Untitled case

I'll research this case carefully. Let me start with the patent and the Federal Circuit appeal.

Let me look up the patent number and the Realtek v. ITC appeal specifically.

The search results show a potential mismatch I need to resolve. Let me dig into what US 10,212,486 actually covers and what case 23-1095 is.

Case overview: what Fed. Cir. No. 23-1095 actually is — and where the '486 patent fits (and doesn't)

Bottom line up front: The Federal Circuit docket number in the metadata, 23-1095, is a real, precedential appeal — but per public sources it is captioned Realtek Semiconductor Corporation v. International Trade Commission, a Section 337/ITC jurisdiction appeal, not a district-court patent-infringement suit. I could not find any public source tying U.S. Patent No. 10,212,486 to that appeal, so the prior summary's uncertainty stands — and the party/product/patent picture below reflects that conflict rather than resolving it.

The appellant is Realtek Semiconductor Corp., a Taiwan-based fabless chip designer and operating company (Wi‑Fi, Bluetooth, Ethernet, SoC/switch silicon) — not an NPE. On 23‑1095 Realtek was not enforcing a patent; it appealed the ITC's denial of a motion for sanctions against Future Link, arguing that the ALJ and the Commission violated the Administrative Procedure Act. The Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion holding that it lacks jurisdiction to review ITC rulings that are not "ancillary to a final determination" on the merits, i.e., the court will not hear interlocutory appeals of ITC sanctions/discovery-type orders (28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(6) reach limited to final determinations). See the CAFC opinion page above and practitioner summaries (IPWatchdog; US Patent — note the blog is dated June 2025 while the CAFC page is dated 3‑18‑2025, so the exact issuance date should be confirmed). So the venue is the ITC/Section 337 track, whose accused articles are imported semiconductor devices and whose remedy is an exclusion order rather than damages — a different animal from an e.D. Tex./D. Del. infringement case, though it carries the same NPE-vs-operating-company dynamics. Because Realtek is an active multi-front litigant, it is easy to conflate this appeal with its other 2023–2025 matters — e.g., DivX, LLC v. Realtek (Fed. Cir. No. 24‑2061, video/DRM patents) and a Realtek Wi‑Fi/Bluetooth-and-LC-resonant-SoC appeal (No. 25‑1187) that was voluntarily dismissed before merits review (CourtListener docket; PatSnap summary). The March 2025 Lashify v. ITC domestic-industry decision (No. 23‑1245) is a different 2025 ITC appeal frequently mentioned in the same breath and should not be merged with 23‑1095.

On the patent itself: the only concrete public appearance of "US 10,212,486 B2" I found is as a patent whose cover page (cited art) appears in an appendix filed in DivX, LLC v. Realtek (Fed. Cir. 24‑2061, Doc. 18) — and its cited references (Candelore, Ginter, Braness, Lajoie, etc.) are classic content-protection/DRM and adaptive-streaming art, suggesting a video/DRM-flavored patent rather than a Wi‑Fi chip patent. Separately, a different '486 patent surfaces in Universal Electronics Inc. v. Roku, Inc. (C.D. Cal. No. 8:20‑cv‑00701‑JVS‑ADS), where UEI — a genuine operating company (remote controls/AV) — asserted it and Roku petitioned for IPR, expressly noting "the '486 patent is not involved in [the ITC] proceeding" (PTAB petition excerpt). Roku's briefing describes that '486 as directed to display/AV-receiver control rather than streaming. I cannot confirm which, if either, of these is No. 10,212,486, and I found no source placing the '486 patent in the Realtek/ITC appeal. Treat the patent-to-appeal mapping as unverified.

Why it's notable (with caveats): If the case genuinely is 23‑1095, its significance is appellate-jurisdiction precedent — a precedential limit on the Federal Circuit's power to review ITC orders, which matters to Section 337 respondents and complainants who want interlocutory review of sanctions/conduct rulings — plus the broader 2025 ITC arc (Lashify's domestic-industry/labor-and-capital holding, post-Loper Bright) that has real border-exclusion consequences for chip importers. If instead the intended case is the '486 patent standalone, the notable angle is an operating company (UEI) enforcing a hardware/control patent against a large platform defendant (Roku), with parallel IPR pressure — a "patentee operating company vs. big tech" pattern rather than classic PAE behavior.

Open items I could not verify (please confirm): (1) whether No. 23‑1095 in fact involves U.S. 10,212,486 at all, or whether the litigation page conflated dockets; (2) the true assignee/subject matter of U.S. 10,212,486 (candidates: a DivX/Rovi content-protection patent vs. a UEI AV-control patent); (3) the precise issuance date and any panel composition of the 23‑1095 opinion; and (4) whether an IPR exists on 10,212,486 and its status. I did not fabricate counsel, holdings, or party names beyond what the sources above support.

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the patent and the Federal Circuit appeal number.

Federal Circuit 23-1095 is Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v. ITC — an appeal from ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1222, the DivX video-processing case that included the '486 patent. Let me dig deeper into both the ITC case and the district court litigation.

Now let me research the parallel PTAB proceedings, the district court case docket, and the other D. Del. cases.

Bottom line first: what 23-1095 actually is

The metadata's framing needs correcting. Federal Circuit No. 23-1095 is Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v. International Trade Commission (DivX, LLC, Intervenor) — captioned an appeal from ITC Investigation No. 337‑TA‑1222, decided 2025‑03‑18 (precedential, Reyna, J., joined by Moore, C.J. and Taranto, J.). It is an Administrative Procedure Act / sanctions-procedure appeal, not a merits appeal about U.S. Patent 10,212,486. The '486 patent was one of four patents asserted in the underlying ITC investigation, but that investigation was fully terminated by settlement before the appeal matured, and the only issue on appeal was whether the Commission abused its discretion in declining to order DivX to show cause why it should not be sanctioned. The court held the decision was committed to agency discretion and dismissed the appeal as unreviewable.

So the '486 patent's "litigation page" association with 23-1095 is real but indirect. Below is the actual chronology.

Source anchor: Fed. Cir. opinion, 23-1095.OPINION.3-18-2025; IPWatchdog, Not Seeking Sanctions Before DivX ITC Complaint Withdrawn Dooms Realtek (2025‑03‑19); IP Update (Cantor Colburn) case note.

---

I. The two parallel fronts (2020)

District court — D. Del. On 2020‑09‑09 DivX, LLC filed a patent-infringement complaint in the District of Delaware against [LG Electronics Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/LG%20Electronics%20Inc.), LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and Realtek Semiconductor Corp., C.A. No. 1:20‑cv‑01202‑CFC‑JLH, asserting four patents including the '486 patent (and the related '749 patent, which shares a common disclosure). (Source: DivX's Motion to Stay, D.I. 30, and the 2021‑06‑03 oral order; the case was captioned DivX, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc. et al.)

ITC — Inv. No. 337‑TA‑1222. The next day, 2020‑09‑10, DivX filed a Section 337 complaint at the ITC styled Certain Video Processing Devices, Components Thereof, and Digital Smart Televisions Containing the Same, asserting U.S. Patent Nos. 8,832,297 ('297), 10,212,486 ('486), 10,412,141 ('141), and 10,484,749 ('749) against 17 respondents across Samsung, LG, MediaTek, Realtek, and TCL entities. The Commission voted to institute on 2020‑10‑14 and formally instituted 2020‑10‑19 (85 Fed. Reg. 66355). The Office of Unfair Import Investigations was not a party.

Cross-reference: DivX was simultaneously running patent campaigns against Netflix (DivX v. Netflix, C.D. Cal. 2:19‑cv‑1602) and Hulu (DivX v. Hulu, 2:19‑cv‑1606), where the '486 patent was also asserted — Netflix moved to stay pending IPR on 2020‑03‑13. Those C.D. Cal. cases are a separate track, but they matter for the PTAB picture below.

---

II. ITC proceedings — pleadings, schedule, Markman (2020–2021)

• 2020‑11‑11 — Order No. 11 set the procedural schedule; fact discovery to close March 2021. Schedule and ground rules (Judge McNamara's chambers email appears in the schedule documents) set a one-day mediation (2021‑03‑19) and a claim-cutting deadline for DivX.
• 2021‑01‑15 — Order No. 25: partial termination of certain patents/claims (unreviewed 2021‑02‑01).
• 2021‑02‑08 — DivX served initial infringement contentions, including '486 allegations against Realtek.
• 2021‑02‑11 — Markman hearing held at the ITC.
• 2021‑02‑19 / 2021‑03‑12 — Orders No. 34 and No. 40 (the Markman order construing the disputed terms of the asserted patents); No. 40 issued 2021‑03‑12.
• 2021‑03‑12 — Order No. 37 terminating MediaTek on settlement (unreviewed 2021‑03‑12).
• 2021‑03‑26 — Fact discovery cutoff at the ITC (and the date DivX moved to stay the Delaware case).
• 2021‑04‑21 — Order No. 49 granting DivX's unopposed partial-termination motion withdrawing numerous asserted claims, including '486 claims 3, 7, 9, and 13–14 against all respondents, and several '297/'141 claims as to Realtek (unreviewed 2021‑05‑10).
• 2021‑06‑28 — Order No. 65 (further partial termination; unreviewed 2021‑07‑28).

The Markman dispute was substantive but narrow — e.g., whether the preamble of '486 claims 1 and 15 is limiting, a "video decoder" construction fight, and (as it later turned out) the "within the requested portions of the selected stream of protected video" limitation that would become the centerpiece of the Netflix IPR appeal.

---

III. Realtek exits the ITC; hearing; settlements (2021)

• 2021‑07‑06 — DivX filed an unopposed motion to terminate the investigation as to Realtek based on withdrawal of the complaint; the ALJ granted it orally and instructed Realtek not to participate in the hearing.
• 2021‑07‑08 to 2021‑07‑15 — Evidentiary hearing held, proceeding against TCL (the last remaining respondent) on the surviving theories.
• 2021‑07‑16 — Order No. 67 terminating Realtek (Commission notice not to review 2021‑08‑04).
• 2021‑08‑12 — Order No. 69 terminating LG and Samsung on settlement (unreviewed 2021‑09‑15).
• 2022‑04‑19 — DivX and TCL jointly moved to terminate based on a settlement agreement.
• 2022‑04‑22 — Order No. 76 granting termination; and Order No. 75 denying Realtek's sanctions motion.
• 2022‑05‑24 — Commission notice terminating the investigation and setting a briefing schedule on Order No. 75 (87 FR 32184‑85).

Net effect: the ITC litigation ended in global settlement (MediaTek, LG, Samsung, TCL), with no Commission finding of violation and no remedial orders. The '486 patent was never adjudicated to a final merits determination at the ITC.

---

IV. The sanctions sub-proceedings — the genesis of 23-1095

• 2021‑10‑04 — Realtek moved for sanctions against DivX under 19 C.F.R. §§ 210.4 and 210.25(b), alleging DivX misled the ALJ and made misrepresentations about its infringement contentions (notably a "video decoder"/"deciphering" theory Realtek said was baseless). DivX opposed on 2021‑10‑14.
• 2022‑04‑22 — Order No. 75 denied Realtek's motion on procedural grounds — Realtek had not moved until ~7–12 months after learning of the alleged misconduct, failing the safe-harbor/timeliness requirement (Rule 210.4(d) is modeled on Fed. R. Civ. P. 11).
• 2022‑06‑01 — Realtek petitioned for Commission review, asking the Commission to sua sponte order DivX to show cause under Rule 210.4(d)(1)(ii). DivX opposed (2022‑06‑08).
• 2022‑06‑16 — DivX cross-moved for sanctions against Realtek for filing the petition; opposed 2022‑06‑27.
• 2022‑09‑13 — Commission Opinion (Sanctions Proceedings I & II): adopts Order No. 75 (denying Realtek) and denies DivX's motion for sanctions against Realtek.
• 2023‑05‑23 — Realtek's opening Federal Circuit brief (K&L Gates — Theodore J. Angelis) — Appendix includes JX‑0003 (the '486 patent) and the Commission Opinion.
• 2023‑08‑21 — ITC response brief (Carl P. Bretscher, Dominic L. Bianchi, Wayne W. Herrington), contending the appeal should be dismissed for lack of standing/jurisdiction and unreviewability. The ITC's brief flagged a related appeal, No. 23‑1187 (Realtek's appeal from Inv. No. 337‑TA‑1295).
• 2025‑03‑18 — Decision: appeal dismissed. The APA's § 701(a)(2) exception for action "committed to agency discretion by law" applies because Rule 210.4(d)(1)(ii) says the ALJ/Commission "may," not "must," issue a show-cause order. The court also rejected Realtek's "shenanigans" argument, holding that reviewability of decisions "contrary to constitutional right, in excess of statutory jurisdiction, or arbitrary and capricious" already guards against abuse. The court did not reach standing or statutory jurisdiction.

Practitioner takeaway (per Joshua Hartman, Merchant & Gould, quoted in IPWatchdog): the ruling makes the Rule 11‑style safe harbor the mandatory path — a party cannot use a sua sponte show-cause request as a fallback after failing to move timely.

---

V. The Delaware district court case — stay and dormancy

• 2021‑03‑26 — DivX moved to stay the D. Del. action pending final ITC determination (D.I. 30). Realtek opposed and had a pending Rule 12(c)/§ 101 motion (D.I. 43) and a threatened Rule 11 motion.
• 2021‑04‑20 — DivX's opposition to Realtek's motion for judgment on the pleadings (arguing the '486 and '749 claims are patent-eligible under Enfish). The filing of the First Amended Complaint mooted Realtek's Rule 12(c) motion.
• 2021‑06‑03 — Judge Jennifer L. Hall granted the stay pending the ITC's final determination, finding "sufficient overlapping factual and legal issues," and noting one patent-in-suit (the '749) shares a common disclosure with the '486 but was not in the ITC case. Realtek's motion for leave to file a sur-reply was granted.
• 2021‑07‑26 — Judge Colm F. Connolly ordered the cases stayed and administratively closed (case closed) until further order, with a duty to notify the court when ITC proceedings resolved (associated cases 1:20‑cv‑01202 and 1:20‑cv‑01203).
• 2021‑07‑29 — Stipulation of dismissal of LG defendants.
• 2022‑10‑12 — DivX filed a status report on the ITC proceedings.
• 2023‑09‑08 / 2023‑09‑18 — Judge Hall set and held a status telephone conference; parties directed to meet and confer and file a status report by 2023‑09‑25. A letter to Judge Hall and a further order followed in early October 2023.

Note: because the case was stayed before any scheduling order, the D. Del. case never reached its own Markman, discovery, trial, or judgment. Claim construction of record was the ITC's (Order No. 40, 2021‑03‑12).

---

VI. Parallel PTAB proceedings — and a key negative finding

• The '486 patent was not challenged in any IPR. In the related C.D. Cal. litigation, DivX itself represented to the court (late 2023) that "the entire 486 Patent [was] not even challenged in IPR" (DivX memo ISO motion to lift stay, DivX v. Netflix, 2:19‑cv‑1602, Dkt. 146‑1, filed 2023‑12‑29). Netflix's and Hulu's IPR campaign targeted other DivX patents (e.g., the '515, '588, '920, '792 patents) — e.g., Netflix v. DivX, IPR2020‑00614, ‑00646, ‑00647, ‑00648, ‑00558, ‑00511, ‑00052; Unified Patents v. DivX, IPR2019‑01379.
• Unified Patents ran a prior-art bounty contest on '486 claim 1 (January–March 2020, $7,000 prize) aimed at the DivX district-court assertions — but no resulting IPR on the '486 appears on the record I found.
• The closest '486-adjacent appellate merits ruling is not about the '486: in Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, Nos. 22‑1203/‑1204 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 25, 2023) (Dyk, J., dissenting), the court affirmed a PTAB non-obviousness holding on waiver grounds; and in a separate Netflix v. DivX appeal the Federal Circuit reversed the Board's claim construction of "within the requested portions of the selected stream of protected video" (last‑antecedent rule) and remanded for obviousness — a construction dispute that shares a common specification family with the '486 but arises from a different patent.

So the net effect of PTAB activity on the '486 patent was nil — no final written decision, no estoppel, no cancellation. The ITC case was terminated by settlement, and the D. Del. case by stay/administrative closure.

---

VII. Present posture and one open lead

• 23-1095: Closed — appeal dismissed (2025‑03‑18), precedential. Mandate would have issued in due course; I did not independently confirm the mandate date.
• D. Del. 1:20‑cv‑01202 / ‑1203: Last confirmed activity is the October 2023 status-report cycle after Judge Hall's 2023‑09‑18 conference. I could not confirm a formal reopening, dismissal, or judgment after that from the sources searched — treat the case as stayed/administratively closed unless a later docket entry shows otherwise.
• ⚠ Open lead (unverified): CourtListener shows a Federal Circuit appeal, No. 24‑2061, DivX, LLC v. Realtek Semiconductor Corporation (document filed 2024‑10‑09, appendix including the '486 patent front page). This appears to be an appeal arising out of the Delaware Realtek action, which would make it the more direct "486 patent on appeal" event than 23‑1095. I could not verify the scope, issues, briefing, or disposition within my search budget, and I am flagging it rather than asserting it.

---

Caveats on sourcing

• Party names, the ITC investigation number, the patents asserted, the Federal Circuit disposition, and the panel are well documented (Fed. Cir. opinion; IPWatchdog; IP Update; VitalLaw/IP Law Daily; the Commission's 2022‑05‑24 Federal Register notice).
• The D. Del. docket details come from docket-aggregator PDFs (Docket Alarm/CourtListener) and the 2021‑06‑03 oral order text; I did not pull a certified PACER docket, so minor entry-number discrepancies are possible.
• The presiding ITC ALJ's name is not confirmed in the materials I retrieved (a procedural-schedule document references a "McNamara337" chambers email, suggesting ALJ MaryJoan McNamara, but I state that as an inference, not a confirmed fact).
• I found no monetary judgment, injunction, exclusion order, or merits verdict on the '486 patent in any forum — consistent with a case that settled (ITC) and stalled (D. Del.).

I'll research this case. Let me start by identifying the appeal and the underlying litigation.

The Federal Circuit appeal 23-1095 is Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v. ITC, and the '486 patent was asserted by DivX, LLC in ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1222. Let me dig into the docket and counsel.

Now let me confirm DivX's counsel of record on the Federal Circuit appeal and the underlying ITC/district court matters.

Bottom line

Case No. 23-1095 is Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v. International Trade Commission, with DivX, LLC as Intervenor — an APA/sanctions appeal arising from ITC Inv. No. 337‑TA‑1222, in which DivX was the complainant and U.S. Patent No. 10,212,486 ("the '486 patent") was one of four asserted patents. So there is no "plaintiff" in the ordinary district‑court sense on appeal; the party on the patent‑owner/plaintiff side is DivX, LLC, and its counsel of record are the Mintz Levin team (with Farnan LLP as Delaware local counsel in the parallel district court actions).

Important caveat up front: 23-1095 itself is not a patent-infringement merits appeal. The Federal Circuit dismissed it, holding the ITC's refusal to enter a sua sponte show‑cause order is unreviewable agency discretion. Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v. ITC, No. 23‑1095 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 18, 2025) (Moore, C.J.; Reyna, Taranto, JJ.), https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/23-1095.OPINION.3-18-2025_2483550.pdf. The '486 patent's validity/infringement was litigated before the ITC and in D. Del., not in this appeal. I flag this because the prior summary was unsure whether the '486 patent was actually on appeal — it was not. The Realtek v. ITC appeal concerns sanctions procedure only.

---

Counsel for DivX, LLC (the plaintiff/complainant side)

1. Federal Circuit — No. 23‑1095 (DivX as Intervenor)

Source: Fed. Cir. opinion caption, 23‑1095 (Mar. 18, 2025).

Source: caption of the 23‑1095 opinion (VitalLaw reproduction confirms the same list: "William Meunier, Mintz … argued for intervenor. Also represented by Samuel Davenport, Matthew A. Karambelas, Michael Renaud, Adam Rizk, James M. Wodarski; Nana Liu, San Francisco, CA").

2. ITC Investigation No. 337‑TA‑1222 (DivX as Complainant)

Source: DivX's claim-construction brief and other DivX ITC filings (Mintz signature blocks).

• Michael T. Renaud — lead counsel
• James M. Wodarski — of counsel
• Adam S. Rizk — of counsel
• Daniel B. Weinger — of counsel
• Marguerite McConihe — of counsel
• Matthew A. Karambelas — of counsel
• Jessica L. Perry — of counsel
• Nana Liu — of counsel
• Aarti Shah — Mintz, Washington, D.C. office (701 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 900)

All listed as "Counsel for Complainant DivX, LLC," Mintz Levin, One Financial Center, Boston, MA 02111 (with Shah in the D.C. office). DivX's ITC briefing was signed "Complainant DivX, LLC's Claim Construction Brief," Jan. 19, 2021.

3. D. Del. — DivX, LLC v. Realtek Semiconductor Corp., No. 1:20‑cv‑01202‑CFC‑JLH (DivX as Plaintiff)

Source: D. Del. docket (pro hac vice motion, D.I. 35; parties page via CourtListener).

• Brian E. Farnan and Michael J. Farnan — local counsel, Farnan LLP, 919 N. Market St., 12th Floor, Wilmington, DE 19801 (Bar Nos. 4089 / 4089‑related). Farnan LLP is DivX's Delaware local counsel.
• Michael T. Renaud, Adam S. Rizk, Daniel B. Weinger, and Matthew A. Karambelas — pro hac vice (lead/OF counsel), Mintz Levin, Boston. Admitted pro hac vice by order on D.I. 35 (Mar. 26, 2021).

(Note: the companion case against TCL, DivX, LLC v. TCL Corp., No. 1:20‑cv‑01203, was also litigated by the same DivX/Mintz team.)

---

Related appeal (for completeness)

There is a second, separate Federal Circuit appeal: No. 24‑2061, DivX, LLC v. Realtek Semiconductor Corp. — Realtek's appeal from the D. Del. court's June 4, 2024 memorandum order dismissing DivX's claims without prejudice (D. Del. D.I. 78; notice of appeal D.I. 80, filed July 5, 2024). In that appeal DivX is the appellee (plaintiff below). Realtek's opening brief (Oct. 9, 2024) was signed by Theodore J. Angelis (K&L Gates, Seattle), with Jason A. Engel (K&L Gates), Matthew B. Goeller (K&L Gates), Robert J. Benson (Baker Botts), and Christopher J. Higgins (Orrick). I did not retrieve DivX's appellee-brief counsel list for 24‑2061 within this review — treat that as unverified.

---

Defense/opposing counsel (context only — not plaintiffs)

For orientation, the Realtek side (appellant in 23‑1095 and 24‑2061) is represented by Theodore J. Angelis (lead, K&L Gates, Seattle), with K&L Gates Wilmington local counsel Steven L. Caponi and Matthew B. Goeller, and (per the notice of appeal) Baker Botts (Robert J. Benson) and Orrick (Christopher J. Higgins) as additional/former counsel. The ITC's Office of General Counsel appeared for the Commission (Carl Paul Bretscher, Dominic L. Bianchi, Wayne W. Herrington).

---

Sourcing limitations

• I could not pull the live PACER docket directly; the Federal Circuit counsel list is taken verbatim from the published 23‑1095 opinion caption, and the ITC/district lists from DivX's own signed filings and the D. Del. docket surfaced via CourtListener/Docket Alarm (the latter is a secondary source).
• "Lead vs. of counsel" designations above reflect the order/signature-block conventions and argument roles in those filings (e.g., Meunier argued at the Federal Circuit; Farnan LLP is the Delaware local firm). PACER dockets do not always label lead counsel, so these role labels are my characterization, not an official designation.
• No DivX in-house counsel appeared of record; DivX (a Delaware LLC based in San Diego) is represented by outside counsel (Mintz Levin + Farnan LLP).
• I found no sealed or withheld DivX counsel entries, but some underlying filings were filed under protective order (CBI), which does not affect counsel-of-record identity.
• The '486 patent should be understood as at issue in ITC 337‑TA‑1222 and the D. Del. actions, not in Federal Circuit No. 23‑1095.

I'll research this case systematically. Let me start with the patent and the appeal docket.

I found a significant lead — Federal Circuit 23-1095 appears to be a Realtek v. ITC appeal. But I need to reconcile that with the '486 patent. Let me dig deeper.

This is clarifying. Federal Circuit 23-1095 is Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v. ITC, an appeal from ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1222, with DivX, LLC as intervenor — and US 10,212,486 ("Chan") is a DivX patent. Let me confirm the '486 patent's role and gather full counsel lists.

What this case actually is (grounding first)

Before naming counsel, the identification matters, because the metadata is slightly out of register with reality — and it changes who the "defendant" is.

Federal Circuit No. 23-1095 is Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v. International Trade Commission, with DivX, LLC as intervenor — an appeal from ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1222, Certain Video Processing Devices, Components Thereof, and Digital Smart Televisions Containing the Same. The court issued a precedential opinion on March 18, 2025 (Moore, C.J., Reyna, Taranto, JJ.) holding that the Commission's refusal to enter a show‑cause order was discretionary and not reviewable. (Vitallaw case report; CAFC opinion page)

U.S. Patent No. 10,212,486 ("the '486 patent," inventor Chan; "Video encryption & decryption") is a DivX patent, and it was one of the four patents DivX asserted in 337-TA-1222 (along with Nos. 8,832,297; 10,412,141; and 10,484,749). (Institution notice, 85 FR 66355; Unified Patents PATROLL entry)

Important correction to the prior summary: the '486 patent was asserted in the underlying ITC investigation (DivX accused Realtek of infringing it, then withdrew), but the Federal Circuit appeal itself is not about the '486 patent's validity or infringement — it is about the denial of Realtek's Rule 210.4 sanctions motion against DivX. So "whether the '486 patent is on appeal" is answerable: the '486 patent is not the subject of the appeal; it is the patent that generated the underlying dispute. (FR notice, 87 FR 32185 / 2022‑18606)

Who the "defendant" is: In the infringement matter (the ITC investigation), the functional defendant was Realtek Semiconductor Corp. (a named respondent, accused of infringing the '486 patent). Realtek is now the appellant at the Federal Circuit. DivX is the patent owner/complainant (now intervenor), and the ITC is the formal appellee. DivX's parallel district court suit is DivX, LLC v. Realtek Semiconductor Corp., D. Del. No. 1:20‑cv‑01202.

---

Counsel of record for the respondent/"defendant" — Realtek Semiconductor Corp.

Source: CAFC opinion caption and Realtek's Federal Circuit brief (counsel block), via the opinion and the brief PDF hosted by IPWatchdog. (Realtek CAFC brief counsel block; Vitallaw caption)

K&L Gates is the lead firm for Realtek on the appeal; Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe appears as co-counsel (Robert J. Benson). Note that Orrick also served as counsel for Realtek in the related IPR/ITC matters — e.g., Jordan L. Coyle (Orrick, Washington, D.C.) is listed as "Counsel for Respondent Realtek Semiconductor Corp." in a related ITC filing. (PTAB/ITC filing, Orrick service block)

---

Other parties' counsel of record (for completeness)

DivX, LLC (intervenor; patent owner/complainant):
Source: CAFC opinion caption; DivX's ITC Markman brief and service list. (caption; DivX ITC claim construction brief counsel block)

U.S. International Trade Commission (appellee):

---

Caveats and sourcing limits (please read)

• I did not retrieve the raw PACER/CAFC docket sheet for 23‑1095; the counsel identifications above come from the published opinion caption, the parties' briefs (Realtek brief PDF; ITC response brief), and ITC/Federal Register filings. The Realtek brief counsel block and the DivX/ITC team lists are corroborated by the opinion caption (Angelis for appellant; Bretscher for ITC; Meunier for intervenor).
• The K&L Gates roster above is the counsel/interest block from Realtek's opening brief — it reflects everyone who signed/appeared on the brief, and I could not verify each individual's continuing "of record" status on the CAFC docket as of today. Treat the non‑arguing names as the appellate team rather than individually docketed leads.
• Office locations are given only where sourced; for several K&L Gates names and for Orrick's Robert J. Benson I do not have a confirmed office city, so I have not guessed one.
• No sealed-counsel issue identified: the appeal's merits (sanctions) were public, and I found no indication that counsel appearances were made under seal. Realtek's district court and ITC filings did contain sealed materials (e.g., Realtek's sealed Rule 50(a)/sanctions papers), but these concern the merits, not counsel identity.
• If by "defendant(s)" you meant the Federal Circuit appeal proper: there is technically no "defendant" — the alignment is Appellant Realtek, Appellee ITC, Intervenor DivX. The table above maps to the substantive accused‑infringer (Realtek) for the infringement dispute over the '486 patent.

Related proceedings you may want counsel for next: DivX, LLC v. Realtek Semiconductor Corp., D. Del. 1:20‑cv‑01202 (parallel district court case asserting the '486 patent); Federal Circuit No. 2024‑2061 (DivX, LLC v. Realtek Semiconductor Corp.); and Realtek's IPRs (e.g., IPR2023‑00922, where Baker Botts' Jeffrey L. Johnson was lead counsel with Orrick's Christopher J. Higgins as backup) — though note that IPR concerns a different patent (U.S. 8,760,454), not the '486. (IPR2023‑00922 counsel block)