Untitled case

This patent infringement litigation, InterDigital, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00895, is active in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiff, InterDigital, Inc., along with its subsidiaries InterDigital CE Patent Holdings SAS, InterDigital VC Holdings Inc., and InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings SAS, is known as a patent assertion entity (PAE) or non-practicing entity (NPE) with a significant patent portfolio in wireless and video technologies. The defendants are The Walt Disney Company and several of its subsidiaries, including BAMTech, LLC, Hulu, LLC, and ESPN, Inc., all major operating companies in the entertainment and media industry. The core of the dispute centers on alleged infringement of patents related to H.264 and H.265 video coding standards, with Disney's various products and streaming services identified as the accused instrumentalities.

The asserted patent, as specified, is US Patent No. 9,185,268, titled "Methods and systems for displays with chromatic correction with differing chromatic ranges." This patent generally describes techniques for color correcting displays that have different color gamuts to ensure predictable visual results. Although the prompt highlights this patent, court documents also indicate that InterDigital has specifically alleged infringement of three patents relating to video coding, including U.S. Patent No. 8,406,301, and refers to the '610 and '818 patents, all of which InterDigital claims are essential to the H.264 and H.265 standards. The case is being overseen by Judge Wesley L. Hsu and Magistrate Judge Brianna Fuller Mircheff.

This litigation is notable for several reasons, particularly its involvement in the complex landscape of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) and Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) licensing terms. InterDigital's status as an NPE asserting SEPs against a major operating company like Disney highlights a common pattern in high-stakes patent disputes in the technology sector. The case also features significant procedural maneuvers, including the Central District of California denying Disney's motion for a preliminary injunction and InterDigital's motion to dismiss Disney's FRAND counterclaims. Furthermore, InterDigital has pursued parallel patent infringement actions against Disney in other jurisdictions, specifically Brazil and the Unified Patent Court, asserting related patents, which underscores the multi-jurisdictional strategy often employed in FRAND disputes to leverage licensing negotiations.

Here are the key legal developments for the patent infringement litigation case 2:25-cv-00895 in the California Central District Court, involving US patent 9185268, presented in chronological order:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings

• Complaint Filed (2025-02-02): InterDigital, Inc., along with InterDigital CE Patent Holdings SAS, InterDigital VC Holdings Inc., and InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings SAS (collectively, "InterDigital"), filed a patent infringement lawsuit against The Walt Disney Company and several of its subsidiaries, including BAMTech LLC, Disney Media & Entertainment Distribution LLC, Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC, Disney Streaming Services LLC, ESPN Inc., Disney Platform Distribution Inc., Hulu LLC, and Disney DTC LLC (collectively, "Disney") in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint asserts infringement of patents claimed to be essential to the H.264 and H.265 video coding standards, including US Patent 9185268.
• Parallel International Filings (2025-02-03): The day after filing in California, InterDigital initiated additional patent infringement actions against Disney in Brazil and the Unified Patent Court, also asserting patents it claims are essential to the H.264 and H.265 video coding standards.
• Disney's Counterclaims: In response to InterDigital's complaint, Disney filed counterclaims alleging that InterDigital breached its commitments to license its Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) on Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (RAND) terms.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance

• Disney's Motion for Preliminary Injunction: Disney sought a preliminary injunction from the California court to prevent InterDigital from enforcing any injunction that might be awarded by the Brazilian court, pending the resolution of Disney's RAND licensing counterclaims in the U.S. litigation.
• InterDigital's Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims: InterDigital filed a motion to dismiss Disney's RAND counterclaims, arguing that it was not obligated to license on the terms asserted by Disney.
• Court Rulings on Motions (2025-05-28): The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, presided over by Hon. Wesley L. Hsu, denied both Disney's motion for a preliminary injunction and InterDigital's motion to dismiss Disney's RAND counterclaims. The court found that Disney had established reasonable inferences that the patents at issue in its counterclaim are essential to the H.264 and H.265 standards and that Disney's products utilize these standards.

3. Discovery Milestones

• Scheduling Conference (2025-05-09): A scheduling conference was held before Judge Wesley L. Hsu.
• Informal Discovery Conference (2026-01-22): An informal discovery conference was scheduled via Zoom before Magistrate Judge Brianna Fuller Mircheff.

4. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes

• As of the current date (2026-05-29), there is no publicly available information indicating that the case has reached the claim construction (Markman) stage or that any Markman order has been issued.

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

• The case is still in its pre-trial phase, and as such, no trial events, verdicts, or post-trial motions have occurred.

6. Final Disposition or Present Posture

• The case remains active and pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

• IPR Petition Filed (2026-02-09): A parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2026-00252, was filed by Dolby Laboratories Inc. against US Patent 9185268 with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). This IPR is currently listed as "Pending."

The plaintiffs in the patent infringement case 2:25-cv-00895 in the California Central District Court include InterDigital, Inc., InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc., InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings, SAS, and InterDigital CE Patent Holdings, SAS, which filed the initial complaint against The Walt Disney Company et al.. Additionally, Dolby Laboratories, Inc., Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corp., and Dolby International AB are identified as plaintiffs in a related case, 2:26-cv-02269, which has been linked to 2:25-cv-00895.

The counsel of record representing the plaintiff(s) are as follows:

For InterDigital, Inc. and its affiliated entities:

• Alan P. Block (Principal Counsel)
  • Firm: McKool Smith, P.C., Los Angeles, CA
  • Note: Mr. Block is a principal in the firm's Los Angeles office, focusing primarily on patent litigation, and has extensive experience litigating complex patent infringement matters across various technology areas, including digital audio and video media. He has been recognized as a leading U.S. patent litigator by Legal 500.

For Dolby Laboratories, Inc. and its affiliated entities (in the related action 2:26-cv-02269, linked to 2:25-cv-00895):

• Christopher S. Marchese (Local Counsel)
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., San Diego, CA
  • Note: Mr. Marchese is a first-chair trial lawyer with over 30 years of experience in patent, trademark, and trade dress litigation in federal courts, including extensive experience in California district courts. He has successfully led numerous jury and bench trials and is a co-author of a comprehensive treatise on patent damages.
• Peter (Tae) Hong (Non-Resident Attorney, Pro Hac Vice)
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., San Diego, CA
  • Note: Mr. Hong's practice focuses on patent litigation across electrical, computing, and energy sectors, with specific experience in litigation matters pertaining to standard essential patents. He has a technical background in computer science and engineering.
• Madelyn S. McCormick (Counsel of Record)
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., San Diego, CA
  • Note: Ms. McCormick is a patent litigator who represents pharmaceutical, biomedical, medical device, and life sciences companies in federal courts, asserting and defending patent and trade secret claims.

It is important to note that while Dolby's case (2:26-cv-02269) is identified as related to 2:25-cv-00895, the primary plaintiffs in the initial 2:25-cv-00895 filing were InterDigital entities. The counsel listed for Dolby represent Dolby in the related action, which is connected to the overarching patent dispute.

In the patent infringement case InterDigital, Inc. et al v. The Walt Disney Company et al, identified by case number 2:25-cv-00895 in the California Central District Court, the defendant, The Walt Disney Company, is represented by counsel from O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

The counsel of record for The Walt Disney Company includes:

• Ryan Ken Yagura

  • Role: Partner, Chair of the firm's Intellectual Property and Technology Practice
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA
  • Note: An accomplished trial litigator with extensive experience in complex patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and technology licensing disputes in District Court and ITC litigation. His experience includes cases involving MPEG video compression standards, graphics processors, and wireless/cellular technologies. He was recognized as a "Top Intellectual Property Lawyer" by the Daily Journal in 2026.

• Nicholas James Whilt

  • Role: Partner
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA
  • Note: Experienced in high-stakes intellectual property and technology litigation, including patent infringement and ITC investigations. He has litigated cases involving video, graphics, and communications technologies and standards, such as H.264 and H.265 video compression.

• Xin-Yi (Vincent) Zhou

  • Role: Partner
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA (with a practice spanning to Silicon Valley)
  • Note: An experienced intellectual property litigator who represents technology companies in disputes involving semiconductor, telecommunications, video encoding, consumer electronics, display, and software technologies, including standard-essential patent (SEP) and FRAND licensing disputes.

• Miao Liu

  • Role: Litigation Counsel
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Washington, DC
  • Note: Focuses on district court litigation, PTAB proceedings, and ITC investigations across various technological fields such as consumer electronics, artificial intelligence, and semiconductor manufacturing.

• Abigail Grace McFee

  • Role: Litigation Associate
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA
  • Note: Her practice focuses on intellectual property and technology, including patent litigation and infringement matters involving consumer electronics in US District Courts and the International Trade Commission. She has also co-authored articles on AI patents.

• James A. Donegan

  • Role: Registered Patent Attorney
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP (at the time of appearance in this case). His current public profile shows him with Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
  • Office: Washington, DC
  • Note: Focuses on intellectual property litigation involving complex technologies, including semiconductors, telecommunications, video compression, and standard-essential patent (SEP) matters. He has experience in global patent litigation disputes and previously served as an IP manager for a technology company.