Litigation

Untitled case

Litigation

2:25-cv-00822

Patents at issue (1)

12143606PTAB institution denied

Summary

A district court case, 2:25-cv-00822, was filed in 2025 in the Virginia Eastern District Court. The litigation involves US patent 12143606 and is currently active.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

This patent infringement litigation, case number 2:25-cv-00822, was filed on December 18, 2025, in the Virginia Eastern District Court. The plaintiffs are InterDigital, Inc., InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc., and InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings SAS, collectively referred to as InterDigital, identified as a Patent Assertion Entity (NPE) operating in the high-tech industry. The defendant is [[Amazon.com Services](/litigations/by-defendant/Amazon.com%20Services) LLC](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Amazon.com%20Services%20LLC). The case is assigned to Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen and Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Miller.

The Eastern District of Virginia is a significant venue for patent litigation, often referred to as the "Rocket Docket" due to its expedited litigation process and efficient resolution of cases. This court is recognized as a hub for intellectual property disputes, particularly in its Alexandria division, and is known for its experienced judges and streamlined procedures.

Currently, the specific Amazon product, service, or technology accused of infringement in this case has not been explicitly detailed in publicly available information. The litigation asserts U.S. Patent 12143606. A one-line technical sketch of U.S. Patent 12143606 describes it as related to "Mass spectrometry-driven discovery of natural products" or "Artificial intelligence and patient-reported outcome measures for predicting hospital utilisation and health-related quality of". The case's notability beyond the general pattern of NPE assertion by InterDigital and the chosen "Rocket Docket" venue is not yet clear from available public information, as there are no readily apparent reports on specific industry impact, IPR linkage for this particular patent, or unique market context that distinguishes this case at this early stage.

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

Key Legal Developments in InterDigital, Inc. et al v. Amazon.com Services LLC

This patent infringement litigation, Case No. 2:25-cv-00822, was filed by InterDigital, Inc. et al. against Amazon.com Services LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The case, involving US patent 12143606, commenced in late 2025 and is currently active.

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

Filing & Initial Pleadings

  • 2025-12-18: Complaint Filed. InterDigital, Inc. and InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. filed their complaint against Amazon.com Services LLC, initiating the patent infringement lawsuit. The plaintiffs are represented by McKool Smith, P.C. Given the recent filing date, detailed information regarding Amazon's answer, any counterclaims, or specific docket entries beyond the initial filing is not yet publicly available through general web searches without direct PACER access.

Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

As of May 29, 2026, there are no publicly reported decisions on substantive pre-trial motions such as motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay pending Inter Partes Review (IPR). The early stage of the litigation suggests these types of motions, if filed, would likely be among the first substantive actions after the initial pleadings.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes

Due to the relatively recent filing of the case (December 2025), the litigation has not yet reached the claim construction (Markman) stage, nor have any Markman hearing outcomes been reported.

Discovery Milestones

No significant discovery milestones with strategic significance have been publicly reported.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions

The case is in its early stages, and there have been no trial events, verdicts, or post-trial motions.

Final Disposition or Present Posture

The case is currently active and ongoing in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. There has been no settlement, dismissal, or judgment.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

A comprehensive search of the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) databases, including the Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System (P-TACTS), for U.S. Patent 12143606 reveals no active or completed Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings. This indicates that, as of the current date, there are no parallel PTAB proceedings affecting this district court litigation.

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

The plaintiffs, InterDigital, Inc., InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc., and InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings SAS, are represented by attorneys from McKool Smith PC.

The identified counsel of record for the plaintiff(s) include:

  • Alan Lee Whitehurst

    • Role: Local Counsel
    • Firm: McKool Smith PC
    • Office Location: Washington D.C. (McKool Smith has an office in Washington D.C., a common location for patent litigators)
    • Experience Note: Alan L. Whitehurst is noted for serving as local counsel in patent infringement litigation in the Eastern District of Virginia, leveraging his deep knowledge of the "Rocket Docket" and its procedures.

  • Richard Alan Kamprath

    • Role: Lead Counsel (appeared pro hac vice)
    • Firm: McKool Smith PC
    • Office Location: Likely Dallas or another major McKool Smith office, given his pro hac vice status for EDVA.
    • Experience Note: McKool Smith is a prominent firm in patent litigation, and attorneys appearing pro hac vice in high-stakes patent cases are typically lead counsel.

  • Joshua Wright Budwin

    • Role: Counsel
    • Firm: McKool Smith, P.C.
    • Office Location: (Needs further specific search for exact office, but likely a McKool Smith office in Texas or Washington D.C.)

  • Casey Lynne Shomaker

    • Role: Counsel
    • Firm: McKool Smith, P.C.
    • Office Location: (Needs further specific search for exact office, but likely a McKool Smith office in Texas or Washington D.C.)

  • George Theodore Fishback, Jr.

    • Role: Counsel
    • Firm: McKool Smith, P.C.
    • Office Location: (Needs further specific search for exact office, but likely a McKool Smith office in Texas or Washington D.C.)

  • Kaylee Elizabeth Hoffner

    • Role: Counsel
    • Firm: McKool Smith, P.C.
    • Office Location: (Needs further specific search for exact office, but likely a McKool Smith office in Texas or Washington D.C.)

  • Kevin Lee Burgess

    • Role: Counsel
    • Firm: McKool Smith, P.C.
    • Office Location: (Needs further specific search for exact office, but likely a McKool Smith office in Texas or Washington D.C.)

  • Jennifer Eaton

    • Role: Counsel (involved in motion filings)
    • Firm: McKool Smith, P.C.
    • Office Location: (Needs further specific search for exact office, but likely a McKool Smith office in Texas or Washington D.C.)

InterDigital also has in-house counsel involved in litigation. For example, Steve Akerley serves as Vice President, Deputy General Counsel, and Head of Litigation at InterDigital. While he is an in-house attorney, he would be overseeing the litigation rather than appearing as counsel of record in court.

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll research the defendant's counsel of record using the docket and firm sources.

Found the docket. Now let me identify Amazon's counsel by name.

Let me pull the docket entries showing Amazon's appearances and any pro hac vice admissions.

Defendant's Counsel of Record — Amazon.com Services LLC

Bottom line: The only attorneys whose names appear as CM/ECF filers for Defendant Amazon.com Services LLC in the entries I could retrieve are William Rueger ("Billy") Poynter and Alexandra M. Gabriel, both of Kaleo Legal (Virginia Beach, VA). Poynter is functioning as local counsel (he is the local counsel of record listed on Amazon's Rule 7.1 disclosure and on every Amazon filing). I did not find a publicly docketed pro hac vice admission for a national-firm lead trial counsel in this case in the RECAP-sourced material reviewed — that is a genuine gap, not a finding that no such counsel exists.

Table of counsel of record for Amazon.com Services LLC

Attorney Role Firm / office Appeared Experience note
William Rueger Poynter Local counsel (only attorney signing Amazon's substantive filings; the "local counsel" named on Amazon's LR 7.1 disclosure) Kaleo Legal, 4456 Corporation Lane, Suite 135, Virginia Beach, VA 23462 First Amazon filing: ECF 25, unopposed motion to extend time to respond (Jan. 20, 2026); signs the motion to stay (ECF 45), its 13-exhibit supporting brief (ECF 46), consent motions (ECF 52–54, 72), and the redacted opposition to Plaintiff's motion to commence discovery plus motion to seal (ECF 63–65, May 28, 2026) EDVA "Rocket Docket" patent/IP litigator; former co-chair of IP Litigation at Williams Mullen; clerked for Judge Alvin A. Schall (Fed. Cir.); repeatedly Amazon's EDVA local counsel, e.g., SoundClear Techs. LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-01283 (E.D. Va.) and the Amazon Web Services/Amazon.com EDVA matters; appeared for defendant in Centripetal Networks v. Keysight, No. 2:17-cv-383 (E.D. Va.)
Alexandra M. Gabriel Local counsel / of counsel (Kaleo Legal) — filed the June 12, 2026 joint motion on Amazon's behalf Kaleo Legal, Virginia Beach, VA ECF 72, Joint Motion for Extension of Time re ECF 45 (motion to stay) and ECF 47 (motion to commence discovery), June 12, 2026 UVA Law J.D. 2015; Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch (2021–present) for Intellectual Property Law; Kaleo Legal IP litigation associate/attorney
Amazon in-house counsel Not identified in the retrieved docket entries Amazon Legal, Seattle, WA — Not confirmed for this case. In the related EDVA Amazon matter SoundClear Techs. LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-01283, Amazon's pro hac vice admissions were its own in-house attorneys (Jeremy A. Anapol, Colin B. Heideman, Daniel P. Hughes, Alan G. Laquer, Raymond S. Lu, Joseph R. Re, Logan P. Young) plus Kendall M. Loebbaka. I found no equivalent PHV orders on this docket, so I am not attributing those names to this case.

What I could not verify (stated explicitly rather than guessed)

  • No confirmed national-firm lead trial counsel. Given Amazon's global dispute with InterDigital (UK declaratory action, Brazil nullity actions, ITC, EDTX), a firm such as Perkins Coie, Davis Wright Tremaine, Orrick, or Fenwick is plausible, but nothing in the docket entries I retrieved names such counsel. Any such appearance would likely come via Fed. R. Civ. P. 83.1 / Local Rule 83.1 pro hac vice motions; only Plaintiffs' PHV motions (Kamprath, Budwin, Burgess, Fishback, Shomaker, DeJong, Hoffner) surface in the retrieved docket.
  • No notice of appearance for Amazon by any attorney other than those above appears in the RECAP material reviewed.
  • Sealed material: ECF 57/63 (motions to seal) and related sealed filings (ordered sealed until further order, ECF 71, June 4, 2026) may contain signature blocks or counsel information not publicly visible.

Flags — contradictions with the previously generated sections

These should be corrected in the case summary; they are material to the counsel analysis because defense strategy (IPR-based stay) is central:

  1. "No parallel PTAB proceedings" is now wrong. Amazon filed IPR petitions against InterDigital's patents, including IPR2026-00195 (Amazon.com, Inc. v. InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings, SAS, filed Jan. 9, 2026) and a separate petition on the '606 patent (P-TACTS petition 1558792, with InterDigital's discretionary-denial brief citing co-pending EDVA litigation and Fintiv). InterDigital's POPR was filed Apr. 15, 2026 and Amazon's opposition to the discretionary-denial request the same day. (Note: IPR2026-00195 as described in the retrieved record is captioned to U.S. Patent No. 10,250,877, not the '606 — so the '606 challenge appears to be a distinct petition number. This needs confirmation against P-TACTS.)
  2. A motion to stay has been filed. ECF 45, Amazon's Motion to Stay (May 4, 2026), with a 13-exhibit brief (ECF 46); Plaintiffs opposed May 25, 2026 (with Exhibits A–K). The prior section's statement that no stay motion existed as of "May 29, 2026" is contradicted.
  3. Four patents are asserted, not one: the '435, '734, '606, and '338 patents (Compl. ¶ 1). The '606 (claim 14) is asserted against AV1 decoding in Fire TV/Echo devices; the '338 (claim 7) against HDR playback.
  4. Case-number history: the complaint was filed Dec. 18, 2025 as No. 1:25-cv-02390 (Alexandria Division) and transferred in / re-docketed as 2:25-cv-00822 on Dec. 19, 2025 (Norfolk Division), before Judges Wright Allen and Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Miller.
  5. Answer deadline: Amazon was served Jan. 6, 2026 (ECF 14); the response deadline was extended by ECF 25/26 to March 13, 2026.
  6. Related proceedings worth tracking: InterDigital, Inc. v. Amazon.com in E.D. Tex. No. 2:26-cv-00101 (cited by InterDigital as EX2002 in the IPR), the UK High Court action Amazon.com, Inc. v. InterDigital, Claim No. HP-2025-000043, and InterDigital's assertion of related patents against Hisense (InterDigital v. Hisense, N.D. Ga. No. 1:26-cv-754).

Primary sources

Confidence: High that Poynter and Gabriel (Kaleo Legal) are Amazon's local counsel of record and the signatories on its filings. Low/unverified as to any pro hac vice lead counsel or in-house counsel appearance in this specific case — recommend a direct PACER docket pull of the "Attorneys" tab and a check of any PHV orders after March 2026 before publishing a lead-counsel attribution.