Untitled case

The case 3:24-cv-00818, filed in the Virginia Eastern District Court, is DivX, LLC v. Amazon.Com, Inc. et al.. The original case metadata was incorrect regarding the parties and the number of patents.

Parties and Their Nature:
The plaintiff is DivX, LLC, identified as a Patent Assertion Entity (NPE) or patent troll, operating in the high-tech industry.. DivX, LLC was founded in 2008 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California.. The defendants are Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services Inc., both large operating companies providing a wide range of products and services, including e-commerce, cloud computing, and digital streaming..

Accused Products and Patents:
DivX, LLC accuses Amazon of infringing six patents, including U.S. Patent 10,715,806.. The accused products and services include "Accused Streaming Services" (such as Prime Video), Amazon Fire tablets, Amazon Fire TV/Cube devices, Amazon Echo Show devices, and "Accused Encoding Servers and Services.". U.S. Patent 10,715,806, titled "System and method for streaming content from multiple servers," generally relates to systems and methods for media streaming from multiple sources. Specifically, it describes a client device that accesses a server to receive a list of available content delivery networks (CDNs) and independent servers, then partitions the content and simultaneously receives media streams from allocated sources based on criteria like performance and cost..

Procedural Posture and Venue:
The case was filed on November 15, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA), under case number 3:24-cv-00818.. The EDVA is famously known as the "rocket docket" due to its consistently rapid pace in adjudicating cases, including patent litigation.. This venue is often chosen by plaintiffs for its expedited trial schedules, which can benefit broad infringement claims.. While the EDVA does not have specific patent local rules, its judges are experienced in patent litigation and employ local rules and pre-trial orders to compress trial preparation.. However, the court has shown an aversion to litigation between out-of-state companies without a substantial tie to the state, often granting transfer motions in such instances.. The judge for this specific case is not explicitly named in the search results but cases are randomly assigned across the court's three divisions (Alexandria, Richmond, and Norfolk)..

Notability:
This case is notable due to the plaintiff, DivX, LLC, being a known Patent Assertion Entity (NPE) and its renewed litigation efforts against a major technology company like Amazon.. DivX previously filed complaints against Amazon and VIZIO in October 2022, both before the International Trade Commission (ITC) and in the Eastern District of Virginia.. The ITC investigation resulted in a finding of non-infringement in May 2024, prompting DivX to voluntarily dismiss the parallel stayed EDVA case and file this new complaint asserting different patents, including 10715806.. This pattern of re-litigating with new patents after an unfavorable outcome in a previous action is characteristic of some NPE strategies. The case also highlights the ongoing trend of patent disputes concerning streaming and content delivery technologies, impacting the digital media industry.

The patent infringement litigation case 3:24-cv-00818, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, involved DivX, LLC as the plaintiff and Amazon.Com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services Inc. as the defendants. The case was short-lived, with a filing date of November 15, 2024, and a closure date just three days later, on November 18, 2024.

Here are the key legal developments and outcomes:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed (2024-11-15): DivX, LLC initiated the patent infringement lawsuit against Amazon.Com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services Inc. in the Eastern District of Virginia. This complaint asserted six patents, including US Patent 10,715,806. The asserted patents generally relate to media playback technologies, such as coding, content delivery, encryption, and streaming. DivX accused Amazon's "Accused Streaming Services" (including Prime Video), Amazon Fire tablets, Amazon Fire TV/Cube devices, Amazon Echo Show devices, Amazon Fire TV sets, and "Accused Encoding Servers and Services" of infringement. This filing followed the voluntary dismissal of an earlier, parallel stayed case that DivX had filed against Amazon in the same district in October 2022, which had been awaiting the outcome of an International Trade Commission (ITC) investigation that concluded in May 2024 with a finding in favor of Amazon.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• Given the rapid closure of the case within three days of filing, no substantive pre-trial motions such as motions to dismiss, transfer, stay pending IPR, or summary judgment were filed or adjudicated within the lifespan of this specific docket.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• The case did not reach the claim construction (Markman) stage due to its swift closure.

Discovery Milestones:

• No significant discovery milestones were reached or recorded before the case was closed.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions:

• The case did not proceed to trial.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• Case Closed (2024-11-18): The case was closed on November 18, 2024, shortly after its filing. This quick disposition typically indicates a voluntary dismissal by the plaintiff, likely without prejudice, or a very fast settlement, often as part of a broader litigation strategy or restructuring.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• Ex Parte Reexamination (Application 90015467) Filed (2025-08-22): A separate proceeding, an ex parte reexamination for US Patent 10,715,806, was filed on August 22, 2025. This reexamination was requested by Divx CF Holdings LLC and names Amazon COM Inc. and Amazon WEB Services Inc. as interested parties. The status of this reexamination is "Pending." It is important to note that an ex parte reexamination is distinct from an inter partes review (IPR) or post-grant review (PGR) conducted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). There are no identified IPR or PGR proceedings for Patent 10,715,806 in the available information.

DivX, LLC is represented by attorneys from several firms, including Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP, Desmarais LLP, and the Law Office of Craig C. Reilly.

Here's a breakdown of the identified counsel:

Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP

• Kenneth J. Weatherwax: Partner. Based in Los Angeles, California. He is listed as a patent owner attorney for DivX in a related IPR proceeding (IPR2025-01223) concerning U.S. Patent 10,715,806. He also represented DivX in the Federal Circuit case against Unified Patents, LLC, which affirmed the cancellation of another DivX patent.
• Nathan Nobu Lowenstein: Partner. Also listed as a patent owner attorney for DivX in IPR2025-01223. He was also counsel for DivX in the Federal Circuit case against Unified Patents.
• Parham Hendifar: Attorney. Listed as a patent owner attorney for DivX in IPR2025-01223. He is also identified as First Back-Up Counsel for DivX in a document related to 3:24-cv-00818.
• Colette Woo: Attorney. Listed as a patent owner attorney for DivX in IPR2025-01223. She also represented DivX in the Federal Circuit case against Unified Patents.
• Dennis J. Courtney: Attorney. Listed as a patent owner attorney for DivX in IPR2025-01223.

Desmarais LLP

• Brian D. Matty: Partner. His practice focuses on intellectual property disputes in federal courts and before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, with experience in a wide range of technologies including media distribution networks. He has extensive experience in all aspects of patent litigation and has successfully represented clients in inter partes reviews and federal court litigation. Notably, he was part of the Desmarais LLP team that secured an $82.5 million jury verdict for IBM in a patent infringement trial.
• Steven Balcof: Partner. His practice is focused on the litigation and trial of patent and trade secret disputes, representing both plaintiff and defense-side clients in district courts, the International Trade Commission, and before the USPTO.

Law Office of Craig C. Reilly

• Craig Crandall Reilly: Attorney (Local Counsel). His firm, Craig A Crandall, APC, is located in Newbury Park, CA. He has filed numerous legal documents in various cases and has a practice focusing on intellectual property. His firm is listed as a Patent Attorney, Trademark Attorney, and Copyright & IP Law Firm.

While the original prompt mentioned patent 10715806, some search results for counsel also reference other patents and related IPRs, which provides additional context for their patent litigation experience. For example, DivX was recently involved in DivX, LLC v. Netflix, Inc. (No. 19-cv-01602), a patent infringement action involving video streaming and encryption technologies, where Netflix secured a complete defense verdict. DivX was also the appellant in DivX, LLC v. Unified Patents, LLC (Case No. 23-1699), a Federal Circuit case affirming the cancellation of a DivX patent covering adaptive bitrate streaming video encoding systems.

In the patent infringement case DivX, LLC v. Amazon.Com, Inc. et al (3:24-cv-00818) in the Virginia Eastern District Court, identifying the specific counsel of record for Amazon is not straightforward from publicly available, immediately accessible search results. While several law firms specialize in representing Amazon and Amazon sellers in intellectual property disputes and patent infringement matters, direct docket entries for this specific case were not found.

Firms known for representing Amazon or Amazon sellers in patent-related issues include:

• Hollowell Patent Group: This firm has experienced Amazon patent lawyers who handle aspects of patent law for Amazon sellers, including avoiding infringement claims, establishing patent protection, and responding to and resolving patent disputes. They also handle Amazon patent infringement appeals and complaints.
• Mandour & Associates: This firm has handled numerous patent infringement matters on Amazon and litigated Amazon patent infringement cases in federal court. They assist with both enforcing patent rights and defending against infringement claims.
• Gallium Law: Specializes in helping clients navigate intellectual property issues on the Amazon marketplace, representing both IP rights holders and Amazon sellers. They are familiar with Amazon's Patent Evaluation Express (APEX) program.
• Barcelo, Harrison & Walker, LLP: Offers intellectual property legal solutions tailored to Amazon sellers, including patent defense, litigation representation in IP disputes, and appealing account suspensions.
• Tarter Krinsky & Drogin: Their Amazon & E-Commerce Practice counsels online sellers and IP owners on intellectual property issues arising on the Amazon Marketplace, including addressing infringement complaints and defending sellers accused of infringement.

Without direct access to the docket for case 3:24-cv-00818, it is not possible to definitively name the specific attorneys, their roles, or their firm offices for Amazon. Filings in federal court cases are typically publicly available through PACER, but a targeted search for this specific case's counsel was beyond the scope of this general web search.