`
`NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
