Gotv Streaming, LLC v. Netflix, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
GOTV STREAMING, LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
NETFLIX, INC.,
Defendant-Cross-Appellant
______________________
2024-1669, 2024-1744
______________________
Appeals from the United States District Court for the
Central District of California in No. 2:22-cv-07556-RGK-
SHK, Judge R. Gary Klausner.
______________________
Decided: February 9, 2026
______________________
AMIR H. ALAVI, Alavi & Anaipakos PLLC, Houston, TX,
argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by JUSTIN
CHEN, SCOTT W. CLARK, CONNIE FLORES JONES,
CHRISTOPHER RYAN PINCKNEY; DAVID STEIN, Olson Stein
LLP, Newport Beach, CA.
THOMAS SAUNDERS, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
Dorr LLP, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-cross-ap-
pellant. Also represented by MARK CHRISTOPHER FLEMING,
Boston, MA; LAUREN MATLOCK-COLANGELO, New York,
NY; ALIZA GEORGE CARRANO, Willkie Farr & Gallagher
LLP, Washington, DC; DEVON WESLEY EDWARDS, New
Case: 24-1669 Document: 51 Page: 1 Filed: 02/09/2026

-- 1 of 28 --

GOTV STREAMING, LLC v. NETFLIX, INC. 2
York, NY; STEPHEN MARSHALL, INDRANIL MUKERJI, Coving-
ton & Burling LLP, Washington, DC.
______________________
Before PROST, CLEVENGER, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.
TARANTO, Circuit Judge.
GoTV Streaming, LLC owns the three related U.S. Pa-
tent Nos. 8,478,245, 8,989,715, and 8,103,865 at issue here.
Those patents claim methods and systems involving a
server that receives a request for content from a wireless
device, delivers the requested content to the device for the
device to render (i.e., for visual content, to place on the de-
vice’s screen), and has tailored the specifications for the to-
be-rendered content to the screen size or other capabilities
of the requester’s device. GoTV sued Netflix, Inc., alleging
that Netflix directly infringed and induced infringement of
all three patents. We have before us GoTV’s appeal and
Netflix’s cross-appeal from a final judgment granting some
relief to GoTV.
Before trial, the district court dismissed GoTV’s claims
of induced infringement and rejected Netflix’s challenge to
the asserted claims as ineligible for patenting under 35
U.S.C. § 101. The court, when construing some claim
terms, held all asserted claims of the ’865 patent invalid for
indefiniteness, and it also denied GoTV’s request to exclude
certain of Netflix’s proposed damages evidence. A jury trial
was held on one claim from each of the ’245 and ’715 pa-
tents, after which the jury found that Netflix infringed only
the ’715 patent and awarded GoTV $2.5 million in dam-
ages, representing a life-of-patent lump sum starting from
the filing of this action (GoTV having disclaimed pre-com-
plaint damages). The district court denied several of
GoTV’s post-trial motions, including a request for retrial of
damages because of allegedly improper Netflix damages
evidence and a request for prejudgment interest from
Case: 24-1669 Document: 51 Page: 2 Filed: 02/09/2026

-- 2 of 28 --

GOTV STREAMING, LLC v. NETFLIX, INC. 3
before the complaint’s filing. The court entered final judg-
ment, from which GoTV appeals and Netflix cross-appeals.
We hold, on Netflix’s cross-appeal, that the claims at
issue are ineligible for patenting under § 101. In consider-
ing the claims’ meaning for purposes of that issue, we re-
verse the district court’s holding that an element of the ’865
patent claims was indefinite, and we adopt GoTV’s con-
struction of that element. Our ineligibility conclusion re-
quires reversal of the district court’s judgment and entry of
judgment in the case for Netflix. We therefore do not rule
definitively on GoTV’s arguments on appeal other than its
challenge to the district court’s indefiniteness ruling. But
because GoTV has raised substantial arguments against
the district court’s no-inducement ruling and allowance of
certain damages evidence presented by Netflix, we ex-
pressly vacate those rulings of the district court.
I
A
The ’865 patent issued in January 2012, the ’245 patent
in July 2013, and the ’715 patent in March 2015. The three
patents share a written description, which dates to 2007,
that describes using a server for tailoring, to a particular
wireless device’s capabilities, the presentation specifica-
tions for requested content delivered to that device for it to
render. Because the written description is shared, we cite
only the ’865 patent when discussing the written descrip-
tion. The claims of the ’865 and ’715 patents focus on oper-
ations performed by the server, while the claims of the ’245
patent focus on certain so-called client-side operations, i.e.,
operations performed by the wireless device or its user.
The patents begin by identifying a problem in the prior
art, which we will recount by discussing only content for
visual presentation (display), ignoring for simplicity’s sake
content for audio presentation that is also covered by the
patents. Because wireless devices vary in screen size,
Case: 24-1669 Document: 51 Page: 3 Filed: 02/09/2026

-- 3 of 28 --

GOTV STREAMING, LLC v. NETFLIX, INC. 4
resolution, color palettes, and other properties, including
processing capabilities for dynamic content (such as vid-
eos), it was known that the quality of a display of content
from a software application on a particular device is im-
proved by tailoring the display specifications (the details of
what is to be rendered for display) to the capabilities of the
device displaying the content. See ’865 patent, col. 1, lines
47–57. For example, it is preferable that content to be ren-
dered on a device fit the display-size and resolution con-
straints of that device. Id., col. 1, lines 40–46. One prior-
art solution, the patents say, involved software developers
building applications “from the ground up” for each type of
wireless device, tailoring display specifications to each type
(e.g., brand, model). Id., col. 1, lines 50–60. The patents do
not elaborate on specifics of the prior-art tailoring process,
such as software developers’ starting point or use of a com-
puter for the adaptation process. With brands and models
of wireless devices proliferating, the patents say, such a
process of developing device-tailored applications had be-
come costly, id., col. 1, lines 47–50, and patching and up-
dating had become time-consuming, id., col. 2, lines 29–31.
The patents propose to reduce the device-specific-tai-
loring burden by introducing a server that, when a user re-
quests certain application content, accesses a version of
that content containing at least some “generic” display
specifications—“generic” simply meaning “not specific to
any device or any set of device capabilities,” id., col. 6, lines
11–13—and performs tailoring of the display specifications
to capabilities of the requesting wireless device. Id., col. 2,
lines 36–41; id., col. 2, line 46, through col. 4, line 27. Thus,
in processes described by the patents, when a user of a
wireless device seeks application content online, the device
communicates to a server what is being sought and at least
what type of device it is. Id., col. 3, lines 4–6. (The user’s
communication may specify capabilities of that type of de-
vice or it may simply identify the type, leaving the server
to obtain the capability information elsewhere. Id.; see also
Case: 24-1669 Document: 51 Page: 4 Filed: 02/09/2026

-- 4 of 28 --

GOTV STREAMING, LLC v. NETFLIX, INC. 5
id., col. 3, lines 26–29.) The server accesses a generic ver-
sion of the requested content and forms a “generic template
or page description” with general layout information for the
page to be displayed (e.g., arrangement and relative sizes
of components such as images, but not absolute sizes). ’865
patent, col. 3, lines 31–43; id., col, 3, line 63, through col. 4,
line 1; col. 13, lines 26–37; col. 17, lines 49–53. The server
then “tailors the template based on the device profile and
device capability,” such as screen dimension. Id., col. 3,
lines 53–54. In addition, the server generates “custom con-
figurations,” id., col. 3, lines 12–25—synonymously, “con-
figuration data,” id., col. 8, lines 3–5—which provide the
“look and feel” of the particular application content on the
screen and is “specific to” the wireless device and its capa-
bilities, id., col. 3, lines 16–17, 22–25. See id., col. 8, lines
6–20 (describing configuration data as determining the
“text fonts, text colors, background colors, background im-
ages, border thickness, border colors, frame colors of
menus, [and] style of menus,” among other content prefer-
ences).
The server sends the custom configurations to the wire-
less device unless the device has them already. Id., col. 3,
lines 19–22. The server puts configuration data into “ren-
dering blocks,” containing specific “rendering commands,”
id., col. 2, lines 53–65; col. 4, lines 9–15—with a “rendering
command” simply being any “description for rendering a
page component, such as the width or the height of the com-
ponent” (not necessarily in the form of “instructions”).
GoTV Streaming, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-07556-
RGK-SHK, 2023 WL 6192744, at *2–4 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 11,
2023) (Summary Judgment Decision). The server sends
the rendering blocks to the wireless device as “a series of
low level basic commands that layout content, position, etc.
for rendering application content on the wireless device.”
Id., col. 2, lines 47–50.
The server also translates the generic template into a
“series of basic commands based on the device profile and
Case: 24-1669 Document: 51 Page: 5 Filed: 02/09/2026

-- 5 of 28 --

GOTV STREAMING, LLC v. NETFLIX, INC. 6
device capabilities,” id., col. 3, lines 56–59, and sends them
to the wireless device for rendering, id., col. 4, lines 1–2.
“Basic commands” are a subset of “rendering commands”
that are “written in a device independent syntax but tai-
lored based on the wireless device capability.” Id., col. 3,
lines 59–60; see id., col. 2, lines 51–52 (commands are “of a
generic syntax” but are “device specific in their parameters”)
(emphases added); col. 11, lines 1–3; col. 13, lines 22–25;
col. 18, lines 60–62. Basic commands sent from the server
include, for example, “descriptions for rendering an image
by specifying the Cartesian coordinates . . . of a screen re-
gion.” Id., col. 16, lines 4–8.
Overall, the patents describe a wireless device receiv-
ing from the server page descriptions and configuration
data in a language readable by the device and at least
partly within the device’s rendering capabilities, allowing
the device to display the desired content. Id., col. 20, lines
59–63. Independent claim 1 of the ’865 patent, which GoTV
treats here as representative for eligibility purposes, reads:
1. A server implemented method for processing
data for a wireless device, comprising:
receiving from the wireless device a request for an
application program, said request including an in-
dication of a type of the wireless device;
executing, in response to receiving said request,
said application program to generate a wireless de-
vice generic template including a plurality of con-
tent items;
sending a custom configuration to the wireless de-
vice, said custom configuration being specific to
said application program;
generating a page description based on said wire-
less device generic template and a capability of the
wireless device, said page description having at
least one discrete low level rendering command
Case: 24-1669 Document: 51 Page: 6 Filed: 02/09/2026

-- 6 of 28 --

GOTV STREAMING, LLC v. NETFLIX, INC. 7
that is within said rendering capability of said
wireless device but that is of a syntax that is wire-
less device generic; and
sending said page description to the wireless device
such that the wireless device is capable of present-
ing at least one content item from said plurality of
content items using both said page description and
said custom configuration.
’865 patent, col. 20, lines 42–63. The claim requires just
two content items in a non-device-specific template, one
custom configuration (identifying an aspect of look and
feel), and one page description based on the generic tem-
plate containing one page component tailored for the de-
vice’s capability presented in device-nonspecific syntax.
B
In October 2022, GoTV sued Netflix for infringement of
all three patents. J.A. 934. The next month, GoTV
amended its complaint, adding claims for induced infringe-
ment of the three asserted patents based on Netflix’s
knowledge of the patents as of the filing of the original com-
plaint. J.A. 999–1000; J.A. 1012–13; J.A. 1025–26. The
district court granted Netflix’s motion to dismiss GoTV’s
induced infringement claims in February 2023, holding
that GoTV could not adequately state such claims unless
Netflix had pre-suit knowledge of GoTV’s asserted patents.
See GoTV Streaming, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-
07556-RGK-SHK, 2023 WL 2627016, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Feb.
16, 2023).
Shortly thereafter, Netflix sought, under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(c), judgment on the pleadings that
the claims of all three patents claim patent-ineligible sub-
ject matter and should thus be held invalid under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101. J.A. 1216. GoTV opposed, including (as relevant
here) an expert declaration, and suggested conversion of
the motion, under Rule 12(d), to one for summary
Case: 24-1669 Document: 51 Page: 7 Filed: 02/09/2026

-- 7 of 28 --

GOTV STREAMING, LLC v. NETFLIX, INC. 8
judgment. In May 2023, the district court denied Netflix’s
§ 101 motion, ruling that the patent claims are not directed
to ineligible matter under the first step of the analysis re-
quired by Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International,
573 U.S. 208 (2014), thus ending the analysis without need
to rule on the second step or to consider the GoTV-submit-
ted expert declaration. See GoTV Streaming, LLC v. Net-
flix, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-07556-RGK-SHK, 2023 WL 4239824,
at *2 n.1, *5 (C.D. Cal. May 24, 2023). Notably, in October
2023, after partial claim constructions had been issued, see
Summary Judgment Decision, at *2–7, the parties jointly
stipulated to entry of judgment against the § 101 chal-
lenge, stating that the court had definitively rejected the
§ 101 challenge in May and “Netflix [did] not waive[ ] any
rights it may have regarding [its § 101] defense.” J.A. 78.
The court issued an order entering the stipulated judgment
rejecting the § 101 challenge. Id.
The court issued its claim constructions in ruling on
the parties’ cross-motions for partial summary judgment.
In the ruling, the court agreed with Netflix that a phrase
common to all claims of the ’865 patent—“discrete low level
rendering command”—is indefinite. Summary Judgment
Decision, at *5. On that basis, the court held all claims of
the ’865 patent to be invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Id.
at *11.
Before trial, GoTV moved to exclude portions of Net-
flix’s technical and damages experts’ opinions bearing on
the issue of damages. J.A. 5390; J.A. 7608. GoTV argued
that the challenged evidence improperly relied on licenses
and agreements that were not technically or economically
comparable to the hypothetical license that would have
been negotiated had the parties negotiated such a license
for Netflix to use the patented technology. J.A. 5400–11;
J.A. 7614–30. The district court denied GoTV’s exclusion-
ary motions at a brief pretrial hearing. J.A. 69–71.
Case: 24-1669 Document: 51 Page: 8 Filed: 02/09/2026

-- 8 of 28 --

GOTV STREAMING, LLC v. NETFLIX, INC. 9
The case proceeded to trial in October 2023. See J.A.
262–64. At trial, GoTV made several objections to Netflix’s
expert testimony and Netflix’s use of a demonstrative it
created and put before the jury when cross-examining
GoTV’s expert. See, e.g., J.A. 631–33. The district court
sustained GoTV’s objection when Netflix attempted to
move the demonstrative into evidence but otherwise did
not sustain GoTV’s other objections to Netflix’s experts’ tes-
timony. See, e.g., id. Claim 4 of the ’715 patent and claim
16 of the ’245 patent went to the jury after a three-day trial.
The jury found that Netflix infringed claim 4 of the ’715
patent (but not claim 16 of the ’245 patent), and it awarded
GoTV $2.5 million in damages as a life-of-patent lump sum,
starting from the filing of the suit. J.A. 9980–81.
Subsequently, the court denied GoTV’s post-judgment
motions, including GoTV’s reiteration of its objections to
Netflix’s damages presentations. J.A. 10900; J.A. 11364;
J.A. 11381; J.A. 104. In a separate order regarding pre-
judgment interest, the court rejected GoTV’s argument
that such interest should run from March 24, 2015, the
date that the ’715 patent issued. See GoTV Streaming,
LLC v. Netflix, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-07556-RGK-SHK, 2024
WL 1832392, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2024) (Prejudgment
Interest Decision). The district court concluded that
GoTV’s stipulation not to seek pre-suit damages precluded
awarding interest before the date of suit. See Prejudgment
Interest Decision, at *2; J.A. 1406.1
1 In late 2024, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is-
sued final written decisions in inter partes reviews (IPRs)
involving Netflix’s obviousness challenges to many claims
of the ’245, ’715, and ’865 patents. See Netflix, Inc. v. GoTV
Streaming, LLC, IPR2023-00757, 2024 WL 4682519
(P.T.A.B. Nov. 5, 2024) (’715 Final Written Decision);
Case: 24-1669 Document: 51 Page: 9 Filed: 02/09/2026

-- 9 of 28 --

GOTV STREAMING, LLC v. NETFLIX, INC. 10
GoTV now appeals the district court’s decisions (1) dis-
missing its induced-infringement claims; (2) granting sum-
mary judgment of invalidity for indefiniteness of the
asserted claims of the ’865 patent; (3) declining to award
prejudgment interest dating back to March 24, 2015; and
(4) admitting certain of Netflix-submitted evidence and al-
lowing a Netflix demonstrative regarding damages. Net-
flix cross-appeals the district court’s § 101 determination.
We have jurisdiction to review the district court’s decisions
under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
II
A
We address Netflix’s cross-appeal of the district court’s
rejection of its § 101 challenge, which is case dispositive if
we agree with Netflix (as we do). Under Alice’s two-step
approach, at step one “we determine whether a claim is di-
rected to a patent-ineligible concept, here an abstract idea,”
Netflix, Inc. v. GoTV Streaming, LLC, IPR2023-00758,
2024 WL 4682507 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 5, 2024) (’245 Final Writ-
ten Decision); Netflix, Inc. v. GoTV Streaming, LLC,
IPR2023-00759, 2024 WL 4604528 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2024)
(’865 Final Written Decision). The Board rejected Netflix’s
challenges to claims 1–20, 31, and 34 of the ’865 patent,
’865 Final Written Decision, at *36, and Netflix has not ap-
pealed from that decision. The Board held claim 4 and
other claims of the ’715 patent unpatentable for obvious-
ness, while upholding other claims, ’715 Final Written De-
cision, at *57, and it held claim 16 and other claims of the
’245 patent unpatentable for obviousness, while upholding
other claims, ’245 Final Written Decision, at *57. GoTV’s
appeals from the ’715 and ’245 IPR decisions are before our
court as consolidated cases, GoTV Streaming, LLC v. Net-
flix, Inc., Nos. 25-1588 and 25-1589.
Case: 24-1669 Document: 51 Page: 10 Filed: 02/09/2026

-- 10 of 28 --

GOTV STREAMING, LLC v. NETFLIX, INC. 11
and if the answer is yes, at step two “we review whether
the claim recites elements sufficient to transform it into a
patent-eligible application of the abstract idea.” Broad-
band iTV, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 113 F.4th 1359, 1367
(Fed. Cir. 2024). “We review decisions of § 101 patent eli-
gibility de novo. Patent eligibility is a question of law that
may be based on underlying factual findings.” Id. at 1366
(internal citation omitted); see SAP America, Inc. v. In-
vestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1166 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Berk-
heimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
In this case, the district court ruling was limited to Al-
ice step one: It held that the claims at issue were not di-
rected to abstract ideas and therefore did not proceed to
step two. But both parties before us ask us to decide
whether the claims are saved from ineligibility at Alice step
two if we conclude, contrary to the district court, that they
are directed to abstract ideas. Neither party suggests a re-
mand. In particular, GoTV nowhere suggests that there
are factual issues for a finder of fact to resolve or that it
wishes to develop any additional evidence, instead relying
entirely on the patent specification and the expert declara-
tion it submitted to the district court. GoTV Reply & Cross-
Appellee (Yellow) Br. at 56–62; id. at 60 (relying simply on
GoTV Opening Br. at 4–8 (background) and J.A. 1286–95
(expert declaration)). Concluding that the claims here are
directed to abstract ideas, we therefore proceed to address
the application of Alice step two on this record.
GoTV has simplified the ineligibility analysis required
in this appeal. GoTV makes no separate arguments re-
garding eligibility for the three asserted patents; specifi-
cally, it nowhere argues that, if claim 1 of the ’865 patent
is invalid for ineligibility, other asserted claims are eligi-
ble. See GoTV Yellow Br. at 45–63; see id. at 45, 51 (dis-
cussing ’865 patent claim 1). Although GoTV mentions a
few claim terms not in claim 1 of the ’865 patent, it does
not assert that those claim terms would save any claims
from ineligibility if claim 1 of the ’865 patent is invalid
Case: 24-1669 Document: 51 Page: 11 Filed: 02/09/2026

-- 11 of 28 --

GOTV STREAMING, LLC v. NETFLIX, INC. 12
under § 101. We therefore can and do focus just on that
claim, determining that it is directed to an abstract idea
and that no non-conclusory assertion or other evidence es-
tablishes any qualifying inventive concept to save it from
ineligibility. All asserted claims are for that reason invalid
under § 101.
B
An ineligibility analysis depends on “the language of
the [ ] [c]laims themselves.” ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaCon-
nect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759, 767 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (internal cita-
tion omitted). Although the specification’s (and
prosecution history’s) recitation of the problem faced and
the asserted inventive solution informs the inquiry into
what the combination of claimed features is directed to, see
id. at 767–68; US Patent No. 7,679,637 LLC v. Google LLC,
___ F.4th ____, ____, 2026 WL 174922, at *3, No. 24-1520,
slip op. at 7 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 22, 2026); Broadband iTV, 113
F.4th at 1367, only features that are claimed, not un-
claimed details that appear in the specification, can supply
something beyond ineligible matter—here, something be-
yond an abstract idea and sufficient to render the claim el-
igible, ChargePoint, 920 F.3d at 769–70; see Mobile Acuity
Ltd. v. Blippar Ltd., 110 F.4th 1280, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2024);
AI Visualize, Inc. v. Nuance Communications, Inc., 97
F.4th 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2024); American Axle & Manu-
facturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, 967 F.3d 1285,
1293 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The proper understanding of what
is claimed, i.e., claim construction, therefore matters for an
ineligibility analysis, although at least at some stages of a
case a court may assume the patent owner’s constructions
in resolving a motion for judgment of ineligibility. See
UTTO Inc. v. Metrotech Corp., 119 F.4th 984, 992–94 (Fed.
Cir. 2024).
Here, the district court, adopting GoTV’s view, con-
strued “rendering command” to mean, simply, “a descrip-
tion for rendering a page component, such as the width or
Case: 24-1669 Document: 51 Page: 12 Filed: 02/09/2026

-- 12 of 28 --

GOTV STREAMING, LLC v. NETFLIX, INC. 13
the height of the component,” explaining specifically that
in this context “command” covers a “mere description[]” of
what is to be rendered—i.e., a set of specifications for the
device to render—and is not limited to “instructions.”
Summary Judgment Decision, at *2–4. The district court
did not construe “wireless device generic template”—be-
cause the phrase appears only in the ’865 patent’s claims,
which it held indefinite (a ruling discussed just infra). Id.,
at *5. But GoTV has said, without disagreement from Net-
flix here, that being “generic” simply means not “being spe-
cific to a device,” relying on the specification’s statement
that an application “is generic in that it is not specific to
any device or any set of device capabilities.” GoTV Yellow
Br. at 51 n.7 (quoting ’865 patent, col. 6, lines 11–13). No
definition of “template” has been offered—in particular,
GoTV advances no context-specific specialized meaning—
so we take the term to have its ordinary common-usage
meaning. The district court gave “custom configuration” a
broad meaning—“a configuration that determines the look
and feel of the application”—disagreeing with Netflix’s nar-
rowing of the phrase to “[i]nstructions” and accepting
GoTV’s proposal but eliminating a redundancy. Summary
Judgment Decision, at *5–6.2
2 The district court also construed “rendering
blocks,” which does not appear in claim 1 of the ’865 patent
(but does appear in claim 4 of that patent). It adopted
GoTV’s construction of the phrase to mean, broadly, “blocks
that perform discrete rendering operations,” making clear
that icons and images are examples of such blocks. Sum-
mary Judgment Decision, at *6–7. GoTV also refers in this
court to the phrase “compiled content,” which does not ap-
pear in the claims of the ’865 patent, but it offers no con-
struction of the phrase or its component “compiled,” thus
giving it no specialized meaning. We note these terms in
Case: 24-1669 Document: 51 Page: 13 Filed: 02/09/2026

-- 13 of 28 --

GOTV STREAMING, LLC v. NETFLIX, INC. 14
One claim-construction ruling is disputed before us,
namely, the district court’s conclusion that “discrete low
level rendering command” is indefinite. Id. at *4–5. We
disagree with that conclusion. We adopt GoTV’s construc-
tion of that phrase as meaning “[a] discrete rendering com-
mand that is tailored based on wireless device capability.”
Id. at *4.
We decide the indefiniteness and claim-construction is-
sues, both of which are determined by intrinsic evidence
only, de novo. See Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v.
Sandoz, 574 U.S. 318, 331 (2015); Canatex Completion So-
lutions, Inc. v. Wellmatics, LLC, 159 F.4th 39, 45 (Fed. Cir.
2025). A claim is indefinite, and hence invalid under 35
U.S.C. § 112(b), only “if [the] claim[], read in light of the
specification delineating the patent, and the prosecution
history, fail[s] to inform, with reasonable certainty, those
skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” Nauti-
lus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 901
(2014). “Each element contained in a patent claim is
deemed material to defining the scope of the patented in-
vention.” Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical
Co., 520 U.S. 17, 29 (1997).
The district court rejected GoTV’s proposed construc-
tion of “discrete low level rendering command” because, in
the court’s view, that construction would make “superflu-
ous” “significant portions of the specification and claims.”
Summary Judgment Decision, at *5. In particular, the
court substituted GoTV’s construction for the claim phrase
at issue as it appears in a sentence in the specification, pro-
ducing: “As such, precompiled basic commands are discrete
rendering commands that are tailored based on wireless
this footnote only, since they do not bear on the eligibility
of claim 1 of the ’865 patent, a claim GoTV has accepted as
representative for eligibility purposes by making no sepa-
rate argument for other claims.
Case: 24-1669 Document: 51 Page: 14 Filed: 02/09/2026

-- 14 of 28 --

GOTV STREAMING, LLC v. NETFLIX, INC. 15
device capability tailored based on the rendering capability
of the client 210.” Id. (italicized GoTV construction substi-
tuted for claim phrase). We find this reasoning insufficient
to support the conclusion.
If the court found redundancy based simply on the re-
peated “tailored” word, such a repetition in a substitution
exercise is not a substantial basis for deeming a relevant
artisan to be confused about claim scope. And that repeti-
tion would not occur if the substitution exercise were con-
ducted for the claim limitation (which uses “within,” not
tailored). And if the district court found redundancy by
equating “wireless device capability” with “rendering capa-
bility,” it provided no support for that equation. After all,
a wireless device may have various capabilities (such as
GPS capabilities and others, see ’865 patent, col. 11, lines
22–33) beyond rendering capabilities.
There is ample basis in the specification for a relevant
artisan to arrive at reasonable certainty about the claim
phrase’s meaning. The meaning of “rendering command,”
as noted above, is not in dispute: “a description for render-
ing a page component, such as the width or the height of
the component.” Summary Judgment Decision, at *2–4.
That phrase and its construction do not imply tailoring to
a particular device, so the additional limitation “discrete
low level” is meaningful. And the specification makes rea-
sonably clear the full scope of the entire phrase at issue.
One excerpt states:
Basic commands are precompiled by the server 230
and ready for rendering by the client 210. It is ap-
preciated that basic commands are written in a
syntax that is device generic regardless of the de-
vice type but whose parameters are tailored
based on the wireless device capabilities. As
such, precompiled basic commands are dis-
crete low level rendering commands tailored
based on the rendering capability of the client 210.
Case: 24-1669 Document: 51 Page: 15 Filed: 02/09/2026

-- 15 of 28 --

GOTV STREAMING, LLC v. NETFLIX, INC. 16
’865 patent, col. 13, lines 18–25 (emphases added). A sec-
ond excerpt states:
Basic commands are written in a device inde-
pendent syntax but tailored based on the wire-
less device capability. Accordingly, the basic
commands are low level compilation operable to
render objects using the plurality of rendering
blocks of the wireless device.
Id., col. 3, lines 59–63 (emphases added). See also id., col.
2, lines 51–52 (commands are “of a generic syntax” but are
“device specific in their parameters”) (emphases added); col.
11, lines 1–3; col. 13, lines 22–25; col. 18, lines 60–62.
These passages convey that certain commands (“basic
commands”) are descriptions for rendering a page compo-
nent (“rendering commands”) written in device-independ-
ent syntax but tailored (given “parameters”) based on the
capabilities of the wireless device. Those commands are
“precompiled” and “operable to render objects” on the wire-
less device. The evident upshot is that “discrete low level
rendering commands” are descriptions that are tailored for
rendering by the wireless device. This construction of “low
level” and the phrase as a whole—which is GoTV’s con-
struction—is reinforced by additional portions of the spec-
ification. See ’865 patent, col. 2, lines 57–60 (“a custom
configuration may be a set of low level instructions for pre-
programming . . . rendering blocks” to be received and im-
plemented by the wireless device); id., col. 3, lines 61–63
(“basic commands are low level compilation operable to
render objects” on a wireless device); id., col. 3, lines 38–40
(describing how templates are originally “high level” and
coded, for example, in an “extensible markup language
(XML) format” before being translated to low level com-
mands readable on the wireless device).
We conclude that a relevant artisan, reading the claims
in the context of the specification, would understand “dis-
crete low level rendering command” to mean a discrete
Case: 24-1669 Document: 51 Page: 16 Filed: 02/09/2026

-- 16 of 28 --

GOTV STREAMING, LLC v. NETFLIX, INC. 17
rendering command tailored based on the capabilities of
the user’s wireless device. Accordingly, we adopt GoTV’s
construction of “discrete low level rendering command,”
and we reverse the district court’s holding that the claims
of the ’865 patent are invalid for indefiniteness.
C
With pertinent claim constructions in hand, we turn to
the two-step analysis of eligibility under § 101. The “di-
rected to” inquiry of Alice step one “requires that we look
to the character of the claim[] as a whole.” Broadband iTV,
113 F.4th at 1367; see also Electric Power Group, LLC v.
Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). This
inquiry “often turns to the question of what the patent as-
serts as the claimed advance over the prior art.” Broad-
band iTV, 113 F.4th at 1367; see also, e.g., Optis Cellular
Technology, LLC v. Apple Inc., 139 F.4th 1363, 1379 (Fed.
Cir. 2025) (inquiring into “the focus of the claimed ad-
vance”); CosmoKey Solutions GmbH v. Duo Security LLC,
15 F.4th 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (same); PersonalWeb
Technologies LLC v. Google LLC, 8 F.4th 1310, 1315 (Fed.
Cir. 2021) (same); TecSec, Inc. v. Adobe Inc., 978 F.3d 1278,
1292 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (same); Solutran, Inc. v. Eavon, Inc.,
931 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (same); Affinity Labs
of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257–58
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (same). Within the framework of identify-
ing what a claim is focused on as the asserted advance (not
just what it may specify), governing case law recognizes ab-
stractness in several related meanings based on the Su-
preme Court’s precedents—for example, as contrasting
with tangibility of implementations of general principles or
with concreteness of mechanisms for how to achieve de-
sired results. See, e.g., Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
896 F.3d 1335, 1342–45 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
As relevant here, we have often recognized claims di-
rected to “a longstanding or fundamental human practice”
to be directed to an abstract idea, Broadband iTV, 113
Case: 24-1669 Document: 51 Page: 17 Filed: 02/09/2026

-- 17 of 28 --

GOTV STREAMING, LLC v. NETFLIX, INC. 18
F.4th at 1367; see also Beteiro, LLC v. DraftKings Inc., 104
F.4th 1350, 1356–57 (Fed. Cir. 2024), and so too claims di-
rected to “the steps of obtaining, manipulating, and dis-
playing data, particularly when claimed at a high level of
generality,” AI Visualize, 97 F.4th at 1378; see also Beteiro,
104 F.4th at 1355–56. We have also held claims using
purely “result-focused functional language, containing no
specificity about how the purported invention achieves
those results,” to be directed to an abstract idea. Beteiro,
104 F.4th at 1356; see also Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast
Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1337 (Fed.
Cir. 2017) (determining that the claims were directed to an
abstract idea because the claim language required “the
functional results of ‘converting,’ ‘routing,’ ‘controlling,’
‘monitoring,’ and ‘accumulating records’” but did “not suf-
ficiently describe how to achieve these results in a non-ab-
stract way”). And we have made clear that an abstract idea
remains an abstract idea even when narrowed—e.g., by
subject matter—to a particular use or environment. See,
e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 222; United Services Automobile As-
sociation v. PNC Bank N.A., 139 F.4th 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir.
2025); Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1354; Intellectual
Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA) [IV-Capital
One], 792 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc.
v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
This case, like many others we have decided, involves
networked computers (here, networked servers and wire-
less devices), their activities, and their communications
with each other. Where computer (including network) use
is asserted by the patent owner to be what a claim is di-
rected to, we have regularly recognized a crucial distinction
based on, among other things, the Supreme Court’s treat-
ment of computers and networks in Alice. See, e.g., Enfish,
LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335–36 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (discussing Alice); buySAFE, 765 F.3d at 1354–55
(discussing Alice). On one side of the line (requiring a de-
termination favoring the patent challenger at step one) are
Case: 24-1669 Document: 51 Page: 18 Filed: 02/09/2026

-- 18 of 28 --

GOTV STREAMING, LLC v. NETFLIX, INC. 19
claims that simply call for the use of computers and net-
works as tools to carry out an abstract idea, using their or-
dinary functions without specific hardware or process
advances in those functions—e.g., receiving inputs, storing
and retrieving, processing, outputting (including display-
ing), and transmitting. On the other side of the line (end-
ing the Alice inquiry, without proceeding to step two) are
claims that call for a concrete asserted improvement in how
those functions are carried out, which requires more than
result-focused functional language and more than just us-
ing those functions in the context of specifically identified
content. See Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335–36 (asking “whether
the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improve-
ment in computer capabilities (i.e., [in that case] the self-
referential table for a computer database) or, instead, on a
process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which com-
puters are invoked merely as a tool”; concluding that “the
plain focus of the claims is on an improvement to computer
functionality itself, not on economic or other tasks for
which a computer is used in its ordinary capacity”); see also
US Patent No. 7,679,637 LLC, ___ F.4th at ____, 2026 WL
174922, at *3–4, No. 24-1520, slip op. at 6–9 (stressing the
“how” requirement and the insufficiency of “result-focused
functional language” and finding claim directed to an ab-
stract idea); Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., 134
F.4th 1205, 1213 (Fed. Cir. 2025); Beteiro, 104 F.4th at
1356, 1357, 1359; Hawk Technology Systems, LLC v. Castle
Retail, LLC, 60 F.4th 1349, 1356–58 (Fed. Cir. 2023); In-
ternational Business Machines Corp. v. Zillow Group, Inc.
[IBM-Zillow], 50 F.4th 1371, 1377–78 (Fed. Cir. 2022); In
re Killian, 45 F.4th 1373, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2022); TecSec, 978
F.3d at 1293; Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Systems,
Inc., 965 F.3d 1299, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Customedia
Technologies, LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359,
1363–64 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems,
Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Case: 24-1669 Document: 51 Page: 19 Filed: 02/09/2026

-- 19 of 28 --

GOTV STREAMING, LLC v. NETFLIX, INC. 20
Here, attending to the claim language and taking care
to avoid overgeneralizing, see TecSec, 978 F.3d at 1293, we
conclude that the representative claim is directed to the ab-
stract idea of a template set of specifications—generic in at
least some respects (claim 1 requires only two such re-
spects)—that can be tailored (in at least one respect) for
final production of the specified product (here an image) to
fit the user’s constraints. Outside the image context, the
idea is familiar from, say, a pattern specifying many but
not all details for a dress or trousers (with tailoring for final
production to fit a particular body in limb length or other
body dimensions) or a kitchen-cabinet blueprint (tailorable
to height and length wall measurements). See Beteiro, 104
F.4th at 1356 (noting the role of “persuasive[] analogi[es]”
and that “[a] claimed method’s similarity to ‘fundamental
. . . practice[s] long prevalent’ is yet another clue that the
claims may be abstract and unpatentable” (quoting Alice,
573 U.S. at 219, 220 (omitting further internal quotation
marks)). And this template idea is equally abstract—per-
haps especially—for creation of an image display by tailor-
ing to user-specific constraints. See IV-Capital One, 792
F.3d at 1369 (“customizing information based on . . . infor-
mation known about the user” is “‘a fundamental . . . prac-
tice long prevalent in our system’” (quoting Alice, 573 U.S.
at 219)); see also Beteiro, 104 F.4th at 1356 (relying on IV-
Capital One). Notably, we have recently recognized—in a
step-one inquiry involving a patent having priority to 2004,
before GoTV’s 2007 priority date—that the use of tem-
plates for creating a display was not and could not be the
claimed advance and hence did not “change the fact that
the claims [at issue were] directed to an abstract idea,” be-
cause template use, by 2004, was already routine and con-
ventional and merely provided a generic environment.
Broadband iTV, 113 F.4th at 1369.
The claim’s calling for collecting and combining infor-
mation for presentation to the rendering device does not
provide a focus on an advance in non-abstract ideas. As
Case: 24-1669 Document: 51 Page: 20 Filed: 02/09/2026

-- 20 of 28 --

GOTV STREAMING, LLC v. NETFLIX, INC. 21
already noted, the ideas of collecting, storing, organizing,
and displaying information are, without more, themselves
abstract in character (involving both intangibility and fun-
damental longstanding practices). And in the present mat-
ter particularly, there can be no focus on an advance in this
respect, because the information at issue—look-and-feel in-
formation about the content plus device-specific con-
straints—is information that, in the prior art, software
developers making from-the-ground-up versions of their
applications themselves had to be amassing and combining
to arrive at the tailored device-specific set of final image-
display specifications rendering by the display device.
GoTV makes no meaningful argument to the contrary.
Instead, GoTV argues that this is a case of com-
puter/network improvement. GoTV Yellow Br. at 45–55.
But the claims do not call for any new hardware, whether
at the server end, the wireless device end, or the networks
that connect them. In particular, the claim does not call
for an improvement in the wireless device’s rendering pro-
cesses, which it takes as a given (hence the need for tailor-
ing), merely supplying a final set of specifications for
rendering within the device’s constraints. Nor does the
claim call for any improvement in ordinary computer (here,
server) functions, such as receiving, storing, processing,
outputting, and transmitting.
GoTV refers to the “algorithm” and “architecture” set
forth in the claim, id. at 49, but those highly general labels,
without further identification of details, do not aid GoTV
because they can apply to the abstract idea itself—using a
template for tailoring the final set of specifications the de-
vice uses to put an image on the screen, with use of the
ordinary capacity of computers (including a given wireless
device) and networks to aid (in automating or speeding up,
e.g.) that process. When GoTV seeks to be more specific, it
refers to a few of the claim terms—either express in the
claim or part of the construction of express terms—as re-
quiring “specific data structures.” Id. at 51; see also id. at
Case: 24-1669 Document: 51 Page: 21 Filed: 02/09/2026

-- 21 of 28 --

GOTV STREAMING, LLC v. NETFLIX, INC. 22
45, 48, 53, 55, 56, 61. But that label is itself too general to
aid GoTV. The specific terms on which GoTV relies do not
call for anything about the “structure” (akin to header/pay-
load or bit-slot assignments) of the bit collections trans-
ferred between server and wireless device. As made clear
above, see supra pp. 4–6, 12–17, all the terms refer simply
to packages of information of a particular content, and
hence do not escape the abstract-idea category. There is no
improvement of computer/network operations in their ordi-
nary functions, just the use of ordinary functions as a tool
for executing the abstract idea.
Thus, GoTV points to “wireless device generic tem-
plate,” GoTV Yellow Br. at 51, but that phrase just recites
the abstract idea of a generic template, i.e., a set of specifi-
cations for an image that is not specific to a device or the
device’s capabilities. GoTV also points to “custom configu-
ration,” id. at 51, 53, but that broad phrase just recites the
abstract idea of a set of specifications that determines the
look and feel of particular content on a screen. Although
GoTV gives “specific examples” of what the phrase “can in-
clude,” id. at 53, that recitation logically cannot help GoTV:
Abstract ideas routinely encompass concrete examples, so
that property does not make the claimed category non-ab-
stract. GoTV merely adverts to the phrase “page descrip-
tion,” id. at 51, making no attempt to assert a concrete
structural property of the term, see id. at 53–55, and the
unconstrued phrase broadly covers layout information for
what is on the screen. See supra p.5. GoTV points to “ren-
der[ing] commands,” GoTV Yellow Br. at 54–55, but that
phrase broadly covers a description of something to be ren-
dered by the device—which is abstract and not even argu-
ably an advance. And GoTV mentions “discrete low level
rendering command,” see id. at 51, which we have con-
strued, at GoTV’s urging, to mean broadly a “discrete” de-
scription of something to be rendered that has been
tailored to the device, see supra pp. 14–17—which is an
Case: 24-1669 Document: 51 Page: 22 Filed: 02/09/2026

-- 22 of 28 --

GOTV STREAMING, LLC v. NETFLIX, INC. 23
aspect of the abstract idea.3 In short, the terms on which
GoTV relies, notwithstanding any first-blush appearance
of technical specificity, have broad meanings that, individ-
ually and taken together, cannot support a conclusion that
the claim is directed to a concrete computer/network ad-
vance.
The claim at issue here is thus critically different from
the claims in Visual Memory LLC v. Nvidia Corp., 867 F.3d
1253 (Fed. Cir. 2017), on which the district court relied.
The claims in Visual Memory were specifically about the
characteristics of a computer’s memory system, assertedly
creating an improvement in this basic component of a com-
puter, the improvement focusing on its interaction with the
computer’s processor(s)—which is a far cry from claiming
mere use of ordinary computer components for a particular
subject matter. Id. at 1256–62 (explaining basis of decision
and why the case was like Enfish, which involved self-ref-
erential tables in data storage/retrieval, and not like mere
use-a-computer cases); see also CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBi-
onic, Inc., 955 F.3d 1358, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2020). We have
often summarized cases lying on one side or another of the
important divide regarding computer-based patents. See,
e.g., Beteiro, 104 F.4th at 1357; TecSec, 978 F.3d at 1293–
94; Customedia, 951 F.3d at 1363–64. This case fits com-
fortably on the directed-at-abstract-ideas side of the divide.
Under Alice step one, we conclude that, contrary to the
district court’s ruling, claim 1 of the ’865 patent and the
other asserted claims (of which it is representative for eli-
gibility purposes) are directed to an abstract idea. The
3 GoTV also mentions “rendering blocks” and “com-
piled content,” GoTV Yellow Br. at 54–55, but those terms
do not appear in the representative claim and, in any event,
supply no concrete computer/network improvement. See
supra pp. 13–14 n.2.
Case: 24-1669 Document: 51 Page: 23 Filed: 02/09/2026

-- 23 of 28 --

GOTV STREAMING, LLC v. NETFLIX, INC. 24
claims are therefore ineligible under § 101 unless they are
saved under Alice step two.
D
At Alice step two, our inquiry is into whether the claims
recite matter that is “an inventive concept that renders a
claim ‘significantly more’ than an abstract idea to which it
is directed.” BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d
1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018); see Beteiro, 104 F.4th at 1357.
This presents “a question of law that may be ‘inform[ed] by
‘[u]nderlying factual determinations,’ such as ‘whether a
claim limitation or combination of limitations is well-un-
derstood routine, and conventional.’” Beteiro, 104 F.4th at
1357 (quoting BSG, 899 F.3d at 1290). We have explained
that this inquiry often overlaps with the step-one inquiry,
see Broadband iTV, 113 F.4th at 1369; Ancora Technolo-
gies, Inc. v. HTC America, Inc., 908 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed.
Cir. 2018); Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1353, and as
a practical matter, few of our cases have involved a deter-
mination favoring the patent owner at step two after a de-
termination favoring the challenger at step one. But the
inquiries are distinct, at least in focus, though they com-
monly align: Step one focuses on the legal issue of the
meaning of the claims and specification (and prosecution
history if pertinent), which at least typically “can be an-
swered based on the intrinsic evidence,” CardioNet, 955
F.3d at 1372; id. at 1373–74, whereas step two focuses on
often-factual issues of real-world knowledge and practices
(within the important legal constraints on what constitutes
a qualifying inventive concept, such as not itself being an
abstract idea), see BSG, 899 F.3d at 1290; Berkheimer, 881
F.3d at 1367–68.
In conducting the step-two inquiry, we have repeatedly
emphasized that it is not sufficient, in order to pass muster,
for a claim to use functional, result-focused language or to
encompass ordinary computers and networks to perform
their ordinary functions in carrying out an abstract idea,
Case: 24-1669 Document: 51 Page: 24 Filed: 02/09/2026

-- 24 of 28 --

GOTV STREAMING, LLC v. NETFLIX, INC. 25
even when narrowed to a particular use or environment
(such as particular subject matter), without going further
to require a specific implementation to improve how those
functions are carried out. See, e.g., US Patent No.
7,679,637 LLC, ___ F.4th at ____, 2026 WL 174922, at *3–
4, slip op. at 10; Recentive, 134 F.4th at 1213; Beteiro, 104
F.4th at 1356, 1357, 1359; Hawk Technology, 60 F.4th at
1357; IBM-Zillow, 50 F.4th at 1377–78; TecSec, 978 F.3d
at 1293; buySAFE, 765 F.3d at 1355. As one consequence,
“merely adding computer functionality to increase the
speed or efficiency of [a] process does not confer patent eli-
gibility on an otherwise abstract idea.” IV-Capital One,
792 F.3d at 1370. We also have repeatedly made clear that
a conclusory assertion about an inventive concept, includ-
ing by an expert, is insufficient. See US Patent No.
7,679,637 LLC, ___ F.4th at ___, 2026 WL 174922, at *4,
slip op. at 10–11; Beteiro, 104 F.4th at 1358; AI Visualize,
97 F.4th at 1380; Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Covalent, Inc.,
72 F.4th 1355, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2023); Sanderling Manage-
ment Ltd. v. Snap Inc., 65 F.4th 698, 706 (Fed. Cir. 2023);
IBM-Zillow, 50 F.4th at 1379–80; Simio, LLC v. FlexSim
Software Products, Inc., 983 F.3d 1353, 1365 (Fed. Cir.
2020).
Claim 1 of the ’865 patent fails to pass muster at this
step of the Alice analysis. As we have already described,
none of the claim 1 language on which GoTV relies in this
court calls for anything but ordinary computers and net-
works to amass and combine information previously
amassed and combined outside a server (according to the
patent) to prepare a tailored image description to send to
the (unimproved) wireless device for that device to put on
the screen by using its own rendering functionality for dis-
play. The information gathering and combining are them-
selves abstract. Any speed and efficiency benefits are those
made available by ordinary computers and networks and
thus do “not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise ab-
stract idea.” IV-Capital One, 792 F.3d at 1370. There is no
Case: 24-1669 Document: 51 Page: 25 Filed: 02/09/2026

-- 25 of 28 --

GOTV STREAMING, LLC v. NETFLIX, INC. 26
specificity, in particular no specificity as to how tailoring is
done, that might go beyond result-focused functional lan-
guage.
GoTV points to its expert’s testimony about Alice step
two. GoTV Yellow Br. at 60 (citing J.A. 1286–95). The
cited testimony cannot help GoTV. It does not, and could
not, identify claimed concrete implementations that go be-
yond the result-focused and functionally described com-
puter processes apparent from the above-recited claim
constructions. And conclusory assertions about the speed
and efficiency benefits of using ordinary computer and net-
work functionality do not suffice at Alice step two.
We therefore conclude that claim 1 of the ’865 patent
and the other asserted claims (of which it is representative
for eligibility purposes) flunk the Alice step-two require-
ment, and the claims are invalid for ineligibility under
§ 101. Netflix is entitled to judgment of invalidity.
III
The foregoing suffices to end this case in Netflix’s favor.
We therefore do not decide the merits of GoTV’s conten-
tions in its appeal (other than its contention regarding in-
definiteness we have discussed). We note, however, that
on two of those contentions, GoTV has presented substan-
tial arguments that the district court committed error.
First, GoTV has argued that, contrary to the district
court’s conclusion, a patentee may plead and press an in-
ducement charge in an amended complaint and rely, for the
knowledge element of inducement, on the knowledge the
defendant gained from the original complaint. GoTV
Opening Br. at 20–26. Among the authorities relevant to
this issue are an inducement precedent of ours, In re Bill
of Lading Transmission & Processing System Patent Liti-
gation, 681 F.3d 1323, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2012), and a related
willfulness precedent, State Industries, Inc. v. A.O. Smith
Corp., 751 F.2d 1226, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1985). We do not
Case: 24-1669 Document: 51 Page: 26 Filed: 02/09/2026

-- 26 of 28 --

GOTV STREAMING, LLC v. NETFLIX, INC. 27
adjudicate whether GoTV is correct, but we deem its argu-
ments to be sufficiently substantial that it is worth vacat-
ing the district court’s grant to Netflix of summary
judgment of no inducement of infringement.
Second, GoTV has argued that the district court abused
its discretion concerning certain presentations by the de-
fendant, Netflix, going to what amount the jury should
award based on a hypothetical-negotiation approach to de-
termining a proper reasonable royalty as damages for in-
fringement. GoTV Opening Br. at 33–63. As one part of
this argument, GoTV contends, in substance, that, in pre-
trial evidentiary rulings under Federal Rule of Evidence
702 and in rulings during trial, the district court improp-
erly allowed Netflix to present evidence that was imper-
missibly far afield from “the core economic question [of]
what the infringer in the hypothetical negotiation would
have anticipated the profit-making potential of use of the
patented technology to be, compared to using non-infring-
ing alternatives,” VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corp., 87
F.4th 1332, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (internal citation and
quotation marks omitted and emphasis added), and that
“skew[ed] the damages horizon for the jury,” Uniloc USA,
Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292, 1320 (Fed. Cir.
2011), causing prejudice. We do not adjudicate whether
GoTV is correct in this regard, much less in all of its dam-
ages-related arguments on appeal. But we deem some of
its arguments on the point just noted to be sufficiently sub-
stantial that it is worth specifically vacating the district
court’s denial of GoTV’s post-trial motion for a new trial
because of such damages-evidence rulings. As with the in-
ducement issue, we need not go further here because Net-
flix is entitled to judgment in the case regardless.
We do not address GoTV’s challenge to how the district
court calculated prejudgment interest.
Case: 24-1669 Document: 51 Page: 27 Filed: 02/09/2026

-- 27 of 28 --

GOTV STREAMING, LLC v. NETFLIX, INC. 28
IV
We reverse the district court’s judgment of invalidity
for indefiniteness as to the ’865 patent, but we also reverse
the judgment for GoTV, holding that Netflix is entitled to
judgment in its favor in the case because the asserted
claims are invalid for ineligibility. We vacate the district
court’s summary judgment of no inducement and the de-
nial of GoTV’s motion for a new trial on damages. Judg-
ment for Netflix ending the case shall be entered in the
district court.
The parties shall bear their own costs.
REVERSED, VACATED IN PART, AND DIRECTING
ENTRY OF JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT
Case: 24-1669 Document: 51 Page: 28 Filed: 02/09/2026

-- 28 of 28 --