Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Digital Media Technologies v. Netflix, Inc., No. 17-2408 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 13, 2018)

Affirmed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 17-2408
Decided
November 13, 2018
Judge
Per curiam (Rule 36)
Document
Rule 36 Judgment
Length
2 pages

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit DIGITAL MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

NETFLIX, INC., AMAZON.COM, INC., HULU, LLC,

Defendants-Appellees

2017-2408, 2017-2409, 2017-2410

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida in Nos. 4:16-cv-00243-MW-CAS, 4:16-cv-00244-MW-CAS, 4:16-cv-00245-MW-CAS, Judge Mark E. Walker.

JUDGMENT

STEPHEN ROBERT RISLEY, Kent & Risley, LLC, Alpharetta, GA, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by DANIEL A. KENT. DAN L. BAGATELL, Perkins Coie, LLP, Hanover, NH, argued for defendants-appellees. Also represented by MATTHEW COOK BERNSTEIN, San Diego, CA; ANDREW DUFRESNE, Crofton, MD; MARTIN GILMORE, New York, NY.

2THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

November 13, 2018 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

Digital Media Technologies v. Netflix, Inc., No. 17-2408 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 13, 2018).

Record ID
CAFC-17-2408-20181113
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-17-2408-20181113

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.