Untitled case

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

Case 25-1143 appears to be DivX, LLC v. ITC. Let me verify the patent link and dig into the underlying matter.

Let me dig deeper into the parties, the ITC investigation, and the related IPR/appeal threads.

Case Overview — DivX, LLC v. International Trade Commission, No. 25-1143 (Fed. Cir.)

Parties. The appellant is DivX, LLC of San Diego (4350 La Jolla Village Drive), a company founded in 2000 as DivX, Inc. by Jordan Greenhall, Jérôme "Gej" Rota and others, and best known for the DivX video codec and consumer software (the company claims ~1.5 billion software downloads and ~2 billion DivX-enabled devices shipped). DivX today is a privately held, ~50–100-employee company that pairs a residual consumer-software business with an active patent-licensing and assertion program; CEO Noel Egnatios also serves as chief legal officer, and IAM reports that DivX "only meaningfully turned its attention to patent licensing in 2019" while Licks Attorneys describes it as "the video processing company taking on streaming giants." DivX is best characterized as an operating company that litigates like a licensing entity/PAE — it monetizes a deep portfolio of adaptive-bitrate streaming (ABS), DRM and container-format patents, and it has restructured its IP into entities such as "DivX CF Holdings LLC" (formed in late 2017 to acquire the legacy DivX business, per an RPX litigation document). The respondents below were [Amazon.com, Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Amazon.com%2C%20Inc.) (Seattle) and VIZIO, Inc. (Irvine); the appellee in the Federal Circuit appeal is the International Trade Commission itself (ITC Office of General Counsel attorney Michael Liberman). Notably, this is not a district-court NPE suit but an operating-company licensing campaign pushed through Section 337.

Accused technology and patents. This docket is the appeal from ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1343, Certain Video Processing Devices and Components Thereof, instituted November 22/29, 2022 on a complaint filed October 24, 2022. The plain-language scope of the investigation was "smart televisions, digital tablets, dedicated streaming media and video processing devices and set-top boxes, and components thereof" — in practice, Amazon's Fire TV / Fire tablet ecosystem and VIZIO's smart TVs. Five DivX patents were asserted: U.S. Pat. No. 10,225,588 (the '588 patent), 8,832,297 ('297), 7,295,673 ('673), 11,102,553 ('553) and 11,050,808 ('808). The '588 patent — the one tied to this appeal in Google Patents' family data — claims adaptive bitrate streaming of media stored in Matroska container files over HTTP, where frames of the media are only partially encrypted and encrypted with a set of common keys; claim 1 is a playback-device claim (Fed. Cir. No. 22-1083, slip op. at 3–5, https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1083.OPINION.3-1-2023_2088157.pdf). It was originally asserted as claims 1–11, narrowing to claims 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 by the final ID. The other four patents come from the same DivX ABS/DRM/container-format portfolio, but I could not verify individual technical sketches for them and therefore won't supply one. The '808 allegations were terminated as to Amazon, and VIZIO was terminated from the investigation after licensing DivX's portfolio ("VIZIO Licenses DivX Global Patent Portfolio, Resolving Pending ITC Litigation").

Posture, venue, and significance. Because this is a Section 337 investigation, the forum is the ITC rather than a district court: the remedy sought was a limited exclusion order and cease-and-desist orders (import-based relief, no damages), and the Commission's final determination is appealed directly to the Federal Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(2) — which is why the matter surfaced as a Federal Circuit appeal rather than a regional-circuit docket. On May 29, 2024 the presiding ALJ issued a final initial determination finding no violation: the accused products do not infringe any asserted claim of the '673, '297, '588 and '553 patents; the domestic-industry requirement failed on both the technical and economic prongs for those patents; and there was no clear-and-convincing evidence of invalidity. On review, the Commission reviewed Section IV (jurisdiction) and the economic prong in its entirety and affirmed the finding of no violation, terminating the investigation (89 Fed. Reg. ____, Sept. 6, 2024; https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-09-06/pdf/2024-20083.pdf). DivX appealed; the appeal was docketed November 4, 2024 as No. 25-1143 with Jeffrey A. Lamken and Michael G. Pattillo Jr. (MoloLamken) for DivX, and on November 20, 2024 the parties jointly stipulated to voluntary dismissal under FRAP 42(b) and the court dismissed with mandate (dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/25-1143). The case is therefore closed on the merits of the appeal — the "case" as listed is a short-lived, voluntarily dismissed appeal, not a live pending matter.

Why it matters: the outcome is a significant defeat for a licensing campaign that had already signed Disney, VIZIO, Hisense, TCL, Samsung and others (DivX claims licensure of ">75% of the global smart TV market"), and the domestic-industry failure on the technical prong is a notable data point for the debate over operating-company/licensing-based Section 337 complainants. It is also tightly interwoven with IPR linkage on the '588 patent: Netflix's IPR led to Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, No. 22-1083 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 1, 2023), which vacated and remanded the Board's obviousness ruling as resting on a legally erroneous framing of the Chen reference; the '588 claim-construction fight continued in a later Federal Circuit appeal, No. 24-1541 (opinion issued Feb. 13, 2026, https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-1541.OPINION.2-13-2026_2647816.pdf), and Amazon filed a new IPR (IPR2025-01223) against DivX in 2025, showing the dispute outlived the abandoned ITC appeal. DivX has also pursued parallel foreign enforcement (Brazilian injunctions against Samsung, TCL and Netflix).

Sourcing caveats. The identification of No. 25-1143 as DivX, LLC v. ITC is confirmed by the Justia docket and the Federal Circuit's November 20, 2024 dismissal order. I could not verify (a) the name of the presiding ALJ in 337-TA-1343, (b) the stated reason for the voluntary dismissal (settlement/license is plausible but unsourced), or (c) the precise procedural origin of No. 24-1541; treat those as unverified. Individual technical descriptions of the '297, '673, '553 and '808 patents are likewise unverified.

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the Federal Circuit docket and the patent at issue.

The patent is a DivX, LLC patent. Let me find the Federal Circuit appeal 25-1143 and the underlying district court case.

I've identified this as DivX, LLC v. ITC, Fed. Cir. No. 2025-1143, an appeal from ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1343 involving U.S. Patent No. 10,225,588. Let me dig into the underlying proceedings.

I have solid ITC data. Let me gather the district court case details and any PTAB proceedings.

I'll research the counsel of record for this appeal. Let me start by verifying the case posture and identifying the parties, then locate the docket and appearances.

I've confirmed the case posture: DivX, LLC v. ITC, Fed. Cir. No. 25-1143, an appeal from ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1343 that was voluntarily dismissed on Nov. 20, 2024 (FRAP 42(b)). Let me identify the counsel of record precisely.

I now have the Federal Circuit appearances. Let me identify DivX's litigation team in the underlying ITC investigation and confirm the MoloLamken attorneys' roles.

Counsel of Record for the Plaintiff/Appellant

Framing caveat (important)

The question asks for counsel for the "plaintiff." Fed. Cir. No. 25-1143 is not a district-court infringement action — it is a Section 337 appeal captioned DivX, LLC v. International Trade Commission, Appeal from the U.S. International Trade Commission, Inv. No. 337-TA-1343. In that posture:

• DivX, LLC (San Diego, CA) is the party analogous to a plaintiff — it was the Complainant before the ITC and is the Appellant at the Federal Circuit. It is the only party represented by "plaintiff-side" counsel.
• The ITC is the Appellee (represented by the Commission's own Office of General Counsel — see below), not by private infringement counsel.
• The ITC respondents below were Amazon.com, Inc. (represented by Fenwick & West) and VIZIO, Inc. Those are defense-side counsel, so not covered here.

I flag this because a reader expecting a district-court complaint caption will not find one; there is no "plaintiff" of record, only an appellant/complainant.

1. Federal Circuit counsel of record for DivX (the direct answer)

The appeal was docketed Nov. 4, 2024 and voluntarily dismissed under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) on Nov. 20, 2024 — roughly six weeks after docketing and two weeks after the first appearance. As a result, only two attorneys ever entered an appearance for DivX on the Federal Circuit docket, and no merits briefs were filed, so no additional counsel appear.

Docket support (Justia CAFC docket for 25-1143; CAFC order of Nov. 20, 2024):

• Doc. 3 (Nov. 18, 2024) — Entry of Appearance for Jeffrey A. Lamken; Michael G. Pattillo Jr. as counsel for Appellant DivX, LLC.
• Doc. 4 (Nov. 18, 2024) — Certificate of Interest for Appellant DivX, LLC (signed Lamken).
• Doc. 5 (Nov. 18, 2024) — Notice of Related Case Information (signed Lamken).
• Doc. 6 (Nov. 19, 2024) — Joint Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal for Appellant DivX, LLC (signed Lamken).
• Doc. 7 (Nov. 20, 2024) — Order dismissing under FRAP 42(b) and issuing mandate ("Each side shall bear their own costs").
• Doc. 2 (Nov. 13, 2024) — Entry of Appearance for Michael Liberman as counsel for Appellee ITC (this is government counsel for the Commission, not plaintiff's counsel).

Source: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/25-1143 and https://cafc.uscourts.gov/11-20-2024-25-1143-divx-llc-v-itc-order-25-1143-order-11-20-2024_2422482/

2. The DivX complainant-side team below (ITC 337-TA-1343) — context, partly verified

The MoloLamken pair were appellate-only counsel brought in for the Federal Circuit. DivX's substantive patent team throughout the ITC investigation and its related PTAB work is Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP (Los Angeles / Santa Monica, CA). Key names of record for DivX in the parallel PTAB and district-court matters (and identified in that firm's own practice announcements regarding DivX):

• Kenneth J. Weatherwax — name partner; long-time lead DivX patent counsel (USPTO Reg. No. 54,528).
• Nathan Lowenstein — name partner; PTAB lead on numerous DivX matters.
• Parham Hendifar — partner; argued DivX's appeal in DivX, LLC v. Unified Patents, LLC, No. 23-1699 (Fed. Cir. June 24, 2025).
• Colette Woo — attorney on the DivX team.

I can directly source L&W's ongoing representation of DivX against Amazon (including the related district-court action and IPRs on other DivX patents) from 2025 PTAB correspondence between Nathan Lowenstein (L&W, for DivX) and Daniel Rabinowitz (Fenwick & West, for Amazon). However, I was not able to retrieve the ITC's EDIS appearance sheet for 337-TA-1343, so I cannot independently confirm the exact roster of DivX's counsel of record before the ITC. Treat the L&W lineup as well-supported by closely related matters but not yet docket-verified for 337-TA-1343 itself.

The respondents below were Amazon.com, Inc. and VIZIO, Inc.; Amazon's defense team was Fenwick & West (David Hadden, Saina Shamilov, Allen Wang, Bryan Kohm, and associates, per Fenwick's own case write-up) — listed here only to avoid confusion, as these are not plaintiff-side counsel.

3. In-house / client contact

• In older DivX PTAB powers of attorney (2019–2020), Noel Egnatios, Vice President & General Counsel of DivX, LLC (4350 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 950, San Diego, CA 92122), is the signatory for DivX. I cannot confirm whether he still held that role as of the 2024 appeal; treat as unverified for this case.

Gaps and cautions

1. No merits-stage counsel exists to report. Because 25-1143 was dismissed before briefing, the only "counsel of record" for the appellant on the Federal Circuit docket are Lamken and Pattillo (MoloLamken) — anything else would be invented.
2. "Plaintiff" is a misnomer here — the Federal Circuit/ITC framing is Appellant/Complainant DivX vs. the ITC. If your interest is actually the parallel district-court infringement case that DivX is litigating against Amazon (referenced in the 2025 IPR correspondence on U.S. Pat. Nos. 10,715,806 / 10,412,141 / 11,611,785), that is a different docket from the one in the case metadata, and I did not have search steps remaining to pull its caption, case number, or appearance list. That would need a separate docket pull.
3. Pattillo's firm/title and DivX's ITC appearance roster are the two items I could not hard-verify from retrieved sources; I have flagged them rather than assert them.
4. No contradiction found with the case metadata or the earlier-generated section — both correctly identify this as DivX, LLC v. ITC, Fed. Cir. 25-1143, arising from ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1343 (U.S. Patent No. 10,225,588 among the asserted patents).

I'll verify the case identity and then work the docket and counsel appearances.

Now let me pin down the parties and counsel in the underlying investigation and any parallel litigation.

Let me pull the Federal Circuit docket details and identify the respondents' counsel.