Broadcom Corporation v. Netflix, Inc.

Background

This patent-infringement action concerns four patents involving video and data processing: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,259,121; 6,744,387; 6,982,663; and 9,332,283. Broadcom asserted claims from those patents against Netflix. The parties asked the court to construe, meaning interpret, eight phrases in the patent claims. They also raised indefiniteness challenges and disputes about means-plus-function limitations.

Legal standards

The court explained that claim terms generally receive their ordinary and customary meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field, considered in the context of the patent’s claims, specification, and any relevant prosecution history. For means-plus-function terms under 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 6, the court identifies the claimed function and the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification. A patent claim is indefinite if, read in light of the patent and its prosecution history, it does not inform a skilled person about the invention’s scope with reasonable certainty. Indefiniteness must be shown by clear and convincing evidence.

Rulings

’121 patent: “display pipeline”

The court construed “display pipeline” as a “chain of multiple nodes.” It rejected Netflix’s proposed construction of “a series of video processing modules.” The court reasoned that the claims and specification distinguish nodes from modules and describe the pipeline as being formed by chaining nodes together. The court also declined to limit the term to video processing because the claims refer more broadly to data processing and the patent’s video-processing descriptions concern particular embodiments. The court further concluded that Broadcom’s prosecution arguments did not clearly and unmistakably disclaim a broader meaning.

’387 patent: means-plus-function terms

For three means-plus-function limitations in claim 3, the court agreed with the parties about the functions but disputed the scope of the corresponding structures. The court construed the structures as follows:

- For determining whether a code-symbol index value is less than a threshold, the structure is binarization module 62 and step 102 of Figure 4, as described at column 7, lines 63–66. - For constructing a codeword using unary binarization when the index value is below the threshold, the structure is binarization module 62 and steps 102 and 104 of Figure 4, as described at column 7, lines 61–8:1. - For constructing a codeword using exp-Golomb binarization when the index value is not below the threshold, the structure is binarization module 62 and steps 106, 108, and 110 of Figure 4, as described at column 8, lines 1–10.

The court rejected Netflix’s proposed narrower algorithm for the third limitation. It concluded that Process 100, described at column 7, line 62 through column 8, line 10 and depicted in Figure 4, provided adequate structure. The court also concluded that the patent sufficiently explained how to create the unary prefix and binary portion of the exp-Golomb codeword.

’663 patent, claim 12

The court construed claim 12 to require its three codeword-generation steps to be performed in the recited order. Step (B) refers to the threshold identified in step (A), and step (C) refers to the offset identified in step (B). The specification and Figure 4 also describe the steps as a sequence from creating an initial prefix, to creating a unary prefix, to creating a suffix.

’663 patent, claim 13

The court gave the disputed phrase its plain and ordinary meaning and found claim 13 not indefinite. The court concluded that a skilled person would understand that, when the index value is below the threshold, the fourth pattern can fill the first portion as a complete unary codeword and processing then stops, without generating the second and third patterns.

’663 patent, claims 18 and 19

The court found claims 18 and 19 indefinite. Because claim 12 requires sequential steps beginning with generation of the first portion when the index value is at least the threshold, the court determined that the claims did not explain how the first portion or the required codeword is generated when the index value is below the threshold. The court found that Netflix proved by clear and convincing evidence that the scope of these claims would not be reasonably clear to a skilled person.

’283 patent, claims 1 and 14

The court gave the disputed phrase concerning prediction-unit partition modes its plain and ordinary meaning and found it not indefinite. The patent’s specification and figures identify the relevant partition modes and explain that the N×N mode applies only when the coding unit is the smallest coding unit. The court concluded that the patent made clear that different binary trees may be used depending on whether the selected coding unit is the smallest one.

Disposition

The court entered its claim-construction order on May 23, 2022. It adopted the constructions stated in the order, found claim 13 and the disputed ’283 patent claims not indefinite, and found ’663 patent claims 18 and 19 indefinite.