Netflix countersuit against Broadcom thrown out as patent claims deemed abstract, amendment allowed but not necessarily helpful

Context: Broadcom (Avago) has been trying for well over five years to get Netflix to pay patent royalties, but Netflix has defended itself extremely well. Late last year, Netflix started to push back with its own countersuits, over former HP patents, in the Northern District of California (December 24, 2024 ip fray article). Broadcom brought a motion to dismiss (March 4, 2025 ip fray article), and Netflix filed a second countersuit (April 30, 2025 ip fray article), to which it added patents through an amended complaint (May 25, 2025 ip fray article). Broadcom wanted the two countersuits to be consolidated, but the proceedings remain separate.

What’s new: Judge P. Casey Pitts of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California has granted the motion to dismiss the first Netflix countersuit. The decision is based on the abstract nature of the patent claims the judge deemed relevant. Netflix can refile and try to overcome § 101 (abstractness) with other claims from the same patent, provided that it also pleads with specificity why it believes Broadcom infringes them.

Direct impact: After suffering setback after setback against Netflix over the course of more than half a decade, Broadcom has now dealt its rival one. Netflix will now have to choose between appealing Judge Pitts’s invalidity findings (which are very strict, so depending on panel composition, the Federal Circuit might revive one or more patents) or giving it another try in San Jose with narrower claims, which could also pose a risk on the infringement side. For now, there is no discovery, and even if the case continued, it would take quite long until a trial. And the dismissal is with prejudice as to the claims the order specifically addresses.

Wider ramifications: The Northern District of California is a notoriously difficult one for patentees, but Netflix had no defensible alternative.