DirecTV, LLC v. Adeia Inc. et al.

Case Overview: DirecTV, LLC v. Adeia Inc. et al., No. 3:25-cv-11048 (N.D. Cal.)

Parties. DirecTV, LLC — the El Segundo, California-based satellite and streaming video provider (the "DIRECTV Stream" OTT service and legacy DIRECTV satellite/MVPD business) — filed this suit on December 29, 2025 as a preemptive declaratory-judgment action against five Adeia entities: Adeia Inc., Adeia Guides Inc., Adeia Media Holdings LLC, Adeia Media Solutions Inc., and Adeia Technologies Inc. (collectively, "Adeia Media"). Adeia Inc. is a San Jose, California-headquartered R&D and intellectual-property licensing company that became an independent public company (Nasdaq: ADEA) on October 1, 2022, when it was spun off from Xperi Holding Corp.; its media-patent portfolio traces substantially to the former Rovi Corp. (Rovi Guides Inc. is now Adeia Guides Inc.). Adeia describes itself as a licensing company that does not practice the asserted claims — in its own SEC disclosures, DIRECTV's and DISH's briefs describe it as a spinoff "licensing company" seeking to monetize a portfolio it does not practice (EchoStar Corp. 10-Q, Mar. 31, 2026, via SEC.gov; Adeia press releases and 10-K). DIRECTV is represented by O'Melveny & Myers LLP (Ryan Ken Yagura) and Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck LLP (Law.com Radar docket card; PacerMonitor case page).

Accused technology and patents. The complaint identifies two categories of accused instrumentalities: (1) DIRECTV Stream Products and Services (OTT), where Adeia is expected to allege infringement via adaptive-bitrate streaming in multiple resolution fragments, location-based programming, mid-stream ad insertion, picture-in-picture display, and the "Continue Watching" feature; and (2) DIRECTV MVPD Products and Services (satellite set-top boxes, including Genie and Genie Mini), via DVR functionality, the DIRECTV App's ability to modify recorded programs, an interactive sports scoreboard, and delivery of both SD and HD content (Ex Parte complaint analysis, Dkt. 1). Per the case metadata, the patents at issue include: U.S. 9,661,049 ("Systems and methods for providing interstitial manifest file specifications for adaptive video streaming" — interstitial/ad-break manifest specifications enabling adaptive streaming, per EchoStar 10-Q); U.S. 8,156,528 ("Personal Video Recorder Systems and Methods," issued 4/10/2012) — a PVR architecture in which a primary device's interactive program guide and a compliant secondary device's guide are "distinctly implemented," with claim 32 at issue (DIRECTV argues its Genie/Genie Mini thin-client system lacks the claimed dual distinctly-implemented guides); U.S. 8,601,526 ("Systems and Methods for Displaying Media Content and Media Guidance Information," issued 12/3/2013) — simultaneous display of media-guidance information from a portable device on a larger screen (the second-screen DIRECTV App scenario); U.S. 10,506,010 — transcoding a content item into multiple formats, fragmenting each stream, aligning fragments based on a point corresponding to fragment beginnings, and storing them as individually accessible fragments (DIRECTV's core non-infringement denial targets the "aligning" step in its ABR pipeline); and U.S. 10,110,961 — control circuitry receiving user input while a media asset is in fast-forward/trick-play, tied to the "Continue Watching" feature (title not independently confirmed). The complaint reportedly sweeps in additional guide-era patents — e.g., an interactive sports-scoreboard patent ('165 family), U.S. 8,234,668 ("Content access," EPG deduplication of SD/HD channel entries), and U.S. 12,301,922 (synchronized supplemental content for disinterested live-content viewers) — for a total of 10 patents per Law.com Radar; Adeia's 2026 Form 10-K confirms the case seeks a declaratory judgment of noninfringement of seven Adeia Media patents and invalidity of three different ones.

Procedural posture and venue. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Oakland/San Francisco division, case No. 3:25-cv-11048, NOS 830 patent, 28 U.S.C. § 2201). As of the most recent public docket scrapes, no judge was publicly listed ("Pending Judge Assignment" on Ex Parte; PacerMonitor confirms filing but not assignment) — the assigned district judge and any magistrate referral require PACER confirmation. Adeia's 10-K states its answer/response was due March 13, 2026, and no other dates had been set. Venue is significant because Adeia is headquartered in San Jose, squarely within the N.D. Cal., making it a natural forum for a declaratory action by an accused licensee; the district also maintains specialized Patent Local Rules (early claim-construction/patent discovery procedures) that will shape the § 101 and non-infringement battles. Notably, DIRECTV (El Segundo) could also have sued in the C.D. Cal., so Adeia's home forum was chosen deliberately.

Why the case matters. This is a flagship "reverse" licensing dispute: DIRECTV was historically a licensee of the Rovi/Xperi/Adeia media portfolio (Adeia's materials tout licenses to AT&T/DIRECTV, Comcast, Cox, DISH, Google, and others), and the complaint alleges Adeia demanded "substantial new royalties" tied to DIRECTV's streaming and multi-channel services — a classic actual-controversy trigger. It sits at the center of Adeia's broader 2025–2026 enforcement wave: after DIRECTV sued, DISH Network and Sling TV filed a mirror-image DJ action in the N.D. Cal. (3:26-cv-02811) over largely the same patents, and Adeia then filed its own infringement suit against DISH in the District of Colorado on April 1, 2026 (asserting, among others, the '049 adaptive-streaming patent), alongside Adeia's parallel Delaware suit against Disney/Hulu/ESPN+ (Nov. 2024) and Canadian litigation against Videotron, Bell, and Telus. The case tests whether legacy interactive-television and program-guide patents — mostly drafted in the 1990s–2000s Rovi era — reach modern OTT features such as ABR fragment alignment, server-side ad insertion, continue-watching state, and companion-app second-screen control, and it includes § 101 abstract-idea challenges to at least three patents. A DIRECTV win (on non-infringement, § 101, or both) would materially pressure Adeia's licensing model across the pay-TV/OTT sector; a loss would set a benchmark royalty floor for streaming-era features. Caveat: the complete 10-patent list, the '961 patent's title, and the assigned judge are not fully confirmed by the public sources located here and should be verified on PACER.

Key Legal Developments — DirecTV, LLC v. Adeia Inc. et al., No. 3:25-cv-11048 (N.D. Cal.)

Important caveat up front: This is a young case (filed 2025-12-29; only ~8 months old as of today, 2026-08-28). The public record I was able to verify shows the case is still in its early pleading/initial stage — no answer, substantive motions, Markman, discovery, or trial events are yet reflected in accessible PACER mirrors or legal press. Where a development has not occurred or could not be verified, I say so explicitly rather than speculate.

---

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings

2025-12-29 — Complaint filed (N.D. Cal.). DirecTV, LLC sued Adeia Inc., Adeia Guides Inc., Adeia Media Holdings LLC, Adeia Media Solutions Inc., and Adeia Technologies Inc. — the Rovi/TiVo-descended Adeia "Media" licensing entities — seeking declaratory judgment of non-infringement and/or invalidity of patents directed to interactive television and program-guide technology. Jurisdiction is asserted under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (Declaratory Judgment Act); the case is designated Nature of Suit 830 (Patent). (Sources: Law.com Radar card pm-62129892; PACER Monitor public case page 62129892; Justia dockets.)

Key complaint allegations (verified via the Ex Parte complaint analysis of Dkt. 1):

• Adeia allegedly demanded "substantial new royalties" from DirecTV for its patent portfolio covering DirecTV's streaming and multichannel services; DirecTV sued first to establish that it owes nothing.
• Accused instrumentalities: (a) "DIRECTV Stream Products and Services" (OTT streaming) — adaptive-bitrate/multi-resolution fragment streaming, location-based programming, mid-stream ad insertion, picture-in-picture, and the "Continue Watching" feature; (b) "DIRECTV MVPD Products and Services" (satellite set-top boxes, incl. Genie/Genie Mini) — DVR, the DIRECTV App's remote modification of recordings, interactive sports scoreboards, and SD/HD content delivery.
• Patents: The case metadata lists U.S. Patent Nos. 9,661,049; 8,156,528; 8,601,526; 10,506,010; and 10,110,961 (note: this resolves the uncertainty flagged in the prior case summary — 9,661,049 is among the patents at issue). The Law.com summary and complaint analysis indicate the complaint actually covers 10 patents, including at least 8,234,668 ("Content access") and 12,301,922 ("Systems and methods for providing synchronized supplemental content…"); the remaining titles could not be fully confirmed from public sources. Representative asserted claims noted: claim 32 of the '528 patent; claim 1 of the '010 patent (stream-fragment "aligning" limitation is the focal non-infringement dispute).
• Plaintiff's counsel: O'Melveny & Myers LLP (Ryan Ken Yagura) and Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C. (Sources: PACER Monitor; Law.com Radar.)

Answer / counterclaims: Not yet documented in accessible public sources. No answer, counterclaim, or Rule 12 appearance by Adeia appears in the PACER Monitor or Justia mirrors of the N.D. Cal. docket (their last captures are from late December 2025). Given service deadlines, an answer was likely due in late January 2026, but I could not confirm its filing or contents — this is an open question for a PACER pull.

---

2. Related/Parallel Litigation — the Adeia Counter-Offensive (S.D.N.Y.)

2026-01-12 — Adeia sued DirecTV in New York: Adeia Inc. et al. v. DirecTV, LLC, No. 1:26-cv-00238 (S.D.N.Y., Judge Analisa Torres). Two weeks after DirecTV's DJ filing, Adeia struck back — but not with patent infringement claims. The S.D.N.Y. action asserts claims under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. § 1836(a)) and, per IAM's reporting, breach of contract; the complaint was filed under seal (Dkt. 1 with sealed exhibit; Dkt. 3 sealed document placed in vault). Adeia's six plaintiff entities mirror the DirecTV defendants; DirecTV is represented by Rothwell Figg (Steven M. Lieberman, Sharon Davis) — the same firm co-counsel for DirecTV in the N.D. Cal. case. (Sources: Justia docket 1:2026cv00238; PACER Monitor 62427450; IAM — "Adeia closes 2025 with Disney, Major League Baseball licences.")

Strategic significance: This is a classic forum-shifting and claim-framing move by the patent owner. Having been sued for DJ in DirecTV's home district (N.D. Cal.), Adeia responded by filing a sealed trade-secrets/contract suit in S.D.N.Y. — converting a patent-royalty dispute into a confidentiality/contract fight on its chosen turf.

2026-04-23 — S.D.N.Y. scheduling order on DirecTV's anticipated motion to dismiss. Judge Torres ordered: DirecTV's motion to dismiss due 2026-06-04; Adeia's opposition due 2026-07-16; DirecTV's reply due 2026-07-30 (Dkt. 67). Pro hac vice admissions were granted the same day for Rothwell Figg's Sharon L. Davis, Benjamin H. Fishman, and Michael H. Jones (Dkts. 64–66). The outcome of that motion-to-dismiss round (post-July 2026) was not visible in the docket captures I accessed.

Related-but-separate: Dish Network LLC and Sling TV LLC filed a similar Adeia DJ action in N.D. Cal. (3:26-cv-02811, 2026), and Adeia filed a mirror patent-infringement suit against DISH (1:26-cv-01373), signaling a broader Adeia licensing push against satellite/streaming MVPDs — context for, but not part of, this case.

---

3. Pre-Trial Motions of Substance (in the N.D. Cal. case)

None identified. As of the most recent public docket captures, there is no motion to dismiss, transfer, stay pending IPR, or summary judgment docketed in 3:25-cv-11048. The only substantive motion practice found anywhere in the DirecTV–Adeia dispute is the S.D.N.Y. motion-to-dismiss briefing schedule above (which, as noted, is in the trade-secrets case, not this patent DJ action).

---

4. Claim Construction (Markman)

Not reached. No Markman hearing, claim-construction order, or briefing appears in the public record. Given the case is pre-answer/post-filing, claim construction would not be expected until well into 2027 under a typical N.D. Cal. patent schedule.

---

5. Discovery Milestones

None yet. No Rule 26(f) conference reports, discovery orders, or protective-order motions were found. The only discovery-adjacent event is the sealed complaint in the S.D.N.Y. action, which may implicate confidentiality/trade-secret discovery if the cases proceed in tandem. Note that the N.D. Cal. and S.D.N.Y. cases are not consolidated, and no transfer motion has been identified.

---

6. Trial, Verdict, Post-Trial Motions

None. No trial date, verdict, or post-trial practice (JMOL, new trial, fees) exists — the case has not come close to trial.

---

7. Final Disposition / Present Posture

Case is open and pending. No settlement, dismissal, judgment, or appeal has been entered in 3:25-cv-11048. Present posture (as of 2026-08-28): the N.D. Cal. DJ action appears to be awaiting or just past the answer stage, with no substantive rulings on record; the parallel S.D.N.Y. trade-secrets case was in its motion-to-dismiss cycle through mid-2026. The strategic question hanging over both cases is which forum and which claims (patents in N.D. Cal. vs. trade secrets/contract in S.D.N.Y.) will control, and whether the two actions get coordinated, stayed, or transferred.

---

8. Parallel PTAB Proceedings (IPR/PGR)

None found. I identified no PTAB IPR or PGR petitions involving Adeia (or its Rovi/TiVo predecessors) and these specific patents (9,661,049; 8,156,528; 8,601,526; 10,506,010; 10,110,961; 8,234,668; 12,301,922) in connection with this case. Several of these are older program-guide patents that have been through PTAB skirmishes historically, but no 2025–2026 petition tied to this dispute surfaced in my searches. If DirecTV pursues IPRs, they would typically be filed within one year of service of an infringement pleading — but since Adeia has not asserted infringement counterclaims here (and its S.D.N.Y. suit is trade-secrets, not patent), the IPR clock may not even be running yet. This is worth monitoring.

---

Bottom Line

This litigation is only at the filing/pleading threshold. The only concrete developments to date are: (1) DirecTV's 2025-12-29 DJ complaint in N.D. Cal. covering 5–10 Adeia program-guide/streaming patents; (2) Adeia's 2026-01-12 sealed DTSA/contract suit in S.D.N.Y.; and (3) the 2026-04-23 S.D.N.Y. scheduling order for DirecTV's motion to dismiss (briefed through July 2026, outcome unverified). Everything else — answer/counterclaims, Markman, discovery, trial, PTAB — is either unconfirmed in public sources or has not yet occurred. For a definitive docket snapshot, a PACER pull of 3:25-cv-11048 (and 1:26-cv-00238) is the necessary next step.

I'll search for press coverage of this case from multiple angles.

I found several leads. Let me dig deeper into the IAM article, Law360 entries, earnings call coverage, and related Adeia–DirecTV suits.

Press Coverage of DirecTV, LLC v. Adeia Inc. (3:25-cv-11048)

Coverage of the filing. The earliest reporting is a docket alert from Law.com Radar, posted 2025-12-30, which reported that DIRECTV filed a declaratory judgment action in the Northern District of California on Dec. 29, 2025, seeking non-infringement and invalidity of 10 patents "related to interactive television and program guide technologies," with counsel from O'Melveny & Myers and Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, and asserting that Adeia "has demanded substantial new royalties for its patent portfolio in connection with DIRECTV's streaming and multi-channel services." Law360 logged the suit the same day (its article content is paywalled). The most substantive trade-press treatment is IAM, which reported on 2026-02-23, in "Adeia closes 2025 with Disney, Major League Baseball licences," that Adeia had "revealed new trade secrets and breach-of-contract litigation with DirecTV" — coverage that treats the N.D. Cal. DJ case as one front of a broader Adeia–DirecTV fight.

Why outlets consider it significant. Coverage frames the case as part of Adeia's licensing-enforcement campaign against pay-TV operators. Law360 reported on 2026-04-02, in its parallel coverage of Adeia v. Dish/Sling and the Dish declaratory action, that Dish accused Adeia of a "well-established history" of "demanding that providers license its portfolio or face litigation" — the same dynamic DirecTV's complaint describes. Docket records (not press) show the dispute has expanded beyond the N.D. Cal. DJ case: Justia documents Adeia's DTSA trade-secrets suit against DirecTV filed in the S.D.N.Y. on Jan. 12, 2026 (1:26-cv-00238, Judge Analisa Torres), and PacerMonitor documents Adeia's patent infringement suit filed in the C.D. Cal. on Jul. 2, 2026 (2:26-cv-07222). On the financial side, Yahoo Finance, summarizing Adeia's Q4 2025 earnings call, quoted management saying it was "proactively addressing challenges in the Pay-TV sector, including filing a breach of contract suit against DIRECTV to protect existing licensing frameworks," while TipRanks flagged "rising litigation expense and active disputes (e.g., DIRECTV)" as offsetting risks to Adeia's 2025 results (13% patent-portfolio growth; 66 new U.S. patents). LexLatin, in its coverage of Adeia's suit against Disney, supplies the business context: Adeia has licensed its portfolio to DirecTV, Dish, Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, Roku, and others, meaning DIRECTV's preemptive suit directly challenges Adeia's pay-TV revenue model.

Where accounts differ and go beyond the court record. No outlet has reported a dollar figure for the royalties Adeia allegedly demanded, any damages amount, or any settlement or verdict. Law.com Radar says the complaint targets 10 patents, while the case metadata for this matter lists five (8,156,528; 8,601,526; 10,506,010; 10,110,961; and 9,661,049) — a discrepancy no outlet has explained. Framing also diverges: the Yahoo Finance earnings summary and TipRanks reflect Adeia's own management narrative (protecting "existing licensing frameworks"), whereas Law.com Radar reflects DirecTV's (Adeia "demanded substantial new royalties"). IAM goes beyond the N.D. Cal. docket by making the trade-secrets and breach-of-contract suits — not the DJ action — the headline DirecTV development in its Feb. 2026 licensing roundup, and German stock-data site Parqet lists "laufende Rechtsstreitigkeiten mit Dish Network und DirecTV" (ongoing litigation with Dish Network and DirecTV) as a standing risk factor for ADEA shares.

Limited-coverage caveat. I found no dedicated articles from Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, EFF, or JD Supra specifically about DirecTV v. Adeia. The available coverage is essentially docket alerts (Law.com Radar, PacerMonitor, Justia), paywalled Law360 case tracking, one IAM trade-press roundup, and earnings-call summaries and analyst notes (Yahoo Finance, TipRanks, Parqet); substantive independent legal reporting on this specific case does not appear to have been published as of the search date.

Sources

• DIRECTV, LLC v. Adeia Inc. et al (3:25-cv-11048), California Northern District Court
• 3:25-cv-11048 | DirecTV LLC v. Adeia Inc | Ex Parte
• On November 3, 2025, Adeia Semiconductor Bonding Technologies Inc
• Adeia Inc. Q4 2025 Earnings Call Summary - Skip to navigation Skip to main content Skip to right column
• Complaint analysis | 5:25-cv-11048 | DirecTV LLC v. Adeia Inc | Ex Parte
• Organisation: Altice USA
• Adeia (ADEA) Earnings Dates, Call Summary & Reports - TipRanks.com - ADEA
• Cases
• Complaint analysis | 3:26-cv-02811 | DISH Network LLC v. Adeia Inc | Ex Parte
• Region: North America
• Sector: Semiconductors
• Adeia Inc. et al v. DirecTV, LLC (1:26-cv-00238), New York Southern District Court

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff DirecTV, LLC — DirecTV, LLC v. Adeia Inc. et al., No. 3:25-cv-11048 (N.D. Cal.)

Confirmed plaintiff-side counsel

Ryan Ken Yagura — Lead counsel (appearing on behalf of DirecTV, LLC)

• Firm / office: O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles (400 South Hope Street, Los Angeles, CA 90071)
• Role: Partner and Chair of O'Melveny's Intellectual Property & Technology Practice; per PacerMonitor's public case page, he is the attorney of record shown for plaintiff DirecTV, LLC in this case (https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/62129892/DIRECTV,_LLC_v_Adeia_Inc_et_al). Law.com Radar likewise lists "O'Melveny & Myers" as plaintiff counsel on the case (https://www.law.com/radar/card/pm-62129892-directv-llc-v-adeia-inc).
• Relevant experience: Accomplished trial litigator in offensive/defensive patent cases in district court and the ITC (video compression, H.264/H.265, graphics, wireless standards); his bio specifically notes he has "defended a satellite broadcasting company in multiple patent infringement matters" — consistent with a DirecTV-type client. Recognized by Chambers USA (IP: Patent Litigation, California), Daily Journal "Top 75 IP Litigators," and as an IP "Star." Former Intel engineer; registered to practice before the USPTO (bio: https://www.omm.com/professionals/ryan-k-yagura/).

Important caveats and unresolved points

• Docket completeness: The PacerMonitor snapshot for this case appears to have been taken around the filing date (Dec. 29, 2025) and shows only Ryan Yagura for the plaintiff. I could not retrieve the full PACER docket or the ECF No. 1 complaint signature block to confirm whether additional O'Melveny partners/associates, local counsel, or DirecTV in-house counsel have entered appearances. As of the available records, no other plaintiff-side attorneys can be verified — do not assume additional names without pulling the docket.

• Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck — likely defendant-side, not plaintiff-side: Law.com Radar's summary says the lawsuit was "brought by O'Melveny & Myers and Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck," which is ambiguous. However, Rothwell Figg's attorneys (e.g., Steven M. Lieberman, Sharon Davis, Rachel Echols) appear in the parallel Adeia-initiated action, Adeia Inc. et al. v. DirecTV, LLC, No. 1:26-cv-00238 (S.D.N.Y., filed Jan. 2026, DTSA claim), and Rothwell Figg is historically Adeia's (formerly TiVo/Rovi) patent-enforcement counsel. That strongly suggests Rothwell Figg is on the Adeia/defendant side in the N.D. Cal. case, not DirecTV's counsel. If you need certainty, check the N.D. Cal. docket for entered appearances/PHV motions.

• John Summers (Caldwell Cassady & Curry, Dallas) — likely defendant-side: Law360 lists a Dec. 29, 2025 entry for Summers in "DirecTV, LLC v. Adeia Inc. et al., California Northern," but Caldwell Cassady & Curry is Adeia's own litigation counsel (it represents Adeia in the Adeia Semiconductor matters and represented Adeia against Disney; see https://caldwellcc.com/case/). His appearance is therefore presumably for the Adeia defendants, not the plaintiff.

• Procedural posture note: Although the user prompt frames this as a "patent infringement case," DirecTV is the plaintiff in a declaratory judgment action (28 U.S.C. § 2201; Nature of Suit 830) seeking non-infringement and invalidity of Adeia's patents (including U.S. Patent Nos. 8,156,528; 8,601,526; 10,506,010; 10,110,961, among the 10 listed), precipitated by Adeia's royalty demands tied to DirecTV's streaming and MVPD services. The case is open and pending; no judge assignment or substantive rulings were visible in the sources retrieved.

Bottom line: The only plaintiff-side attorney of record I can confirm is Ryan K. Yagura (O'Melveny & Myers, Los Angeles), presumably lead counsel. The full plaintiff team (additional O'Melveny attorneys, local counsel, in-house) is not confirmable from public sources searched; pull the PACER docket (or PacerMonitor's updated case page) for the complete attorney list.

Counsel of Record — DirecTV, LLC v. Adeia Inc. et al., No. 3:25-cv-11048 (N.D. Cal.)

Based on the publicly indexed docket snapshots I could access, no defense counsel of record for the Adeia defendants has been confirmed in this case from public sources to date. Here is what the record shows, followed by context from the parallel Adeia–DirecTV litigations.

What the docket snapshots show for 3:25-cv-11048

• Ryan Ken Yagura — O'Melveny & Myers LLP is the only attorney listed on the PacerMonitor docket snapshot for this case, but he is almost certainly plaintiff DirecTV's counsel, not the defendants'. Law360/Law.com Radar's case report identifies O'Melveny & Myers (together with Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck) as the firms that brought this declaratory judgment action on DirecTV's behalf (filed 2025-12-29). See PacerMonitor case page; Law.com Radar.
• The PacerMonitor snapshot was last checked on the filing date (Dec. 29, 2025), so it does not capture any later notices of appearance.
• The Ex Parte case page for 3:25-cv-11048 likewise shows "No Defendant Attorneys" in its party listing. See Ex Parte case page.
• I found no PACER docket entries, notices of appearance, or firm announcements identifying Adeia's counsel in this specific N.D. Cal. case. If the defendants have appeared, those appearances are not yet reflected in the free/public docket aggregators I could reach.

Bottom line on the requested case: Defense counsel of record is not verifiable from public sources as of the last indexed docket data. I will not invent names. A PACER query of the full docket (or the court's ECF "attorneys" tab) would be required to confirm whether notices of appearance have been filed by defense counsel.

Context: counsel appearing for Adeia in the related Adeia–DirecTV litigations

Adeia has been represented by the following counsel in the parallel suits involving the same parties (relevant if the same teams carry over to this case, but not confirmed for 3:25-cv-11048):

• M. Elizabeth Day — Bunsow De Mory LLP (Redwood City/San Francisco area): counsel of record for Adeia plaintiffs in Adeia Media Holdings Inc. et al. v. DirecTV, LLC, No. 2:26-cv-07222 (C.D. Cal., filed 2026-07-02), an infringement suit over related patent/technology issues. She signed the complaint, corporate disclosure statement, and summons requests (docket entries 1–6). See PacerMonitor C.D. Cal. case page. Bunsow De Mory is a well-known IP boutique; Day has substantial patent litigation experience.

• Caldwell Cassady & Curry P.C. (Dallas): firm attorneys (e.g., Austin Curry) are associated with Adeia Inc. et al. v. DirecTV, LLC, No. 1:26-cv-00238 (S.D.N.Y.), the DTSA case filed 2026-01-12. See Law360 attorney profile (the firm's case listing for the Adeia v. DirecTV DTSA action). Caldwell Cassady regularly handles patent/trade-secret litigation; its role in that case (plaintiff-side for Adeia) is plausible but not confirmed from the snippets I retrieved.

• Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C. attorneys Steven M. Lieberman and Sharon L. Davis appear on the S.D.N.Y. docket (1:26-cv-00238) — but note that Rothwell Figg is also identified as DirecTV's co-counsel in the N.D. Cal. DJ action, so in the S.D.N.Y. DTSA case those attorneys are likely representing DirecTV (the defendant there), not Adeia. See PacerMonitor S.D.N.Y. docket (entries 53–66 show pro hac vice grants for Rothwell Figg attorneys).

Caveats

• Filings may be sealed or appearances may not yet be indexed. The case is open and pending; the docket entries after late December 2025 (including any answer, motion, or Rule 7.1/corporate disclosure by the Adeia entities, and any notices of appearance by defense counsel) were not accessible in the free aggregators I searched.
• Do not rely on the "Represented By" field on PacerMonitor for the N.D. Cal. case as defense counsel — that field lists only Ryan Yagura (O'Melveny), who is DirecTV's counsel per Law360's case summary.

Recommendation: Pull the live PACER docket report for 3:25-cv-11048 (or check the N.D. Cal. CM/ECF party/attorney report) to identify the Adeia defendants' counsel of record with certainty. If the case has been related to the parallel DISH Network LLC v. Adeia Inc., No. 3:26-cv-02811 (N.D. Cal.), check that docket as well, since coordinated counsel may have entered appearances there.