Untitled case

I'll verify the details of this case through multiple searches.

Let me verify the lead case, the '907 patent's specifics and PTAB history, and the procedural outcome.

Let me verify the IPR outcome for the '907 patent, the prior Delaware Haivision case, and the broader 2019 Waco filing wave.

Case Overview: Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Haivision Network Video Inc., No. 6:19-cv-00441 (W.D. Tex.)

The parties. The plaintiff, Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC, is a Texas limited liability company with a stated place of business in Tyler, Texas, and an affiliate in the Realtime Data LLC (d/b/a IXO) family of patent-assertion entities. It does not make or sell products; it holds an acquired portfolio of data-compression and video-delivery patents developed by inventor James J. Fallon and his co-inventors, and monetizes them through licensing demands and serial infringement suits. Defendants in Realtime's other cases have described it precisely this way — DISH's SEC disclosure, for example, characterizes Realtime Adaptive Streaming as "an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein." The defendant, Haivision Network Video Inc., is a privately held Canadian (Montreal-area) operating company in enterprise/broadcast video: hardware and software video encoders and transcoders (Makito X, the KB Series "Internet Media Encoders/Transcoders," the Kraken transcoder), plus Haivision's SRT (Secure Reliable Transport) low-latency streaming protocol. In other words, this is a classic PAE-versus-small-operating-company matchup, and a much smaller target than the Netflix/Hulu/Amazon/Google/Sony defendants Realtime sued on the same family.

The accused technology and the patents. The Waco pleadings target Haivision's H.264/HEVC encoding and transcoding products, specifically their adaptive-bitrate ("ABR") ladder and bandwidth-adaptive compression features — e.g., the Makito X HEVC encoder advertised as transporting "live HEVC/H.265 and AVC/H.264 video over any network at extremely low bit rates," and the KB Series, which produces "a cascade of adaptive bitrate RTMP/HLS/MPEG-DASH streams." The patents asserted in this case come from the "Fallon" family, all continuations sharing the specification of U.S. Patent No. 7,386,046: the headline patent here, U.S. Patent No. 9,762,907 ("System and Methods for Video and Audio Data Distribution," issued Sept. 12, 2017), claims a system that analyzes data parameters from blocks of video data — including a parameter relating to the expected or anticipated throughput of a communications channel — and selects two or more different asymmetric compression routines accordingly; the companion '535 patent (8,934,535) claims selecting asymmetric compressors based on a determined data-block parameter and storing the compressed blocks; the '477 patent (9,769,477) claims asymmetric video encoders chosen based on a measured channel throughput in bits per second; the '046 patent claims switching to a higher-compression-rate routine when tracked throughput falls below a threshold; and the '442 patent (8,929,442) covers related asymmetric compression/decompression selection. RPX's docket data lists five patents-in-suit in No. 6:19-cv-00441, and the parallel Waco pleading additionally asserts the **'777 patent

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

Key identification: this is Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Haivision Network Video Inc. Let me dig into the docket specifics and the parallel IPRs.

Now let me pin down the lead consolidated case, why this case closed, and the surrounding IPR landscape.

Bottom line first

The case behind docket number 6:19-cv-00441 is Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Haivision Network Video Inc., W.D. Tex. (Waco), before Judge Alan D. Albright. It was filed 2019-07-23 and closed 2019-12-10, roughly 141 days later, having never gotten past the pleadings. It was consolidated into lead case No. 6:19-cv-00440 on 2019-12-02, and the member case was terminated.

That single fact drives the whole answer to your question: there is no Markman ruling, no discovery record, no summary judgment practice, no trial, no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial motion, and no judgment or appeal in this case. The only merits judgment ever entered on the '907 patent came from the PTAB, in Netflix's IPR — and it wiped out every claim. I flag below where the public record is thin and where I could not verify a fact.

---

1. Pre-suit context (necessary to read the docket correctly)

• 2017-10-26 — Realtime first sued Haivision in D. Del., Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Haivision Network Video Inc., No. 1:17-cv-01520, asserting the "Fallon patents" (including the '907) plus the '442 patent. See D. Del. R&R, https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/opinions/17-1520.pdf.
• 2018-04-10 → 2018-08-01 — Realtime moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize twelve Realtime suits in D. Colo. or E.D. Tex. The JPML denied on 2018-08-01, expressly emphasizing "the need for defendant-by-defendant analysis of individual design elements." In re Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC Patent Litig., 326 F. Supp. 3d 1374 (J.P.M.L. 2018) (MDL No. 2845).
• 2018-12-12 — Magistrate Judge Fallon issued an R&R in the Delaware Netflix case recommending grant-in-part/deny-in-part of a § 101 / Rule 12(b)(6) motion, holding Realtime's H.264/H.265 step-by-step pleading sufficient at the pleading stage. (No. 1:17-cv-01692, D.I. 48; https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ded-1_17-cv-01692/pdf/USCOURTS-ded-1_17-cv-01692-2.pdf.) The parallel Haivision R&R (17-1520) reached the same conclusion for Haivision's products, including rejecting Haivision's Raindance/Modern Telecom analogy: "Realtime has conducted a step-by-step analysis to allege that compliance with a standard – namely, the H.264 or H.265 standards – infringes their patents." This is the only judicial merits analysis of Realtime's infringement theory against Haivision in the entire family.

Strategic read: the 2019 W.D. Tex. filing was a re-set after nearly two years of pleadings-only litigation in Delaware, and the JPML's refusal to centralize left Realtime to run a defendant-by-defendant campaign. That same pattern later produced the Netflix fee litigation (below).

2. Filing and initial pleadings (2019-07-23)

• 2019-07-23 — Realtime filed two same-day complaints against Haivision in W.D. Tex.: No. 6:19-cv-00440 (Complaint with Exhibits A–B) and No. 6:19-cv-00441 (Complaint with Exhibits A–E). Per RPX Insight, 6:19-cv-00441 carried five patents-in-suit and 20 accused products (Makito X, KB Series, Kraken, Media Platform, Video Cloud). https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation/txwdce-[1045656](/patent/1045656)-realtime-adaptive-streaming-v-haivision-network-video
• Same day: Rule 7 disclosure statement (Dkt. 4) and AO 120 patent report (Dkt. 3). Case assigned to Judge Albright 2019-07-24. Summons issued 2019-07-23/24.
• No answer was ever filed and no counterclaims were ever pleaded. Haivision instead went straight to dispositive motions. This matters analytically: there is no Haivision invalidity counterclaim, no inequitable-conduct defense, and no non-infringement pleading in the W.D. Tex. record.

3. Service, show-cause order, and deadline extensions

• 2019-10-08 — Haivision served (Summons Returned Executed docketed 2019-10-14; answer due 2019-10-29).
• 2019-10-11 — Judge Albright issued an Order to Show Cause against Realtime (Dkt. 7), response due 2019-10-25 — the court's standard W.D. Tex. diligence check on why the case should not be dismissed for want of service/prosecution. Realtime responded by Notice filed 2019-10-24 (Dkt. 12).
• 2019-10-23/24 — Haivision appeared through Janis E. Clements (local) and moved pro hac vice for Herbert H. Finn (Greenberg Traurig). Agreed extension granted, pushing Haivision's response date to 2019-11-28.

4. Pre-trial motions of substance (all filed 2019-11-26)

Haivision filed a coordinated triad on the last day of its extended response period:

Sources: Patexia docket for No. 6:19-cv-00441, https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/REALTIME-ADAPTIVE-STREAMING-LLC-v-HAIVISION-NETWORK-VIDEO-INC-id-[127011](/patent/127011)/documents; Unified Patents docket, https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Western%20District%20Court/case/6%3A19-cv-00441.

No motion to stay pending IPR was filed in this case — a notable omission given that Netflix's IPR on the '907 was already instituted by then.

5. Consolidation and closure (2019-12-02 → 2019-12-10)

• 2019-12-02 — Docket text: "Do not docket. Case consolidated with lead case 6:19-cv-00440."
• 2019-12-10 — Case closed. Last docket entry 2019-12-16 (RPX Insight).

Unresolved on the public record I could retrieve: the docket text does not state whether the 12(b)(6) and transfer motions were decided, denied as moot, or carried over into the lead case, and I found no written opinion resolving them. The lead case (6:19-cv-00440) is also shown as closed on Unified Patents/RPX. I could not confirm whether Realtime took a voluntary dismissal or the court dismissed on the motions. Treat the precise mechanism of termination as unverified — it requires the PACER pdf of the closing order in 6:19-cv-00440.

6. Stages the case never reached

For the record, so the negative findings are clear:

• Markman / claim construction: none. No scheduling order in the retrieved docket sets a Markman hearing; the case died ~4 months after filing. The only claim-construction-adjacent authority on the '907 is the PTAB's construction in IPR2018-01817 and the Delaware pleadings-stage treatment.
• Discovery: none of substance. No Rule 26(f) conference, no joint discovery/case management plan, no contentions, no expert reports appear on the docket. (Contrast: in the parallel C.D. Cal. Google/YouTube case, the parties stipulated to stay "before the Court has not yet construed the disputed claim terms… and the parties have not engaged in substantial discovery.")
• Trial / verdict / JMOL / new trial / § 285 fees: none in this case.

7. The parallel PTAB proceedings — and they decided the case

This is where the actual outcome lives.

**a) IPR2018-01817 — Netflix, Inc. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC (the '907

Bottom line

Case identified: Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Haivision Network Video Inc., No. 6:19-cv-00441 (W.D. Tex., Judge Alan D. Albright), filed July 23, 2019; consolidated into lead case No. 6:19-cv-00440 (order granting Dkt. 16, entered Nov. 30, 2019) and closed Dec. 10, 2019 on plaintiff's stipulation of dismissal. (RPX Insight; Unified Patents docket; Patexia docket)

Plaintiff's counsel of record were Russ August & Kabat LLP (Los Angeles) — the same firm that ran Realtime's nationwide assertion campaign. Three RAK attorneys appear on the docket, all signing from the firm's 12424 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90025 office.

Counsel of record for Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC

Local counsel

No Texas local-counsel appearance appears on the Dkts. 1–19 docket. This is notable because Judge Albright's procedures and W.D. Tex. Local Rule AT-1(f) generally require local counsel for out-of-district practitioners, and the only pro hac vice motion on the docket in this case was defendant's (Dkt. 11, Janis E. Clements of Austin moving for admission of Herbert H. Finn of Greenberg Traurig). Plaintiff's RAK lawyers filed directly, without any PHV motion or local-counsel notice of appearance reflected in the public docket — likely because the case was served, consolidated and dismissed within roughly five months. I could not verify from a primary source whether Mirzaie/Wang/Chung were already admitted to the W.D. Tex. bar; treat that as unconfirmed rather than as a finding that they were.

Related but not docket-confirmed: In Realtime's parallel PTAB proceedings, the Patent Owner's updated mandatory notices dated Aug. 23, 2019 (i.e., one month after this complaint) designated Joel P.N. Stonedale of Noroozi PC, 111 Congress Ave., Suite 400, Austin, TX as lead counsel and Kayvan B. Noroozi (Noroozi PC, Los Angeles) as first backup, with RAK's Neil A. Rubin and Kent Shum as further backup. That structure is consistent with Noroozi being retained as Texas/local counsel for the W.D. Tex. filings, but no Noroozi appearance is recorded on the 6:19-cv-00441 docket, so I would not list them as counsel of record here without pulling the PACER docket directly.

Caveats / what is not well sourced

• The public dockets I could reach for this closed, consolidated case are aggregator mirrors (RPX, Unified Patents, Patexia) of the CM/ECF sheet; the underlying complaint PDF and the exhibits were not retrievable in full. The complaint attached five patent exhibits (Exs. A–E), consistent with the "5 Patents-in-Suit" RPX tally, and the '907 patent is listed among the patents Realtime asserted against Haivision's co-defendants in the Delaware/California family — but I did not independently confirm which five patents were pleaded in 6:19-cv-00441 (the same-day companion case 6:19-cv-00440, also captioned against Haivision, evidently carried the other set).
• Marc A. Fenster (RAK founding partner, CA SBN 181067) was the senior RAK partner on the Realtime campaign and is listed on Realtime pleadings in the C.D. Cal./D. Colo. matters, but his name does not appear on the 6:19-cv-00441 docket entries I could access, so I have not listed him as counsel of record.
• No filing in this case was sealed as far as the public docket shows; the docket is simply short (19–22 entries) because the case was voluntarily dismissed before any substantive motion practice other than Haivision's Rule 12(b)(6), transfer and consolidation motions.

I'll research this docket now.

Found the defendant. Now let me pin down the attorneys' firms and the related lead case.

Case identification (correcting the open item in the prior summary)

The defendant in No. 6:19-cv-00441 is Haivision Network Video Inc. — caption Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Haivision Network Video Inc., W.D. Tex., Judge Alan D. Albright, filed 7/23/2019. The complaint attached five patent exhibits (A–E), including U.S. Patent No. 9,762,907 (the '907 patent, "System and Methods for Video and Audio Data Distribution"). The case was consolidated into lead case No. 6:19-cv-00440 (the earlier-filed, two-patent Haivision case) by docket annotation dated 12/2/2019 ("Do not docket. Case consolidated with lead case 6:19-cv-00440"), and RPX records it as closed 12/10/2019 with a "Report on Patent/Trademark sent to U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for closing."

• RPX Insight: https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation/txwdce-1045656-realtime-adaptive-streaming-v-haivision-network-video
• Docket mirrors (reproducing PACER entries): https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Western%20District%20Court/case/6:19-cv-00441 ; https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/REALTIME-ADAPTIVE-STREAMING-LLC-v-HAIVISION-NETWORK-VIDEO-INC-id-127011/documents

Note: the '907 patent was also asserted against the same defendant in the earlier D. Del. case, Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Haivision Network Video Inc., C.A. No. 17-1520-CFC-SRF, which is useful context because Haivision used essentially the same defense team in both.

Counsel of record for Haivision in No. 6:19-cv-00441

Sources for counsel details:

• Clements firm bio: https://www.gtlaw.com/en/professionals/c/clements-janis-e ; appearance in Patent Armory v. Meta: https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/PatentArmoryIncvMetaPlatformsIncDocketNo623cv00541WDTexJul272023C/1
• Finn firm/Legal 500 profile: https://www.legal500.com/firms/51354-greenberg-traurig/c-united-states/lawyers/[1873235](/patent/1873235)-herbert-h-finn
• Finn's Delaware role for Haivision (signature block, GT Chicago, and § 101 briefing): https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Delaware_District_Court/1--17-cv-01520/Realtime_Adaptive_Streaming_LLC_v._Haivision_Network_Video_Inc/docs/24.pdf and .../docs/46.pdf ; PHV order: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/delaware/dedce/1:2017cv01520/63537

Caveats and things I could not verify

• Other GT attorneys who acted for Haivision in Delaware but do not appear on this W.D. Tex. docket: Howard E. Silverman and Sara M. Skulman (both Greenberg Traurig, Chicago) were PHV counsel in C.A. 17-1520. The 6:19-cv-00441 docket, as mirrored publicly, shows only Clements and Finn appearing; a "Pro Hac Vice Letter" was issued 11/26/2019 (Dkt. 14), which may relate to a further PHV applicant, but I could not confirm from the public record who (if anyone) that was. I have not listed Silverman or Skulman as counsel of record in this case.
• No in-house Haivision counsel appears on the docket.
• Docket source limitation: I relied on PACER-derived mirrors (Justia, Unified Patents' docket portal, Patexia, RPX, UniCourt) rather than a live PACER pull. Because the case was short-lived (consolidated Dec. 2019, closed days later) and closed without a merits ruling in 441 itself, the counsel roster above is complete for the individual appearances recorded, but I did not review the actual dismissal papers, so I can't state the precise disposition mechanism (e.g., voluntary dismissal vs. dismissal in the consolidated lead case).
• Plaintiff's side, for completeness only (not requested): Reza Mirzaie, Marc A. Fenster, Brian D. Ledahl, Philip X. Wang, Paul A. Kroeger and C. Jay Chung of Russ August & Kabat (Los Angeles).