Patent Case Watch

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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Avago Technologies International Sales PTE. Ltd. v. Netflix, Inc., No. 23-1750 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 6, 2024)

Affirmed
Rule 36 Affirmance
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 23-1750
Decided
November 6, 2024
Judge
Per curiam (Rule 36)
Document
Rule 36 Judgment
Length
2 pages
Download Opinion (PDF)

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

for the Federal Circuit

AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL SALES

PTE. LIMITED,

Appellant

v.

NETFLIX, INC.,

Appellee

2023-1750

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2021-01298, IPR2021-01334, IPR2021-01335.

JUDGMENT

DAN YOUNG, Quarles & Brady LLP, Highlands Ranch, CO, argued for appellant. Also represented by KENT DALLOW, MATTHEW CHRISTIAN HOLOHAN.

HARPER BATTS, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Menlo Park, CA, argued for appellee. Also represented by JEFFREY LIANG, CHRISTOPHER SCOTT PONDER.

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

PER CURIAM (DYK, TARANTO, and STOLL, Circuit

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

Figure on page 2 of the opinion

November 6, 2024

Date

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

Avago Technologies International Sales PTE. Ltd. v. Netflix, Inc., No. 23-1750 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 6, 2024).

Record ID
CAFC-23-1750-20241106
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-23-1750-20241106

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.

Source: Federal Circuit opinions and orders · retrieved August 15, 2026 · Report an error