Untitled case

Case Overview: IPR2026-00056 and US Patent 10165324

This case involves an Inter Partes Review (IPR2026-00056) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) concerning U.S. Patent No. 10,165,324. The IPR concluded with a "Procedural Termination," though the specific details regarding the parties and the precise reason for this termination are not readily available in public search results.

U.S. Patent No. 10,165,324, titled "Streaming media system and method for providing content to client devices," generally relates to systems and methods for delivering streaming media content. The patent is asserted by Adeia Technologies Inc., a publicly traded technology company known for developing foundational innovations in the semiconductor industry and possessing an extensive patent portfolio. Adeia Technologies Inc., along with its affiliates, is actively engaged in patent enforcement, including a significant litigation against The Walt Disney Company and its subsidiaries in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 1:24-cv-01231, filed November 7, 2024). This district court litigation likely served as the impetus for the IPR challenge against the patent.

The underlying patent infringement lawsuit accuses Disney's streaming services, such as Disney+, Hulu, Hulu Live, and ESPN+, of infringing Adeia's patents related to streaming media technology. The PTAB serves as an administrative court for challenging the patentability of claims in issued patents, offering a potentially faster and less expensive alternative to district court litigation for challenging patent validity. The "Procedural Termination" of IPR2026-00056 could stem from various factors, including a settlement between the parties, the petitioner withdrawing the challenge, or the PTAB exercising its discretionary authority not to proceed with the review, possibly due to parallel district court litigation or issues with the petition itself, such as the identification of real parties in interest. The landscape for IPRs in 2026 has seen significant changes, including the USPTO Director's centralized authority over institution decisions and increased discretionary denials, particularly when parallel district court or International Trade Commission (ITC) proceedings are ongoing. The interplay between this IPR and the concurrent, ongoing district court litigation against a major entertainment company like Disney makes this case notable within the intellectual property landscape.

Legal Developments and Outcome for Patent Litigation Involving U.S. Patent 10,165,324

The U.S. Patent 10,165,324 is currently at issue in at least one federal patent infringement lawsuit: Adeia Technologies Inc. et al. v. The Walt Disney Company et al., filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. A parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2026-00056, concerning this patent before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), concluded with a "Procedural Termination." Specific details regarding the IPR's petitioner, patent owner, and the precise reasons for its termination are not publicly available through general web searches.

Patent Infringement Litigation: Adeia Technologies Inc. et al. v. The Walt Disney Company et al.

• Caption: Adeia Technologies Inc., Adeia Guides Inc., and Adeia Media Holdings LLC v. The Walt Disney Company, Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution LLC, Disney DTC LLC, Disney Streaming Services LLC, Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC, Disney Platform Distribution, Inc., BAMTech, LLC, Hulu, LLC, and ESPN, Inc.
• Case Number: 1:24-cv-01231
• Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware

Filing & Initial Pleadings:
The lawsuit was filed on November 7, 2024, by Adeia Technologies Inc. and its subsidiaries, alleging that Disney's streaming services—including Disney+, Hulu, Hulu Live (Hulu + Live TV), and ESPN+—infringe six of Adeia's patents related to video streaming technology. U.S. Patent 10,165,324, which covers presenting media content based on a user's "viewing progress," is among the asserted patents. Adeia seeks monetary damages and an injunction to prevent further alleged infringement.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:
On September 12, 2025, the District Court for the District of Delaware denied without prejudice the defendants' motion to dismiss certain claims, including those of U.S. Patent 10,165,324 and another patent (the '595 patent), under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for patent eligibility. The court indicated it found it inappropriate to address the patent eligibility of all claims at that early stage, noting that claims would likely be narrowed through discovery.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:
As of May 29, 2026, the case is likely still in the discovery phase, following the denial of the motion to dismiss in September 2025. There is no public information indicating that a Markman hearing or claim construction ruling has occurred.

Discovery Milestones:
Specific strategic discovery milestones are not publicly detailed for this ongoing case through general web searches.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:
The case has not yet reached trial.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:
The litigation remains active and ongoing in the District of Delaware. Adeia has expressed a preference for reaching a mutually agreeable resolution but stated it was "left with no choice but to defend our intellectual property from Disney's unauthorized use."

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceeding: IPR2026-00056

An Inter Partes Review, IPR2026-00056, was initiated at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board concerning U.S. Patent 10,165,324. This IPR proceeding concluded with a 'Procedural Termination'. However, the specific identity of the petitioner and patent owner in IPR2026-00056, its exact filing date, and the detailed reason for its "Procedural Termination" (e.g., settlement, discretionary denial, failure to identify real parties-in-interest, or adverse judgment) are not available through general web searches.

Effect on Litigation:
In general, an IPR proceeding can significantly impact parallel district court litigation by challenging the validity of the asserted patent claims. If an IPR is instituted and leads to a final written decision finding claims unpatentable, those claims may be canceled, potentially simplifying or resolving the district court case. District courts often consider staying litigation pending the outcome of an IPR, weighing factors such as the stage of litigation, potential prejudice, and the likelihood of simplifying issues. Given the "Procedural Termination" of IPR2026-00056, without specific details on the termination, its precise impact on the Adeia v. Disney litigation is currently unknown. It is possible that the termination was due to a settlement between the IPR petitioner and the patent owner, which could also influence the parallel district court case. Recent changes in USPTO policy for 2026 also indicate a trend towards increased discretionary denials of IPRs, especially if parallel litigation is likely to conclude first or if petitioners do not stipulate against pursuing certain invalidity grounds in district court. However, without the specific details of IPR2026-00056's termination, it is not possible to determine if these policies played a role.

I was unable to identify the counsel of record representing the petitioner (equivalent to a plaintiff in an IPR proceeding) in IPR2026-00056 concerning US Patent 10165324 through general web searches.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings, including Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs), are tracked through the USPTO's official systems like the Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System (P-TACTS) and the Open Data Portal. While searches were conducted using the IPR number and patent number, specific results detailing the parties and their counsel for IPR2026-00056 were not publicly available through the indexed web search results.

Given the status of "Procedural Termination," the case may have been resolved or dismissed early in the process, which can sometimes result in less comprehensive public documentation regarding the full legal teams compared to cases that proceed to a final written decision. To obtain definitive information on the petitioner, patent owner, and their counsel, direct access and search within the USPTO's P-TACTS system would be required.

Therefore, without access to the specific docket or official PTAB filings for IPR2026-00056, the counsel of record for the petitioner cannot be identified at this time. Filings may be sealed or counsel may not have made a public appearance that is indexed by general web search.

The defendant in the underlying patent infringement case from which IPR2026-00056 likely arose is The Walt Disney Company and its subsidiaries, including Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution LLC, Disney DTC LLC, Disney Streaming Services LLC, Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC, Disney Platform Distribution, Inc., BAMTech, LLC, Hulu, LLC, and ESPN, Inc..

Here's what can be identified about their legal representation:

In-House Counsel for The Walt Disney Company:

• David Foster
  • Role: Principal Counsel
  • Firm: The Walt Disney Company (Bristol, CT)
  • Note: In-house patent attorney for ESPN, Disney Streaming Services, and Marvel Entertainment, managing patent application processes, litigation, and licensing. Previously Assistant General Counsel for IP at Actel Corporation.
• Erin Greenfield Mehta
  • Role: Principal Counsel, Litigation & Patents
  • Firm: The Walt Disney Company (based in Manhattan Beach, CA, previously for Hulu)
  • Note: Manages Hulu's patent litigation and prosecution, and negotiates patent licenses. Previously worked at WilmerHale and Ropes and Gray (formerly Fish & Neave).
• Rosemarie T. Ring
  • Role: Deputy General Counsel for Litigation and Patents (effective Nov. 3, 2025)
  • Firm: The Walt Disney Company
  • Note: Oversees litigation and patents. Formerly a partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, specializing in complex litigation involving privacy, intellectual property, and emerging technologies.
• Troy Dow
  • Role: (Senior counsel related to government relations and IP policy)
  • Firm: The Walt Disney Company
  • Note: Advises Disney on intellectual property and technology policy for over two decades, representing the company before the U.S. Congress, Executive Branch, and in major litigation matters.

Outside Counsel:

Based on a September 16, 2025 filing in the related district court case (1:24-cv-01231), the following attorneys from O'Melveny & Myers LLP are listed as "OF COUNSEL" for the defendants, Disney. While "Of Counsel" can have various meanings, in this context of a court filing, it typically indicates active involvement in the case.

• Ryan K. Yagura
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP
  • Note: While specific experience for this case is not detailed, O'Melveny & Myers is a major firm with extensive intellectual property litigation practice.
• Xin-Yi Zhou
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP
  • Note: As above, part of O'Melveny & Myers' IP litigation team.
• Laura M. Burson
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP
  • Note: As above, part of O'Melveny & Myers' IP litigation team.

It is important to note that the IPR (IPR2026-00056) concluded with a "Procedural Termination." This could mean the case was resolved early, potentially before extensive public filings detailing all counsel involved in the PTAB proceeding were made or indexed by general web searches. The listed counsel primarily reflects representation in the parallel district court litigation, which directly involves the same patent (US 10165324).

Other firms, such as Munger Tolles & Olson LLP and Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP, are known to represent The Walt Disney Company in intellectual property and entertainment litigation generally. However, no specific attorneys from these firms were identified for IPR2026-00056 or the related district court case.