February 27, 2026
Authored and Edited by Erik R. Puknys; Karlie I. Hinton; Ryan V. McDonnell
In Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, No. 24-1541 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 13, 2026), the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s claim construction, vacated its final written decision, and remanded for further proceedings.
Netflix petitioned for an inter partes review of DivX’s patent, asserting obviousness over a combination of prior art. The dispute centered on the construction of a claim limitation that required “locating encryption information that identifies encrypted portions of frames of video within the requested portions of the selected stream.” Over the dissent of one administrative law judge, the Board construed the limitation to require that the encryption information itself be located within the requested portions and concluded that Netflix had failed to show that the limitation was met by the prior art. Netflix appealed.
The Federal Circuit reversed, holding that the phrase “within the requested portions” modifies “encrypted portions of frames of video,” not “encryption information.” To reach this conclusion, the Court applied the “nearest reasonable referent” canon of grammatical construction, in which a modifier is presumptively understood to be tied to the nearest available semantically plausible modificand where commas or other textual signals are not used. The Court found this reading confirmed by the claim structure, specification embodiments, and the prosecution history of a related grandparent patent. Under the correct construction, the asserted prior art indisputably taught the disputed limitation, warranting remand for further proceedings.
Copyright © 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information
At the PTAB Blog
Discretion All the Way Down: USPTO Uses a Discretionary IPR Denial to Justify a
§ 325(d) EPR Denial
May 28, 2026
At the PTAB Blog
IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in March and April 2026
May 26, 2026
At the PTAB Blog
May 20, 2026
Webinar
Changes at the PTAB from Settled Expectations to Real Parties in Interest to Director Involvement
May 18, 2026
Webinar
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.