⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Federal Circuit hears Robocast versus Netflix. Robocast sued Netflix over patents for automatically presenting online content. Instead of a user repeatedly opening separate pages, the patents describe software that arranges content and presents it in sequence. A Delaware federal judge granted Netflix summary judgment, ruling before trial that the asserted patent claims were ineligible for protection. The court treated them as abstract content organization and display carried out on conventional computers. Robocast challenges that characterization. It says its software structure improves how the computer operates, not merely the user's experience. This appeal concerns patent eligibility, rather than whether Netflix infringed. Patent claims define what an invention's legal protection covers. Under the Supreme Court's Alice framework, the court first asks whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea. If so, it asks whether their features, individually and together, add an inventive concept that transforms the idea into a patent-eligible application. Generic computer implementation is not enough. Listen for whether these claims describe a specific technological means or only a desired result.

Robocast v. Netflix (No. 25-1651) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued November 3, 2026.