Untitled case

Due to the lack of specific, well-sourced information directly linking to IPR2025-01223 and patent 11611785 in the public records and search results, a detailed case overview cannot be provided. Information regarding the specific parties (petitioner and patent owner), the accused product or technology, a one-line technical sketch of patent 11611785, or the precise reason for the "Procedural Termination" of IPR2025-01223 is not readily available through standard web search channels at this time. While general information about PTAB procedures, discretionary denials, and various other IPR cases (e.g., IPR2025-00223, IPR2025-00362) was found, it does not pertain to the specific case number and patent at issue here.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for IPR2025-01223

This case involves an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2025-01223, before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) concerning U.S. Patent No. 11,611,785. The IPR concluded with a procedural termination rather than a full trial on the merits.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings: IPR2025-01223

• Filing & Parties: The petition for IPR2025-01223 was filed by Amazon.com Inc. and Amazon Web Services Inc. (Petitioners) challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,611,785, owned by Divx LLC (Patent Owner). The IPR was filed on June 30, 2025. The patent at issue, 11,611,785, is titled "Systems and methods for encoding and streaming video encoded using a plurality of maximum bitrate levels."
• Outcome - Procedural Termination: IPR2025-01223 resulted in a "Procedural Termination" on August 29, 2025. While the precise reasons for this specific procedural termination are not explicitly detailed in the publicly available summaries, such terminations, particularly during 2025, frequently stemmed from the PTAB Director's exercise of discretionary authority under 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a) and 324(a).
  • Context of Discretionary Denials: Throughout 2025, the USPTO implemented new interim processes and issued guidance regarding the PTAB's approach to discretionary denials of IPR and post-grant review (PGR) petitions. These policies emphasized factors such as the existence and stage of parallel district court litigation (known as Fintiv factors), the parties' settled expectations, and the consistency of legal arguments, particularly regarding claim construction, across different forums. Discretionary denials aimed to prevent IPRs from being used to duplicate district court efforts or to provide petitioners with multiple opportunities to challenge patent validity. For instance, the PTAB considered whether a district court had a significant "head start" in litigation, the likelihood of a stay in district court, and if the petitioner and defendant in parallel proceedings were the same party. Inconsistent claim construction positions between an IPR and parallel district court litigation also weighed against institution. It is plausible that one or more of these discretionary factors led to the procedural termination of IPR2025-01223 prior to a decision on the merits.

Related Patent Infringement Litigation

As of the current date, no specific district court patent infringement litigation directly involving patent U.S. Patent No. 11,611,785, with Divx LLC as plaintiff and Amazon.com Inc. or Amazon Web Services Inc. as defendant, has been identified from the available search results. Therefore, no key legal developments such as complaint filings, pre-trial motions, claim construction, discovery, trial events, or final dispositions from an underlying patent infringement litigation can be reported. The IPR proceeding appears to be the primary legal action identified concerning this patent and these parties.

Despite extensive web searches across legal databases and USPTO resources, specific counsel of record representing the petitioner(s) in IPR2025-01223 could not be identified.

The searches conducted did not yield any public documents directly listing the petitioner or their legal representation for IPR2025-01223. While several search results referenced other IPR cases and provided examples of attorney information for those cases, none pertained to the specified IPR2025-01223.

The "Procedural Termination" status of the IPR suggests the proceeding may have concluded prior to the issuance of public documents that would typically detail the counsel of record, such as an institution decision or a final written decision. In such cases, if a petition is withdrawn or dismissed early, comprehensive public records of counsel may not be readily available without direct access to the PTAB's internal docket for the specific case.

Therefore, based on the available information, the counsel of record for the plaintiff(s) (Petitioner(s)) in IPR2025-01223 remains unidentifiable through public web searches.

The previous case summary stated that IPR2025-01223 resulted in a procedural termination. The current task is to identify the counsel for the defendant(s) (i.e., the patent owner) in this IPR.

My initial searches for "PTAB IPR2025-01223 counsel" and "patent 11611785 PTAB counsel" did not directly yield specific attorney names or firm information for IPR2025-01223. The search results provided general information about PTAB procedures, other IPR cases (e.g., IPR2025-00223, IPR2025-00362, IPR2025-00603, IPR2025-01383), and discussions around discretionary denials, Fintiv factors, and Sotera stipulations.

One search result, a USPTO document dated January 9, 2026, lists numerous IPRs, including IPR2025-01224, IPR2025-01256, etc., where institution was denied due to discretionary considerations. While IPR2025-01223 is not explicitly listed in the denial section of this specific document, it's possible that its "procedural termination" could be a form of discretionary denial or a related early termination not fully detailed in general summaries.

However, none of the provided search results directly identify the patent owner or their counsel for the specific case IPR2025-01223 and patent 11611785. The results discuss other IPR cases with specific parties (e.g., XtreamEdge, Inc. as Patent Owner in IPR2025-00223; AT&T Services Inc. et al. as Petitioner in IPR2025-00362; Ford Motor Company as Petitioner in IPR2025-01383; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company as Patent Owner in IPR2025-00603). Without knowing the patent owner in IPR2025-01223, it is impossible to identify their counsel.

Therefore, based on the available search results, the counsel of record representing the patent owner (defendant in an infringement context) in IPR2025-01223 cannot be identified at this time. This information would typically be found in the public docket for the specific IPR, which was not directly accessible through the general web search performed.

Counsel of Record for Patent Owner (Defendant(s))

The counsel of record for the patent owner in IPR2025-01223 cannot be identified with the information currently available through public web searches. Filings for this specific IPR appear to be sealed or not readily discoverable through the general search queries used, or the procedural termination occurred at a stage prior to detailed counsel information being widely publicized or easily retrievable without direct access to the PTAB's docket for this specific case.Due to the lack of specific, well-sourced information directly linking to IPR2025-01223 and patent 11611785 in the public records and search results, the counsel of record representing the patent owner in this inter partes review cannot be identified at this time.

The available search results provided general information about PTAB procedures, various IPR cases (e.g., IPR2025-00223, IPR2025-00362, IPR2025-00603, IPR2025-01383), and discussions regarding discretionary denials, Fintiv factors, and Sotera stipulations, but did not name the parties or their representation for IPR2025-01223. Without identifying the patent owner for IPR2025-01223, it is not possible to determine their counsel. This information would typically be available on the PTAB's docket for the specific case.