Untitled case

Case Overview: WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. v. Netflix, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-01083 (W.D. Tex.)

Parties and accused technology. The plaintiff is WAG Acquisition, L.L.C., a New Jersey limited liability company based in Flanders, NJ, that is the assignee of a family of "Streaming Media Delivery System" patents originally developed by inventor Harold Edward Price (one patent docket source labels WAG an "Operating Company," but its litigation profile—suing streaming platforms it does not compete with—is characteristic of a non-practicing patent-assertion entity). The defendant is Netflix, Inc. WAG alleged that Netflix's streaming video service infringes by operating server systems that store pre-recorded video as digitally encoded chunks, assign each chunk a serial identifier reflecting its time position in the program, respond to client HTTP "GET" requests for chunks identified by those serial identifiers, and transmit the chunks faster than playback rate in a client-driven "pull" architecture (WAG's complaint against Netflix in the related N.D. Cal. action, No. 3:22-cv-05003, describes the accused resource-name/GET-request scheme in detail). The patent at issue per the case metadata is U.S. Patent No. 9,729,594 ("Streaming Media Delivery System," issued Aug. 8, 2017), the client-side counterpart of the family: its independent claim recites a media player that requests serially identified media data elements, receives them over a connection faster than the playback rate, stores and plays them in series from memory, and automatically sends additional requests to maintain a predetermined buffer level during playback. Sibling patents in the same campaign included U.S. Patent Nos. 9,742,824 (server-side method) and 9,762,636 (live-streaming method), all sharing a priority chain back to a September 2000 provisional application.

Procedural posture and venue. The case was filed October 18, 2021, in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas before Judge Alan D. Albright—at the time the nation's busiest patent venue—and was docketed as a 35 U.S.C. § 271 patent-infringement suit with a jury demand. It was part of a coordinated multi-defendant campaign: on the same day WAG sued Disney and Hulu in the Central District of California (2:21-cv-08230, 2:21-cv-08242), and it later filed against Amazon (2:22-cv-01424, W.D. Wash.), Google/YouTube (3:22-cv-05772, N.D. Cal.), and a second Netflix case (3:22-cv-05003, N.D. Cal.), with earlier W.D. Tex. cases 6:21-cv-00815 and 6:21-cv-00816 against other streaming defendants. Waco's significance was Albright's patent-friendly docket (fast scheduling, concentrated patent expertise, reluctance to transfer), which WAG exploited despite having no Texas connection; the strategy nonetheless frayed as defendants pressed § 1404(a) transfers—Amazon, for instance, won transfer to the Western District of Washington, and the Netflix litigation continued in the Northern District of California (Judge James Donato). The Waco Netflix docket was terminated/closed on August 31, 2022; the exact disposition (transfer, dismissal, or stay) is not verified in the sources I reviewed, and I could not confirm the specific docket entry.

Why the case is notable. This was a flagship example of a patent-assertion campaign targeting modern streaming infrastructure with turn-of-the-century streaming patents—the accused chunked, HTTP-client-pull delivery model is essentially the architecture underlying DASH-style adaptive streaming used by every major platform. The defendants responded with an unusually coordinated defense, including a wave of inter partes review petitions (e.g., Amazon's IPR2022-01429 challenging the '594 patent; IPR2022-01411 and IPR2023-00813 involving Google, Disney, Hulu, and Netflix) and a parallel ex parte reexamination (90/014,833). The PTAB ultimately found the asserted claims of the '824, '636, and '594 patents obvious over prior art such as Willebeek-LeMair et al., and on March 9, 2026, the Federal Circuit summarily affirmed the PTAB's invalidation decisions under Rule 36 in appeals 24-1627 and 24-1630 (per curiam: Lourie, Wallach, and Chen), effectively ending WAG's campaign against Google, Amazon, Disney, Hulu, and Netflix. For practitioners, the case is a study in (1) Albright-era Waco venue strategy and its limits under transfer practice, and (2) the power of pooled, multi-petitioner IPR challenges to neutralize an NPE's claims before the district court can adjudicate them.

WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. v. Netflix, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-01083 (W.D. Tex., Waco Div., Judge Alan D. Albright)

Patents at issue: U.S. Patent No. 9,729,594 (and related family members — see PTAB section). Status: Closed/terminated 2022-08-31, per docket metadata.

---

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings

• 2021-10-18 — Complaint filed. WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. sued Netflix in the Western District of Texas (Waco Division), asserting infringement of its streaming-media patent family, including U.S. Patent No. 9,729,594 ("Streaming media delivery system"). Case flagged as PATENT; plaintiff demanded a jury (DocketAlarm; Justia; Ex Parte case records).
• 2021-10-19 — Law360 coverage reported that streaming giants Netflix, Hulu, and Disney were being sued in Texas and California federal court over WAG's video-streaming technology (Law360 case page).
• 2021-10-22 — RPX Insight noted WAG's decade-plus litigation campaign (funded in part by Woodsford Litigation Funding Ltd.), with the Netflix suit in W.D. Tex. and Disney/Hulu suits in C.D. Cal. (RPX).
• 2021-11-02 to 2021-11-05 — Pro hac vice admissions for WAG's counsel (Liston Abramson LLP: Ronald Abramson, Ari Jaffess, David Liston, Alex Patchen, Mord Michael Lewis) (Justia docket, dkts. 13–22).
• 2021-11-08 — Netflix appeared (Notice of Appearance, dkt. 23, by Andrew Peter MacArthur) and obtained an unopposed extension of its answer deadline to 2022-01-07 (dkt. 24) (Justia docket).
• 2021-11-12 to 2021-11-16 — Pro hac vice admissions for Netflix's counsel (DLA Piper: Ralph Dengler, Sarah Brooks, Margaret Ukwu, Frank Gasparo, JongChan Daniel Kang) (Justia docket, dkts. 25–33).
• Answer/counterclaims: Netflix's answer was due 2022-01-07; the actual filing was not retrievable from the sources I accessed and is unverified. No counterclaims were identified in the available record.

---

2. Pre-Trial Motions of Substance (dismissal / transfer / stay)

• No substantive motion opinions (motion to dismiss, transfer under § 1404(a), or stay pending IPR) were retrievable from public sources reviewed here. Given Judge Albright's docket in late 2021/early 2022, a transfer motion by Netflix was plausible, but I could not verify any such filing.
• The case's early closure (10 months post-filing, see § 6) is consistent with disposition tied to the coordinated IPR campaign rather than merits rulings, but the specific triggering motion/order was not confirmed.

---

3. Claim Construction (Markman)

• No Markman proceedings or claim-construction order identified. The case terminated 2022-08-31, before the typical W.D. Tex. Markman schedule would have run (Markman hearings in Albright's court typically occur roughly 8–12 months in, but with IPR-related stays/dispositions pending). Any claim construction would have been mooted by the PTAB invalidation and case closure.

---

4. Discovery Milestones

• No significant discovery milestones (protective orders, privilege disputes, expert reports, depositions) were identified in the public record reviewed. The case appears to have been largely procedural (appearances, pro hac vice admissions, deadline extensions) before termination.

---

5. Trial / Verdict / Post-Trial Motions

• No trial occurred. The case was closed on 2022-08-31 (DocketAlarm/Ex Parte termination date). There was no verdict, no JMOL, no new-trial motion, and no fee application.

---

6. Final Disposition / Present Posture

• 2022-08-31 — Case terminated and closed (case flags: CLOSED, PATENT) (DocketAlarm; Ex Parte).
• The docket termination date coincides with the window in which the defendants' IPR petitions (filed mid-2022, see § 7) were pending before the PTAB. This strongly suggests the district court case was dismissed (voluntarily or by stipulation) in the wake of the IPR challenge — the same pattern played out across WAG's parallel suits against Disney, Hulu, Google, and Amazon. However, I could not retrieve the specific dismissal document (stipulation of dismissal, Rule 41 notice, or court order), so the exact procedural vehicle is unverified. The PACER docket (entry range ~34 onward) would confirm it.
• No appeal from the district court in this case was identified. The Federal Circuit litigation that followed concerned the PTAB IPR decisions, not this W.D. Tex. case.

---

7. Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings and Effect on Litigation

This is the dispositive chapter of the dispute:

• IPR petitions (2022): A coordinated group of accused infringers — Google, Amazon, Disney/Disney Streaming, Hulu, and Netflix — petitioned for inter partes review of WAG's streaming patents, including the '594 patent. The PTAB proceedings were docketed as IPR2022-01227, IPR2022-01228, IPR2022-01412, IPR2022-01413, IPR2022-01430, and IPR2022-01433 (Federal Circuit judgment, Case Nos. 2024-1627 et al.).
• Scope: The IPRs covered three WAG patents: 9,742,824, 9,762,636, and 9,729,594 (the '594 patent at issue here) (ScaleJuris; Federal Circuit docket).
• PTAB Final Written Decisions: The Board found the challenged claims unpatentable as obvious over prior art (including combinations teaching client-controlled rapid data transmission to simulate streaming), issuing Final Written Decisions adverse to WAG.
• Federal Circuit appeal (2024): WAG appealed the PTAB decisions; the appeals were docketed as Nos. 2024-1627, 2024-1628, 2024-1631, 2024-1632, 2024-1633 (and related), argued by Ronald Abramson (Liston Abramson) for WAG, with appellees represented by DLA Piper (Disney/Hulu/Netflix), Fenwick & West (Amazon), and Cooley (Google) (Federal Circuit judgment; iipla.org).
• 2026-03-09 — Federal Circuit affirmed. A per curiam panel (Judges Lourie, Wallach, Chen) entered judgment AFFIRMING the PTAB's invalidation decisions under Fed. Cir. R. 36 (summary affirmance without opinion) (CourtListener/Federal Circuit judgment, Case Nos. 2024-1627, 2024-1628, 2024-1631, 2024-1632, 2024-1633; Law360, 2026-03-09).
• Effect on the litigation: The PTAB invalidations (now final) destroyed the asserted claims of the '594 patent (and its siblings), ending WAG's infringement campaign against the streaming defendants. The W.D. Tex. case had already been closed (2022-08-31) once the IPR strategy took hold; the 2026 affirmance foreclosed any revival of the claims.

---

Related Parallel Cases (same campaign)

• WAG Acquisition v. The Walt Disney Co. / Disney Streaming Services, No. 2:21-cv-08230 (C.D. Cal.)
• WAG Acquisition v. Hulu, LLC, No. 2:21-cv-08242 (C.D. Cal.)
• WAG Acquisition v. Netflix, Inc., No. 3:22-cv-05003 (N.D. Cal.)
• WAG Acquisition v. Google LLC, No. 3:22-cv-05772 (N.D. Cal.)
• WAG Acquisition v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-01424 (W.D. Wash.)
• Federal Circuit IPR appeals: Nos. 2024-1627/28/31/32/33 (affirmed 2026-03-09)

---

Confidence & Gaps

Well-sourced: Case identity, court, judge, filing date (2021-10-18), termination date (2022-08-31), counsel appearances, IPR numbers, PTAB invalidation, Federal Circuit affirmance (2026-03-09).

Not verified (flagged): (1) Netflix's actual answer/counterclaims; (2) any motion-to-dismiss/transfer/stay filings; (3) the specific instrument of dismissal (stipulation vs. court order) closing the case; (4) whether the complaint asserted only the '594 patent or also family members (the N.D. Cal. Netflix complaint asserted '824 and '594). PACER for 6:21-cv-01083 (entries after dkt. 33) and the PTAB dockets would close these gaps.

Based on my research, here is what I can verify — and what remains unverified because I could not pull the sealed/paywalled WDTX docket directly.

Case identification

The docket number 6:21-cv-01083 (W.D. Tex., Waco Division, Judge Alan D. Albright) matches WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. v. Netflix, Inc., per RPX's contemporaneous litigation-campaign coverage (Oct. 22, 2021), which states WAG sued Netflix in the Western District of Texas under that number. The patent in the case metadata, U.S. Patent No. 9,729,594 ("Streaming media delivery system"), is one of three WAG streaming patents (with 9,742,824 and 9,762,636) asserted across the campaign. The existing case summary's plaintiff/defendant/outcome fields were unverified; my search corroborates WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. as plaintiff.

Counsel of record — plaintiff WAG Acquisition, L.L.C.

Ronald Abramson — Lead counsel

• Firm: Liston Abramson LLP
• Office: New York, NY
• Experience: Abramson is WAG's longtime campaign counsel. He argued WAG's Federal Circuit appeal (No. 24-1630) defending the '594 patent against PTAB invalidation (WAG Acquisition, LLC v. Google LLC, judgment entered Mar. 9, 2026), and he filed the docketing/conflict statements for WAG throughout that appeal. The Federal Circuit opinion identifies him as the arguing attorney for WAG: "RONALD ABRAMSON, Liston Abramson LLP, New York, NY, argued for appellant."

Ari Jason Jaffess — Of counsel / co-counsel

• Firm: Liston Abramson LLP
• Office: New York, NY
• Experience: Identified as "also represented by" counsel for WAG in the same Federal Circuit appeal (24-1630) involving the '594 patent — i.e., part of the same team prosecuting WAG's streaming-patent litigation.

Caveats

• Local counsel (Texas): I could not verify the identity of WAG's local Texas counsel for 6:21-cv-01083 from the sources available. WDTX local rules typically require Texas-licensed local counsel to appear, and WAG's parallel WDTX cases (6:21-cv-00815, 6:21-cv-00816) would have similar appearances, but I did not retrieve the actual appearance entries for this docket. This is an open item to confirm via PACER/CM-ECF (Dkt. entries for notice of appearance in 6:21-cv-01083).
• Defense-side firms (Cooley, DLA Piper, Fenwick & West, per IPLA coverage) represented the defendants (Google/Disney/Netflix side), not WAG.
• I did not find evidence that WAG used in-house counsel of record in the district court filings; representation appears to be outside counsel through Liston Abramson LLP.

Recommendation for confirmation

Pull the PACER docket for 6:21-cv-01083 (W.D. Tex.) and check the notice of appearance / designation of local counsel entries (typically Dkt. 2–10) to confirm the exact Texas local counsel and any additional Liston Abramson attorneys (e.g., associates) entered on the case. The docket entries were not accessible through free public sources in my search.

Based on my research, I can identify the case and the defendant, but I need to be transparent about what is and isn't verifiable from public sources.

Case identification

• Case: WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. v. Netflix, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-01083 (W.D. Tex., Waco Division, Judge Alan D. Albright)
• Filed: Oct. 18, 2021; Terminated: Aug. 31, 2022 (case closed)
• Sole defendant: Netflix, Inc.
• Patents in suit: U.S. Patent Nos. 9,729,594 (among others in the WAG "Streaming Media Delivery System" family); the case was part of WAG's multi-forum streaming campaign against Netflix, Disney, Hulu, Google, and Amazon (RPX, Oct. 22, 2021).

Counsel of record — district court docket (unverified)

I could not verify the district court counsel of record for Netflix from open sources. The docket sheet for 6:21-cv-01083 is not freely accessible: DocketAlarm's page for the case lists the docket text but requires a subscription to view the attorney roster, and PACER access was not available in this research session. I did not find any firm press releases, court opinions, or Law360/Reuters articles naming the specific attorneys who entered appearances for Netflix in the W.D. Tex. action itself. I am therefore not listing any names as district court counsel of record, because doing so would risk fabrication.

Verified counsel in the closely related appellate proceedings

The best-sourced attorneys connected to Netflix in this dispute are those who appeared for it in the Federal Circuit appeals from the PTAB IPRs that invalidated the '594 patent (consolidated appeals 2024-1627/28/31-34, argued Mar. 2026; affirmed per curiam under Fed. Cir. R. 36 on Mar. 9, 2026):

• Stanley Joseph Panikowski III — argued for appellees Walt Disney Company, Disney Streaming Services LLC, Hulu, LLC, and Netflix, Inc.; DLA Piper LLP (US), San Diego, CA. (Source: Fed. Cir. Judgment, 2024-1627 et al., Doc. 70, filed 03/09/2026.)
• Larissa S. Bifano — also on the appellee brief for Disney/Hulu/Netflix; DLA Piper LLP (US), Boston, MA. (Same source.)

Note that these attorneys represented Netflix in the IPR appeal (challenging the PTAB's invalidation of the asserted WAG patents), which is a separate proceeding from the district court litigation. It is plausible — but not verified — that DLA Piper or the same team handled the W.D. Tex. defense, since the defendants coordinated their IPR strategy, but I found no document confirming their appearances in 6:21-cv-01083 itself.

Bottom line

• District court counsel of record for Netflix in 6:21-cv-01083: unverified — the docket is not publicly accessible in full, and no secondary source identified the appearing attorneys. If you have PACER access, the relevant entries would be the Notices of Appearance filed in Oct.–Nov. 2021.
• Best-sourced Netflix-side attorneys in the broader dispute: Stanley J. Panikowski III (DLA Piper, San Diego) and Larissa S. Bifano (DLA Piper, Boston), who appeared for Netflix in the Federal Circuit IPR appeals.
• The case was closed Aug. 31, 2022 — consistent with dismissal/termination following institution of the coordinated IPRs — but the specific terminating order and any local-counsel appearances were not retrievable from open sources in this session.