Adeia Media Holdings LLC et al. v. BAMTech, LLC et al.

Adeia Media Holdings LLC, Adeia Guides Inc., and Adeia Technologies Inc. (collectively, "Adeia") have initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against various Disney entities, including BAMTech, LLC, Disney DTC LLC, Disney Streaming Services LLC, ESPN, Inc., Hulu, LLC, and The Walt Disney Company. Adeia is a pure-play intellectual property licensing company that develops, acquires, manages, and monetizes patent rights, primarily in semiconductors and media entertainment. Formerly part of Xperi Holding Corporation and with roots tracing back to TiVo and Rovi, Adeia's business model relies on converting its extensive patent portfolio into recurring revenue through licensing agreements and, when negotiations fail, through litigation. The defendants are major players in the media and entertainment industry, specifically in streaming services.

The lawsuit alleges that Disney's streaming services—Disney+, Hulu, Hulu Live (Hulu + Live TV), and ESPN+—infringe Adeia's patents. These services are collectively referred to as the "Accused Instrumentalities." The patent asserted in this case, U.S. Patent No. 8,280,987, is titled "Cloud data persistence engine" and broadly relates to content distribution. This case is one of several patent infringement actions Adeia has filed against Disney, including parallel lawsuits in Europe before the Unified Patent Court and a court in Germany, indicating a broad enforcement strategy.

The case was filed on November 7, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware under case number 1:2024cv01231, and is currently active. The presiding judge is Maryellen Noreika. Delaware is a popular venue for patent litigation, particularly after the Supreme Court's TC Heartland decision, because many corporations, including the Disney entities, are incorporated there, ensuring proper venue. The district is known for its experienced judiciary in patent law and offers a relatively fast path to trial for competitor cases. This case is notable due to the plaintiff being a prominent intellectual property licensing firm with a history of asserting media technology patents, and the defendants being a global entertainment giant whose core streaming business is at stake. Adeia's strategy often involves "selective enforcement" through litigation when direct licensing negotiations are unsuccessful, as seen in past disputes with companies like X (formerly Twitter) and AMD. The simultaneous European filings also highlight Adeia's multi-jurisdictional approach to patent enforcement, potentially increasing pressure on Disney to settle.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome in Adeia Media Holdings LLC et al. v. BAMTech, LLC et al.

This patent infringement case, filed by Adeia Media Holdings LLC, Adeia Guides Inc., and Adeia Technologies Inc. (collectively, "Adeia") against various Disney entities, including BAMTech, LLC, The Walt Disney Company, and Hulu, LLC (collectively, "Defendants"), involves U.S. Patent No. 8,280,987 among others. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on November 7, 2024, and is currently active.

Chronological Developments:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings (2024):

  • On November 7, 2024, Adeia filed a complaint for patent infringement against the Defendants, asserting infringement of multiple patents, including U.S. Patent No. 8,280,987.
  • On November 19, 2024, the Defendants filed a stipulation to extend the time to move, answer, or otherwise respond to the complaint.
  • The court, presided over by Judge Maryellen Noreika, granted the stipulation on November 20, 2024, extending the deadline for the Defendants' response to January 16, 2025.

• Pre-Trial Motions of Substance (2025):

  • On January 16, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss Counts III and IV of the Complaint, arguing that all claims of two of the asserted patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 9,860,595 and 10,165,324) were directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
  • On September 12, 2025, the District Court for the District of Delaware denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice. The court found it inappropriate to address the patent eligibility of all claims at the motion to dismiss stage, particularly since the complaint only asserted "one or more claims" of the patents, and the Defendants had not filed any counterclaims challenging the eligibility of all claims. The court also noted that addressing patent eligibility at this early stage would not be an efficient use of time as asserted claims would likely be narrowed through discovery.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:
  As of May 29, 2026, there is no readily available information from the provided search results regarding any parallel PTAB IPR or PGR proceedings specifically for U.S. Patent No. 8,280,987 related to this case.

• Current Posture:
  The case is currently active. While one source from November 7, 2024, indicated a projected closure date of December 29, 2025, subsequent docket entries from September 12, 2025, confirm ongoing proceedings. The docket indicates 112 entries as of November 7, 2024. A more recent docket retrieval from PACER would be necessary for the most up-to-date status.

Further information regarding the Defendants' answer and counterclaims (expected around January 16, 2025), claim construction, discovery milestones, trial events, or a final disposition beyond the motion to dismiss ruling is not available in the provided search results.Key Legal Developments and Outcome in Adeia Media Holdings LLC et al. v. BAMTech, LLC et al.

This patent infringement case, filed by Adeia Media Holdings LLC, Adeia Guides Inc., and Adeia Technologies Inc. (collectively, "Adeia") against various Disney entities, including BAMTech, LLC, The Walt Disney Company, and Hulu, LLC (collectively, "Defendants"), involves U.S. Patent No. 8,280,987 among other patents. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on November 7, 2024, and is currently active.

Chronological Developments:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings (2024):

  • On November 7, 2024, Adeia filed a complaint for patent infringement with a jury demand against the Defendants. The complaint asserts infringement of multiple U.S. patents, including 9,762,639, 8,280,987, 9,860,595, 10,165,324, 8,542,705, and 9,235,428.
  • On November 19, 2024, the Defendants filed a stipulation requesting an extension of time to respond to the complaint.
  • The court, presided over by Judge Maryellen Noreika, granted the stipulation on November 20, 2024, extending the deadline for the Defendants to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint to January 16, 2025.

• Pre-Trial Motions of Substance (2025):

  • On January 16, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss Counts III and IV of the Complaint. They argued that all claims of two of the asserted patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 9,860,595 and 10,165,324, were directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
  • On September 12, 2025, the District Court for the District of Delaware issued an order denying the Defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice. The court cited Federal Circuit guidance, particularly Hantz Software, LLC v. Sage Intacct, Inc., and found it inappropriate to address the patent eligibility of all claims at the motion to dismiss stage. This was primarily because the operative pleading only asserted "one or more claims" of the '595 Patent and the '324 Patent, and the Defendants had not filed any counterclaims of invalidity challenging the patent eligibility of all claims. The court also noted that it would not be an efficient use of time to address patent eligibility at this stage, as the asserted claims would likely be narrowed through discovery.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:
  There are no publicly available records from the provided search results indicating any parallel PTAB IPR or PGR proceedings specifically for U.S. Patent No. 8,280,987 related to this litigation.

• Current Posture:
  The case remains active in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. While one source indicated a potential closure date of December 29, 2025, this appears to be a projected date or an error, as later docket entries, such as the September 12, 2025, order, confirm ongoing judicial activity. The last available docket information indicates 112 entries as of November 7, 2024, but a more recent docket listing from PACER would be needed for the most up-to-date status. Information regarding the Defendants' formal answer and any counterclaims (due by January 16, 2025), claim construction, discovery milestones, trial events, or a final disposition beyond the motion to dismiss ruling is not available in the provided search results.

The plaintiffs, Adeia Media Holdings LLC, Adeia Guides Inc., and Adeia Technologies Inc., are represented by lead counsel from Caldwell Cassady & Curry and local counsel from Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP.

Here is a breakdown of the counsel identified:

Lead Counsel

• Bradley W. Caldwell (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Caldwell Cassady & Curry, Dallas, Texas
  • Experience Note: Caldwell is part of Adeia's legal team for this case. His firm, Caldwell Cassady & Curry, is listed as the legal team for Adeia in public reports regarding this lawsuit.
• Jason D. Cassady (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Caldwell Cassady & Curry, Dallas, Texas
  • Experience Note: Cassady is also part of Adeia's legal team for this case.
• Austin Curry (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Caldwell Cassady & Curry, Dallas, Texas
  • Experience Note: Curry is part of Adeia's legal team for this case.
• Brian D. Johnston (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Caldwell Cassady & Curry, Dallas, Texas
  • Experience Note: Johnston is part of Adeia's legal team for this case.

Local Counsel

• David E. Moore (Local Counsel)
  • Firm: Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, Delaware
  • Experience Note: Moore is a commercial litigator who frequently operates as local counsel in patent litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, advising on Delaware procedures and practices. He has substantial experience in patent infringement cases concerning medical devices and telecommunications. He has been recognized as a "Patent Star" by Managing Intellectual Property. Potter Anderson & Corroon represented Apple as Delaware counsel in multiple patent infringement cases against Masimo Corporation.
• Philip A. Rovner (Local Counsel)
  • Firm: Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, Delaware
  • Experience Note: Rovner is an experienced trial attorney specializing in corporate, commercial, and complex litigation, including intellectual property disputes in the District of Delaware. He has been recognized by Chambers USA, Who's Who Legal: Patents, and IAM 1000: The World's Leading Patent Practitioners. He was also listed as a "Patent Star" by Managing Intellectual Property.

Docket filings show that Bradley W. Caldwell, Jason D. Cassady, Austin Curry, and Brian D. Johnston had pro hac vice fees paid on November 13, 2024, indicating their involvement in this specific case. A September 16, 2025 document also lists Bradley W. Caldwell and Jason D. Cassady as counsel. Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP is a prominent Delaware firm with a strong focus on patent infringement litigation and frequently acts as local counsel in the District of Delaware.

The following attorneys represent the defendant entities in Adeia Media Holdings LLC et al. v. BAMTech, LLC et al., Case No. 1:2024cv01231 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware:

Lead Counsel / Of Counsel for Defendants:

• Ryan K. Yagura - Of Counsel
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, California.
  • Note: Ryan K. Yagura is noted as counsel for defendants The Walt Disney Company and its subsidiaries in a "Defendants' Supplemental Disclosure of Proposed Claim Constructions" filed in this case on September 16, 2025. He has also been identified as counsel for Disney entities in other patent infringement cases, such as InterDigital, Inc. et al v. The Walt Disney Company et al in the Central District of California.
• Xin-Yi Zhou - Of Counsel
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP.
  • Note: Xin-Yi Zhou is also listed as counsel for defendants The Walt Disney Company and its subsidiaries in the "Defendants' Supplemental Disclosure of Proposed Claim Constructions" in this case.
• Laura M. Burson - Of Counsel
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP.
  • Note: Laura M. Burson is listed as counsel for defendants The Walt Disney Company and its subsidiaries in the "Defendants' Supplemental Disclosure of Proposed Claim Constructions" in this case.
• Jason Rawnsley - Counsel
  • Firm: Not explicitly stated as "of counsel" or "lead counsel" in the provided snippets for this specific case, but he filed a stipulation to extend time for the defendants to respond to the complaint. His specific firm and office location are not explicitly stated in the provided snippets.
  • Note: Jason Rawnsley filed a stipulation on behalf of all defendants to extend the time to respond to the complaint to January 16, 2025.

Additional Counsel Identified in Related Cases (likely also involved in this case due to defendant overlap):

• Patricia Young - Counsel (Role not specified, but appears to be a primary attorney for the Disney defendants)
  • Firm: Not specified in the provided search results but she is listed as counsel for all Disney defendants in Velos Media, LLC v. The Walt Disney Company et al in the Central District of California, with a business address change to 801 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 300, Redwood City, CA 94063. This suggests she is likely either in-house counsel for Disney or part of a firm frequently representing them.
  • Note: Patricia Young is counsel for the Disney entities and BAMTech in parallel patent litigation.
• Blake R Davis - Counsel of Record
  • Firm: Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Note: Blake R Davis was added as counsel of record for the Disney defendants in Velos Media, LLC v. The Walt Disney Company et al in April 2026. His involvement in that parallel case suggests he is likely also representing the defendants in the Delaware action.

It is important to note that while the "Defendants' Supplemental Disclosure of Proposed Claim Constructions" identifies Ryan K. Yagura, Xin-Yi Zhou, and Laura M. Burson from O'Melveny & Myers LLP as "OF COUNSEL," typical Delaware practice requires local counsel to be registered users of CM/ECF and to file all papers. However, the available information does not explicitly name local counsel for the defendants in this specific case. Information regarding additional attorneys, including local counsel, would be available on the full PACER docket.