Case: 22-1481 Document: 41 Page: 1 Filed: 04/18/2023
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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