Withrow Networks, Inc. is the plaintiff in a single patent-infringement campaign. The company states in its complaint that it was founded in 2020, with its origin tracing to LogoVision Wireless Inc. and its technology-commercialization subsidiary Movidity Inc.; both predecessor businesses are described in the complaint as dissolved. The asserted patent names Mark Sinclair Krebs as inventor. No public source I located verifies a headquarters address, employee count, revenue, funding, or ownership/parent structure, and the company does not appear to have a public ticker. These facts could not be confirmed.
Operations. No current commercial operations are evident. The complaint describes historical technology development by the predecessors — a client-driven adaptive bitrate (ABR) streaming system for mobile devices, a mobile media player, and a Movy.tv media-sharing service — with demonstrations involving ARM, Qualcomm, and Sprint around 2006–2007. Those businesses are stated to be dissolved, and the litigation record reflects no products currently sold or licensed by Withrow. It is best characterized as a non-practicing patent-holder/licensing entity asserting a portfolio that, on the tracked record, consists of one patent. Stanford's NPE litigation database lists the case under the "individual-inventor-started" asserter category.
Patent-litigation posture. The structured data show one plaintiff case and one defendant case. The plaintiff filing is Withrow Networks, Inc. v. Google LLC et al. (N.D. Cal., San Jose Division, No. 5:24-cv-03203, filed May 28, 2024), asserting U.S. Patent No. 10,771,849 ("Multimedia System for Mobile Client Platforms," filed 2005, issued Sept. 8, 2020) against Google LLC and YouTube, LLC. Its "defendant" appearance is not a district-court suit but Google's petition for inter partes review, Google LLC v. Withrow Networks Inc., IPR2025-00775 (P.T.A.B., filed March 24, 2025, instituted Sept. 29, 2025). This is a one-way assertion posture with a defensive PTAB counterattack, not two-way litigation. Venue is the Northern District of California, not a plaintiff-friendly district such as the Eastern District of Texas.
Notable context. The '849 patent covers client-centric ABR streaming, and Withrow's infringement contentions accuse YouTube's HLS/MPEG-DASH streaming plus Google's Transcoder API and Live Stream API. The district court denied Google's § 101 motion to dismiss (Jan. 2025), granted in part a motion to strike portions of Withrow's infringement contentions (Aug. 2025), and the PTAB instituted Google's IPR on the same patent.