Gwinnett County, Georgia et al v. Netflix, Inc. et al
Filed: August 5, 2021
State: Georgia
Court: Georgia Northern District Court
Case Number: 1:2021cv00021
OPINION AND ORDER denying as moot 42 Motion to Stay; granting 11 Motion to Remand to State Court to the Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia. Signed by Judge Michael L. Brown on 8/5/2021. (dob)
ADAPTIVE STREAMING INC. v. NETFLIX, INC.
Filed: December 14, 2020
State: United States
Court: US Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
Case Number: 20-1310
DAVID WHITEHEAD V. NETFLIX, INC.
Filed: December 10, 2020
State: United States
Court: US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Case Number: 19-55905
Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Netflix, Inc.
Filed: August 25, 2020
State: New York
Court: New York Southern District Court
Case Number: 1:2020cv03708
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 66 MOTION for Reconsideration of the claim construction of the term "intermediate transmitter station" filed by Netflix Inc. Netflix's motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. Because the ITS terms are synonyms, the Court construes the term "intermediate transmitter station to mean a station that can receive and retransmit broadcast transmissions."The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at Dkt No. 66. (As…
Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Netflix, Inc.
Filed: July 28, 2020
State: New York
Court: New York Southern District Court
Case Number: 1:2020cv03708
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 57 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings Netflix, Inc.s Motion For Judgment On The Pleadings Regarding The 217, 344, And 528 Patents filed by Netflix Inc. PMC has plausibly alleged that the p atents challenged on this motion have inventive concepts, so Netflix's motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED. The Court's decision is narrow because it must accept as true the allegations in PMC's complaint. It does n ot preclude Netflix from…
Brown et al v. Netflix, Inc. et al
Filed: May 27, 2020
State: New York
Court: New York Southern District Court
Case Number: 1:2019cv01507
OPINION & ORDER re: 28 MOTION to Dismiss . MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings . filed by Amazon.Com, Inc., Apple Inc., Netflix, Inc.. For the reasons stated above, the Defendants' motion to dismiss and for ju dgement on the pleadings is GRANTED with prejudice. he Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion, Doc. 28, and to close the case. It is SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 5/27/2020) (ks) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for…
John E. Reid and Associates, Inc. v. Netflix, Inc. et al
Filed: March 23, 2020
State: Illinois
Court: Illinois Northern District Court
Case Number: 1:2019cv06781
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order. Signed by the Honorable Manish S. Shah on 3/23/2020: Array and DuVernay's motion to dismiss, 26 , and Netflix's motion to dismiss, 23 , are granted. The dismissal of Netflix is with prejudice. The First Ame ndment precludes liability for all of Reid's substantive claims and no additional factual context is necessary to resolve that legal issue. Reid has amended the complaint once and any further amendment would be futile. See Runnion ex rel.…
DIGITAL MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES v. NETFLIX, INC.
Filed: November 13, 2018
State: United States
Court: US Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
Case Number: 17-2408
Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Netflix, Inc.
Filed: March 20, 2017
State: Texas
Court: Texas Eastern District Court
Case Number: 2:2016cv00574
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III on 3/20/2017. (slo, )
NETFLIX, INC. v. ROVI CORPORATION
Filed: November 7, 2016
State: United States
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
Case Number: 15-1917
Convergent Media Solutions LLC v. Netflix Inc
Filed: September 26, 2016
State: Texas
Court: Texas Northern District Court
Case Number: 3:2015cv02160
Memorandum Opinion and Order: Accordingly, the Court DENIES 10 Defendants' Motion s without prejudice to consideration of § 101 arguments in the context of a summary judgment motion, after claim construction has concluded. (Ordered by Chief Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn on 9/26/2016) (ndt)
ARKANSAS TEACHER RET. SYSTEM V. NETFLIX INC.
Filed: April 11, 2016
State: United States
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Case Number: 14-15315
Copy Protection LLC v. Netflix Inc.
Filed: August 5, 2015
State: Delaware
Court: Delaware District Court
Case Number: 1:2014cv00365
MEMORANDUM OPINION re claim construction. Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 8/5/15. (ntl)
MEGHAN MOLLETT V. NETFLIX, INC.
Filed: July 31, 2015
State: United States
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 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…
Trans Video Electronics Ltd. v. Netflix Inc.
Filed: July 7, 2015
State: Delaware
Court: Delaware District Court
Case Number: 1:2012cv01743
MEMORANDUM OPINION re claim construction. Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 7/7/15. Associated Cases: 1:12-cv-01743-LPS, 1:13-cv-00061-LPS, 1:13-cv-01399-LPS (ntl)
DONALD CULLEN V. NETFLIX
Filed: April 1, 2015
State: United States
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Case Number: 13-15092
THEODORE H. FRANK V. NETFLIX, INC.
Filed: February 27, 2015
State: United States
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 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…
ANDREA RESNICK V. NETFLIX, INC.
Filed: February 27, 2015
State: United States
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 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…
Chavez v. Netflix
Filed: April 21, 2008
State: California
Court: Court of Appeal
Citation: none 162 Cal.App.4th 43
Case Number: a114334
