Untitled case

I'll research this case before drafting. Let me start with parallel searches on the case number and patent.

Now let me get the Sony complaint specifics and outcome.

Let me pin down the asserted patents, the Alice ruling, and Sony's IPRs.

Case Overview: Broadcom Corp. v. Sony Corp., No. 8:16-cv-01052-JVS-JCG (C.D. Cal.)

Parties and posture. This is not a classic NPE case — both sides are operating companies. Plaintiffs are Broadcom Corporation (a California corporation, then headquartered in San Jose with an Irvine office inside the Central District) and Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., the Singapore-domiciled IP-holding subsidiary of the Avago/Broadcom group and record owner of the '663 patent. The complaint was filed June 6, 2016 in the Southern (Santa Ana) Division before Judge James V. Selna, with Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi designated, and assigned No. SACV 16-1052-JVS (JCGx) (RPX Insight; Justia docket). Defendants were Sony Corporation, Sony Corporation of America, Sony Electronics, Inc., and Sony Interactive Entertainment, Inc. The case closed June 12, 2017, roughly 372 days after filing, following a global settlement (RPX; see below). The complaint framed the dispute as a lapsed-license problem rather than a piracy allegation: Sony had "licensed certain portions of the patent portfolios of LSI and its predecessor companies for five decades," its most recent LSI license lapsed in 2014, and Broadcom's licensing overtures went unanswered (Export Compliance Daily, June 8, 2016). Broadcom sought damages, not an injunction — a strong tell that this was a royalty reset, not a market-exclusion suit.

Accused technology and patents. The accused products were Sony's PlayStation 4 console and Blu-ray players (with digital TVs also named in press coverage), accused of infringing ten patents drawn from the LSI/Agere/Bell Labs video and consumer-electronics portfolio that Avago acquired with LSI in 2014 and consolidated after the 2016 Broadcom acquisition (Law360, "Broadcom Says Sony's Playstation 4 Infringes 10 Patents," June 7, 2016). The asserted set included, per the joint claim construction statement (Dkt. 103, Feb. 16, 2017) and related filings: the '387 patent (U.S. 6,744,387) and '663 patent (U.S. 6,982,663), both to Lowell Winger on symbol binarization — i.e., converting syntax-element index values into binary strings using a threshold switch between unary and exp-Golomb codes, the core of CABAC-style binary arithmetic coding in H.264/AVC video compression (the '663 is a continuation of the '387 and claims the decode-side mirror image: setting an index value to a threshold based on a first codeword pattern, then adding offset and value fields from later patterns — see the Oct. 5, 2016 order, available here); the '087 patent (5,870,087) on MPEG decoder architecture; the '955 patent (7,616,955); audio patents '636 and '805 ("auditory scene parameter," "diffuse FD signals" — MPEG spatial audio); the '151 patent; and the '332 patent on "colored indicator light[s]," which press reports tied to the DualShock 4's player-identifying light bar (Numerama, June 2016). Caveat on the case metadata: the prompt lists only the '663 as the patent at issue; that reflects a per-patent litigation feed, not the case. The '663 was one of ten patents-in-suit and, judging from the claim construction and § 101 record, one of the two lead video-coding patents.

Procedural history, venue, and IPR linkage. Sony first moved to transfer the case to another California district; Judge Selna denied transfer on September 12, 2016 (Law360, "Sony Loses Bid To Transfer PlayStation 4 Infringement Case," Sept. 13, 2016 — my sources do not confirm the proposed transferee district). Sony then attacked the two binarization patents under Alice; on October 5, 2016 Judge Selna denied the motion, holding the coding methods that improve video processing speed recite an inventive concept — a notable post-Alice survival for video-compression claims, and a direct contrast with the parallel N.D. Cal. case Avago v. ASUSTeK (No. 3:15-cv-04525-EMC), where Judge Edward Chen held '387 claim 1 invalid as an abstract idea on November 9, 2016 while still denying summary judgment of non-infringement on the '663 and '387 (order text). Sony petitioned for IPR (including IPR2017-00461 on the '955 patent), moved to stay the '387/'663 litigation, and Judge Selna denied the stay on February 13, 2017 (Dkt.

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the docket and party identification.

The case is actually Broadcom Corp. et al. v. Sony Corp. et al., C.D. Cal. No. 8:16-cv-01052. Let me get the docket and party details.

Now let me get the full docket and the dismissal/settlement details.

Correction to the case metadata first

The docket number 8:16-cv-01052 (C.D. Cal.) is Broadcom Corp. et al. v. Sony Corp. et al., not an Avago/Broadcom v. Amazon action. The prior summary's attribution was wrong: the Amazon case is a separate, later-filed suit, 8:16-cv-01774 (filed 2016-09-23, same judge), and US 6,982,663 was asserted in both. US 6,982,663 ("Method and System for Symbol Binarization," inventor Lowell Winger, filed 2004-02-02, issued 2006-01-03, owned by Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.) was one of ten patents-in-suit here, not the sole patent.

Sources: RPX Insight (insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation/cacdce-649776-broadcom-v-sony); Justia docket (dockets.justia.com/docket/california/cacdce/8:2016cv01052/649776); Docket Alarm.

---

Chronology

1. Complaint — 2016-06-06. Broadcom and Avago sued Sony in C.D. Cal. over the PS4 and Sony's consumer AV line, pleading direct, induced and contributory infringement plus willfulness across ten patents. The theory was a lapsed portfolio license: Sony had licensed LSI (Avago's 2014 acquisition) technologies "for five decades," but the most recent LSI license expired in 2014 and Broadcom's pre-suit licensing demands (including a June 22, 2016 outreach) went unanswered. Notably, the complaint sought damages/reasonable royalty and enhanced damages but no injunction — a posture consistent with a licensing-driven campaign. (Export Compliance Daily, 2016-06-08; Law360, 2016-06-07)

2. Answer, counterclaims, and Sony's own patent attack. Sony answered and asserted counterclaim patents '896 (geometry/graphics processor), '028 (channel state information feedback), and '400 (MAC header) against Broadcom — i.e., this was a two-front patent case, not a one-way infringement action. The parties' February 2017 joint statement confirms Sony's counterclaims put claim terms from those three patents at issue.

3. Motion to transfer — denied 2016-09-12. Sony sought to move the case out of the Central District (to the Northern District, where Avago's ASUSTeK/Acer litigations were pending). Judge Selna denied the motion, rejecting the convenience/efficiency arguments. (Law360, 2016-09-13: "Sony Loses Bid To Transfer PlayStation 4 Infringement Case.")

4. § 101 motion to dismiss — denied 2016-10-05. Sony moved under Alice to knock out two Broadcom patents — the two video-coding patents, i.e., the '663 and '387 patents. Judge Selna denied the motion, holding that the coding methods "that improve video processing speeds" recite inventive concepts and are patent-eligible. (Law360, 2016-10-05: "Sony Loses Alice Bid To Toss Patents In PlayStation 4 Suit.") This is the single most consequential substantive ruling touching the '663 patent in this case.

5. Parallel IPR petitions — filed late December 2016. Sony filed a wave of inter partes review petitions against Broadcom's asserted patents. IPR2017-00461 targets US 7,616,955 ("'955") — Broadcom's mandatory notices in that proceeding (filed 2016-12-30) expressly identify this district court case as the related matter. The petitions directed at the '387 and '663 patents were the predicate for Sony's stay motion (below). Caution: I could not verify the Sony IPR numbers for the '663 patent within this session; the '955 number is confirmed, the '387/'663 numbers are inferred from the stay motion's scope.

6. Motion to stay the '387 and '663 claims pending IPR — denied 2017-02-13 (Doc. 102). Sony moved to stay litigation "Regarding the '387 and '663 Patents" pending the PTAB proceedings. Judge Selna denied the stay in an in-chambers minute order — a meaningful ruling, because it kept both video-coding patents (including the '663 patent) on the litigation track alongside the IPRs. (Dkt. 102, Minutes (In Chambers) … Order DENYING Defendants' MOTION for Order Staying Litigation Regarding the '387 and '663 Patents.)

7. Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement — 2017-02-16 (Doc. 103). The parties exchanged constructions for all ten patents and narrowed to the ten most significant terms for briefing and a Markman hearing. Two '663-specific items appear:

• "order of steps / limitations" ('663 patent, claims 11 and 21) — selected as one of the five "most significant" terms for Broadcom's patents; Sony represented that this term supported non-infringement of all asserted '663 claims.
• Separately, Sony contended "code symbol index value / index value" ('387 and '663) was indefinite under § 112.

8. Claim construction outcome — no Markman ruling issued. The case terminated roughly four months after the joint statement, and no claim construction order appears in the public record. This is a "verified negative" only to the extent of available sources — I did not find a Markman order or hearing transcript, and the docket's public traces stop at Doc. 103. Treat the absence of a ruling as a strong inference, not a certified fact.

9. Discovery. Publicly material discovery was limited. The strategically significant items visible in the record are: (a) the deposition of inventor Lowell Winger, excerpts of which were used as substantive prior-art/claim-scope evidence in the PTAB petitions against the '663 and '387 patents (Ex. 1012 in the AMD petition; Ex. 1013 in the Amazon-line petitions); and (b) the claim-construction exchange, which functioned as the parties' infringement/non-infringement sorting mechanism. There were no publicly reported discovery sanctions, adverse-inference orders, or privilege fights of note.

10. Disposition — case terminated 2017-06-12. The docket closed with a dismissal consistent with settlement; the case did not reach trial, verdict, JMOL, or appeal. I could not verify the text of the dismissal order (whether with or without prejudice, and whether it included a 45-day reopen window) within this session. For calibration, the parallel Amazon case (8:16-cv-01774) closed on 2017-10-06 by an "Order of Dismissal Upon Settlement" without prejudice, with 45 days to reopen — Judge Selna's standard form in this campaign. It is likely, but not confirmed, that the Sony dismissal followed the same template.

---

Effect of the PTAB proceedings

The IPR activity around the '663 patent was substantial and came from three separate petitioners — a signature of how widely the patent was asserted:

Effect on this litigation: the stay denial (2017-02-13) is the key data point — Judge Selna declined to let the PTAB displace the district court schedule on the two video-coding patents, which materially raised Sony's exposure and, in practical terms, improved Broadcom's settlement leverage. The AMD petition's voluntary dismissal (2017-09-06) removed one invalidity threat to the '663 patent; the Amazon-line petitions continued into late 2017 but post-dated this case's dismissal, so they could not have influenced it.

Broader context for the '663 patent: it was a serial assertion asset across the Avago/Broadcom portfolio campaigns — Avago v. ASUSTeK (N.D

I'll research the plaintiff-side counsel of record for Broadcom Corp. v. Sony Corp., No. 8:16-cv-01052-JVS-JCG (C.D. Cal.).

Good — I have the plaintiff-side signature block from Dkt. 103. Now let me identify the local counsel and any separate Avago representation.

Plaintiff-side counsel of record

Bottom line: Plaintiffs Broadcom Corporation and Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. were jointly represented by a Thompson & Knight LLP team — a Dallas-based core group appearing pro hac vice, plus a California-licensed T&K partner in the firm's Los Angeles office as local counsel. There is no sign of separate counsel for Avago; the signature block expressly covers both plaintiffs.

Counsel table

Sourcing

• Primary: the plaintiffs' signature block in the Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement, Dkt. 103 (filed 2017-02-16), which closes: "THOMPSON & KNIGHT LLP … ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS BROADCOM CORPORATION AND AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES GENERAL IP (SINGAPORE) PTE." — the eight Dallas attorneys are each marked "(pro hac)." Text captured at ptacts.uspto.gov petition exhibit.
• Docket corroboration: Justia's docket sheet for No. 8:16-cv-01052 lists plaintiffs as "represented by" Dominguez, Hammond, Hudson, Patel, Sostek, Teng, Wynne, and Zabarauskas (Justia).
• Zabarauskas firm/address: his recurring California signature block, e.g. N.D. Cal. filing (T&K, 707 Wilshire Blvd., LA); current H&K Newport Beach listing via NY courts e-filing.
• Defense contrast (confirms the split): Sony's side was Kirkland & Ellis — Luke L. Dauchot (LA, local), with Gregory S. Arovas, Robert A. Appleby, F. Christopher Mizzo, David Rokach and Eugene Goryunov admitted pro hac vice by Dkts. 107–108 (Feb. 24, 2017). This corroborates that the T&K names above are plaintiffs-only.

Anomaly to flag: "Timothy E. Hudson"

Justia lists a Timothy E. Hudson among plaintiffs' counsel, but he does not appear in the Dkt. 103 plaintiffs' signature block, and I could not verify his firm, bar number, or role in this session — my searches for him returned only unrelated matters. Plausible explanations are (a) an early-stage appearance later superseded, or (b) Broadcom/Avago in-house counsel noticed on the docket. Treat him as unconfirmed; I have deliberately not assigned him a firm.

Related representation — do not conflate with district-court counsel

• PTAB counsel for patent owner Broadcom in the Sony IPRs (e.g., IPR2017-00461 on the '955 patent) was Swanson & Bratschun, LLC (Littleton, CO) — Daniel S. Young (Reg. 48,277, lead) and Chad E. King (Reg. 44,187, back-up) — per Broadcom's Mandatory Notices filed 2016-12-30 (PTAB document). That filing also confirms the Sony case as related litigation. These are prosecution/IPR counsel, not counsel of record in 8:16-cv-01052.
• In the later Broadcom campaigns (e.g., Broadcom v. Netflix, N.D. Cal. No. 3:20-cv-04677), Broadcom/Avago appeared through Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP (Robert A. Van Nest, Sharif E. Jacob, Paven Malhotra, et al.). That is a post-2017 change of counsel — the Keker firm did not represent plaintiffs in the Sony matter.

Gaps / caveats

1. I did not retrieve Dkt. 1 (the June 6, 2016 complaint) or the plaintiffs' pro hac vice applications (likely filed June–July 2016); those would give the precise filing-attorney roster and confirm who signed the pleading.
2. No plaintiff-side in-house attorney is confirmed. Broadcom's legal department participated in the settlement but I found no appearance on the docket.
3. Whether Sostek or Hammond was functionally "first chair" is an inference from signature-block ordering; the docket contains no formal lead-counsel designation.
4. Nothing in my sources suggests any filing was sealed as to counsel identity; the limitation is source coverage of early-2016 docket entries, not sealing.

I'll research defendant-side counsel through docket sources, court filings, and firm announcements.

Let me pull the docket text from CourtListener and Justia to get party-counsel mapping.

Bottom line: defendant-side counsel of record is not verified in this session

I was unable to confirm, from a source that actually names the appearance, who signed the C.D. Cal. appearances for Sony Corporation, Sony Corporation of America, Sony Electronics, Inc., or Sony Interactive Entertainment, Inc. in No. 8:16-cv-01052-JVS-JCG. Rather than name attorneys I cannot source, I'm giving you (a) the one defendant-side legal team that is documented in a filing arising from this same dispute, (b) the plaintiff-side roster that surfaced in the same research (useful because public dockets routinely get these lists attributed to the wrong side), and (c) a precise verification path.

Please do not populate the counsel table from the Justia page without confirming the party mapping — see the warning below.

---

1. Documented defendant-side team: Kirkland & Ellis (PTAB, not confirmed for C.D. Cal.)

Sony was the petitioner in IPR2017-00461 (U.S. 7,616,955), and Broadcom's mandatory notices in that proceeding — filed 2016-12-30, expressly identifying Broadcom Corp. et al. v. Sony Corp. et al., No. 8:16-cv-01052 (C.D. Cal.) as the related litigation — served Kirkland & Ellis as "counsel of record for Petitioner" (Broadcom Mandatory Notices, IPR2017-00461, Paper 6).

Critical caveat: this is PTAB representation. It is common — but not automatic — for the IPR team to be the same firm as the district court team. A Kirkland signature block with Arovas/Rokach does appear in a PTAB-filed document that reproduces the district court's Dkt. 103 joint claim construction statement bearing the caption "CASE NO. 8:16-cv-1052-JVS-JCG" (PTAB document artifact), but in that compilation the Kirkland block is the petition's signature page, not proof of a C.D. Cal. appearance. Treat Kirkland as a strong lead, not a confirmed appearance.

---

2. Do not confuse these with defense counsel — they appear to be plaintiff-side

Justia's docket for the case lists, under "Represented By": Adrienne Dominguez, Herbert J. Hammond, Timothy E. Hudson, Vishal Patel, Bruce S. Sostek, Austin Teng, Richard L. Wynne, Jr., and Bruce J. Zabarauskas (Justia docket 649776). Justia's party/counsel columns are frequently interleaved in scraped output, and at least two of these names are affirmatively Broadcom-side:

• Bruce S. Sostek signed as "Attorney for Plaintiffs BROADCOM CORPORATION, AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL SALES PTE." in the later Netflix matter, where he cites Broadcom v. Sony, ECF No. 60-1 (C.D. Cal. filing, June 22, 2020).
• Richard L. Wynne, Jr. and Bruce J. Zabarauskas appear in the same Munck Wilson Mandala Broadcom trial team.

So the Justia list is almost certainly the plaintiffs' roster (Thompson & Knight / Munck Wilson Mandala lineage), not Sony's. Any secondary summary that maps those eight names to the Sony entities is an error.

No in-house counsel is identified in any source I found. Sony's only named individual in the press coverage is Mack Araki, a Sony spokesman who declined comment to Export Compliance Daily — a communications spokesperson, not an attorney, and not to be listed as counsel.

No local counsel (a C.D. Cal.-based firm appearing alongside out-of-district lead counsel) could be identified for defendants in any public source.

---

3. Why the record is thin, and how to close it

The case settled and was dismissed 2017-06-12, before any claim construction ruling, so there are no published opinions that would recite "Attorneys Present for Defendants." The only public traces of the docket stop around Doc. 103 (2017-02-16). This is a structural sourcing gap, not a sign that no counsel appeared — Sony plainly appeared (it lost a transfer motion 2016-09-12, lost an Alice motion 2016-10-05, filed IPRs in Dec. 2016, and moved to stay on the '387/'663 patents, denied at Doc. 102 on 2017-02-13).

Fastest verification routes, in order:

1. PACER docket, entries ~10–40 — the initial appearances / Notices of Appearance / pro hac vice applications list every attorney, firm, and office address, and identify which defendant each represents. This is definitive and cheap.
2. Doc. 103 signature block (Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement, 16 Feb. 2017) — C.D. Cal. joint statements carry a full caption listing all counsel for all parties with firm names; the PTAB artifact above contains a partial reproduction (it visibly shows only the Broadcom-side and Kirkland blocks, and the Sony-signed portion was truncated in the retrieved text).
3. Doc. 102 / Doc. 89 (Sony's stay motion papers) — the moving papers and opposition will name Sony's lead and local counsel.
4. The 5 Oct. 2016 Alice order (PDF) — the appearance page lists "Attorneys Present for Defendants."
5. IPR2017-00461 and the '387/'663 petitions' mandatory notices — Sony's own § 42.8 notices would list Sony's litigation counsel alongside its PTAB counsel, confirming or refuting the Kirkland overlap.

---

4. Suggested language for the deliverable

Defendant-side counsel of record could not be confirmed from publicly available sources. Sony was represented in the related PTAB proceeding IPR2017-00461 by Kirkland & Ellis LLP (Gregory S. Arovas, F. Christopher Mizzo, Robert A. Appleby, Eugene Goryunov, Craig Murray, and David Rokach), and that firm is the leading candidate for district-court lead counsel, but no C.D. Cal. appearance, local counsel designation, or in-house counsel identification has been verified. Placeholder pending PACER review of Docket Nos. 10–40 and 103.

If you can authorize a PACER pull or paste the Doc. 103 caption, I'll convert this into the fully attributed table with roles (lead / of counsel / local / in-house) and per-attorney patent-litigation histories.