On February 9, 2026, the Federal Circuit issued its decision in GoTV Streaming, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., reversing a jury verdict and holding that three related GoTV patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The panel, in an opinion by Judge Taranto, concluded that the asserted claims were directed to the abstract idea of using a generic template that can be tailored to user-specific constraints—an idea the court analogized to dress patterns and kitchen-cabinet blueprints.
This decision offers a detailed and methodical application of Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, reinforcing several recurring themes in the court’s post-Alice jurisprudence: (1) result-focused functional language will not carry a claim past step one; (2) invoking servers and wireless devices performing ordinary functions does not convert an abstract idea into a technological improvement; and (3) conclusory expert testimony cannot salvage eligibility at step two.
Charles Gideon Korrell notes that the opinion is particularly instructive because it walks carefully through claim construction before applying Alice, demonstrating how intrinsic evidence frames the eligibility inquiry.
The Patents and the Claimed “Advance”
GoTV asserted three related patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 8,478,245; 8,989,715; and 8,103,865) sharing a 2007 specification. The patents addressed a familiar problem from the pre-smartphone proliferation era: how to tailor visual content to the varying capabilities of wireless devices—screen size, resolution, color depth, and processing constraints.
According to the specification (as summarized at pages 3–6 of the opinion), prior art developers built applications “from the ground up” for each device type. The purported solution was to centralize tailoring at a server. The server would:
- Receive a request from a wireless device,
- Access a “generic” template not specific to any device,
- Tailor display specifications based on device capabilities,
- Generate “low level rendering commands,” and
- Send the tailored page description to the device for rendering.
Claim 1 of the ’865 patent was treated as representative. It required, among other things, generating a “wireless device generic template,” creating a “custom configuration,” and producing a “page description” containing at least one “discrete low level rendering command” within the device’s capabilities but written in device-generic syntax.
Claim Construction First: Reversing Indefiniteness
Before reaching eligibility, the Federal Circuit addressed claim construction. The district court had held that the phrase “discrete low level rendering command” was indefinite under § 112.
The Federal Circuit reversed. Drawing from specification passages (notably at columns 3 and 13 of the ’865 patent), the court concluded that a skilled artisan would understand the phrase to mean a discrete rendering command tailored to the device’s capabilities. The opinion emphasized that redundancy concerns in the district court’s reasoning did not rise to the level of “reasonable uncertainty” under Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.
Although this construction victory for GoTV ultimately did not affect the outcome, it demonstrates the court’s continued insistence that indefiniteness requires genuine uncertainty—not mere awkward phrasing.
Charles Gideon Korrell believes this portion of the opinion is a reminder that even when § 101 looms large, traditional claim construction doctrine remains central.
Alice Step One: Directed to an Abstract Idea
The core of the opinion lies in its step-one analysis.
Relying on its established framework from cases such as Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., and Broadband iTV, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., the court asked whether the claims were focused on a specific improvement in computer functionality or merely used computers as tools to implement an abstract idea.
The court characterized the representative claim as directed to:
“a template set of specifications—generic in at least some respects—that can be tailored (in at least one respect) for final production of the specified product… to fit the user’s constraints.”
The opinion’s analogies were striking. The court compared the claims to:
- A dress pattern tailored for a particular body,
- A cabinet blueprint adjusted to wall dimensions.
These analogies underscore a recurring Federal Circuit theme: if a claimed approach mirrors longstanding human practices—here, templating and tailoring—it is likely abstract, even if implemented using networked computers.
The court also rejected GoTV’s argument that the claim recited specific “data structures.” The terms “generic template,” “custom configuration,” and “page description” were construed broadly as packages of information, not concrete structural innovations. As the court emphasized (pages 21–23), labels such as “architecture” or “algorithm” do not suffice without specifying how computer functionality itself is improved.
The panel distinguished Visual Memory LLC v. Nvidia Corp. (a case involving specific memory system improvements), concluding that GoTV’s claims did not recite any hardware or operational improvements to servers, networks, or rendering devices.
Alice Step Two: No Inventive Concept
Having found the claims abstract, the court moved to step two.
Here, the court reiterated familiar principles from cases such as BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc. and Berkheimer v. HP Inc.: an inventive concept must be more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, and conclusory expert testimony cannot fill gaps in the claim language.
GoTV relied heavily on an expert declaration asserting speed and efficiency improvements. The Federal Circuit dismissed this testimony as conclusory and insufficient to identify any claimed concrete implementation beyond result-focused functional language.
Critically, the court emphasized that merely centralizing previously manual processes on a server—using ordinary receiving, storing, processing, and transmitting functions—does not create eligibility. Efficiency gains attributable to generic computer use are not enough.
The claims therefore failed step two and were held invalid under § 101.
Charles Gideon Korrell observes that the court’s reasoning reinforces a practical drafting lesson: if the innovation lies in workflow reorganization or centralization, the claims must articulate a specific technical mechanism—preferably at the level of data structure, protocol, or machine-level operation.
Procedural Notes: Inducement and Damages
Although the eligibility holding disposed of the case, the court vacated two district court rulings:
- Inducement – The district court had dismissed GoTV’s induced infringement claims for lack of pre-suit knowledge. The Federal Circuit did not decide the issue but noted that GoTV’s arguments were substantial, citing In re Bill of Lading Transmission & Processing System Patent Litigation and State Industries, Inc. v. A.O. Smith Corp.
- Damages Evidence – The court also vacated the denial of a new trial motion concerning damages evidence, referencing concerns about whether Netflix’s presentations skewed the hypothetical negotiation framework under VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corp.
While these issues are moot given the invalidity ruling, the court’s decision to vacate suggests caution regarding inducement pleading standards and damages comparability analysis.
Broader Implications
This case fits squarely within the Federal Circuit’s tightening approach to pre-2010 software patents. The opinion reinforces several trends:
- Templating, customization, and user-specific tailoring are vulnerable abstractions unless tied to a concrete technological improvement.
- Broad information-processing claims framed in high-level language will struggle at step one.
- Expert testimony cannot substitute for claim-level specificity.
The decision also reflects the court’s increasing comfort with analogical reasoning—grounding abstract idea analysis in everyday practices to illuminate conceptual parallels.
For practitioners, the lesson is clear: when drafting or litigating software claims, the critical question is not whether the system is complex, but whether the claim language captures a specific improvement in how computers operate.
Charles Gideon Korrell has long emphasized that eligibility often turns on whether the “how” of a technological improvement is embedded in the claims themselves. GoTV v. Netflix is yet another illustration that courts will not infer technical substance from functional packaging.
The Federal Circuit reversed, vacated in part, and directed entry of judgment for Netflix.