Untitled case

I'll research this case using the case number and patent number.

Case overview: Broadcom Corp. v. Netflix, Inc., No. 3:20-cv-04677-JD (N.D. Cal.)

Correction to the seed summary. The docket behind U.S. Patent 6,744,387 is Broadcom Corporation and Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v. Netflix, Inc., No. 3:20-cv-04677-JD, before Judge James Donato in the San Francisco Division of the Northern District of California. The case was filed March 13, 2020 in the Central District of California (No. 8:20-cv-529), transferred north, and opened in N.D. Cal. on July 14, 2020. This is not an NPE/PAE case: both sides are large operating companies. Broadcom is a semiconductor and infrastructure-software company; its co-plaintiff Avago (its Singapore affiliate, which acquired the LSI Logic portfolio in 2014 before the 2016 Avago–Broadcom merger) holds all substantial rights in most of the asserted patents. Netflix is the streaming service and operator of the Open Connect content-delivery network. CourtListener docket; Complaint, C.D. Cal. No. 8:20-cv-529.

The technology and the patents. Broadcom's theory was that "foundational technologies … essential to various aspects of Netflix's video streaming service" were unlicensed — specifically Netflix's Open Connect CDN (traffic balancing, dynamic node selection, multi-route content delivery) and its video-encoding pipeline (H.264/AVC and H.265/HEVC binarization and syntax signaling), plus internal distributed-computing/virtualization infrastructure underlying the service. The original complaint asserted nine patents — the '079, '121, '245, '992, '375, '138, '387, '663 and '283 patents — and amended complaints expanded the list (press reports put it at 12 in this case; Netflix's counsel has described 17 patents across two suits), with patents such as the '722 and '976 later added. The '387 patent, "Method and System for Symbol Binarization" (Lowell Winger et al., LSI/Avago lineage), claims a hybrid unary/exp-Golomb binarization scheme for symbols fed to a binary arithmetic coder — a bit-rate and complexity improvement for compressed video. Netflix's pretrial chart shows Broadcom asserting claim 5 of the '387 patent, directly and willfully, against the H.264/H.265 encoding pipeline; claim 5 is a computer-readable-medium claim, and the court construed the patent's means-plus-function limitations under § 112 ¶ 6 in its May 23, 2022 claim construction order (Dkt. 218). The '663 patent is a continuation of the '387 patent and covers the related unary/exp-Golomb codeword construction. Dkt. 218; Dkt. 628 excerpt; PTAB petition background on the '387 patent.

Posture and why it matters. Venue mattered because N.D. Cal. is home turf for both parties and Judge Donato proved exceptionally receptive to Netflix's § 101 and IPR-based attacks. The case became a case study in dismantling a large operating-company portfolio through layered invalidity challenges: Netflix filed 10 IPR petitions, 7 of which were instituted by September 2021 (including institution on all eight asserted claims of the '138 patent), and Judge Donato knocked out patents on the pleadings in a series of Alice rulings — Broadcom I, 2021 WL 4170784 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2021) (invalidating the '079, '245 and '992 patents; upholding the '375 patent); Broadcom II, 598 F. Supp. 3d 800 (N.D. Cal. 2022); and Broadcom III, 2022 WL 3155410 (N.D. Cal.) ('722 patent, among others). Netflix then won summary judgment of ineligibility on the '121 patent in January 2025, eliminating roughly 85% of the remaining damages exposure. Broadcom had sought billions in damages, including lost set-top-box business it attributed to Netflix's streaming displacement of cable. The case ended not in a jury verdict but in dismissal: on March 31, 2025 the parties stipulated to dismissal with prejudice of all claims on the '387, '663, '992 and '375 patents (and without prejudice as to the '138 patent), and on April 7, 2025 Judge Donato vacated all pretrial and trial dates, closed the case, and entered judgment for Netflix (Dkt. Nos. 725–26, 728–29). By Netflix's own account, 13 of 17 asserted patents were invalidated. Notable secondary features: the '387 patent had previously survived § 101 in Broadcom v. Sony (C.D. Cal., Judge Selna, 2016) and had already beaten an Amazon IPR petition at the institution stage — which makes its eventual dismissal without any merits ruling a useful illustration of how portfolio-wide attrition, rather than a single validity holding, decides modern patent cases. The dispute also presaged a role reversal: Netflix later sued Broadcom and VMware (No. 5:24-cv-09324-PCP) in 2024–25. Netflix notice re IPR institution, Dkt. 156; Westlaw/IPDBRF summary of Sept. 2021 ruling; Keker profile describing the outcome.

Sourcing caveats. (1) The exact patent count in each pleading is contested in my sources (9 in the original complaint; 12 reported by Westlaw in 2021; 17 across two suits per Netflix's counsel) — I could not verify the second suit's docket number or which patents it covered. (2) I found no evidence Netflix itself petitioned for IPR on the '387 patent; the only PTAB challenges I can confirm are the 2017 Amazon petition (institution denied) and an AMD petition reportedly settled pre-institution — treat this as unconfirmed. (3) The initial N.D. Cal. ECF stamp on the transferred complaint reads "5:20-cv-04677-SVK," suggesting a brief San Jose/Magistrate Judge van Keulen assignment before reassignment to Judge Donato in San Francisco; I could not verify the reassignment order. (4) The Daily Journal profile's "billions in damages" figure is a secondary source, not a docket citation.

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the docket and patent.

Let me pull the full docket and identify the '387 patent.

This is Broadcom Corp. et al. v. Netflix, Inc. Let me get the full docket and the substantive orders.

Case identification (correcting the metadata)

The docket number resolves to a much larger case than the one-patent entry in the summary:

Broadcom Corporation and Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Ltd. v. Netflix, Inc., No. 3:20-cv-04677-JD (N.D. Cal.), before Judge James Donato (Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim for settlement). Filed 2020-07-14. Docket: CourtListener 17347564.

U.S. Patent No. 6,744,387 ("Method and system for symbol binarization," MPEG data-stream binarization; originally LSI Logic, acquired by Avago in the 2014 LSI deal, then by Broadcom in the 2016 Avago/Broadcom merger) was one of twelve asserted patents and 81 asserted claims. It was never the case-dispositive patent, so the "outcome" for the '387 must be read inside the campaign-wide result: all '387 claims were dismissed with prejudice on 2025-03-31/2025-04-07, with judgment for Netflix and no damages paid.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

• 2020-07-14 — Broadcom Corp. and Avago file the original complaint in N.D. Cal. (assigned to Judge Donato). Netflix's later Rule 12(b)(6) brief frames the dispute as Broadcom — "not in the business of streaming content," but a seller of set-top-box chips — suing the world's largest streaming service on a portfolio it acquired rather than developed. (Dkt. 87)
• 2020 (FAC) — First Amended Complaint asserts twelve patents (docketed mid-2020; the Court's 2021-11-09 order recites 2020-06-22 as the FAC date, which is inconsistent with the 2020-07-14 docketing date — a record discrepancy I could not resolve). The FAC is the first pleading asserting the '387.
• Netflix's answer and counterclaims — Netflix answered and asserted declaratory-judgment counterclaims of non-infringement/invalidity; the answer was amended repeatedly as complaints were amended (an amended answer appears at Dkt. 347). I could not confirm the original answer's exact filing date from available sources.
• Netflix's counsel throughout: Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP (Sharif E. Jacob, Paven Malhotra, David

I'll research this case and its counsel. Let me start with several searches in parallel.

Case identified: Broadcom Corporation et al. v. Netflix, Inc., No. 3:20-cv-04677-JD (N.D. Cal.). Now let me identify plaintiffs' counsel.

I have strong data already. Let me confirm the original complaint filers and who served as lead trial counsel.

I'll research the defendant's counsel of record. Let me start with several searches in parallel.

Strong baseline data. Now let me pin down individual roles, current affiliations, and whether any additional firms or in-house counsel appeared for Netflix.

Defendant's Counsel of Record — Netflix, Inc.

Bottom line

Netflix, Inc. was represented throughout by a single law firm: Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, 633 Battery Street, San Francisco, CA 94111 (415-391-5400). No second defense firm, and no separate "local counsel" firm, appears in any signature block or appearance notice I found — which is unsurprising, since Keker is itself an N.D. Cal.–based firm and therefore served as both trial and local counsel. The team is the same group Keker used to defend Netflix in the related Broadcom subsidiary cases (the E.D. Tex. action transferred by mandamus, and the N.D. Cal. declaratory judgment action described on Keker's IP practice page).

Two caveats up front: (1) I could not view the docket sheet on PACER itself, so my record-status conclusions rest on reproduced signature blocks and appearance notices retrieved via CourtListener/CaseText/Justia/Docket Alarm plus a VitalLaw counsel line; (2) I found no confirmed in-house Netflix attorney appearing of record.

Core team (Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP — San Francisco)

Attorneys who appeared only briefly or ambiguously

• Kristen Elizabeth Lovin — filed a notice of withdrawal of appearance for Netflix on April 7, 2026 (Dkt. 739, per CourtListener's docket feed). Her firm is not identifiable from the material I could retrieve. Two possibilities are consistent with the record (a Keker associate cycling off after judgment, or Netflix in-house counsel), and I cannot responsibly pick between them — flagged as unconfirmed.
• Stephen J. H. Liu — a withdrawal notice dated Dec. 31, 2025 (Dkt. 736) appears in this docket but states he is "no longer appearing on behalf of VMware, Inc." That is almost certainly a docket-aggregation artifact rather than a Netflix appearance; I would not list him as defense counsel here.
• No attorney from Netflix's legal department appears in any signature block I saw. If in-house counsel participated, they did not enter an appearance in this action.

Procedural note on how the appearances arose

Counsel originally appeared in the Central District of California, where Broadcom filed on March 13, 2020 before Judge Josephine L. Staton (the C.D. Cal. filings show Netflix appearances Dkt. 24–31, all in May 2020, including Van Nest, Malhotra, Lee, Hasselberg, Gorman, Bayley and Rosen). Keker moved the case to the Northern District, where it was docketed as No. 3:20-cv-04677-JD and reassigned to Judge James Donato; the N.D. Cal. caption retains "Date Filed: March 13, 2020." Keker's own practice description confirms it also won transfer of the parallel E.D. Tex. action via Federal Circuit mandamus.

Contradiction with the case metadata (flag)

The existing case summary describes the case as "status unconfirmed," drawn from a Google Patents/Unified Patents docket link. That is now superseded:

• The case is Broadcom Corporation and Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Ltd. v. Netflix, Inc., No. 3:20-cv-04677-JD (N.D. Cal.).
• It is not pending. Netflix obtained summary judgment of invalidity on the last remaining major patent in January 2025; Broadcom dismissed the remaining patents; the court entered judgment for Netflix in April 2025, and the docket shows counsel withdrawals continuing into 2026. Keker's and the Daily Journal's own accounts describe "a complete victory."
• On the patent at issue here — U.S. Patent No. 6,744,387 — Netflix's counsel's position, as stated in Netflix's trial brief (Dkt. 625, Dec. 22, 2023), was that the '387 patent was not infringed by Netflix's H.264/H.265 encoding pipeline and was invalid under §§ 101 and 102/103 (Kerofsky and/or Fenwick). That is useful framing for any further work on the '387 patent specifically, since the '387 claim never reached a jury.
• Minor date discrepancy to be aware of: the N.D. Cal. docket is styled as filed July 14, 2020 in some secondary sources (and in the Keker/Daily Journal write-ups), while the court's own captions carry March 13, 2020 — the latter being the original C.D. Cal. filing date. I was not able to confirm the original C.D. Cal. docket number.

Unconfirmed / not verifiable from available sources: Kristen Lovin's affiliation; Emily Hasselberg's and Stephanie Goldberg's current titles; whether any Netflix in-house lawyer worked on the matter without appearing; and the precise identity of lead counsel for the February 2024 trial setting (which was continued to January 27, 2025 and never tried).