NETFLIX, INC. v. DIVX, LLC
Filed: March 1, 2023
Court: US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case Number: 22-1083
UNILOC 2017 LLC. v. NETFLIX, INC.
Filed: December 15, 2022
Court: US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case Number: 21-2085
City of Ashdown, Arkansas v. Netflix, Inc.
Filed: November 8, 2022
Court: US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Case Number: 21-3435
[Wollman, Author, with Colloton and Stras, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Arkansas Video Service Act of 2013. The district court did not err in concluding that the Act does not create an express right of action for municipalities to bring suit against video providers which have not applied for certificates of franchise authority; nor is a right of action implied; the Public Service Commision has the right and duty to bring suit to enforce the Act. [ November 07, 2022 ]
CITY OF RENO V. NETFLIX, INC., ET AL
Filed: October 28, 2022
Court: US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Case Number: 21-16560
Nevada Law / Declaratory Judgment Act. The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim of the City of Reno’s complaint alleging that Netflix, Inc. and Hulu, LLC failed to pay franchise fees for the video streaming services they provide. Reno’s complaint sought damages and declaratory relief under Nevada’s Video Service Law (“VSL”) and the federal Declaratory Judgment Act, respectively. The panel affirmed the dismissal…
In Re NETFLIX, INC.
Filed: January 19, 2022
Court: US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case Number: 22-110
In Re NETFLIX, INC.
Filed: October 25, 2021
Court: US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case Number: 21-190
ADAPTIVE STREAMING INC. v. NETFLIX, INC.
Filed: December 14, 2020
Court: US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case Number: 20-1310
DAVID WHITEHEAD V. NETFLIX, INC.
Filed: December 10, 2020
Court: US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Case Number: 19-55905
DIGITAL MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES v. NETFLIX, INC.
Filed: November 13, 2018
Court: US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case Number: 17-2408
NETFLIX, INC. v. ROVI CORPORATION
Filed: November 7, 2016
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case Number: 15-1917
ARKANSAS TEACHER RET. SYSTEM V. NETFLIX INC.
Filed: April 11, 2016
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Case Number: 14-15315
MEGHAN MOLLETT V. NETFLIX, INC.
Filed: July 31, 2015
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Case Number: 12-17045
Video Privacy Protection Act. The panel affirmed the dismissal of claims brought under the Video Privacy Protection Act and California Civil Code § 1799.3 against Netflix, Inc., a subscription videostreaming service. The panel held that Netflix did not violate these statutes by permitting certain disclosures about subscribers’ viewing history to third parties¯specifically subscribers’ family, friends, and guests. The panel concluded that the complained-of…
DONALD CULLEN V. NETFLIX
Filed: April 1, 2015
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Case Number: 13-15092
ANDREA RESNICK V. NETFLIX, INC.
Filed: February 27, 2015
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Case Number: 11-18034
Antitrust. The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment and affirmed in part and reversed in part its award of costs in consolidated antitrust actions arising out of a promotion agreement whereby Walmart transferred its online DVD- rental subscribers to Netflix, and Netflix agreed to promote Walmart’s DVD sales business. The plaintiffs, individuals representing a class of Netflix subscribers, contended that this arrangement violated §§ 1 and 2 of the…
THEODORE H. FRANK V. NETFLIX, INC.
Filed: February 27, 2015
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Case Number: 12-15705
Settlement. The panel affirmed the district court’s approval of a settlement between Walmart and a class of Netflix DVD subscribers in a class action challenging as anti-competitive an agreement under which Netflix and Walmart divided up DVD-related business. In the settlement agreement, Walmart agreed to pay a total amount of $27,250,000, comprising both a “Cash Component” and a “Gift Card Component.” The panel held that the district court did not abuse its…
