Rovi Says Committed To Enforcing Its Intellectual Property Against Netflix

(RTTNews) - Rovi Corp. (ROVI), in an update on ongoing litigation against Netflix, Inc. (NFLX), said that it is committed to enforcing its intellectual property against Netflix until the necessary licenses are in place.

Rovi has been engaged in litigation against Netflix with respect to five patents related to various features and functionality provided by the over-the-top (OTT) video service.

On July 15, 2015, Judge Phyllis Hamilton issued a ruling granting Netflix's motion for summary judgment on the five patents at issue in the current litigation, finding the patents invalid on the grounds that they are not directed to patentable subject matter based upon the Supreme Court's 2014 ruling in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International. As a result, the Court has entered judgment in favor of Netflix in the case.

Samir Armaly, Rovi's executive vice president of intellectual property and licensing, said, "While we are pleased that the Court sided with Rovi on the key claim construction issues, we are disappointed in, and strongly disagree with, the Court's decision finding the five patents invalid and plan to appeal that decision."

Armaly added, "it is important to remember that this litigation, initiated by Netflix, was filed in 2011, more than two years before the Supreme Court issued the Alice ruling on patentable subject matter. It is also important to remember that only five patents from our portfolio were at issue in this case, and Rovi's US patent portfolio includes more than 1,500 issued patents and pending applications. We are committed to enforcing our intellectual property against Netflix until the necessary licenses are in place. As we do so, we will be selecting patents from our diverse patent portfolio with the benefit of having the Alice decision and its reasoning factored into that patent selection."

As part of the decision, Judge Hamilton also issued a claim construction ruling in the case in which the Court construed the nine disputed claim terms in the case.

The Court ruled in Rovi's favor on nearly all of the disputed claim terms, only adopting Netflix's proposed construction of a single term.

Importantly, the Court rejected attempts by Netflix to limit the scope of the patents to the area of "broadcast television," noting that the claims contain no such limitations and the patents refer to other types of media. Furthermore, the Court rejected attempts by Netflix to limit the scope of the patents to set-top box implementations.