Untitled case

Case Overview and Background: GoTV Streaming, LLC v. Netflix, Inc.

This patent infringement litigation involves appellant GoTV Streaming, LLC, a patent owner, and appellee Netflix, Inc., a prominent streaming service provider. GoTV Streaming accused Netflix's content delivery services of infringing its patents. The primary patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 8,989,715, along with two related patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 8,478,245 and 8,103,865, broadly claims methods and systems for delivering content from a server to a wireless device. These patents focus on the server receiving a content request, delivering that content to the device for rendering, and tailoring the content's specifications to the requesting device's screen size or other capabilities. While the specific "accused product" beyond Netflix's general streaming services is not explicitly detailed in the provided search results, the alleged infringement targets Netflix's core business of delivering tailored content to various user devices.

The procedural journey of this case began in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:22-cv-07556-RGK-SHK). Before trial, the district court dismissed GoTV's claims of induced infringement and denied Netflix's challenge to the asserted claims' patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. During claim construction, the court held all asserted claims of the '865 patent invalid for indefiniteness. A jury trial proceeded on one claim from each of the '245 and '715 patents, resulting in a finding that Netflix infringed only the '715 patent and awarded GoTV $2.5 million in damages. Both parties subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Case No. 24-1669), with GoTV appealing aspects of the final judgment and Netflix filing a cross-appeal.

The Federal Circuit, in its February 9, 2026, precedential opinion, reversed the district court's judgment for GoTV, concluding that the asserted claims are invalid for patent ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The court also reversed the district court's judgment of invalidity for indefiniteness as to the '865 patent but vacated the summary judgment of no inducement and the denial of GoTV's motion for a new trial on damages, directing the entry of judgment for Netflix. This case is notable due to its significant ruling on patent eligibility, a frequently litigated and often dispositive issue in technology-focused patent cases, and its impact on a major player in the streaming industry like Netflix. Furthermore, parallel inter partes reviews (IPRs) were conducted at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), where certain claims of the '715 and '245 patents were held unpatentable for obviousness, while other claims, including those of the '865 patent, were upheld.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

The litigation between GoTV Streaming, LLC and Netflix, Inc. involved a series of significant legal developments, culminating in a Federal Circuit decision that invalidated GoTV's asserted patents.

District Court Proceedings (U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:22-cv-07556-RGK-SHK)

• Filing & Initial Pleadings: GoTV Streaming, LLC filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Netflix, Inc. on October 17, 2022, asserting infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,478,245, 8,989,715, and 8,103,865. GoTV later amended its complaint to include claims of induced infringement.
• Pre-trial Motions of Substance:
  • In February 2023, the district court dismissed GoTV's induced infringement claims, ruling that GoTV failed to adequately allege pre-suit knowledge on the part of Netflix.
  • Netflix moved for judgment on the pleadings, challenging the patent eligibility of all three asserted patents under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The district court denied this motion, concluding that the claims were not directed to ineligible subject matter at Alice step one.
• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes: During claim construction and summary judgment proceedings, the district court held all claims of the '865 patent invalid for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on the term "discrete low level rendering command."
• Trial Events & Verdict: The case proceeded to a three-day jury trial on one claim from the '715 patent (Claim 4) and one claim from the '245 patent (Claim 16). The jury found that Netflix infringed Claim 4 of the '715 patent but did not infringe Claim 16 of the '245 patent. GoTV was awarded $2.5 million in compensatory damages as a life-of-patent lump sum, along with pre-judgment interest at 7% compounded annually from the complaint filing date (October 17, 2022).
• Post-trial Motions: The district court denied several of GoTV's post-trial motions, including requests for a new trial on damages due to allegedly improper Netflix damages evidence and requests for prejudgment interest from the patent issuance date.
• Judgment: A final judgment was entered in the district court on January 16, 2024.

Appeal to the Federal Circuit (Case No. 24-1669, 24-1744)

• Appeal and Cross-Appeal: GoTV filed a notice of appeal on April 4, 2024, and Netflix filed a cross-appeal on April 19, 2024. Both parties challenged aspects of the district court's final judgment, with GoTV appealing rulings such as the dismissal of induced infringement claims and the denial of a new trial on damages, and Netflix cross-appealing the district court's denial of its § 101 patent eligibility challenge.
• Federal Circuit Opinion (February 9, 2026): The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion on February 9, 2026, by Judge Taranto, joined by Judges Prost and Clevenger.
  • Claim Construction: The Federal Circuit first addressed the district court's claim construction of "discrete low level rendering command" from the '865 patent. Contrary to the district court's finding, the Federal Circuit reversed the indefiniteness holding, adopting GoTV's proposed construction for the term.
  • Patent Eligibility (§ 101): The Federal Circuit then turned to Netflix's cross-appeal on patent eligibility. The court reversed the district court's judgment, concluding that the asserted claims were invalid for patent ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
    • Alice Step One: The Federal Circuit determined that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of using a generic template that can be tailored to user-specific constraints, analogizing it to dress patterns or kitchen-cabinet blueprints. The court explicitly rejected GoTV's argument that the claims represented an improvement in computer functionality.
    • Alice Step Two: The court found that the claims lacked an inventive concept, as they merely applied the abstract idea using ordinary and conventional computer and network technology without specifying a concrete technological improvement.
  • Other Issues: While the § 101 invalidity holding was dispositive, the Federal Circuit vacated the district court's summary judgment of no induced infringement and the denial of GoTV's motion for a new trial on damages. The court noted that GoTV had raised substantial arguments on these points but declined to reach their merits given the patent ineligibility ruling.
• Final Disposition at Federal Circuit: The Federal Circuit reversed, vacated in part, and directed the entry of judgment for Netflix, effectively ending the district court case in Netflix's favor and nullifying the $2.5 million damages award.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings

• Parallel inter partes reviews (IPRs) were conducted at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging the asserted patents.
• Certain claims of the '715 and '245 patents were held unpatentable for obviousness in these IPRs. Other claims, including those of the '865 patent, were upheld.
• Separately, two appeals from PTAB IPR decisions related to GoTV Streaming, LLC v. Netflix, Inc. (Case Nos. 25-1588 and 25-1589) were dismissed by agreement of the parties on June 25, 2026, with each side bearing its own costs.

I'll research the counsel of record for the plaintiff (GoTV Streaming, LLC) in this Federal Circuit appeal and the underlying district court case.

Let me dig deeper into the Federal Circuit docket and the specific counsel of record for the appeal.

Counsel of Record — Plaintiff/Appellant GoTV Streaming, LLC

Bottom line: GoTV is represented on appeal primarily by Amir H. Alavi and the Houston firm Alavi & Anaipakos PLLC (trial counsel below, which also handled the parallel PTAB IPRs), with David M. Stein of Olson Stein LLP (Newport Beach, CA) serving as California counsel. The Federal Circuit's precedential opinion identifies Alavi as GoTV's attorney.

---

Federal Circuit Appeal — No. 24-1669 (and cross-appeal 24-1744)

Per the official CAFC docket, GoTV filed its Entry of Appearance on April 23, 2024 (Filing 6) listing the following as counsel for Appellant GoTV Streaming, LLC:

Source: Justia CAFC docket for 24-1669 ("Entry of Appearance for Amir H. Alavi; Scott W. Clark; Justin Y. Chen; C. Ryan Pinckney; Connie Flores Jones; David M. Stein as counsel for Appellant GoTV Streaming, LLC[,] [Entered: 04/23/2024]").

---

District Court — C.D. Cal. No. 2:22-cv-07556-RGK-SHK (underlying case)

CourtListener's party/attorney list for the district case shows GoTV (plaintiff/counter-defendant) represented by:

• David M. Stein (complaint filer and signatory — listed variously as Olson Stein LLP, Newport Beach, and in older records as Brown Rudnick LLP, Irvine, CA)
• Amir H. Alavi, Masood Anjom, Michael D. McBride, Scott W. Clark, Justin Y. Chen, C. Ryan Pinckney, Connie Flores Jones — all of Alavi & Anaipakos PLLC, Houston (each admitted pro hac vice)
• Steven T. Jugle (appears on the district-court attorney list)

The fee-motion papers (DE 471, Ex. B, "Declaration of Amir Alavi") confirm the caption block: David M. Stein (Olson Stein LLP) alongside Alavi, Anjom, Chen, McBride, Clark, Pinckney, and Flores Jones (Alavi & Anaipakos, PLLC).

---

Parallel PTAB IPRs — GoTV as Patent Owner (IPR2023-00757 / -00759 / etc.)

GoTV's Power of Attorney (37 C.F.R. § 42.10) in IPR2023-00759 (the '865 patent) names:

Netflix's IPR mandatory notices confirm service on GoTV's PTAB counsel of record at jwyde@aatriallaw.com and sjugle@aatriallaw.com (the aatriallaw.com domain = Alavi & Anaipakos).

---

Caveats and discrepancies to flag

1. Firm affiliation of David M. Stein: Public aggregator data (UniCourt) lists Stein at Brown Rudnick LLP, Irvine, CA, while the 2024 filings and the Federal Circuit entry of appearance show him at Olson Stein LLP, Newport Beach, CA. This appears to reflect a firm change; the later (2024) filings should be treated as controlling. I could not independently confirm the exact timing of the move.
2. Joshua S. Wyde vs. the 24-1669 appeal: A UniCourt page for a separate GoTV–Netflix Federal Circuit matter (filed 3/26/2025 — the IPR appeals, Nos. 25-1588/25-1589) lists "Joshua Sheeks Wyde" as appellant attorney. Wyde is GoTV's PTAB lead counsel; I did not find him on the CAFC 24-1669 entry-of-appearance (which lists Alavi, Clark, Chen, Pinckney, Flores Jones, and Stein). So Wyde should be associated with the IPR side/related appeals, not confirmed as 24-1669 counsel.
3. No sealed/in-house counsel identified: GoTV is a licensing entity; I found no in-house counsel of record. All identified attorneys are outside counsel.
4. The CAFC docket (Retrieved May 10, 2024 on Justia) may not reflect any amended appearances after that date; I could not retrieve a later version. Netflix's side (for completeness, not requested) is led by Willkie Farr & Gallagher (Aliza George Carrano) and WilmerHale (Thomas G. Saunders).

Primary sources: Justia docket, GoTV Streaming, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., No. 24-1669 (Fed. Cir.) (Entries of Appearance, Apr. 23, 2024, Filing 6); CourtListener district docket No. 65580549; PTAB IPR2023-00757/00759 Power of Attorney and Petitioner Mandatory Notices; VitalLaw case report (Feb. 10, 2026); Alavi Anaipakos firm news page.

The available information does not explicitly name the specific counsel who represented Netflix in the Federal Circuit appeal (Case No. 24-1669) for GoTV Streaming, LLC v. Netflix, Inc. While it is clear that Netflix was the defendant/cross-appellant and ultimately prevailed, the detailed attorney information, including names, roles, firms, and specific litigation experience for this particular case, is not readily available in the provided search results.

However, general information about Netflix's in-house patent counsel indicates they seek experienced patent attorneys to partner with engineering teams to protect innovations and develop patent portfolio strategies. These roles involve counseling on patents, making filing decisions, and collaborating with outside law firms to prosecute patent assets.

To identify the specific counsel of record for Netflix in GoTV Streaming, LLC v. Netflix, Inc. at the Federal Circuit, a review of the official docket for case 24-1669 on PACER would be necessary.