Adeia Media Holdings Inc. v. DirecTV, LLC

Case Overview

Parties. Plaintiff Adeia Media Holdings Inc. (joined in the operative complaint by co-plaintiff Adeia Technologies Inc.) is a subsidiary of Adeia Inc. (Nasdaq: ADEA), the San Jose-based IP licensing company that Xperi spun off in 2022 from the former TiVo/Rovi patent monetization business. Adeia does not sell consumer hardware or services; it monetizes a portfolio of roughly 11,000+ patents through licensing and assertion, so it functions in practice as a patent-assertion/licensing entity (though it frames itself as an R&D-driven innovation licensor). Adeia has publicly said it has licensed patents to AT&T, DirecTV, DISH, Comcast, Verizon, Google, Roku, Samsung and others (LexLatin, "Adeia demanda a Disney," 2024-2026). Defendant DirecTV, LLC is the El Segundo, California-based pay-TV provider operating both the legacy satellite MVPD business (set-top boxes/Genie DVR) and the "DIRECTV Stream" over-the-top (OTT) streaming service. Plaintiff-side counsel is M. Elizabeth Day of Bunsow De Mory LLP (PACER Monitor docket, 2:26-cv-07222).

Accused technology and patent. The complaint (58 pages, with Exhibits A–D) was filed July 2, 2026, asserting infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 (Nature of Suit 830). Per the case metadata, the patent at issue is US 9,661,049, an Adeia Media Holdings asset in the digital-media/streaming space. I could not independently verify the specific title or claim scope of the '049 patent from the sources available, so a precise technical sketch is not possible here; in the context of Adeia's related DirecTV disputes, the accused functionality is understood to center on DIRECTV's video-delivery infrastructure — adaptive-bitrate streaming with multi-resolution media fragments, server-side ad insertion, "Continue Watching"/resume functionality, DVR (Genie) recording, and related set-top/OTT features (Ex Parte complaint analysis, DirecTV LLC v. Adeia Inc., 3:25-cv-11048, N.D. Cal.). The complaint itself was not accessible for direct review, and the previously generated case summary correctly flags that confirmation of the '049 patent as among the asserted patents could not be completed from the docket narrative alone.

Procedural posture and venue. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles/Western Division, case prefix 2:), before a judge not yet identified in the available docket sources. Venue is proper (and strategic) because DirecTV is headquartered in El Segundo, within the C.D. Cal., satisfying § 1400(b)'s "regular and established place of business" test; C.D. Cal. also has Patent Local Rules that drive early claim construction. Notably, this infringement suit lands roughly eight months after DirecTV filed a preemptive declaratory-judgment action, DirecTV, LLC v. Adeia Inc. et al., 3:25-cv-11048 (N.D. Cal., filed ~Oct. 29, 2025), naming Adeia Media Holdings LLC, Adeia Technologies Inc., Adeia Guides Inc. and Adeia Media Solutions Inc. and seeking non-infringement declarations on Adeia streaming/guide patents (O'Melveny & Myers counsel of record). That creates a classic first-to-file/venue tug-of-war between the N.D. Cal. DJ case and this C.D. Cal. infringement case — a likely early motion-to-dismiss/transfer battleground.

Why it matters. This is one front of Adeia's 2025–2026 enforcement wave against pay-TV and streaming operators: parallel Adeia suits/declarations involve DISH (N.D. Cal. DJ 3:26-cv-02811 and D. Del. infringement 1:26-cv-01373), Disney/Hulu/ESPN+ (D. Del., filed Nov. 2024), and fuboTV (D. Del., filed July 1, 2026 — the day before this suit). Because DirecTV was already an Adeia licensee, the suit signals a breakdown in renewal negotiations and a campaign to extract new royalties on OTT/streaming implementations. Outcomes on claim construction, venue, or settlement in the coordinated DirecTV/DISH/Disney matters could ripple across the pay-TV industry, and any PTAB IPR activity on the Adeia portfolio (none confirmed for the '049 patent to date) would be a key watch item.

Sources: PACER Monitor public docket for 2:26-cv-07222 (entries 1–6, filed 07/02/2026); PACER Monitor docket for 3:25-cv-11048 (N.D. Cal. DJ action); Ex Parte complaint analysis of 3:25-cv-11048 (accused features: ABR fragments, Continue Watching, Genie DVR, DIRECTV App); Justia docket search (DISH/Adeia parallel cases); LexLatin (Adeia–Disney complaint, licensing history); fuboTV SEC/fast-edgar filing (Adeia Delaware complaint, July 1, 2026). Unverified: judge assignment, the '049 patent's title/claims, and whether the '049 patent was also at issue in the N.D. Cal. DJ case — none of these were confirmable from the accessible record.

Adeia Media Holdings Inc. v. DirecTV, LLC — Key Legal Developments and Outcome

Case: 2:26-cv-07222 (C.D. Cal.) | Filed: 2026-07-02 | NOS: 830 (Patent) | Cause: 35 U.S.C. § 271

Bottom line up front: This case is in its infancy. As of the last available docket refresh (2026-07-02), only the complaint and initial housekeeping filings appear on the docket. No answer, substantive motions, claim construction, discovery milestones, trial, or judgment have occurred, and I found no public record of an IPR/PGR on U.S. Patent No. 9,661,049. Notably, the docket record I was able to retrieve does not itself confirm that the '049 patent is asserted in this C.D. Cal. action — the '049 patent is, however, confirmed to be asserted by Adeia in a parallel suit against DISH (D. Colo., filed 2026-03-31).

---

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings

• 2026-07-02 — Complaint filed (Dkt. 1). Adeia Media Holdings Inc. and Adeia Technologies Inc. sued DirecTV, LLC in the Central District of California for patent infringement (35 U.S.C. § 271). The complaint is 58 pages and was filed by M. Elizabeth Day of Bunsow De Mory LLP (Receipt No. ACACDC-42691448, fee $405).
• 2026-07-02 — Initial filings (Dkts. 2–6). Civil cover sheet; AO 120 patent/trademark action initial notification; corporate disclosure statement; request for clerk to issue summons; and Exhibits A–D to the complaint (the exhibits likely include the asserted patents and/or claim charts).
• No answer or counterclaims on the docket as of the last PACER Monitor update (2026-07-02, 11:59 PM PDT). Summons issuance and service appear to have been in process when the docket was last captured.

Important caveat on the asserted patents: The publicly indexed docket entries do not list the patent numbers in the complaint. I could not independently confirm that U.S. Patent No. 9,661,049 ("Providing interstitial manifest file specifications for adaptive video streaming" family) is among the patents asserted against DirecTV in this case. The case metadata you provided lists '049 as the patent at issue, but the public docket narrative does not corroborate it. What is well sourced is that the '049 patent is asserted by Adeia against DISH/Sling in Adeia Technologies Inc. et al. v. DISH Network Corp. et al. (D. Colo., filed 2026-03-31), per EchoStar's 10-Q for the quarter ended 2026-03-31 (SEC EDGAR, filed 2026-05).

---

2. The Companion Declaratory Judgment Action (Predecessor Litigation)

This C.D. Cal. infringement case is best understood against the backdrop of DirecTV's earlier preemptive suit:

• 2025-12-29 — DirecTV, LLC v. Adeia Inc. et al., No. 3:25-cv-11048 (N.D. Cal.). DirecTV sued Adeia entities (Adeia Guides Inc., Adeia Media Holdings LLC, Adeia Media Solutions Inc., Adeia Technologies Inc.) seeking declaratory judgments of non-infringement and invalidity of 10 patents related to interactive television and program guide technologies (per Law.com Radar; known asserted patents in that complaint include 8,156,528; 8,601,526; 10,506,010; and 10,110,961). DirecTV alleged Adeia demanded substantial new royalties for its portfolio covering DirecTV Stream (OTT) and DirecTV MVPD/set-top box services. DirecTV was represented by O'Melveny & Myers (Ryan Ken Yagura) and Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck.
• Transfer to C.D. Cal. EchoStar's 10-Q (quarter ended 2026-03-31) states: "A companion case against DirecTV was also ordered transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California." This is consistent with Adeia's decision to file its infringement complaint (2:26-cv-07222) in C.D. Cal. in July 2026. I did not locate the transfer order docket entry itself, so the exact date and order number are not confirmed.

---

3. Pre-Trial Motions of Substance (Motion to Dismiss / Transfer / Stay / SJ)

None on the public docket as of 2026-07-02. The case had not progressed beyond initial filings; no motion to dismiss, transfer motion, motion to stay pending IPR, or summary judgment motion had been filed. Given the case's age (roughly two months as of today, 2026-08-28), substantive motion practice would typically not yet have ripened.

---

4. Claim Construction (Markman)

Not reached. No Markman hearing, claim construction order, or related briefing appears on the docket. For context, the '049 patent's technology (interstitial/segment manifest generation for adaptive streaming, originally from the Brightcove/Unicorn Media portfolio) is also being litigated against DISH in Colorado, so any claim construction in that parallel case could influence this one — but nothing has occurred here yet.

---

5. Discovery Milestones

None reported. No scheduling order, discovery plan, protective order, or expert-related activity appears on the public docket as of the last update. Strategically, the notable discovery-relevant context is the portfolio-wide enforcement campaign Adeia is running: parallel suits against DISH (D. Colo., 2026-03-31, five patents including '049), fuboTV (D. Del., 2026-07-01, per fuboTV's 10-Q filed 2026-08-05), and Disney (D. Del., 2024) — meaning DirecTV discovery will likely overlap with common technical proof on adaptive streaming, ad insertion, and program guide features.

---

6. Trial, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions

None. No trial date, verdict, JMOL motion, new-trial motion, or fee application exists. The case is in the pleading stage.

---

7. Final Disposition / Present Posture

Active — pleading stage. As of the last available docket update (2026-07-02) and the most recent PACER Monitor check, the case consists solely of the complaint (Dkt. 1) and initial filings (Dkts. 2–6). DirecTV's answer (or Rule 12 motion) had not yet been filed, and there is no settlement, judgment, dismissal, or appeal on the record. The case remains pending before the C.D. Cal.

---

8. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

None identified. My searches did not surface any inter partes review or post-grant review petition directed to U.S. Patent No. 9,661,049 (whether by DirecTV, DISH, or third parties), nor any PTAB institution decision or final written decision on that patent. If an IPR were later filed, it would most plausibly come from DirecTV and/or DISH given the two active district court campaigns. Because no IPR exists (on the public record), there has been no motion to stay this litigation pending PTAB review — consistent with the absence of any motion practice to date.

---

Sources and Confidence Notes

• Dkt. 1–6 (2026-07-02): PACER Monitor public case page for 2:26-cv-07222 (cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/65509330) — reliable for the docket entries and counsel; does not list patent numbers.
• EchoStar Corp. Form 10-Q (quarter ended 2026-03-31), SEC EDGAR (sats-20260331x10q): Confirms the D. Colo. Adeia v. DISH complaint (2026-03-31) asserting the '049 patent, and confirms the companion DirecTV case was ordered transferred to C.D. Cal. — reliable.
• Law.com Radar / PACER Monitor for 3:25-cv-11048: Confirms the N.D. Cal. DJ filing on 2025-12-29 and its 10-patent scope — reliable; but I could not verify the transfer order's exact date/entry.
• fuboTV Form 10-Q (SEC, 2026-08-05): Confirms Adeia's 2026-07-01 D. Del. suit against fuboTV — tangential context.
• Unconfirmed: Whether the '049 patent is actually in suit in 2:26-cv-07222; any docket activity after 2026-07-02; any PTAB proceeding on '049; identity of DirecTV's counsel of record in this C.D. Cal. action (the PACER Monitor page's "Represented By" fields were ambiguous).

Recommendation for verification: Pull the actual complaint text (PACER docket 1 in 2:26-cv-07222) to confirm the asserted patent list, and check the C.D. Cal. docket for post-July-2026 entries (summons return, DirecTV's appearance/answer, initial scheduling conference) — those are the next expected developments.

I'll research this case and its docket to identify the plaintiff's counsel of record.

I found initial docket data. Let me dig deeper into the docket and the plaintiff's counsel.

I've confirmed the filing attorney. Now let me check the complaint's full signature block and any local counsel appearances in the C.D. Cal. docket.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiffs — Adeia Media Holdings Inc. v. DirecTV, LLC (2:26-cv-07222, C.D. Cal.)

Confirmed attorney of record (from the docket)

M. Elizabeth Day — Lead/Attorney of Record (outside counsel)

• Firm: Bunsow De Mory LLP, 701 El Camino Real, Redwood City, CA 94063 (Silicon Valley boutique; firm also has a northern Virginia office).
• Role: She is the only attorney appearing on the C.D. Cal. docket to date. Docket entry 1 (Complaint, filed 07/02/2026) states: "Attorney M Elizabeth Day added to party Adeia Media Holdings Inc.(pty:pla), Attorney M Elizabeth Day added to party Adeia Technologies Inc.(pty:pla)." She also signed docket entries 2–6 (Civil Cover Sheet, AO-120 patent report, Corporate Disclosure Statement, Summons Request, and Complaint Exhibits A–D), all filed July 2, 2026. (PACER Monitor case 65509330.)
• Relevant experience: A Chambers Band 5 / IAM Patent 1000-ranked trial lawyer with 300+ patent cases over ~30 years, including interactive television/content delivery technologies (directly relevant here). She built the damages case in TOT Power Control v. Apple (2025 verdict exceeding $110M) and secured a pre-trial settlement for VideoLabs against Dell. In a parallel engagement, she was designated lead attorney for VideoLabs in VideoLabs Inc. v. TCL (E.D. Tex. 2:25-cv-00161) alongside Bunsow De Mory colleagues Marc Belloli and Jerry D. Tice II.

Important caveats

• Additional counsel on the complaint: The complaint (Dkt. 1, 58 pages) very likely carries a signature block listing additional Bunsow De Mory attorneys (the firm's typical teams include Denise De Mory, Hillary Bunsow, Marc Belloli, etc.), but the full signature block was not accessible in my searches (PACER Monitor only reflects the attorney added to the party record, which is "M Elizabeth Day" alone). I will not speculate on additional names.
• Local counsel: None is reflected on the public docket as of the 07/02/2026 update. Because Bunsow De Mory's offices are in Redwood City (N.D. Cal.) and northern Virginia — not within C.D. Cal. — C.D. Cal. Local Rule 83-2.1.3 may require designation of local counsel, but no such appearance was visible in the docket entries I could retrieve.
• In-house counsel: No Adeia in-house counsel appears as counsel of record on the public docket.
• Party/patent notes: The docket lists two plaintiffs — Adeia Media Holdings Inc. and Adeia Technologies Inc. (the case metadata naming only Adeia Media Holdings is incomplete). Separately, I could not confirm from the public docket that U.S. Patent No. 9,661,049 is among the asserted patents; the complaint's exhibits (A–D) are not publicly viewable in my sources. For context, this C.D. Cal. action follows DIRECTV's earlier declaratory-judgment suit against the Adeia entities in N.D. Cal. (DIRECTV, LLC v. Adeia Inc. et al., 3:25-cv-11048, filed 12/29/2025, where DIRECTV is represented by O'Melveny & Myers and Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck), suggesting these are parallel pieces of a broader Adeia–DIRECTV licensing dispute.

Bottom line: As of the last docket update (July 2, 2026), M. Elizabeth Day of Bunsow De Mory LLP is the sole confirmed counsel of record for the plaintiffs. Any additional Bunsow De Mory attorneys on the complaint's signature block and any required local counsel cannot be confirmed without the paid docket/pleadings.

Defendant Counsel of Record — Adeia Media Holdings Inc. v. DirecTV, LLC (2:26-cv-07222, C.D. Cal.)

No defense counsel of record has appeared on the docket as of the last available docket update (July 2, 2026).

Based on the PACER Monitor public docket for the case (Case No. 2:26-cv-07222, C.D. Cal., docket last updated 07/02/2026 11:59 PM PDT), the following is what the record shows:

• The complaint was filed July 2, 2026 (Dkt. 1, 58 pages), accompanied by a civil cover sheet (Dkt. 2), AO-120 patent/trademark notice (Dkt. 3), corporate disclosure statement (Dkt. 4), request for summons (Dkt. 5), and exhibits A–D (Dkt. 6).
• Every docket entry through Dkt. 6 was filed by plaintiffs, and the only attorney shown on the docket is M. Elizabeth Day of Bunsow De Mory LLP, who entered appearances for plaintiffs Adeia Media Holdings Inc. and Adeia Technologies Inc.
• The summons was requested on the filing date but there is no docket entry reflecting service of process on DirecTV, LLC, and no notice of appearance, stipulation, or answer by any defense attorney in the available public docket.

Status explanation

Because the case was filed only on July 2, 2026, and the publicly available docket stops at that date, DirecTV's counsel of record cannot yet be identified from the docket. The defendant's 21-day answer deadline (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i)) would not run until after service is perfected and the summons returned/waiver processed; the PACER Monitor snapshot shows neither service returns nor appearances.

Caveat on unconfirmed candidates (do not treat as counsel of record)

Public sources identify firms that have represented DirecTV in other patent/IP matters, but none is confirmed as counsel in this case:

• BakerHostetler LLP — per Chambers USA (2026), represented DirecTV in a trade secret, copyright and patent infringement matter against Synamedia (relevant IP litigators there include Christopher M. Arena and Lisa N. Collins). No evidence they have appeared in this action.
• Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP — Nathan R. Curtis (of counsel, Dallas) is publicly noted for "representing DIRECTV in the Central District of California in a lawsuit relating to satellite reception and distribution technologies." Again, no docket evidence links him to this case.

I explicitly decline to list these as counsel of record, since that would require fabrication — the operative docket simply does not yet contain a defense appearance.

Recommendation

To obtain the definitive answer, check the live CM/ECF docket for 2:26-cv-07222 (C.D. Cal.) for entries after July 2, 2026 — specifically:

• Summons Returned Executed (service on DirecTV, LLC via its registered agent CT Corporation System or similar),
• Notice of Appearance / Stipulation extending time to answer, and
• any Motion to Dismiss or Answer filed by DirecTV's counsel.

If the docket has been updated since the July 2, 2026 snapshot, the defense firm and attorney names will appear there. As of the evidence available today, no defendant counsel of record exists on the public docket yet.