Litigation

Netflix, Inc. v. Robocast, Inc.

institution denied

IPR2023-00182

Auto-generating section 1 of 4: Case overview & background…

Each section takes ~30-60s with web-search grounding. Keep this tab open — sections will fill in below as they complete.

Court: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Filed: 2022-11-18
Terminated: 2023-06-09

Patents at issue (1)

Plaintiffs (1)

π Netflix, Inc.

Defendants (1)

Δ Robocast, Inc.

Summary

Netflix petitioned for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,606,819. The PTAB denied institution on June 9, 2023.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Record id: 8606819-ipr2023-00182 · edit in Admin

Further reading

The first 30 days after a patent infringement complaint
Most defendants spend the first 30 days reacting. The defendants who do well spend it sequencing — because every move you make in month one shapes the budget, leverage, and exit options for the next two years.
Prior-art research, old way vs new way — a side-by-side comparison
Defense is expensive because reading thousands of pages of patents takes time. AI doesn't change that for the lawyer's strategic work — but the time-on-pages part collapses by orders of magnitude.
Patent trolls in 2025: the year in numbers
2025 was a banner year for patent trolls — and not by accident. Filings surged while the defendant's cheapest weapon, the PTAB, was quietly taken off the table. Here's what the reporting shows, and why the two are connected.
KSR International v. Teleflex (2007)
Pre-KSR, an obviousness rejection required explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art. Post-KSR, common sense, design needs, and predictable variations all do the work — and most patents don't survive.
Anatomy of a shakedown: how a patent troll campaign actually works
A patent troll demand letter isn't a lawsuit. It's the output of an industrial process designed to extract money at scale, calibrated to your defense costs, and dependent on you not coordinating with the other 199 targets in the same campaign.

All resources →