11 known cases. View patent page →
Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC asserted the '462 patent against Netflix and Netflix Streaming Services. The court issued a report and recommendation on December 12, 2018, granting in part and denying in part a motion to dismiss; the '462 allegations were not part of the §101 Fallon ruling.
Realtime asserted the '462 patent against Haivision entities. Defendant's motion-to-dismiss brief contained an overview of the '462 and '298 patents. The case was later resolved/dismissed.
Realtime asserted the '462 patent against Wowza Media Systems. The complaint and answer expressly listed the '462 among the patents-in-suit. Wowza answered and the case was resolved.
Realtime asserted the '462 patent against Samsung entities. The USPTO AO-120 form listed '8,634,462' as patent #5. The case was resolved.
Realtime asserted the '462 patent against Hulu. The complaint listed '462 as Exhibit F among patents-in-suit. The case was resolved.
Realtime asserted the '462 patent against Brightcove Inc. and others. The case was listed on Google Patents litigation record for the '462 and was dismissed/closed.
Realtime asserted the '462 patent against Sony entities. The case was dismissed with prejudice on November 5, 2018, upon joint motion.
Realtime asserted the '462 patent against Apple. The case is listed on Google Patents litigation record for the '462 and was resolved.
Realtime asserted the '462 patent against Cisco Systems. The case is listed on Google Patents litigation record for the '462 and was resolved.
Realtime asserted the '462 patent against Adobe. In the C.D. Cal. Google/Adobe claim-construction order, the five patents asserted against both Google and Adobe were listed as '046, '535, '298, '477, and RE46,777, suggesting the '462 may be related to or replaced by RE46,777. The case had a §101 motion to dismiss and claim construction on July 25, 2019.
JPML denied Realtime's §1407 motion to centralize twelve actions in five districts. The Panel expressly listed U.S. Patent No. 8,634,462 among the eight patents at issue. Centralization was denied.