S. Patent
 No. 7,295,673 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
 a combination of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,574,785 (Ueno);
 7,151,832 (Fetkovich); and 6,957,350 (Demos). DivX timely
 appealed, and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
 1295(a)(4)(A). Because we adopt the Board’s constructions
 of “frame decryption stream” and “frame [encryption/de-
 cryption] function” and determine that substantial evi-
 dence supports the Board’s factual findings, we affirm. 1
     We agree with the Board’s claim constructions. First,
 we conclude, as did the Board, that “frame decryption
 stream” includes periodic transmissions of frame decryp-
 tion information. Nothing in the claims, specification, or
 prosecution history requires the frame decryption infor-
 mation to be sent with each corresponding encrypted frame
 in a 1:1 correspondence, and nothing precludes the frame
 decryption information from being interleaved periodically
 with the encrypted frames. Although DivX emphasizes the
 amendments and prosecution history related to claims 14
 and 15, we are not persuaded that those amendments limit
 “frame decryption stream” as DivX suggests. 2

     1   DivX withdrew its arguments regarding the scope
 of Netflix’s petition and secondary considerations. Oral
 Arg. at 26:40–27:15.
     2   DivX does not dispute that the prior art discloses
 “frame decryption stream” under the Board’s construction.
 See Appellant’s Br. 27–52.
Case: 22-1481       Document: 41    Page: 3    Filed: 04/18/2023

 DIVX, LLC   v. NETFLIX, INC.                                 3

      Second, the parties agree that the term “frame [encryp-
 tion/decryption] function” means “specifying the location,
 by layout or offset, of a portion in a frame to which encryp-
 tion is applied.” Appellant’s Br. 52; Appellee’s Br. 44. But
 the parties disagree as to whether “specifying the location,
 by layout or offset” includes specifying the location with
 frame substructures such as slices and macroblocks. Ap-
 pellant’s Reply Br. 20–24; Appellee’s Br. 50–63. DivX ar-
 gues that slices and macroblocks do not have fixed
 locations within a compressed frame, and thus cannot spec-
 ify a location. Appellant’s Reply Br. 20–24. We, however,
 agree with the Board that the scope of the claim includes
 specifying locations, by layout or offset, using slices or mac-
 roblocks. Nothing in the claims, specification, or prosecu-
 tion history requires the specified “location” to be a fixed
 location within a frame. Accordingly, we adopt the Board’s
 constructions of “frame decryption stream” and “frame [en-
 cryption/decryption] function.”
      Turning to the Board’s factual findings, we hold that
 substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination
 that Fetkovich discloses “frame [encryption/decryption]
 function” and “data field size.” The Board’s findings are
 supported by Fetkovich’s disclosure specifying particular
 slices and macroblocks to be encrypted in a frame, as well
 as the testimony of Netflix’s expert. Fetkovich col. 3 ll. 4–
 14, col. 5 l. 9 – col. 6 l. 65; J.A. 452–53 ¶¶ 155–56. Thus,
 the Board’s factual findings are supported by substantial
 evidence.
     We have considered DivX’s remaining arguments and
 find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we af-
 firm the Board’s decision.
                            AFFIRMED