`
`Case: 22-1764 Page:1_Filed: 06/22/2023Document: 37
`
`
`
`NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
`
`GAnited States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`
`BROADCOM CORPORATION,
`Appellant
`
`Vv.
`
`NETFLIX, INC.,
`Appellee
`
`2022-1764
`
`Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2020-
`01428.
`
`Decided: June 22, 2023
`
`DAN YOUNG, Quarles & Brady LLP, Littleton, CO, ar-
`gued for appellant. Also represented by KENT DALLOW;
`CHAD KING, King
`IAM LLC,
`Lone Tree,
`CO.
`
`HARPER BATTS, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
`LLP, Menlo Park, CA, argued for appellee. Also repre-
`sented by JEFFREY LIANG, CHRISTOPHER SCOTT PONDER;
`JONATHAN RICHARD DEFOSSE, Washington, DC.
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 22-1764 Page:2_Filed: 06/22/2023Document: 37
`
`
`
`2
`
`BROADCOM CORPORATIONv. NETFLIX, INC.
`
`Before CHEN, HUGHES, and CUNNINGHAM,Circuit Judges.
`
`CHEN,Circuit Judge.
`
`Broadcom Corporation appeals a decision by the Patent
`Trial and Appeal Board determining certain claims of
`Broadcom’s U.S. Patent No. 6,341,375 unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103. Because we agree with the Board’s con-
`struction of the sole disputed claim term on appeal and
`hold its appealed findings supported by substantial evi-
`dence, we affirm.
`
`We agree with the Board that “drive server” only re-
`quires storage capacity, not computing capabilities. The
`intrinsic evidence indicates a “drive server” is simply a col-
`lection of disks from which another element, the control
`server, retrieves data in responseto a user’s request. The
`claim languageitself calls for a “drive server” that is “con-
`figured to present a plurality of compressed data streams
`in responseto one or morefirst control signals.” ’375 patent
`at claim 1 (emphasis added). This language indicates the
`drive server simply respondsto requests without a needfor
`computing capabilities. The specification further supports
`this understanding. A preferred embodiment of the ’375
`patent includes a disk library 104, which “generally com-
`prises one or more DVD drives andassociated disks,” and
`a server 102, which “may be implemented as a personal
`computer.” Jd. at col. 2 ll. 34-38 (referring to FIG. 2). The
`specification describes the same embodiment as having
`both “a server” and a “DVD drive server,” evidently refer-
`ring to the server 102 and disk library 104, respectively.
`Id. at col. 3 ll. 25-26. Broadcom admits that underits pro-
`posed construction, claim 1 would exclude this preferred
`embodiment whenthe disk library contains no computer.
`Oral Arg. at 4:35-5:28. Such constructions are “rarely, if
`ever, correct and would require highly persuasive eviden-
`tiary support.” Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90
`F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996). No such evidentiary sup-
`port exists here.
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 22-1764 Page:3_Filed: 06/22/2023Document: 37
`
`
`
`BROADCOM CORPORATIONv. NETFLIX,INC.
`
`3
`
`Broadcom does not assert that “drive server” has a
`well-established meaning in the relevant art.
`It instead
`asserts the specification statement “[t]he present invention
`proposes bulk drives on capable servers, with a minimal
`cost in the remote decoders 114a-114n” supports its pro-
`posed construction. See Appellant’s Br. 21-22 (quoting
`’375 patent col. 4 ll. 14-16). We disagree. A more logical
`reading of the sentence—one consistent with the rest of the
`specification—is that it refers to the three componentsof
`the claimed invention: (1) drive servers (bulk drives), (2)
`control servers (capable servers), and (8) decoder devices
`(remote decoders), differentiating all three as separate en-
`tities. Because the intrinsic evidence sufficiently informs
`the meaningof “drive server,” we need not consider the ex-
`trinsic evidence to construe this claim term. See Vitronics,
`90 F.3d at 1583.
`
`The remaining issues are Broadcom’s challenges to the
`Board’s findings relating to one prior art reference—U.S.
`Patent No. 5,583,561 (Baker). Baker discloses a video-on-
`demand system comprising a video library, a video server,
`a networkinterface, and multiple decoders. The Board rea-
`sonably found that, underits construction of “drive server,”
`Bakerdiscloses a drive server “configured to present a plu-
`rality of compressed data streams” by teaching a video li-
`brary that presents multiple video streams to a video
`server. Netflix, Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., IPR2020-01423,
`2022 WL 683412, at *10-12 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 4, 2022).
`Among other things, Broadcom argues Baker does not
`teach decoder devices that receive data streams from a con-
`trol server, nor does its control server present “portions” of
`the data stream to different decoders. In finding otherwise,
`the Board found that even though Bakerdiscloses an inter-
`mediary networkinterface between its video server and the
`decoders, it still teaches decoder devices that receive data
`streams from a control server because the network inter-
`face operates under the control of the video server. Id. at
`*12-13. The Board also found Baker’s disclosure of a video
`
`

`

`Case: 22-1764
`
`Document: 37
`
`Page:4
`
`Filed: 06/22/2023
`
`4
`
`BROADCOM CORPORATIONv. NETFLIX, INC.
`
`stream divided into blocks—each block potentially corre-
`sponding to different time periods in the same video and
`each block being sent to a different decoder—teaches the
`presenting “portions” of the data stream to different decod-
`ers limitation.
`Jd. at *13-15. The Board’s reasoning on
`these findings is supported by substantial evidence.
`
`Wehaveconsidered Broadcom’s remaining arguments
`and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we
`affirm the Board’s decision.
`
`AFFIRMED
`
`