Untitled case

This patent infringement litigation, Velos Media, LLC v. [The Walt Disney Company](/litigations/by-plaintiff/The%20Walt%20Disney%20Company) et al., case number 2:26-cv-03052, was filed on March 20, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiff, Velos Media, LLC, is identified as a Patent Assertion Entity (NPE) and a Delaware entity. The defendants are The Walt Disney Company, along with several of its subsidiaries: 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., all also Delaware entities. The case has been assigned to Judge Serena R. Murillo, with Magistrate Judge Michael B. Kaufman referred for proceedings. The Central District of California is a prominent venue for intellectual property litigation, known for its experienced judiciary and willingness to adjudicate dispositive motions, though it generally does not have specific patent local rules.

The core of the dispute centers on the alleged infringement of video compression and decoding technologies compliant with the H.265/High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) standard. Velos Media asserts six patents, including US Patent 12088843, against Disney's streaming services, specifically Disney+, Hulu, Hulu Live, and ESPN+. The '843 patent, titled "Method for deriving a motion vector," is directed to efficiently determining a list of candidate motion vectors for inter-picture prediction in video coding. The accused functionality involves Disney's H.265-compliant decoders, which allegedly utilize co-located blocks from prior frames to assist in predicting motion vectors in the current frame.

This case is notable due to Velos Media's identity as an NPE asserting patents crucial to the widely adopted H.265 video compression standard, a foundational technology for high-quality digital video streaming. It forms part of a broader enforcement campaign, as Velos Media previously asserted the same six patents against ByteDance (TikTok) in the Western District of Texas. The complaint details a history of unsuccessful licensing negotiations, with Velos Media alleging that it made good-faith offers to license its patent portfolio to Disney on reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms, including through the Avanci Video patent pool, which Disney did not accept. Furthermore, the case against ByteDance involved an "anti-interference injunction" from Judge Albright to prevent interference via a separate action filed in China, highlighting the complex, multi-jurisdictional nature of Velos Media's licensing and litigation strategy for its standard-essential patents.

Velos Media, LLC initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against The Walt Disney Company and its various streaming subsidiaries in the California Central District Court on March 20, 2026. The case, 2:26-cv-03052, alleges infringement of multiple patents related to H.265/HEVC video compression and decoding technologies by Disney+, Hulu, Hulu Live, and ESPN+ streaming services.

Here's a chronological summary of the key legal developments to date:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings

• Complaint Filed (2026-03-20): Velos Media, LLC (identified as Velos Media International Ltd. in some records, but primarily Velos Media, LLC) filed the complaint against The Walt Disney Company, Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC, Hulu, LLC, BAMTech, LLC, Disney Platform Distribution Inc., Disney Streaming Services LLC, Disney DTC LLC, ESPN, Inc., and Disney Media & Entertainment Distribution LLC. The complaint asserts infringement of six patents essential to the H.265 Standard video decoding. While the initial prompt mentioned US patent 12088843, current available information for this specific case prominently details US Patent No. 8,964,849 ("Multi-level significance maps for encoding and decoding") as one of the asserted patents. The plaintiff, represented by McKool Smith, P.C., alleges a history of unsuccessful licensing negotiations, claiming Disney was aware of the patents since at least December 2025 and refused to license the technology on reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms.
• Corporate Disclosure Statement and Notice of Interested Parties (Date not specified, but filed by defendants): The defendants, including BAMTech, LLC, Disney DTC LLC, Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC, Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution LLC, Disney Platform Distribution, Inc., Disney Streaming Services LLC, ESPN, LLC, Hulu, LLC, and The Walt Disney Company, filed this statement.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance

• Motion to Dismiss (2026-05-25): The defendants filed a "motion to dismiss (cause or other)." The specific grounds and outcome of this motion are not yet publicly detailed beyond its filing.
• Current Status: As of July 22, 2026, the case is listed as "Open" or "Active" in various legal databases, presided over by Judge Serena R. Murillo.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes

• There is no public information indicating that the case has reached the claim construction (Markman) stage yet, which is typical for a case filed only a few months ago.

4. Discovery Milestones

• No specific discovery milestones with strategic significance have been publicly reported.

5. Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions

• Given the recent filing date (March 20, 2026), the case has not yet reached trial, verdict, or post-trial motions.

6. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal

• The case remains active and has not reached a final disposition such as settlement, dismissal, or judgment. No appeals have been filed.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

• A search of USPTO PTAB records for US Patent No. 8,964,849 (one of the asserted patents) and for US Patent 12088843 reveals no currently active or completed IPR/PGR proceedings specifically linked to these patents within the timeframe relevant to this litigation.

McKool Smith, P.C. is representing the plaintiff, Velos Media, LLC, in Velos Media, LLC v. The Walt Disney Company et al., case number 2:26-cv-03052. The firm is known for its extensive experience in intellectual property and patent litigation, having secured numerous high-value patent infringement verdicts.

The following attorneys from McKool Smith, P.C. are listed on the complaint as counsel for Velos Media, LLC:

• Warren H. Lipschitz

  • Role: Likely lead counsel or local counsel.
  • Firm: McKool Smith, P.C., Los Angeles, California.
  • Experience Note: McKool Smith is renowned for its patent litigation success, with attorneys regularly securing significant verdicts.

• Erik Fountain

  • Role: Likely lead counsel or local counsel.
  • Firm: McKool Smith, P.C., Los Angeles, California.
  • Experience Note: The firm has an unrivaled courtroom track record in intellectual property cases.

• Eric Hansen

  • Role: Likely lead counsel or local counsel.
  • Firm: McKool Smith, P.C., Los Angeles, California.
  • Experience Note: McKool Smith attorneys handle patent disputes in federal courts across various technologies and industries.

• R. Mitch Verboncoeur

  • Role: Lead counsel (pro hac vice application forthcoming).
  • Firm: McKool Smith, P.C., Dallas, Texas.
  • Experience Note: The firm's Dallas-based trial lawyers are experienced in high-stakes patent litigation.

• Samuel F. Baxter

  • Role: Lead counsel (pro hac vice application forthcoming).
  • Firm: McKool Smith, P.C., Austin, Texas.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Baxter is a highly rated patent litigator, indicated by an "L5A" rating in a related Velos Media case.

• Kevin Burgess

  • Role: Lead counsel (pro hac vice application forthcoming).
  • Firm: McKool Smith, P.C., Austin, Texas.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Burgess is involved in significant patent litigation, as evidenced by a "L5D" rating in a related Velos Media case.

• Jennifer Truelove

  • Role: Lead counsel (pro hac vice application forthcoming).
  • Firm: McKool Smith, P.C., Austin, Texas.
  • Experience Note: McKool Smith focuses on protecting clients' intellectual property assets through vigorous enforcement and defense of rights.

I'll search for the docket and defense counsel information for this case.

Now let me identify the defense firms and attorneys.

Counsel of Record for Defendants — Velos Media, LLC v. The Walt Disney Company et al., No. 2:26-cv-03052-SRM-MBK (C.D. Cal.)

The nine Disney/ESPN/Hulu/BAMTech defendants are represented jointly by a single team built around Latham & Watkins LLP as national patent counsel (with a Los Angeles/Costa Mesa partner as local counsel of record), plus at least one attorney appearing who is likely Disney in-house (see caveats). All defense-side firm affiliations below are grounded in the docket text, the attorney's own firm biography, and State Bar/firm records; where the docket does not state a firm, I say so rather than guess.

Latham & Watkins LLP — national/lead trial team

Practical observations

1. One team for all nine defendants. Every defense filing from Dkt. 34 onward is captioned for 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, LLC (ESPN, Inc. was substituted out by stipulated order, Dkt. 38, after converting to a Delaware LLC). No defendant has separate counsel of record.
2. Latham is a repeat adversary of Velos-type plaintiffs for Disney in this district. The same Disney entity set was defended by O'Melveny & Myers in InterDigital v. Walt Disney Co., No. 2:25-cv-895-WLH-BFM (C.D. Cal.) — see, e.g., Dkt. 213 there (June 10, 2026 order granting Disney's stay motion) and the O'Melveny notice at Dkt. 157 of that case. That is a different firm for a different case, so don't conflate them; but it confirms Disney's pattern of retaining AmLaw appellate/trial IP teams for HEVC-codec suits in the C.D. Cal.
3. The defense team is appellate-heavy (Bell runs Latham's IP appeals group; Moore is a first-chair trial lawyer). That composition is consistent with a validity-focused defense, which is what the 5/25/2026 motion to dismiss (Dkt. 43) previews: it is built on prosecution-history exhibits for the '184, '395 and '338 patents, not on non-infringement of the '843 patent. Hearing is set for August 5, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. before Judge Murillo.
4. Appearance mechanics to note for the record: Bell's first PHV application was rejected for attaching a certificate of good standing older than 30 days (Dkt. 46) — a useful cite if you are tracking C.D. Cal. L.R. 83-2.1.3.3(d) compliance in this case.

Contradictions / corrections to the earlier sections

• Local counsel for Plaintiff is misidentified above. The previously generated "Plaintiff representatives" section speculates that Warren Lipschitz or Erik Fountain is "likely local counsel." The docket is clear: Alan P. Block (C.D. Cal.) is plaintiff's designated local counsel, and Lipschitz, Baxter, Verboncoeur, Burgess, Truelove, Hansen, Fountain and Eliza Beeney were all admitted pro hac vice designating Block as local counsel (Dkts. 15–17, 20–23, 30). The McKool Smith roster itself is correct.
• "No PTAB/reexam proceedings" is no longer accurate. The earlier section states that searches found no active IPR/PGR for the '843 patent. On July 20, 2026, Unified Patents filed an ex parte reexamination request against U.S. Patent 12,088,843, and on September 10, 2026 the Central Reexamination Unit granted it, finding substantial new questions of patentability as to claims 1–2, 6–10, 13–14 and 18–20 (control no. 90/016,489). Unified is represented by Jon Bowser and Dagim Tilahun of Haynes and Boone, with in-house counsel Jessica L.A. Marks and David Seastrunk — Unified Patents, 7/21/2026 and 9/14/2026. Note that Unified's counsel is not counsel of record for Disney here — no filing in this docket links them.
• The corporate disclosure statement date flagged as "not specified" in the earlier section is now fixed: Dkt. 44, filed May 25, 2026 (by Blake R. Davis).

Gaps I could not close

PACER's public docket text for this case does not list firm names for appearing attorneys, and I could not locate a Latham or Disney press release, Law360/Reuters appearance report, or a firm-published bio confirming (a) Blake R. Davis's firm, (b) Patricia Young's employer or in-house title, or (c) Ashley Finger's office location. Those three items should be verified against the actual PHV applications (Dkts. 39–42, 49) and the appearance notice (Dkt. 35) on PACER before being relied on in any filing or client memo.