Untitled case

This patent infringement litigation, case number 1:25-cv-00865, was filed in the Western District of Texas on June 4, 2025. The plaintiff is TIR Technologies Limited, identified as an entity associated with Atlantic IP Services Limited, which recently acquired the asserted patents from Otello Corp. ASA, indicating TIR Technologies operates as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) or Patent Assertion Entity (PAE). The defendants are Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services, both major operating companies providing a wide range of internet-based services and products. The core of the dispute centers on Amazon's provision of "Amazon Prime Video in combination with AWS CloudFront" and related products and services, which are alleged to infringe the asserted patents.

The primary patent at issue, US Patent 9800633, is generally related to video caching, with a more specific focus on handling client requests for particular video transcoding, such as requesting a specific resolution. Although other patents (8,792,347 and 10,484,442) are also asserted in the complaint, 9800633 is specifically named in the case metadata.

The procedural posture of the case places it in the Western District of Texas, a venue that gained significant prominence for patent litigation, particularly in its Waco Division under Judge Alan Albright. Judge Albright actively sought to establish the district as a "serious venue for sophisticated patent litigation" through fast-track scheduling orders. This made it a highly attractive forum for patent plaintiffs, often NPEs. However, a significant change occurred in July 2022 when the Chief Judge of the Western District of Texas implemented randomized judge assignments for patent cases filed in the Waco Division, thereby removing the certainty that a case would be assigned to Judge Albright. As of July 2025, it was noted that this particular TIR Technologies case had not yet been assigned to a judge. The case is notable due to the ongoing trend of NPEs asserting patents against large technology companies in the Western District of Texas, even with the recent changes to judicial assignment practices.

The patent infringement litigation case, 1:25-cv-00865, involves Tir Technologies Limited as the plaintiff and counter-defendant, against defendants Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Web Services, Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC, Amazon Data Services Inc., and Amazon Development Center U.S., Inc.. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on June 4, 2025, asserting infringement of U.S. Patent 9,800,633. The nature of the suit is classified as 830 Property Rights - Patent, with the cause of action being 35:145 Patent Infringement.

Here's a chronological overview of the key legal developments:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • 2025-06-04: Tir Technologies Limited filed the patent infringement complaint against Amazon.com, Inc. and other Amazon entities in the Western District of Texas.
  • While specific details of the initial complaint and the defendants' answer/counterclaims are not fully detailed in the provided search results, the docket identifies Tir Technologies Limited as the "Counter Defendant" and various Amazon entities as "Counter Plaintiff," indicating that counterclaims, likely for non-infringement and invalidity, have been filed.
  • The case was initially assigned to Judge Robert Pitman and subsequently reassigned to Judge Alan D. Albright for all proceedings.

• Pre-trial motions of substance:

  • As of the current date, no specific orders on motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay pending IPR have been identified in the provided search results, although such motions are common in patent litigation, especially with parallel PTAB proceedings.

• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

  • 2026-04-22: Plaintiff Tir Technologies Limited filed its "Responsive Claim Construction Brief" (Document 63). This indicates the claim construction phase of the litigation is underway, leading towards a Markman hearing. The specific outcome or order from the Markman hearing is not yet available in the provided information.

• Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:

  • No specific discovery milestones or significant disputes have been identified in the provided search results.

• Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions:

  • The case is still in its pre-trial phase, with claim construction ongoing. No trial events, verdicts, or post-trial motions have occurred or been reported.

• Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

  • The case remains active and is currently in the claim construction phase. There has been no final disposition, such as settlement, dismissal, or judgment, nor has there been an appeal.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

  • 2026-05-13: Meta Platforms Inc. filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2026-00347, against U.S. Patent 9,800,633, owned by Tir Technologies Ltd. The status of this IPR is currently "Pending". The filing of this IPR could lead to a motion to stay the district court litigation, though no such motion or ruling has been found in the current search results.

In the patent infringement case 1:25-cv-00865, Tir Technologies Limited is represented by counsel from Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP. The following attorneys have appeared on behalf of the plaintiff:

• Martin R. Bader
  • Role: Likely lead counsel or a senior attorney given his experience.
  • Firm: Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, with offices including San Diego, CA.
  • Relevant Experience: Martin R. Bader is a partner and co-leader of Sheppard Mullin's Intellectual Property practice group. He has extensive experience in patent litigation, including trying cases to verdict and handling appeals before the Federal Circuit. His practice spans various technologies, including semiconductor processing, software, and medical devices.
• Jennifer Klein Ayers
  • Role: Likely lead counsel or a senior attorney.
  • Firm: Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, with offices including Dallas, TX.
  • Relevant Experience: Jennifer K. Ayers is a partner in Sheppard Mullin's Intellectual Property practice group. She focuses on patent litigation, post-grant proceedings before the PTAB, and intellectual property counseling. She has experience across a range of technologies, including software, telecommunications, and consumer electronics.
• James Young Hurt
  • Role: Likely local counsel due to the Texas Western District Court venue, or a senior attorney.
  • Firm: Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, with offices including Dallas, TX.
  • Relevant Experience: James Y. Hurt is a partner in Sheppard Mullin's Intellectual Property practice group. He specializes in patent litigation and other intellectual property disputes, often acting as lead counsel in federal courts across the country. He has experience with a diverse set of technologies.
• Stephen S. Korniczky
  • Role: Likely lead counsel or a senior attorney.
  • Firm: Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, with offices including San Diego, CA.
  • Relevant Experience: Stephen S. Korniczky is a partner and former co-chair of Sheppard Mullin's Intellectual Property practice group. He is a highly experienced trial lawyer specializing in patent, trade secret, trademark, and copyright litigation. He has a strong track record of success in complex intellectual property disputes for technology and life sciences companies.

The defendant, Amazon (Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services), in the case 1:25-cv-00865 in the Western District of Texas, is represented by attorneys from two law firms: Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP and BC Law Group, P.C..

Here is a breakdown of the identified counsel:

Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

• Martin R. Bader (Counsel)
• Jennifer Klein Ayers (Counsel)
• James Young Hurt (Counsel)
• Stephen S. Korniczky (Counsel)

BC Law Group, P.C.

• Brett E. Cooper (Counsel)
• John F. Petrsoric (Counsel)
• Seth Raymond Hasenour (Counsel)
• Drew B. Hollander (Counsel)
• Jonathan Randy Yim (Counsel)

Further details on specific roles (e.g., lead counsel, local counsel) or extensive patent litigation experience for each attorney are not readily available in the provided search results beyond their general counsel designation. It's common for large corporations like Amazon to engage multiple attorneys across different firms, often with one firm serving as lead counsel and another as local counsel in the forum state.