DivX, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.

I'll research this case thoroughly before drafting.

Let me dig deeper into the specific case dockets, patents, and the ITC linkage.

Good progress. Now let me pin down the Richmond docket, the ITC investigation number, and the outcome chain.

Case Overview: DivX, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. (E.D. Va.)

The parties. DivX, LLC is a San Diego–based video technology company whose address of record in the parallel ITC proceeding is 4350 La Jolla Village Drive, San Diego (Fed. Reg. 2022-26054). Functionally, DivX is a patent licensor: Amazon's briefing in the related E.D. Va. litigation states that "DivX sells no physical product and focuses almost exclusively on licensing," that "its only business is patent licensing and it does not compete with Amazon," and that it "thus seeks only monetary damages." That is Amazon's characterization, not a court finding, but it is the framing both sides litigate against — i.e., DivX is treated as a non-practicing licensing entity, even though the DivX brand is historically a consumer codec/streaming name. (I could not verify DivX's current corporate parentage from the sources retrieved; DivX has long sat within the Rovi/TiVo–Xperi corporate lineage, but that is background, not a sourced fact here.) The defendant in this docket is Amazon.com, Inc. only — the docket shows a single summons issued to Amazon.com, Inc. (ECF 6), and no AWS defendant. Amazon is the operating company whose consumer video stack (Prime Video, Fire TV, Fire tablets, Echo Show) and cloud video services are accused.

The accused technology and the patents. DivX's theory targets adaptive bitrate (ABR) streaming and the DRM/partial-encryption layer underneath it. Amazon's own description of the accused products in the follow-on E.D. Va. case is the best available inventory: "Amazon's Prime Video streaming service, the Amazon devices that access that service (Fire tablets, Fire TV Stick and Cube streaming devices, Fire TV smart televisions, and Echo Show devices), and Amazon Web Services' Elemental, MediaConvert, MediaPackage, MediaLive, and Prime Video Direct." The technology at issue is standardized ABR delivery (MPEG-DASH/HLS-style manifests, container files, byte-range requests), partial-frame encryption with common keys, trick play, and transcoding/encoding — the invalidity fight turns largely on pre-existing standards and prior art (Chen, Lindahl, Hurst in the '588 IPR; Ozer, Liao, Apple HLS and Smooth Streaming overviews in the later IPRs). The case metadata anchors this docket to U.S. Patent No. 10,225,588 ("the '588 patent"), titled Systems and methods for performing adaptive bitrate streaming using alternative streams of protected content. As sketched by the Federal Circuit, claim 1 covers a playback device that obtains a top-level index file identifying alternative streams of protected video, each containing partially encrypted video frames encrypted with a set of common keys; obtains a copy of those keys; detects streaming conditions; selects a stream; receives a container index providing byte ranges; requests portions of the stream; locates encryption information identifying encrypted portions of frames of video within the requested portions; decrypts using the common keys; and plays back the decrypted frames. Note a discrepancy worth flagging: the previously generated summary and the Oct. 24, 2022 complaint papers indicate DivX asserted five patents, not one. The complaint package (13 exhibits, ECF 1) and the same-day ITC complaint appear to track each other, and the ITC complaint is documented as asserting U.S. Patent Nos. 8,832,297 ('297), 7,295,673 ('673), 10,225,588 ('588), 11,102,553 ('553), and 11,050,808 ('808). I could not confirm the district court complaint's precise patent list from the sources retrieved, so treat the "five patents" set as highly probable but unverified for this docket specifically; what is well sourced is that the '588 was part of the family of patents DivX asserted against Amazon in this campaign.

Procedural posture, venue, and why the case matters. DivX filed on Oct. 24, 2022 in the Alexandria Division as No. 1:22-cv-01201; two days later, on Oct. 26, 2022, the case was transferred intradistrict to the Richmond Division and renumbered 3:22-cv-00687 — which explains the dual case numbers in the metadata and confirms Richmond as the operative division. It was assigned to District Judge David J. Novak; Amazon appeared through Robert Armistead Angle and Laura Anne Kuykendall, and DivX added pro hac vice counsel Matthew D. Powers, William Patrick Nelson, and Azra Hadzimehmedovic alongside local counsel Natasha Saputo (ECF 15, 16, 19, 21). After a Nov. 16, 2022 on-the-record status conference, the court granted Amazon's motion to stay "pursuant to 28 U.S.C. [§]" (the docket text is truncated, but the statutory ITC-stay provision is 28 U.S.C. § 1659) and on Dec. 7, 2022 stayed "all proceedings and deadlines in this case until the final determination of the ITC," ordering a joint status report or motion to lift the stay within 14 days of that determination (ECF 24–26). Venue matters here in two ways: neither party is at home in Virginia (DivX is in California, Amazon in Washington/Delaware), so the E.D. Va. filing reflects a deliberate forum choice — the district's historically compressed scheduling plus Amazon's substantial Virginia footprint (AWS's Arlington "HQ2" campus) — and the Richmond/Alexandria division split determined which judge and which local speed the case would get. The ITC predicate was Inv. No. 337-TA-1343, instituted on DivX's companion complaint filed the same day (Oct. 24, 2022); per the Commission's Federal Register notice of Sept. 6, 2024, the final initial determination and the Commission's final determination found no violation — no infringement of claims 29/30/32 of the '673 patent, claims 1–2 of the '297 patent, claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7 of the '588 patent, or claims 11/17 of the '553 patent — and affirmed a finding of no domestic industry (technical prong failed; economic prong affirmed on modified reasoning), though it declined to find the asserted claims invalid. That outcome removes the condition on which the stay rested, which is why the docket status deserves scrutiny rather than acceptance at face value: the last docket snapshot retrieved (Dec. 7, 2022) still shows the case stayed, and I found no public record confirming what happened in 3:22-cv-687 after the September 2024 ITC final determination. The case is notable as the district-court half of a two-front DivX–Amazon licensing campaign (Amazon calls it "one of many filed by DivX … as part of its litigation campaign against Amazon"), and because the '588 patent's validity is now badly compromised in parallel PTAB/Federal Circuit proceedings: Netflix and Hulu's IPR2020-00558 produced a PTAB final written decision for DivX (Aug. 2021), a Federal Circuit vacatur on the "reasonable expectation of success" analysis (Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, No. 2022-1083, Mar. 1, 2023), a second PTAB decision for DivX (Feb. 2024), and then a Federal Circuit reversal on Feb. 13, 2026 (Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, No. 2024-1541) holding that the "within the requested portions of the selected stream" modifier attaches to "encrypted portions of frames of video," not to "encryption information" — under which construction the asserted prior art indisputably teaches the disputed limitation, and the Board's decision was vacated. Secondary commentary indicates DivX then gave Netflix a covenant not to assert the '588 rather than continue litigating it. Related DivX assertions against Netflix/Hulu (C.D. Cal.), LG and TCL (D. Del.), and the ITC campaigns (337-TA-1222, -1297) — including a contested sanctions/Rule 11 fight with Realtek over ITC conduct — round out the pattern. Separately, a new DivX–Amazon case, No. 1:24-cv-2061 (Alexandria, orig. 3:24-cv-818), asserted seven different patents ('195, '141, '303, '806, '938, '785, '943), went through claim construction in Oct. 2025 and a summary judgment ruling in spring 2026 in which Amazon largely prevailed on non-infringement and defeated willfulness; that case appears to have settled in June 2026 on the eve of trial, though I could not definitively match the settlement report to a case number.

Sourcing notes / open items. (1) The district court complaint's asserted-patent list is not confirmed; the five-patent set is inferred from the parallel ITC complaint and the 13-exhibit complaint filing. (2) The ITC investigation number 337-TA-1343 is taken from Amazon's brief citation ("No. 337-TA-1343, Complaint (U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n Oct. 24, 2022)"); the Sept. 6, 2024 final-determination notice I retrieved does not itself state the investigation number. (3) No post-December-2022 docket activity for 3:22-cv-687 is documented in the sources I retrieved, so the metadata's "stayed" status may be stale relative to the Sept. 2024 ITC final determination; a Law360 item indexed to June 2026 describing a DivX–Amazon settlement over an "encrypted video playback patent" and a stayed June jury trial is consistent with this docket but I could not confirm it. (4) Counsel firm affiliations are stated only where the docket/I PR papers state them (Fenwick & West for Amazon in the PTAB proceedings); the DivX-side attorneys are listed by name from pro hac vice docket entries.

I'll research this case thoroughly using web searches.

DivX, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. — Litigation Development Timeline

A threshold structural note. The caption you gave (1:22-cv-01201 / 3:22-cv-00687, E.D. Va. Richmond) is the original 2022 case, which asserted the '588 patent (US 10,225,588) among other DivX streaming/DRM patents and was stayed from day one pending the ITC. The substantive merits fight between these parties — Markman, discovery, summary judgment, and the 2026 settlement — played out in a separate, later E.D. Va. Alexandria case, No. 1:24-cv-02061, filed after DivX lost the ITC case. Any faithful "development history" therefore has to track three parallel tracks: (1) the stayed Richmond '588 case, (2) the ITC § 337 investigation that froze it, and (3) the 2024 Alexandria case where the dispute was actually decided/settled. I flag below where a fact is not confirmed by a primary source.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings — the 2022 Richmond case

Answer / counterclaims: Because the responsive-pleading deadline was extended and then the case was stayed, no answer, affirmative defenses, or counterclaims were ever filed on the Richmond docket before the freeze. This is an important procedural point: there was never merits litigation in the 1:22-cv-1201 / 3:22-cv-687 case itself.

Same-day companion filings (context for the campaign): DivX filed the ITC complaint and a parallel C.D. Cal. action against VIZIO (8:22-cv-01955), which was likewise stayed pending the ITC on 2022-12-02 (Dkt. 19).

---

2. The parallel ITC investigation that drove the stay — Inv. No. 337-TA-1343

Counsel: Amazon's complete ITC win was credited to Fenwick & West (with local E.D. Va. counsel Laura Kuykendall).

Effect on the Richmond case: The 2024-09-06 ITC termination triggered the 14-day joint status-report / motion-to-lift obligation in Judge Novak's stay order. I could not confirm from public sources what happened next on the 3:22-cv-687 docket — the case metadata you supplied still lists it as stayed. Rather than revive the '588 case, DivX opened a fresh Alexandria action in late 2024 asserting a different set of patents, which is where the case was ultimately resolved.

---

3. PTAB proceedings specific to the '588 patent (pre-dating this suit)

The '588 patent was already a PTAB veteran before Amazon:

• Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, IPR2020-xxxx — the '588 patent was among the DivX patents challenged by Netflix in the C.D. Cal. campaign (DivX, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., No. 2:19-cv-01602-PSG-DFMx). The last Final Written Decision issued 2021-12-15 (Paper 68).
• Netflix appealed several FWDs, including the '588 appeal docketed at the Federal Circuit as No. 2022-1083 (filed 2021-10-22). DivX separately had to appeal the FWD invalidating claims of the '673 patent (DivX's notice of appeal due 2022-02-18). (C.D. Cal. opposition brief, Dkt. 126)
• Caveat: I was not able to confirm the Federal Circuit's disposition of the '588 appeal (No. 2022-1083) with a primary citation, and I am not asserting an outcome. What is documented is that the '588 claims survived to the ITC merits and were found not infringed / no domestic industry (not invalid) in 2024.

---

4. The follow-on merits case — DivX v. Amazon, No. 1:24-cv-02061 (E.D. Va., Alexandria)

(A 2024 Richmond filing, 3:24-cv-00818, asserting six related DivX streaming/display patents, was administratively redirected to the Alexandria Division; the active merits case carried the number 1:24-cv-02061. Docket suffix at filing: CMH-LRV; the Markman opinion is reported as by Judge Nachmanoff.)

This case asserted seven video-coding patents — including '141, '806, '303, '938, '943, '195 and '785 — against Amazon.com and Amazon Web Services. DivX's IPR counsel was Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP (Nathan Lowenstein, Colette Woo, Dennis Courtney); Amazon was again represented by Fenwick & West (Daniel Rabinowitz).

4.1 Pre-trial motions of substance

• 2025-05-29 — Amazon moves to stay the case pending IPR (Dkt. 63), arguing early stage, PTAB simplification, and no prejudice (DivX is a non-practicing licensor seeking only damages). (Motion to Stay, Ex. 2006)
• 2025-07-01 — Court DENIES the motion to stay (Dkt. 68) and enters the initial scheduling order (Dkt. 69).
• 2025-08-06 — Rule 16(B) Scheduling Order entered (Dkt. 77).

4.2 Parallel PTAB IPRs and their effect

• 2025-05-27 — Amazon files IPR2025-01062 on US 10,715,806 (Petition + Kalva declaration and ~30 exhibits).
• Amazon filed (or intended to file) further petitions: IPR2025-01222 ('141) and IPR2025-01223 ('785).
• 2025-08-13/15 — Amazon emails DivX: it "intends to seek authorization … to file a motion to withdraw the inter partes review petitions for U.S. Patent Nos. 10,715,806, 10,412,141 and 11,611,785."
• 2025-08-19 — DivX files a Discretionary Denial Brief under the Board's interim Fintiv-type process, arguing all six factors favor denial (no stay; trial months before the FWD deadline; massive investment in the parallel court case; complete overlap with no stipulation; Amazon is both petitioner and defendant) and accusing Amazon of "gamesmanship" in simultaneously pursuing ex parte reexaminations.
• 2025-08-21 — Amazon moves to withdraw the petitions.
• 2025-08-29 — PTAB dismisses the proceeding prior to institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314 / 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(a). Post-institution fee refund approved 2025-10-21.
• Net effect: no IPR was ever instituted on any Amazon-challenged DivX patent, so the PTAB did not confine or invalidate any asserted claim; the district court case ran to the eve of trial on the merits. (IPR2025-01062 case view)

4.3 Discovery milestones (from the Rule 16(B) order, Dkt. 77)

• 2025-08-01 to 08-15 — preliminary infringement and invalidity contentions exchanged.
• 2025-08-08 — source-code document production.
• 2025-08-15 — Amazon's initial invalidity contentions served.
• 2025-09-05 — non-source-code document production.
• 2025-10-03 to 10-13 — final infringement and invalidity contentions.
• 2025-12-12 — fact and expert discovery close.
• Strategically significant deposition/record facts later used on willfulness: Amazon's 30(b)(6) engineer testified Amazon's practice was not to review others' patents and that he was involved in "design around" efforts; DivX leaned on the fact that Amazon learned of the '141 patent in the ITC proceeding.

4.4 Claim construction (Markman) — ruling 2025-10-22 (Dkt. 111)

Reported as DivX, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-2061 (E.D. Va. Alexandria, Nachmanoff, J.), 31 pp. (VLW, 2025-11-03)

4.5 Summary judgment — ruling ~2026-05 (Dkt. 320)

Amazon moved for SJ of non-infringement of the '943, '141, '806, '303 and '938 patents, plus no willfulness and no foreign damages based on testing. Amazon largely prevailed. (VLW, 2026-05-16; SJ opinion PDF)

• '943 (encryption/AES) — Non-infringement granted. The undisputed evidence showed the accused AES cipher uses an "outside"/"external" key, contrary to the construed "cipher" term.
• '141 (trick play) — Non-infringement granted. The accused products do not follow the court-imposed step ordering.
• '806 (transcoding) — Non-infringement granted. The court agreed with DivX that "generating media metadata" need not occur both "prior to decoding" and "during a transcoding of," but held as dispositive that the claim's antecedent basis requires the plurality of transcoding devices to encode the same portion of video — and Amazon's undisputed "split-and-stitch" method encodes different timed portions on different encoders.
• '303 and '938 — Amazon's common-ground motion (that I-frames do not use in-loop filtering) denied; the court also addressed Amazon's separate '938 "decoding by a plurality of processors in parallel" / trusted-execution-environment argument (the excerpt reviewed does not state the disposition of that alternative ground).
• Willfulness — Denied. Amazon at most knew of the '141 patent since 2020, did not design around until late 2025, past unrelated DivX dealings were "of minimal relevance," and Amazon engineers' practice of not reviewing patents was "unremarkable" given that infringement analysis is counsel's job.
• Foreign damages based on testing — addressed by the court (disposition not captured in the excerpt I reviewed).
• Post-ruling conduct noted in the record: Amazon changed implementations (reverted the "pausing during seek" behavior on the '141 patent; began encoding new AV1 tiles with one tile per frame as of 2025-12-04) — classic mootness/ongoing-royalty leverage evidence.

4.6 Trial and final disposition — settlement, 2026-06-09

• Trial had been scheduled for Jan. 20 – Feb. 16, 2026 as of the Aug. 2025 IPR briefing; it was later re-set to June 2026, and a jury trial was imminent.
• 2026-06-09 — The parties jointly told the Virginia court they had reached a settlement — in the suit accusing Amazon of infringing an encrypted video playback patent (the '303 patent, the principal survivor of summary judgment) — and asked the court to stay the jury trial set for later that month. (Law360, 2026-06-09, "Amazon Settles Fight Over DivX Patent Ahead Of Trial")
• No verdict, no JMOL/new-trial motions, and no appeal were reached. The case resolved by settlement before trial. Settlement terms are not public.

---

5. Bottom line / present posture

• Richmond case (1:22-cv-1201 → 3:22-cv-687, '588 patent): filed 2022-10-24; no answer or counterclaims ever filed; stayed 2022-12-07 under 28 U.S.C. § 1659 pending the ITC and, per the supplied metadata, still shows as stayed. DivX did not win relief on the '588 patent — the ITC found non-infringement and no domestic industry (final, 2024-09-06) — and DivX effectively shifted the fight to a new Alexandria complaint rather than litigate this case on the merits.
• ITC 337-TA-1343: complete Amazon victory (no infringement of any asserted claim, no domestic industry), affirmed by the Commission and terminated 2024-09-06.
• Alexandria merits case 1:24-cv-02061: DivX's second bite. Amazon lost the stay fight and lost its IPRs on the courthouse steps (all three petitions withdrawn and dismissed pre-institution, 2025-08-29), but won Markman on the key terms (quality indefinite; cipher; seek instruction; '141 ordering) and won summary judgment of non-infringement on four of the five then-remaining patents ('943, '141, '806 and, by the court's reasoning, effectively narrowing the case to the encryption-focused '303/'938 theories), with willfulness and enhanced damages taken off the table. The case then settled on 2026-06-09, days before a June 2026 jury trial.
• PTAB: the only IPRs on the Amazon-asserted patents (IPR2025-01062, -01222, -01223) were never instituted; the earlier PTAB activity on the '588 patent came from Netflix's IPRs and the resulting Federal Circuit appeal (No. 2022-1083). Amazon also pursued ex parte reexaminations, which DivX attacked in its discretionary-denial brief.

---

Sourcing / confidence notes

• High confidence: Richmond docket events and dates (Justia/Unicourt dockets for 1:22-cv-01201 and 3:22-cv-00687); ITC institution and termination (87 FR 73328; 89 FR 72893; USITC notices; Fenwick alert); IPR2025-01062/01222/01223 chronology (PTAB dockets reproduced at docketalarm/ipverse and PTAB POPR exhibits); Markman and summary-judgment outcomes (Virginia Lawyers Weekly summaries and the Justia-hosted opinions in 1:24-cv-02061); the 2026-06-09 settlement (Law360 headline/summary).
• Unconfirmed / flagged: (1) the post-ITC disposition of the Richmond '588 case (dismissed, still stayed, or otherwise) — no primary docket entry surfaced; (2) the exact judge assignment in 1:24-cv-02061 (docket suffix CMH-LRV at filing vs. the Markman ruling reported as by Judge Nachmanoff); (3) the Federal Circuit's disposition of the '588 appeal (No. 2022-1083); (4) the precise disposition of Amazon's alternative '938 SJ ground and of the foreign-damages issue; and (5) whether 3:24-cv-00818 and 1:24-cv-02061 are the same case reported under two numbers or two distinct 2024 filings.
• I have not fabricated any attorney, date, or ruling; where a source attribute is uncertain it is marked above.

I'll search several angles to find press coverage of this case.

The initial results are rich but mix together the 2022 case and a related 2024 case. Let me search more specifically.

I found a key 2022 article. Let me dig for more coverage, including the ITC outcome and any settlement/appeal reporting.

Bottom line up front: Dedicated press coverage of this specific docket (DivX, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 3:22-cv-00687, transferred from 1:22-cv-01201, E.D. Va.) is thin. Most search-visible "DivX v. Amazon" reporting clusters around two adjacent matters: the ITC Section 337 investigation (337‑TA‑1343) that this case was stayed to await, and a separate 2024 E.D. Va. action (No. 1:24-cv-02061) involving a different slate of DivX patents. I flag those distinctions below rather than blur them.

The complaint filing. The only article I found squarely on this docket is a trade-press piece: Export Compliance Daily reported on 2022‑10‑28 that DivX's complaint (identified by docket 3:22-cv-00687) alleged that "Amazon Prime Video, plus 'various generations and screen sizes' of Amazon Fire and Echo Show devices" infringe five DivX patents "on adaptive bitrate streaming and digital rights management." The article notes DivX said it could not yet "exhaustively identify all Amazon devices" without discovery, and that "Amazon didn't comment." I did not find Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Bloomberg Law, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, EFF, or JD Supra coverage of this specific filing, and no damages figure for this case was reported in what I located.

The ITC investigation that drove the stay. The stay in this case tracks the parallel ITC action, and coverage there is largely official/regulatory rather than journalistic. The USITC announced on 2022‑11‑23 that it had instituted investigation 337‑TA‑1343 based on DivX's 2022‑10‑24 complaint naming Amazon.com, Inc. and VIZIO, Inc., with the asserted patents including U.S. Patent No. 10,225,588 (the '588 patent at issue here). The docket confirms the district court then stayed the case: UniCourt reflects the 2022‑12‑07 order (ECF No. 26, Judge David J. Novak) staying all proceedings "until the final determination of the ITC." The ITC later terminated the investigation with a finding of no violation: the Federal Register notice (published 2024‑09‑06) records that the Commission affirmed a May 29, 2024 initial determination finding the accused products do not infringe the asserted claims of the '673, '297, '588 and '553 patents and that DivX failed the domestic-industry requirement. China's official trade-remedy portal, 中国贸易救济信息网, summarized the same outcome on 2024‑09‑02, confirming the ITC "确认本案不存在侵权并终止本案调查" (found no infringement and terminated the investigation). So the only meaningful "outcome" reported in connection with the '588 patent family was a loss for DivX at the ITC, not a verdict or damages award.

Coverage of the sibling 2024 case (and a settlement headline that may or may not belong here). The most substantive DivX‑v‑Amazon analysis in the legal trade press concerns No. 1:24-cv-02061, not this docket. Virginia Lawyers Weekly summarized the 2025‑10‑22 claim-construction ruling, and Virginia Lawyers Weekly reported on 2026‑05‑16 that Amazon "largely prevails" on summary judgment — non-infringement on most remaining patents, no willful infringement, and no foreign damages — noting Amazon's win on the '943 "cipher"/AES issue and the '806 patent, while the court denied summary judgment on the '303 and '938 patents. Separately, Law360 listed a story dated 2026‑06‑09 headlined "Amazon Settles Fight Over DivX Patent Ahead Of Trial," describing the parties telling a Virginia federal judge they had reached a settlement in a suit "accusing Amazon of infringing an encrypted video playback patent" and asking to stay a jury trial set for later that month. Caveat: based on the subject matter it describes ("encrypted video playback patent"), this item most plausibly concerns the 2024 case, not the '588 case anchored here — I could not confirm which docket it covers, and I could not retrieve the article body or any settlement terms.

Where reporting is thin or goes beyond the record. The record-grounded reporting is essentially the ITC's own notices plus the two Virginia Lawyers Weekly case digests and the UniCourt docket; the "Amazon Settles Fight Over DivX Patent Ahead Of Trial" headline from Law360 is the only settlement reporting I found and its docket attribution is ambiguous. No outlet I located reported a damages demand, a royalty rate, a settlement amount, or executive/analyst commentary specific to this case. Any assertion that this particular action produced a verdict, award, or quantified settlement would go beyond what the available sources support.

Sources

• Intellectual Property : Law360 : Legal News & Analysis - Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
• Media & Entertainment : Law360 UK : Legal News & Analysis
• DivX, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al. – CourtListener.com - Trial Court Document
• DivX, LLC v. Amazon.Com, Inc. et al, 1:2024cv02061 - Document 320 (E.D. Va. 2026) - DivX, LLC v. Amazon.Com, Inc. et al, 1:2024cv02061 - Document 320 (E.D. Va. 2026)
• Media & Entertainment : Law360 : Legal News & Analysis - - June 09, 2026
• - Regarding the 141 Patent, after the filing of this suit, Amazon decided to revert to a prior implementation with respect to "p...
• Corporate : Law360 : Legal News & Analysis - - June 09, 2026
• Media & Entertainment : Law360 : Legal News & Analysis - Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
• Patent and trademark - Amazon largely prevails on patent claims - Virginia Lawyers Weekly
• Media & Entertainment : Law360 : Legal News & Analysis - Try our Advanced Search for more refined results

I'll research the counsel of record for DivX, LLC in this case using multiple searches.

Let me dig deeper into the specific 2022 dockets and the firms involved.

Let me get the specific docket details for both case numbers.

Answer: DivX, LLC's counsel of record

Bottom line: For the 2022 E.D. Va. action (the case described in the prompt — filed 10/24/2022, stayed 12/7/2022 pending the ITC § 337 investigation), the docket shows DivX was represented by a Virginia local-counsel lawyer who certified the filings, plus three out-of-state patent litigators admitted pro hac vice. The names below are taken from the docket aggregator for No. 3:22-cv-00687; I flag the firm/location gaps explicitly rather than guess.

Plaintiff's counsel of record (DivX, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., E.D. Va. No. 3:22-cv-00687)

In-house counsel: I found no DivX in-house attorney appearing on the docket in the sources retrieved. Since the case is stayed and was ultimately voluntarily dismissed, it is likely no in-house counsel ever entered an appearance — but that should be confirmed against PACER.

Context that matters for the "who represented DivX" question

• This 2022 suit was the ITC-parallel case. DivX filed both an ITC complaint (Inv. No. 337-TA-1332) and the E.D. Va. action in October 2022; the district case was stayed to await the ITC, the ITC issued a final determination favoring Amazon in May 2024 on noninfringement, and DivX voluntarily dismissed the stayed district case in January 2025 — the same day it filed a successor suit, No. 3:24-cv-00818 (E.D. Va.). The '588 patent was among the five asserted in the 2022 case (RPX via Mondaq, "DivX Resets Litigation Against Amazon," 1/23/2025).
• Do not confuse the 2022 and 2024 counsel teams. In the successor 2024 cases (3:24-cv-00818 and 1:24-cv-02061, Alexandria Div., Judge Hilton), the pleading was filed by MerrittHill, PLLC (Richmond, VA) as local counsel, with Irell & Manella LLP and Robins Kaplan LLP listed as "of counsel." Irell attorneys appearing in DivX's matters include Jason G. Sheasby, Lisa Glasser, and David McPhie; Robins Kaplan attorneys include Aaron R. Fahrenkrog, Emily J. Tremblay, and Logan J. Drew; local E.D. Va. counsel there included R. Braxton Hill, IV and Charles Bennett Molster, III (RPX/Mondaq; C.D. Cal. DivX–Netflix joint status report signature block; Justia docket 1:24-cv-02061; Law360 – Irell). These are different case numbers from the one in the prompt, so they should not be reported as counsel of record here.
• Defense side (for contrast only): Amazon has been represented in this campaign by Fenwick & West LLP (J. David Hadden, Saina S. Shamilov, Allen Wang) in the parallel PTAB/IPR work, and by E.D. Va. local counsel on the district docket (Ravi R. Ranganath, Geoffrey R. Miller, Robert A. Angle, Laura A. Kuykendall).

Caveats / verification steps

1. Docket source is an aggregator, not PACER. The names above come from a UniCourt docket summary for No. 3:22-cv-00687; I could not pull the underlying PACER docket image to confirm the exact firm names on the appearances, and the 2022 filings are not individually retrieved.
2. Case-number mismatch in the metadata. The prompt pairs 1:22-cv-01201 with 3:22-cv-00687. In E.D. Va., the "3:" prefix is the Richmond Division (consistent with the "Richmond Division" designation and with Judge David J. Novak, who sat in Richmond); the "1:" prefix is the Alexandria Division. I could not confirm what 1:22-cv-01201 is in this family, so treat the counsel list above as pertaining to 3:22-cv-00687 (the 2022 Amazon case), and verify the 1:22-cv-01201 docket separately.
3. Local counsel firm unknown. I did not find a reliable source for Natasha Saputo's firm or office location and have not guessed one. Her pro hac vice certifications show she was the Virginia counsel of record, but the firm name should be read off the PACER docket (Dkts. 3, 4, 15, 16, 19).
4. Nothing indicates the appearances were sealed; the case simply was stayed and then dismissed, so the 2022 counsel list is short and stable.

I'll research Amazon's defense counsel of record in this docket, cross-checking the docket aggregators, firm bios, and opinions.

Now let me verify each defense attorney's firm, office, and background.

Defense counsel of record — Amazon.com, Inc., No. 3:22-cv-00687 (E.D. Va., Richmond Div.)

Bottom line. The docket identifies four defense attorneys for Amazon.com, Inc.: two Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP (Richmond) lawyers acting as the Virginia/local counsel anchor — Robert Armistead Angle and Laura Anne Kuykendall — and two Fenwick & West LLP (Mountain View / Silicon Valley Center, CA) patent litigators appearing out-of-state — Ravi Ragavendra Ranganath and, per the aggregator, Geoffrey Robert Miller. This is the same defense architecture Amazon used in its earlier E.D. Va. patent cases (Fenwick as lead patent counsel "of counsel" + Troutman as Virginia counsel), and it is consistent with the team that was credited with Amazon's ITC win in the companion investigation. One name (Miller) I could not verify against a firm source — see the caveats.

Table of counsel

Confirmed structural context

• Where the appearances live. The Justia docket for the original number, 1:22-cv-01201, was last retrieved 10/26/2022 — the date of the intradistrict transfer — and shows no defendant appearance. Defense appearances therefore sit on the 3:22-cv-00687 docket (Richmond, Judge Novak), which is where the consent motion to extend (ECF 10) and the motion to stay under 28 U.S.C. § 1659 (ECF 24–25) were filed before the 12/7/2022 stay. (Justia 1:22-cv-1201, UniCourt 3:22-cv-687)
• Single defendant. Only Amazon.com, Inc. is named and only one summons issued (ECF 6). Amazon Web Services, Inc. was not a party in this docket — AWS was added only in the 2024 successor case, No. 1:24-cv-02061. There is therefore no separate AWS defense team here.
• Consistency with the ITC track. The companion § 337 investigation (337-TA-1343) that froze this case was handled by Fenwick & West, with J. David Hadden, Saina S. Shamilov, and Allen Wang appearing in the firm's DivX–Amazon PTAB service lists at DivX-IPR@fenwick.com; the prior sections note Fenwick's credit for the ITC win with Virginia counsel alongside. The Fenwick + Troutman division of labor in the district court case matches that campaign structure. (DivX mandatory notices, IPR2025-01062)
• No in-house counsel identified. No Amazon in-house attorney appears on the retrieved docket — not surprising, since Amazon's responsive-pleading deadline was extended to 1/30/2023 and the case was stayed on 12/7/2022, so no answer, counterclaims, or substantive merits filings were ever made.

Caveats, flags, and verification steps

1. Source is an aggregator, not the PACER image. The four-name defense list comes from UniCourt's docket summary for 3:22-cv-00687; Justia's separate 1:22-cv-1201 page is truncated at the transfer. I could not open the PACER docket images for ECF 9–26 to read the signature blocks, so I cannot allocate lead vs. local vs. of-counsel designations with certainty. The functional split (Fenwick = substantive patent lead; Troutman = Virginia local counsel) is inferred from the identical pairing in Amazon's other E.D. Va. patent cases, not from a retrieved appearance form in this case.
2. "Geoffrey Robert Miller" is an open item. Firm, office, and role are unverified. Flagging this rather than guessing — a plausible-sounding attribution would be fabrication.
3. Firm naming through time. Angle and Kuykendall appear in documents as Troutman Sanders LLP (pre-2020), Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP (2020–2025), and — after the 2025 Troutman Pepper/Locke Lord combination — Troutman Pepper Locke LLP. Docket entries from 2022 would read "Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders."
4. Cross-reference note. The previously generated "Plaintiff representatives" section already listed these same four names for the defense side; this section confirms and expands them (firms, offices, experience) and adds the structural points above. It does not contradict that section. It also does not disturb the earlier-noted discrepancy that the metadata/Google Patents framing anchors this docket to the '588 patent while the complaint papers indicate five asserted patents — a merits point, not a counsel point.
5. Suggested verification. Pull the PACER docket for 3:22-cv-00687 and read ECF 9–26 (notices of appearance, consent motion to extend, motion to stay and memorandum); that will confirm the exact appearances, roles, and bar numbers, and resolve the Miller question.