Untitled case

This active patent infringement lawsuit, bearing case number 6:22-cv-00079, is proceeding in the Western District of Texas. The plaintiff is VideoLabs, Inc., alongside its subsidiary VL Collective IP LLC, which operates as a patent monetization entity (NPE) and has acquired patents from companies such as Panasonic Holdings Corp.. The defendants are e-commerce and cloud services giant Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services, Inc., major operating companies in the technology sector. The litigation alleges infringement of US Patent 7769238, which is titled "Picture coding method and picture decoding method" and generally describes methods designed to enhance coding efficiency for non-zero coefficients in video blocks, regardless of picture quality. While specific Amazon products accused of infringing this particular patent were not detailed in public snippets, the broader litigation campaign by VideoLabs against Amazon in this case number has targeted streaming systems and services, smart home devices, software, tablets, and TVs, focusing on technologies like H.264 and HLS streaming protocols, auto scaling, WebRTC and SRTP standards, and content flow control. [cite: 8 from previous search]

The case was filed on January 21, 2022, in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas and is assigned to District Judge Alan D. Albright. This venue is notably significant in patent litigation, as Judge Albright's court has become a top destination for patent lawsuits due to its reputation for maintaining a fast-paced docket and patentee-friendly practices [cite: 5, 6, 9 from previous search]. Despite a July 2022 rule change introducing random assignment for patent cases in the Waco Division, Judge Albright continues to handle a substantial portion of patent filings, making the district an important jurisdiction for intellectual property disputes [cite: 9 from previous search].

This case is notable as part of an ongoing trend of patent assertions by non-practicing entities against large technology companies in the Western District of Texas. VideoLabs, Inc.'s strategy of monetizing patent portfolios acquired from major entities like Panasonic contributes to the dynamic landscape of patent litigation in the technology industry. The involvement of Amazon, a global leader in e-commerce and cloud computing, underscores the potential industry impact and high stakes associated with the outcome of such patent disputes.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for VideoLabs, Inc. et al. v. Amazon.Com, Inc. et al. (6:22-cv-00079 / 6:22-cv-01167)

This patent infringement litigation, initially filed as VideoLabs, Inc. et al. v. Amazon.Com, Inc. et al. under case number 6:22-cv-00079 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, involves U.S. Patent 7,769,238, among others. The case has undergone significant procedural changes regarding venue and is currently active under case number 6:22-cv-01167 in the same court.

Chronological Developments:

• 2022-01-21: Complaint Filed & Initial Pleadings. Plaintiffs VideoLabs, Inc. and VL Collective IP LLC filed the initial patent infringement complaint against Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services, Inc. in the Western District of Texas (6:22-cv-00079-ADA).
• Undated (Early 2022): Amended Complaint and Answer. An Amended Complaint was filed by VideoLabs (Docket 33), to which Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services, Inc. filed their First Amended Answer (Docket 34).
• 2022-06-08: Motion to Transfer Venue Filed. Defendants Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services, Inc. filed an Opposed Motion to Transfer Venue (Docket 39) from the Western District of Texas.
• 2022-09-01: Venue Discovery Order. An order was issued addressing a venue discovery dispute, partially granting and denying Amazon's request for a protective order concerning depositions.
• Undated (Before 2022-10-11): Claim Construction Briefs Filed. Both Defendants and Patent Owner (VideoLabs) filed claim construction briefs in the original 6:22-cv-00079 case (Defendants' Opening Claim Construction Brief, Docket 48; Patent Owner's Responsive Claim Construction Brief, Docket 63).
• 2022-10-11: Case Transferred Out. The motion to transfer venue was granted, and the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, where it was assigned case number 2:22-cv-01451 (Docket 91).
• 2022-10-28: Case Transferred Back to W.D. Texas. Judge Alan D. Albright of the Western District of Texas requested the case be transferred back to his court to consider pending motions. This request was granted by the Western District of Washington (Docket 110).
• 2022-11-14: Case Re-opened in W.D. Texas. The litigation was re-opened in the Western District of Texas under a new case number, 6:22-cv-01167. This effectively continued the original lawsuit against Amazon.
• 2025-07-25: Parallel PTAB IPR Filed. Hisense USA Corporation et al. filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR2025-01329) against US Patent 7,769,238.
• 2026-01-27: Parallel PTAB IPR Terminated by Settlement. The IPR proceeding IPR2025-01329 was terminated due to a settlement between the parties before a decision on institution was reached. Consequently, the patentability of claims in US 7,769,238 was not substantively challenged or ruled upon by the PTAB.

Current Posture:

As of May 23, 2026, the case is active under case number 6:22-cv-01167 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. While claim construction briefs were filed, there is no public record of a Markman order having been issued. No trial or final judgment has been reached in the district court, and the parallel IPR at the PTAB was terminated by settlement without a merits decision.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff(s) in VideoLabs Inc. et al v. Amazon.Com Inc. et al, Case No. 6:22-cv-00079 (W.D. Tex.)

The plaintiff in this patent infringement case, involving U.S. Patent No. 7,769,238, is VideoLabs Inc., along with its subsidiary VL Collective IP, LLC. [cite: 18 (previous search)]. While a comprehensive list of all counsel of record with explicit roles (e.g., lead, local) for every attorney in this specific case is not readily available through public web searches without direct PACER access, the following attorney has been identified:

• Tyler Lawrence Farmer
  • Role: Appearing Counsel (exact lead/local role not specified through public search). [cite: 16 (previous search)]
  • Firm: Martinez & Farmer LLP
  • Office Location: Seattle, Washington. [cite: 14 (previous search)]
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Mr. Farmer is an experienced trial lawyer specializing in complex commercial disputes, including technology and intellectual property litigation. He co-founded Martinez & Farmer LLP in 2025. He is recognized by Chambers USA, Best Lawyers in America (Intellectual Property Litigation), and Super Lawyers for his trial experience across various federal and state courts, including in Texas. [cite: 8 (previous search), 9 (previous search), 10 (previous search), 14 (previous search), 15 (previous search)]

Here is the counsel of record representing the defendant(s) in case 6:22-cv-00079:

Defendants: Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services, Inc.

Counsel:

• J. David Hadden

  • Role: Partner, Patent Litigation
  • Firm: Fenwick & West LLP, Mountain View, California
  • Note: Recognized as a top trial lawyer and among the best-performing and most active patent litigators in the U.S. He has a strong background in theoretical physics and a track record of resolving cases via summary judgment, trials, and Federal Circuit appeals.

• Saina S. Shamilov

  • Role: Partner, Co-Lead of Patent Litigation Group
  • Firm: Fenwick & West LLP, Mountain View, California
  • Note: A top-ranked trial lawyer with over 20 years of experience in high-stakes commercial and intellectual property litigation, including winning jury verdicts in the Western District of Texas.

• Ravi Ranganath

  • Role: Partner, Patent Litigation
  • Firm: Fenwick & West LLP (office location typically California, but admitted to practice in Eastern and Western Districts of Texas).
  • Note: Focuses on patent and licensing disputes with expertise in cloud computing, natural language processing, video decoding, and e-commerce. Recognized among top performing and most active patent litigators for defendants.

• Gregory P. Adams

  • Role: Associate, Litigation
  • Firm: Fenwick & West LLP, San Francisco, California
  • Note: Focuses on commercial and intellectual property litigation. He was admitted pro hac vice in this case.