DivX, LLC v. Netflix, Inc.

I'll research this case thoroughly using web search.

Let me dig deeper into DivX's corporate identity, the IPR history, and the patents.

Let me verify the original complaint's patents, counsel, and key procedural details.

I'll research this case thoroughly using web searches across the sources you specified.

Good initial results. Let me dig deeper into specific phases of the litigation.

Now let me investigate the PTAB/IPR proceedings and Federal Circuit appeals, plus post-trial activity.

DivX, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., No. 2:19-cv-01602-GW-AGRx (C.D. Cal.) — Chronology of Key Legal Developments

A note on sourcing: The case metadata in your prompt (filed 2019-03-05, "final judgment") is treated as authoritative. Most of what follows is grounded in PACER/recap docket entries surfaced through CourtListener, the Justia and CourtListener copies of the final judgment and verdict form, the district court's own orders (quoted at length in the RECAP PDFs), the Federal Circuit's and PTAB's published decisions, and law-firm case notes. Where I could not verify a fact, I say so explicitly. Magistrate/judge designations changed over the case's life (MWF → PSG → GW), which is reflected in docket-entry captions.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings (2019)

• 2019-03-05 — Complaint filed (Dkt. 1). DivX, LLC sued Netflix for patent infringement, asserting eight patents: U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,295,673 ('673); 8,139,651 ('651); 8,472,792 ('792); 9,184,920 ('920); 9,270,720 ('720); 9,998,515 ('515); 10,212,486 ('486); and 10,225,588 ('588). The complaint framed the patents as covering "foundational internet video streaming" technologies (compression/transcoding, adaptive bitrate streaming (ABS), indexing, and partial-frame encryption/DRM) and alleged Netflix's streaming service and apps infringed. DivX is described in later filings as a Fortress Investment Group–created licensing entity (formed 2017 as DivX CF Holdings LLC; renamed DivX, LLC in Feb. 2018 after acquiring the patents from NeuLion/Sonic IP). Complaint: CourtListener Dkt. 1
• The case was filed in the Central District and initially assigned to Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald (Dkt. 6, 2019-03-06), then reassigned to Judge Philip S. Gutierrez (PSG) for the 2019–2020 motion practice, and ultimately presided over by Judge George H. Wu (GW) through trial and judgment.
• A companion action, DivX, LLC v. Hulu, LLC, No. 2:19-cv-01606, asserting the same patents was filed and litigated in parallel (and stayed at the same time). DivX was represented in the early phase by Robins Kaplan LLP (Christopher A. Seidl, Aaron R. Fahrenkrog, Bryan J. Mechell, Emily J. Tremblay); Netflix by Quinn Emanuel (David Perlson) on the stay motion.

2. Pre-trial motions — first round of § 101 dismissals (2019)

• 2019-05-31 — Netflix's motion to dismiss (Dkt. 44): a Rule 12(b)(6) challenge arguing five of the asserted patents were ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Alice), plus dismissal of pre-suit indirect-infringement allegations for failure to state a claim.
• 2019-11-04 — The court granted the motion in part (Dkt. 59), with leave to amend, because DivX's opposition briefing had "presented factual characterizations of the asserted claims that were not reflected in its Complaints." Order discussed in DivX, LLC v. Netflix, Inc. (C.D. Cal.) (casemine).
• 2019-08-21 — First Amended Complaint (FAC, Dkt. 60). DivX elaborated its eligibility allegations for the '673, '792, '720, '515 and '588 patents.
• Second motion to dismiss (Dkt. 61) targeting the FAC. The court DENIED it (Dkt. 72) — importantly, without prejudice, holding that Netflix's § 101 arguments raised fact disputes not resolvable on the pleadings and that the court could not find the claims ineligible as a matter of law at that stage. DivX's opposition (Dkt. 67, filed 2019-09-30) is the most complete statement of its early Alice theory: each asserted family allegedly claimed a specific technical improvement (device-specific top-level index files for ABS; dual index/multimedia file structure; partial-frame encryption with common keys).

3. Answer, counterclaims, and scheduling (late 2019 – early 2020)

• 2019-12-05 — Netflix's Answer and Counterclaims (Dkt. 76), seeking declaratory judgments of non-infringement and invalidity. 2019-12-09 — DivX's Answer to the counterclaims (Dkt. 78).
• 2020-01-27 — Initial scheduling conference; a scheduling order entered 2020-02-20 set a claim construction hearing for 2020-08-31, fact discovery close 2020-09-24, and trial for 2021-04-27.

4. Parallel PTAB proceedings and the motion to stay (2019 – 2020)

• Beginning in October 2019 and concentrated in February–March 2020, Netflix (and Hulu, in the companion case) filed seven IPR petitions challenging claims of seven of the eight asserted patents (all but the '486 patent). Because the § 315(b) one-year bar ran in mid-March 2020, this drove the timing. Confirmed proceedings include:
  • IPR2020-00558 ('588 patent) — petition Feb. 2020 (Chen + Lindahl + Hurst), instituted Aug. 2020.
  • IPR2020-00647 ('720 patent) — instituted 2020-10-01.
  • Additional IPRs on the '673, '792, '515, '651 and '920 patents.
• 2020-03-13 — Netflix's motion to stay pending IPR (Dkt. 94; noticed for hearing 2020-05-18). Netflix argued the case was in its infancy (no claim construction yet) and that the IPRs covered 7 of 8 patents and 78 claims.
• 2020-05-11 — The court GRANTED the stay (Civil Minutes, Dkt. 106; AO-120 closure report, Dkt. 107) in DivX, LLC v. Netflix, Inc. and DivX, LLC v. Hulu, LLC (CV 19-1602 PSG (DFMx); CV 19-1606 PSG (DFMx)). Applying the three-factor Wonderland Nursery test, the court found: (1) the case was at an early stage — significant work remained and claim construction had not occurred; (2) simplification weighed "very slightly" in favor of a stay because some asserted claims were not under IPR review, notably the '486 patent (no petition filed); (3) no undue prejudice, since DivX and Netflix are not competitors and DivX had not shown dilatory conduct. The COVID-19 pandemic was expressly cited as a supporting consideration. The court contemplated reopening the case after preliminary institution decisions. (Order text via CourtListener Dkt. 106; RECAP PDF)
• Effect: the case was stayed roughly four years (May 2020 – May 2024), during which claim construction, expert discovery, and summary judgment were all deferred.

5. The stay period — PTAB outcomes and Federal Circuit appeals (2020 – 2024)

The following are the PTAB/Federal Circuit developments that reshaped the case while the district court case was stayed:

• '920 patent: the PTAB's final written decisions invalidated all challenged claims, "eliminat[ing] the '920 patent from this case entirely."
• '792 patent: on remand, final written decisions invalidated four of the five asserted claims, leaving a single asserted claim for trial.
• '588 patent (IPR2020-00558):
  • 2021-08-23 — First FWD: Board agreed the prior art was combinable but found no reasonable expectation of success; held Netflix had not shown unpatentability.
  • 2023-03-01 — Fed. Cir. No. 2022-1083 vacated and remanded, holding the Board's reasonable-expectation-of-success analysis legally erroneous (without reaching claim construction).
  • 2024-02-22 — Remand FWD (divided panel): the Board majority adopted DivX's narrow construction of "locating encryption information that identifies encrypted portions of frames of video within the requested portions of the selected stream," and on that basis again rejected Netflix's obviousness challenge, over a 37-page Administrative Patent Judge dissent.
  • 2026-02-13 — Fed. Cir. No. 2024-1541 (precedential): the court reversed the Board's construction and vacated the FWD, holding that the phrase "within the requested portions of the selected stream of protected video" modifies "encrypted portions of frames of video," not "encryption information." Applying the "nearest reasonable referent" canon and confirming it against claim structure, the specification, and the prosecution history of the grandparent '522 patent, the court held the prior art taught the limitation as correctly construed, and remanded. See Fed. Cir. opinion 24-1541 (Feb. 13, 2026); see also Fed Circuit Blog summary and Finnegan analysis. Following this decision, DivX granted Netflix a covenant not to sue on the '588 patent rather than continue to assert it.
• '673 patent: Netflix's IPR appeal — Fed. Cir. No. 2022-1043, decided 2023-04-27 — was affirmed in relevant part: the court held Netflix forfeited claim-construction arguments it had not adequately raised before the Board and affirmed the Board's construction and its finding that the Chen prior art did not disclose obtaining frames before descrambling/decryption. Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, No. 2022-1043 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 27, 2023).
• '720 and '515 patents: Netflix's consolidated appeal (including the Pyle-based IPR2020-00647 challenge) — Fed. Cir. No. 2022-1203, decided 2023-10-25 — largely affirmed the Board in Netflix's favor on the merits of the Board's treatment of the "generating"/"filtering"/"retrieving" limitations, with one judge dissenting on whether the Board abused its discretion in finding Netflix had failed to raise certain arguments. (Opinion PDF)
• 2024 (February–spring) — Stay maintained, then lifted. Netflix moved to continue the stay to pursue yet another Federal Circuit appeal on the '588 patent; DivX argued the stay should end (Joint Status Report, Dkt. 164; see also Dkt. 153, 158). The court continued the stay in February 2024 pending the remanded IPRs, then lifted the stay in May 2024. DivX was then asserting seven patents and more than $500 million in damages; WilmerHale replaced prior Netflix counsel shortly before the stay was lifted.

6. Post-stay case management and discovery (2024 – 2025)

• 2024-07-09 — Netflix's First Supplemental Invalidity Contentions, expressly raising ensnarement (a doctrine-of-equivalents defense) and identifying specific prior art.
• 2025-02-24 — Telephone scheduling conference (Dkt. 317). The court set a compressed merits schedule:
  • DivX to supplement infringement contentions: 2025-03-03; advice-of-counsel disclosure: 2025-03-07
  • Substantial completion of document production: 2025-05-08; privilege logs: 2025-05-15
  • Fact discovery close: 2025-06-13
  • Initial expert disclosures: 2025-07-11; rebuttal: 2025-08-08; expert discovery cutoff: 2025-09-05
  • Dispositive + Daubert motions: 2025-09-12; oppositions 2025-09-29; replies 2025-10-06; hearing by 2025-10-20
  • Mediation: 2025-10-09, with a post-mediation status conference 2025-10-16
  • Motions in limine, pretrial filings, etc., in late Oct./Nov. 2025 (later slipped to Jan. 2026).
    (Dkt. 317 minutes)
• Discovery with strategic significance:
  • Patent exhaustion: Netflix supplemented its exhaustion defenses based on Hisense and other licenses, and — at 6:00 p.m. on the last day of fact discovery (2025-06-13) — DivX produced a 2012 Rovi–Vizio license and a 2010 Rovi–Comcast license covering the asserted patents, which Netflix said supported additional exhaustion defenses. (Netflix Motion to Amend, Dkt. 356.)
  • Ensnarement / doctrine of equivalents: Netflix served Third Supplemental Invalidity Contentions on 2025-03-05 and further support in 2025-05-19 interrogatory responses.
  • Motion to strike contentions: the court resolved Netflix's motion to strike DivX's infringement contentions (Dkt. 294, 297), producing a deadline for DivX to supplement (2025-03-03).
  • Discovery disputes that later became MIL fodder: DivX's request for additional time to depose Netflix's damages expert (Dr. Sheila S. Hemami) was denied (Dkt. 509); DivX complained about Netflix 30(b)(6) preparedness and profitability/demand productions; Netflix contended DivX never moved to compel.
• 2025-07-03 — Netflix's motion for leave to amend its Answer (Dkt. 356) to add patent-exhaustion and ensnarement defenses. Netflix noted the scheduling order set no deadline to amend pleadings and that this was its first such motion.

7. Claim construction (Markman)

The case does not appear to have gone through a standalone Markman proceeding. The original claim construction hearing set for 2020-08-31 was overtaken by the 2020-05-11 stay, and the post-stay scheduling order (Feb. 2025) contains no separate claim construction phase — it moves directly from infringement contentions and fact discovery to expert discovery and dispositive motions. Claim-scope disputes were instead resolved through (a) the PTAB/Federal Circuit constructions in the IPRs (most importantly the '588 "encryption information" construction, reversed Feb. 13, 2026), (b) the summary judgment rulings, and (c) motions in limine. I could not verify a district-court Markman order or hearing in the RECAP materials I reviewed; treat "no standalone Markman" as a well-supported inference rather than a confirmed docket fact.

8. Dispositive motions and case narrowing (late 2025 – early 2026)

• 2025-12-28 — Final rulings on the parties' summary judgment motions (Dkt. 774). Key outcomes:
  • Netflix obtained summary judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as to claims 1–2, 4 and 5 of the '720 patent and claim 1 of the '515 patent (the court found they failed to claim patentable subject matter).
  • DivX obtained partial summary judgment on a Netflix "Netflix for PS3" invalidity theory — "but only with respect to the server-side code."
  • The court directed the parties to meet and confer to narrow the number of obviousness combinations.
• 2025-12-11 hearing and 2026-01-08 status conference framed the trial scope. In the Joint Status Report (Dkt. 780), DivX stated it would try 13 claims across five patents; the parties disputed streamlining, Netflix's refusal to identify its remaining obviousness combinations and PS3 client-side code, and whether Netflix would press counterclaims on any voluntarily dismissed patent. (Dkt. 780)
• 2026-02-03 — Order granting the joint stipulation dismissing all claims and counterclaims regarding the '588 patent without prejudice (Dkt. 840). This removed the '588 patent (and Netflix's related counterclaims) from the case, consistent with the covenant-not-to-sue following the Federal Circuit's Feb. 13, 2026 '588 decision.
• Net effect of all narrowing: from eight patents at filing to four patents and seven claims tried — '673 (claims 29, 32), '651 (claim 2), '792 (claim 16), and '486 (claims 1, 4, 15). The '920 patent was eliminated by IPR; the '792 was reduced to one asserted claim; the '720 and '515 were invalidated on summary judgment; and the '588 was dismissed by stipulation/covenant.

9. Motions in limine and pretrial (January – February 2026)

• 2026-01-29 — Motions in limine. Both sides filed extensive MILs (e.g., Dkt. 797-1, 800-1, 809-1). Netflix moved to exclude: DivX's use of Netflix's overall revenues/market capitalization (citing Uniloc v. Microsoft), references to the Netflix–Warner Bros. Discovery acquisition bid, inflammatory "greedy Netflix" framing, DivX's claimed "billions of devices" narrative, references to discovery disputes, references to withdrawn/dismissed claims, and arguments inviting negative inferences from privilege. Notable Netflix theme: that Plaintiff DivX is not the original DivX but a Fortress-created 2017 entity with one engineer, led by an attorney, whose business is litigation and licensing — an attack on damages and on the "same company that invented the patents" narrative.

10. Trial and verdict (March 2026)

• 2026-03-13 — Jury trial commenced before Judge Wu (seven-day trial).
• DivX proceeded on seven claims across four patents — '673 claims 29 & 32; '651 claim 2; '792 claim 16; '486 claims 1, 4 & 15 — and sought more than $400 million in damages.
• 2026-03-25 — Unanimous defense verdict (Jury Verdict Form, Dkt. 1152, filed 2026-03-25, entered 2026-03-26). The jury answered "NO" to infringement on every asserted claim, which under the verdict form's instructions ended the inquiry (no need to reach invalidity or damages). CourtListener Dkt. 1152
• Netflix's counsel characterized this as a "complete defense verdict" after roughly one day of deliberations. (WilmerHale press release, 2026-04-08)

11. Final judgment and post-trial motions (May – August 2026)

• 2026-05-07 — Final Judgment (Dkt. 1197, entered by Judge George H. Wu; JS-6, "Case Terminated"). Its operative terms:
  1. Netflix has not infringed and does not infringe claims 29 and 32 of the '673, claim 2 of the '651, claim 16 of the '792, and claims 1, 4 and 15 of the '486.
  2. '720 claims 1–2, 4, 5 and '515 claim 1 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101, per the Dec. 28, 2025 summary judgment rulings (Dkt. 774).
  3. Judgment for Netflix on Counts I–III and V–VII of the FAC and Counts I, III, V, X, XII–XIII of Netflix's counterclaims; Count IV of the FAC dismissed with prejudice; several counterclaim counts dismissed without prejudice; the '588 counts dismissed without prejudice (per Dkt. 840).
  4. "Plaintiff takes nothing from and against Netflix."
  5. Netflix is the prevailing party and shall recover costs (Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1920), with Netflix to file its bill of costs.
  6. All Rule 50(a) trial motions denied "without prejudice to … being renewed as post-trial motions."
     (Justia copy of Dkt. 1197)
• Post-trial motions (Rule 50(b) JMOL and Rule 59 new trial): DivX filed a Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Dkt. 1206) and a Motion for New Trial (Dkt. 1207) on 2026-06-04. Briefing followed (opposition 2026-07-16, Dkt. 1210/1211; reply 2026-08-03, Dkt. 1213/1214). The court resolved the new-trial motion by a Minutes of In Chambers Order (Dkt. 1215, 2026-08-21) and an Order on Motion for New Trial (Dkt. 1216, 2026-08-24). (I could not retrieve the text of these orders; on the docket pattern and the entry of final judgment, they appear to deny DivX's post-trial challenges, but I cannot confirm the holding or reasoning from the sources available to me.)
• A transcript was filed 2026-08-28 (Dkt. 1219/1220), with further docket activity through 2026-09-04 (Dkt. 1221). I could not confirm whether Dkt. 1221 is a notice of appeal, a bill of costs filing, or another transcript/docket item.

12. Final disposition and present posture

• Outcome: Complete defense outcome for Netflix. The jury found no infringement of any of the four tried patents; the court had already held the '720 and '515 claims invalid under § 101; the '588 patent claims were dismissed without prejudice after DivX granted Netflix a covenant not to sue following the Federal Circuit's 2026-02-13 reversal in Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, No. 2024-1541. Netflix was declared the prevailing party and awarded costs. Final judgment entered 2026-05-07; the docket carries the JS-6 "case terminated" flag.
• Posture as of 2026-09-30: The case is at final judgment with post-trial motions resolved in August 2026. DivX's avenues for further review would be a Federal Circuit appeal of the final judgment and/or the post-trial orders; the last docket activity I could verify runs to 2026-09-04. I did not find a confirmed notice of appeal, and I would not assert one without checking PACER directly.

---

Summary timeline (quick reference)

---

Caveats / verification gaps

1. The Feb. 3, 2026 '588 dismissal vs. the Feb. 13, 2026 Federal Circuit decision. The final judgment says the '588 claims were dismissed by stipulation on 2026-02-03, ten days before the Federal Circuit's 2026-02-13 reversal. WilmerHale's April 2026 summary ties the covenant not to sue to a reversal occurring "earlier this month." I could not fully reconcile those dates — it is possible the '588 was dropped from trial first, with the covenant not to sue mooting Netflix's '588 counterclaims after the appellate ruling. Treat the exact sequencing as unverified.
2. No standalone Markman — strongly supported by the record (pre-stay stay order noted claim construction had not occurred; post-stay schedule has no Markman phase), but not confirmed by a negative docket check.
3. Post-trial orders (Dkts. 1215–1216) — I could not retrieve their text; I have not confirmed whether the new-trial and JMOL motions were denied in full or in part.
4. Appeal status — no notice of appeal was confirmed. Anyone needing certainty should pull the PACER docket for entries after 2026-09-04.
5. Counsel attribution — DivX's trial team included Jason G. Sheasby (Irell & Manella) and Aaron R. Fahrenkrog (Robins Kaplan) per the Feb. 2025 minutes; firm attributions beyond the docket entries I reviewed should be confirmed.
6. The '651 patent ('651) IPR outcome and whether it was ever subject to a Netflix IPR petition was not fully resolved in my searches; the stay order noted that asserted claims in the '673, '792 and '515 patents were only partially challenged.

I'll start by verifying the known articles and searching for additional coverage.

Good — I found real Law360 coverage. Now let me verify the specific known articles listed in the prompt.

Press and analyst coverage of DivX v. Netflix

The U.S. case. The most granular contemporaneous reporting is Law360's case page, whose dated entries trace the dispute from DivX's March 2019 complaint against Netflix and Hulu ("the streaming giants wouldn't be nearly so successful without the use of the tech firm's inventions to easily send videos online") through the November 2019 denial of the Alice motions to dismiss ("factual questions stand in the way"), and then the post-stay phase. Law360's entry for 2026-03-26 records that "[a] California federal jury has cleared Netflix of allegations that it infringed a set of patents held by DivX covering video compression technology" — and Law360 is the outlet that consistently describes the asserted families as "anti-copying and image-quality patents," framing the '486 and '651 patents in functional rather than technical terms. Law360 followed up with 2026-07-17 (Netflix opposing new trial), 2026-08-24 (judge "not likely" to grant new trial, disagreeing that using "covers" instead of "includes" misled the jury), and 2026-09-04 (new trial denied because DivX "hasn't shown the jury's decision was not supported by substantial evidence"). Separately, Law360's PTAB docket page reports a 2026-09-22 development the prior sections of this case did not capture: the PTAB "ruled that Netflix was able to show that all the claims in a DivX streaming patent were invalid, following two previous decisions to the contrary and two trips to the Federal Circuit" — i.e., the post-remand '588 patent outcome. The only damages figure traceable to a party rather than a court filing comes from defense counsel: WilmerHale stated on 2026-04-08 that DivX "request[ed] more than $400 million in damages" at trial and had been seeking "more than $500 million" when the stay lifted. No damages were awarded; no settlement terms were ever reported.

The patent-prosecution and Federal Circuit story. The government-side and bar coverage is where the case is treated as significant beyond the parties. IPWatchdog (Eileen McDermott, 2023-10-25) covered the precedential Netflix v. DivX decision on the '720/'515 patents as a petitioner-burden case — "the Board should [not] have to decode a petition to locate additional arguments beyond the ones clearly made" — with Judge Dyk dissenting; IP Watchdog (2023-09-11) paired the Netflix v. DivX analogous-art ruling on the '792 patent with Apple v. Corephotonics, reporting that the CAFC held "the PTAB abused its discretion in finding that Netflix, Inc. failed to articulate a field of endeavor to establish analogous art." IP Update (McDermott Will & Emery) ran longer technical write-ups of the same two rulings ("Hit Rewind: Analogous Art and Field of Endeavor"; "Say Goodbye: Argument Not Presented in IPR Petition Is Waived") and, on 2026-02-26, of the grammar-based claim-construction reversal in No. 24-1541 ("The meaning is plain as day: Just follow the grammar"). The 24-1541 decision — in which the Federal Circuit held that "within the requested portions of the selected stream of protected video" modifies "encrypted portions of frames of video" rather than "encryption information" — drew unusually wide secondary coverage for a claim-construction case, including from Harvard JOLT's Digest, [Lexology](https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=22f2d043-8e72-4687-adf8-78837586467

Sources

• United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Entscheidung des Gerichts erster Instanz des Einheitlichen Patentgerichts Lokalkammer München erlassen am 15. September 2026
• DIVX, LLC v. Netflix, Inc. - September 22, 2026
• Netflix, Inc. v. Divx, LLC – CourtListener.com - Combined Opinion
• Organisation: DivX, Inc.
• 2026 WL 405791 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available
• 语法杀死专利：一个短语如何让DivX失去Netflix的合同 - 语法杀死专利：一个短语如何让DivX失去Netflix的合同
• Intellectual Property : Law360 : Legal News & Analysis
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
• Media & Entertainment : Law360 : Legal News & Analysis - - September 04, 2026
• DIVX, LLC v. Netflix, Inc.
• California : Law360 : Legal News & Analysis - Try our Advanced Search for more refined results

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

I have strong leads on plaintiff's counsel. Let me verify the trial team, firm changes, and pro hac vice details.

Now let me verify the firm transitions, later-appearing counsel, and in-house contacts.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff DivX, LLC — DivX, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., No. 2:19-cv-01602 (C.D. Cal.)

Bottom line: DivX's representation changed hands at least three times over the seven-year life of this case. The case was filed by Robins Kaplan LLP (Roman M. Silberfeld in Los Angeles, with Minneapolis patent partners as pro hac vice counsel); mid-case (2022–23, during the stay) DivX was represented by Tensegrity Law Group LLP, Brown Rudnick LLP, and later Olson Stein LLP; and by the March 2026 trial the lead team was Irell & Manella LLP, with Robins Kaplan still on the papers as co-counsel. Note that the most commonly cited "DivX counsel" for this case in secondary sources (WilmerHale/Law360 coverage) is defense counsel; the plaintiff-side team is far less reported and must be reconstructed from the docket itself.

---

1. Lead trial counsel (2024–2026): Irell & Manella LLP, Los Angeles / Newport Beach

Irell took over as lead counsel after the stay was lifted (May 2024). Jason G. Sheasby entered his appearance on August 9, 2024 (docket entry following the Court's grant of the substitution request at Dkt. No. 166), and Irell is listed first on DivX's signature blocks by the time of the January 2026 joint status report (Dkt. No. 780).

2. Co-counsel retained from the original filing: Robins Kaplan LLP

Robins Kaplan remained on DivX's signature blocks and service list through trial (Minneapolis office, 800 LaSalle Ave., Suite 2800).

3. Original filing counsel (March 2019) — Robins Kaplan LLP

The complaint (Dkt. No. 1), civil cover sheet, summons request, and notice of interested parties were filed March 5, 2019 by:

• Roman M. Silberfeld (SBN 62783) — then Robins Kaplan LLP, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3400, Los Angeles 90067 (local counsel of record; filed the complaint). An August 19, 2020 docket notice (#108) shows his co-counsel David M. Stein moving to Brown Rudnick LLP, Irvine; later filings show Stein at Olson Stein LLP (dstein@olsonstein.com).
• Christopher A. Seidl (pro hac vice), Aaron R. Fahrenkrog (pro hac vice), and Bryan J. Mechell (pro hac vice) — Robins Kaplan, Minneapolis; the Court issued pro hac vice deficiency notices for all three on March 6, 2019 (Dkt. Nos. 8, 9, 10).
• Daniel L. Allender (SBN 264651) — Robins Kaplan, Los Angeles (signature block on Dkt. No. 102).
• Additional names appearing on DivX's attorney roll via the UniCourt docket index (not individually verified by me): William E. Manske, Mary Pheng, Rajin S. Olson, Shui Li. Olson is plausibly connected to the Olson Stein LLP boutique alongside Stein — unverified.

4. Mid-case representation during the stay (2022–2023)

The April 17, 2023 joint status report (Dkt. No. 140) on the '588 appeal/remand was signed for DivX by:

• Matthew D. Powers (Bar No. 104795) — Tensegrity Law Group LLP, 555 Twin Dolphin Dr., Suite 650, Redwood Shores, CA 94065 (lead; a well-known patent trial lawyer and Tensegrity co-founder).
• Paul Ehrlich (228543), William P. Nelson (196091), Natasha M. Saputo (291151), Jerome Ma (335129) — Tensegrity Law Group.
• David M. Stein (SBN 198256) — Brown Rudnick LLP, 2211 Michelson Dr., 7th Floor, Irvine, CA 92612.

This confirms that the 2022–23 posture (the IPR/appeal phase) was handled by a Tensegrity + Brown Rudnick team, not by the firms that tried the case — an under-reported handoff worth flagging.

5. Related proceedings (not district-court counsel of record, but DivX's representatives elsewhere)

• PTAB patent-owner counsel: Kenneth Weatherwax, Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP (Santa Monica), appeared for DivX in the Netflix IPRs (e.g., IPR2020-00511 conference transcript, July 21, 2023). Netflix's IPR counsel was Sheppard Mullin (Harper Batts, Jeffrey Liang).
• ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1222 (DivX v. MediaTek et al.): Michael T. Renaud, Mintz Levin is identified as "Counsel to Complainant DivX, LLC" in correspondence. A K&L Gates attorney (Theodore Angelis) appears in the same document but the snippet is ambiguous on which party he represented — do not attribute him to DivX without verification.

6. In-house counsel

I have not verified any in-house DivX attorney of record in this litigation. What the record does show: Netflix's briefing (Dkt. No. 797-1) states DivX "has no engineering department, employs only one engineer, is led by an attorney, and engages in litigation and patent licensing as its primary business," and identifies Richard Nagle (CFO) and Nicholas Egnatios (deposed as a DivX corporate witness; a declaration of "N. Egnatios" supported DivX's 2020 stay opposition) as DivX-side figures. I found no source establishing that Egnatios — or any other named individual — is DivX's in-house counsel; the apportionment of work appears to be entirely outside counsel, consistent with DivX being a Fortress-controlled licensing vehicle.

---

Caveats and gaps

• I did not have direct PACER access; this is reconstructed from CourtListener/RECAP PDFs, Justia, archive.org mirrors of C.D. Cal. filings (gov.uscourts.cacd.738825.*), Irell's own website, and the Law360 attorney index. A PACER party/attorney report or the docket's "Attorneys" tab would be the authoritative check, particularly for Christine Park's and David C. McPhie's current status.
• Several DivX-side names appear only in sealed or redacted filings (the March 2026 trial briefs and sealing applications were filed under seal per Dkt. Nos. 1074–1076), so individual assignments at trial (who gave openings/closings) could not be confirmed from the public record.
• Contradiction to flag against the earlier sections: the prior "in the news" section correctly notes that the $400M/$500M damages figures come only from WilmerHale (defense counsel) and are uncorroborated — the same is true of editorial framings such as "anti-copying and image-quality patents." Neither the final judgment (Dkt. No. 1197) nor the new-trial denial (Dkt. No. 1221) names DivX's counsel in the copies I could retrieve, so counsel identification here rests on filed signature blocks and service lists rather than the judgments.
• The earlier-generated case summary describes the stay as "about 3.5 years"; the docket shows the stay granted May 11, 2020 (Dkt. No. 106) and lifted May 2024 per WilmerHale — closer to four years. Minor, but worth correcting.

Sources: Dkt. Nos. 1, 8–10, 102, 106, 108, 140, 780, 793-1, 797-1, 1152, 1197, 1221 (C.D. Cal. 2:19-cv-01602) via CourtListener, Justia, and archive.org RECAP mirrors; Irell & Manella attorney profiles and case studies; Law360 Irell attorney page for Aviel Menter; UniCourt docket index; PTAB IPR2020-00511 conference transcript; WilmerHale client alert, Apr. 8, 2026.

I'll research Netflix's counsel of record across the docket, firm announcements, and court filings.

Good — I have the core picture. Let me confirm the counsel transitions (Quinn Emanuel → WilmerHale), check for local/in-house counsel, and verify individual bios.

Let me nail down the Quinn Emanuel withdrawal, in-house counsel, the PTAB/appellate representation, and individual attorney details.

Counsel of Record for Netflix, Inc. (Defendant / Counterclaimant)

Bottom line: Netflix has been represented throughout by outside counsel, with a single firm-level change mid-case. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP appeared in 2019 and was formally replaced in December 2022 by Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, whose Denver partner Mary (Mindy) V. Sooter was lead trial counsel through the March 2026 verdict and post-trial motions. WilmerHale's Los Angeles office supplied the C.D. Cal.–admitted counsel satisfying the local-counsel requirement. I found no separate local-counsel firm and no in-house Netflix attorney entered on the docket.

---

1. Current counsel of record — Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (Dec. 2022 – present)

Additional attorneys who appeared on Netflix's behalf at trial (not verified as separately docketed counsel of record): Brittany B. Amadi, Arthur Coviello, Kate M. Saxton, Dominic Massa, Alicia M. Coneys, Zachary A. Nemtzow, and Suchinder Kalyan. WilmerHale's April 8, 2026 announcement names Sooter, Amadi, Coviello, Danford, Dennhardt, Gooch, Massa, and Saxton as the team that "led" the case, with Birkenfeld-Malpass, Clark, Coneys, Deol, Donovan, Fugere, Go, Guiney, Kalyan, Kina, Lambson, Mueller, Murphy, Nemtzow, O'Neill, Perry, Santasawatkul, and Xu listed as supporting attorneys. The court's own March 18, 2026 trial calendar confirms appearances by Coviello (650 area code), Amadi, Dennhardt (212), Saxton (617), Coneys, Nemtzow, and Kalyan — so those names are corroborated by a court source, not just firm marketing. Office locations for Amadi, Coviello, and Saxton are inferred only from the area codes on that calendar and I did not independently verify them.

---

2. Former counsel of record — Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP (2019 – Dec. 2022)

Quinn Emanuel filed Netflix's first appearances on May 13–15, 2019 and was Netflix's counsel through the stay, the Rule 12(b)(6) motion, and the early IPR/appeal phase. All five were removed by the Dec. 8, 2022 substitution (Dkt. 137):

• David A. Perlson (SBN 209502) — lead; San Francisco
• Lance L. Yang (SBN 260705) — Los Angeles/San Francisco; declared "I am a partner at Quinn Emanuel … counsel for Netflix" (Dkt. 126-1)
• Andrew M. Holmes (SBN 260475) — San Francisco
• Valerie A. Lozano (SBN 260020) — Los Angeles
• Brian P. Biddinger (SBN 224604) — New York

Quinn Emanuel's Perlson/Yang/Holmes also handled Netflix's unsuccessful motions to dismiss (Dkt. 44, 61) and its answer/counterclaim.

---

3. Related representation (not district-court counsel of record)

• PTAB / IPR proceedings: Netflix's IPR petitioners' counsel was Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP — Harper Batts and Jeffrey Liang (Menlo Park, CA), per the July 21, 2023 conference transcript in IPR2020-00511. These attorneys do not appear as counsel of record in 2:19-cv-01602.
• Related case dynamic: Sooter/WilmerHale also represented Hulu, LLC in the coordinated DivX v. Hulu matters (C.D. Cal. 2:19-cv-01606 / 2:21-cv-01615), which is how the firm's DivX-patent experience predates its Netflix substitution.
• In-house counsel: The protective order (Dkt. 100, Apr. 22, 2020) defines and accommodates "House Counsel," and Netflix's VP Corporate Controller Helen Ponce was deposed, but I found no Netflix in-house attorney entered as counsel of record in any docket entry I could access.

---

4. Flags and verification notes

• Contradiction — WilmerHale's retainer date. WilmerHale's April 8, 2026 client alert states the firm "was retained shortly before the stay was lifted in May 2024." The docket shows a WilmerHale partner (James M. Dowd) substituted in as Netflix's counsel of record on Dec. 8, 2022 (Dkt. 137), and Sooter signing Netflix's Oct. 30, 2023 joint status report. The firm's retainer therefore predates May 2024 by well over a year. Either the alert is imprecise (possibly describing when the trial team was staffed up), or the docket reflects earlier WilmerHale involvement than the alert acknowledges. I'd treat the docket as controlling.
• Unresolved docket entry. A March 2026 G-123 filing adjacent to Casamassima's appearance for Netflix states that "Peter Hampton Lusk is no longer counsel of record for the aforementioned party in this case." The party reference is ambiguous in the snippet I could retrieve, and I could not verify which side Lusk represented, his firm, or the date of his withdrawal. Do not list him without pulling the actual docket entry.
• Individual bios. Sooter's role and experience are well sourced (firm bio, court calendar, filings). For Amadi, Coviello, Saxton, Massa, Danford, Casamassima, Dowd, Gooch, and Choy I have docket-verified names, bar numbers, and office addresses but only limited bio-level detail; I did not confirm each one's specific patent-litigation track record.
• No sealed-counsel issue. Counsel identities here are not sealed — the appearances and signature blocks are on the public docket (Dkt. 126, 137, 142, 780, 793-1, 796-1, 797-1, 800-1), so this is not a case where counsel "hasn't appeared yet."

Primary sources: Dkt. 137 (Request to Substitute, Dec. 8, 2022) — CourtListener; Dkt. 126 (Quinn Emanuel opposition, Feb. 4, 2022) — CourtListener; Dkt. 780 (Joint Status Report, Jan. 2026) — CourtListener; Dkt. 800-1 (Netflix MIL, Jan. 29, 2026) — CourtListener; C.D. Cal. trial calendar, Mar. 18, 2026 — cacd.uscourts.gov; WilmerHale alert, Apr. 8, 2026 — wilmerhale.com; Sooter bio — wilmerhale.com; IPR2020-00511 conference transcript (Sheppard Mullin for Netflix) — docketalarm.com; docket history of initial appearances — Unified Patents portal.