GoTV Streaming, LLC c. Netflix, Inc. No. 2024-1669, -1744; precedential (3-0); U.S. Patent Nos. 8,478,245, 8.989,715, and 8,103,865; February 9, 2026

Key point(s):

• Proper understanding of what is claimed matters for a § 101 eligibility analysis; some form of claim construction is a condition precedent to the eligibility analysis

Ingevity Corp. v. BASF Corp., Nos. 2024-1577; precedential (3-0); U.S. Patent No. RE38,844; February 11, 2026

Key point(s):

• Disaggregating damages caused by lawful versus unlawful conduct may be impossible when the same practices simultaneously affect price, access, and customer choice.

Netflix, Inc. v. DIVX, LLC, No. 2024-1541; precedential (3-0); U.S. Patent No. 10,225,588; February 13, 2026

Key point(s):

• When a claim term is susceptible of two different interpretations, each syntactically and semantically available, precepts of English grammar instruct that absent a comma, a modifier is presumptively understood to be tied to the nearest available semantically plausible modificand.

Apple Inc. v. Squires, No. 2024-1864; precedential (3-0); February 13, 2026

Key point(s):

• The Director’s instructions to the PTAB about how the Board would exercise the Director’s statutory authority to decline to institute IPR proceedings are general statements of policy and not subject to judicial review.