DivX, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.

I'll research this case thoroughly using web search, then synthesize an overview.

Let me gather details on DivX's corporate status, the asserted patents' technology, and related litigation.

Case Overview and Background — DivX, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., Inv. No. 337‑TA‑1222

The parties. The complainant, DivX, LLC of San Diego, is the video‑codec company originally founded in 2000 as DivXNetworks, but the entity asserting these patents is a Fortress Investment Group vehicle. Court filings in DivX's parallel Netflix litigation state that "DivX CF Holdings LLC was created in 2017 by Fortress, subsequently acquired the old DivX's patents, and renamed itself to DivX, LLC in 2018, before suing Netflix," and that the current entity "no longer has an R&D department and employs only one engineer," with a board controlled by Fortress personnel (CourtListener, DivX v. Netflix, Dkt. 797‑1). Unified Patents describes DivX as "an NPE and entity of Fortress Investment Group LLC" (Unified Patents, Sept. 2026). So this is a hybrid: a legacy operating brand monetizing a patent portfolio through a litigation‑focused affiliate — not a classic university or lone‑inventor PAE, but squarely within the Fortress monetization model. The respondents are hardware manufacturers: Samsung (Korea/US/Vietnam), LG (Korea/US), the chipmakers MediaTek/MStar (Taiwan/US) and Realtek (Taiwan), and the TCL family (China/US/Hong Kong/Vietnam) — i.e., the makers of smart‑TV systems‑on‑chip, SoCs, and finished smart TVs (USITC News Release 20‑116).

The accused technology. The investigation covers "certain video processing devices, components thereof, and digital smart televisions containing the same" — principally smart TVs and the video‑processing chips inside them that perform adaptive bitrate (ABR) streaming using protocols like MPEG‑DASH/HLS (the same functionality DivX accused in its Hulu and Netflix suits). DivX's complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement, targeting the activation of streaming software on internet‑connected TVs and the resulting end‑user playback (ITC complaint excerpts). The four asserted patents are: U.S. 8,832,297 — "multiphase adaptive bitrate streaming," a playback device that switches between "steady state" and "acquisition" modes as network conditions change (DivX's oldest asserted patent, issued Sept. 2014); U.S. 10,212,486; U.S. 10,412,141; and U.S. 10,484,749 — later‑issued (2019) streaming/delivery patents that, per contemporaneous press coverage, cover "various video encoding techniques… aimed at establishing secure, fully encrypted connections," with the '141 patent tied to trick‑play/secure encoded streams (NextTV; sammobile). The precise per‑claim technical mapping sits in the confidential record; I'd flag that the one‑line sketches for the '486 and '749 are approximate.

Posture, venue, and why it matters. This is not a district‑court case but a Section 337 investigation at the U.S. International Trade Commission, instituted October 19, 2020 (85 FR 66355), and assigned to ALJ MaryJoan McNamara; the Commission set a 17.5‑month target date (completion ~April 2022) and the Office of Unfair Import Investigations was not a party. The ITC matters because it can issue limited exclusion orders and cease‑and‑desist orders blocking imports — powerful leverage against the world's largest TV/SoC importers — on a compressed timeline with a bench (ALJ) trial rather than a jury, though it awards no damages. The evidentiary hearing ran July 7–15, 2021, by which point the case had narrowed sharply: MediaTek settled (Order 37, terminated Mar. 2021), LG and Samsung settled and were terminated (Order 69, Aug. 12, 2021, unreviewed Sept. 15, 2021), and Realtek was terminated on DivX's own withdrawal (Order 67, July 16, 2021) — with DivX and TCL, the last respondent, settling and jointly terminating the investigation (Order 76, Apr. 22, 2022; Commission declined review May 24, 2022, 87 FR 32184‑85) (Federal Register, 87 FR 32184). Notably, the case is notable less for a merits ruling than for the litigation-conduct fight: Realtek filed a rare sanctions motion against DivX alleging DivX asserted "frivolous" claims against it only to obtain third‑party discovery it could not otherwise subpoena from a foreign non‑party, then dismissed on the eve of hearing (Realtek's motion, IPR exhibit). The ALJ denied the sanctions motion (Order 75, Apr. 22, 2022), Realtek petitioned for Commission review, DivX counter‑moved for sanctions, and the Commission denied both (Aug. 2022, 87 FR 2022‑18606); Realtek then appealed to the Federal Circuit (No. 2023‑1095), which appears to have been the last live thread (see the DivX v. Realtek D. Del. record recounting the appeal). The assertion campaign was global and multi‑front — parallel D. Del. (DivX v. LG, 1:20‑cv‑01202) and E.D. Tex. (DivX v. Samsung, 2:21‑cv‑00187) suits plus actions in Germany and Brazil (Law360 via CourtListener) — and the patents overlap heavily with DivX's separate Hulu/Netflix/Amazon/Roku campaigns, drawing Unified Patents IPR/reexam challenges and a related IPR on the '297 patent. The practical takeaway: DivX** monetized the portfolio through a settlement string (MediaTek → LG → Samsung → TCL)** without ever obtaining a final Commission merits determination, while the Realtek sanctions/appeal saga became the lasting legal artifact. Caveat: the sanctions appeal outcome and the exact claim‑level technical scopes are not fully verified from the sources retrieved here, and the Realtek sanctions motion reflects one party's characterization.

I'll research the procedural history and legal developments across the ITC docket, PTAB, and Federal Circuit.

Good material. Now let me dig into the claim construction order, PTAB proceedings, and the parallel district court/ITC tracks.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome — Inv. No. 337‑TA‑1222

Note on framing: Because this is a Section 337 investigation rather than a district‑court action, several of the categories in the task brief map onto ITC analogs: a complaint, a notice of investigation (in lieu of a summons/case management order), responses to the complaint and affirmative defenses (in lieu of an answer; counterclaims are not within the Commission's jurisdiction under Commission Rule 210.14(e)), orders/initial determinations (IDs) (in lieu of orders), and summary determination (in lieu of summary judgment). Commission rulings are "unreviewed" rather than "affirmed" when the full Commission declines review. Below I flag where the record I could retrieve is thin or where two sources disagree.

Chronology of substantive developments

Filing and initial pleadings

DivX's September 2020 complaint (as supplemented) alleged violations of § 337 through infringement of U.S. 8,832,297 (adaptive‑bitrate streaming), '486, '141 (secure/trick‑play streaming) and '749, plus a domestic industry. The requested remedy was an LEO plus CDOs — the standard ITC ask, and the reason a settling respondent avoids the case rather than litigating to judgment. Respondents were the Samsung, LG, MediaTek/MStar, Realtek and TCL families — 17 named entities spanning Korea, the U.S., Vietnam, Taiwan, China and Hong Kong.

One structural point worth stating explicitly: no counterclaims were litigated here. Under Commission Rule 210.14(e), a counterclaim asserted in an ITC investigation is outside the Commission's jurisdiction and must be severed for possible transfer to district court; respondents' defensive posture instead ran through responses to the complaint and the statutory affirmative defenses (non‑infringement, invalidity, no domestic industry, no importation). I could not retrieve the individual response‑to‑complaint filing dates from the public record in this session, so I would not state them.

Claim narrowing and partial terminations (the dominant feature of the case)

The single most striking procedural pattern is serial claim withdrawal. DivX unilaterally shed claims four times — Order No. 25 (Jan. 2021), Order No. 34 (Feb. 2021), Order No. 49 (Apr. 2021) and Order No. 65 (June 2021) — each unreviewed. This is the classic ITC claim‑reduction discipline (ALJ McNamara's Ground Rule 1.14 requires the parties to identify the ten most significant terms and DivX to cut claims toward 3‑4 per patent by 2021‑03‑19), and it converted the original ~60 asserted claims into a small, litigable set. Respondent‑specific carve‑outs in Order No. 49 (certain '297 and '141 claims dropped only as to LG and Realtek) show the complaints were being tailored respondent‑by‑respondent as settlements landed.

Claim construction

Order No. 40 (2021‑03‑12) is the Markman outcome. DivX's opening brief (2021‑01‑19) framed the fight as: Respondents sought constructions that would render every claim across two technologies indefinite, while DivX pressed plain‑and‑ordinary meaning plus one lexicography term. The public corroborated result is a DivX win on the substance: contemporaneous Law360 reporting states that the settlements followed LG and Samsung "los[ing] the bulk of claim construction in March" and then losing a summary‑determination bid. I could not retrieve the full text of Order No. 40 in this session, so the term‑by‑term constructions should be treated as unverified.

Flag — one genuine ambiguity: Realtek's sanctions motion refers to "the ALJ's Order No. 40, which (had DivX followed it) would have ended this Investigation as to Realtek no later than March 2021." That reads as a different Order No. 40 (an order on Realtek's contentions/termination), yet the Commission's own chronology identifies Order No. 40 as the Markman order of the same date. These two uses may be conflating an order and its March 2021 consequences, or there may be a numbering error in one source. I would resolve it against the EDIS original before publishing.

Dispositive motions and discovery

• Discovery was compressed and contentious: motions‑to‑compel cutoff of 2021‑02‑05 (Order No. 11), fact‑discovery cutoff of 2021‑03‑26, mandatory mediation on 2021‑03‑19, and a revised schedule ordered at the 2021‑03‑02 management conference because of "discovery difficulties." DivX served initial infringement contentions on 2021‑02‑08 — the date that becomes central to the Realtek sanctions story.
• Summary determination: Law360 reports that Samsung and LG "lost a bid for summary determination of noninfringement." The procedural schedule permitted summary‑determination motions up to roughly the eve of hearing; I could not identify the order number or date of that ruling, so treat the citation as unresolved.
• No stay pending IPR. The ITC does not stay investigations pending PTAB proceedings as a matter of course, and I found no stay motion in this investigation. The only stay in the ecosystem ran the other direction — the parallel district court stayed its case pending the ITC (below).

The Realtek sanctions saga — the case's lasting legal artifact

Realtek's motion (Rule 210.4 / 210.25(b)) alleged four categories of sanctionable conduct: (1) that DivX intentionally violated Order No. 40, which would have ended the investigation as to Realtek by March 2021; (2) false representations and misleading testimony to the ALJ; (3) abuse of the § 337 process to divide the supply chain and use litigation cost as leverage for settlements from component suppliers; and (4) pursuit of frivolous claims solely to obtain discovery from a Taiwanese corporation otherwise outside the Commission's subpoena reach — then dismissing on the eve of hearing. Realtek characterized DivX's own pre‑hearing statement as admitting the accused functionality came from Netflix/Amazon software and TV makers, not Realtek's silicon. These are one party's characterizations; the ALJ rejected the motion, and neither the Commission nor the Federal Circuit endorsed the factual allegations.

Order No. 75 (2022‑04‑22) denied the motion — principally on procedural grounds (the 7‑12 month delay ran afoul of Rule 210.25(a)(1)'s promptness requirement). The Commission declined review and denied DivX's reciprocal sanctions motion (87 FR 53002‑03, Aug. 30, 2022), ending both sanctions proceedings.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit dismissed in a precedential opinion, Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v. International Trade Commission, No. 2023‑1095 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 18, 2025) (Moore, C.J.; Reyna and Taranto, JJ.; Reyna authored). The court held that under 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2) the Commission's refusal to sua sponte order DivX to show cause under Rule 210.4(d)(1)(ii) is "committed to agency discretion by law" and unreviewable — "[t]o find otherwise would be a contradiction in terms, as it would mean a 'sua sponte' act under the Commission's initiative could be demanded by a party or compelled by a court of review." The panel expressly did not reach standing or § 1295(a)(6)/§ 1337(c) jurisdiction (footnote), and it rejected Realtek's "shenanigans" argument. Commentary split: Sterne Kessler read it as a caution to move for sanctions promptly at the ITC, while Dennis Crouch (Patently‑O, "Narrowly Broad") argued the panel's discretionary‑unreviewability reasoning was overbroad even if the result was right. The ITC's own brief flagged that the ruling could have Rule 11 spillover into FRCP 11(c)(3) practice.

Final disposition and current posture

• No merits determination ever issued. The investigation terminated on 2022‑05‑24 (unreviewed Order No. 76) based on the DivX–TCL settlement, before any ID on violation. No exclusion order, no cease‑and‑desist order. DivX's monetization ran through a settlement chain — MediaTek (Mar. 2021) → LG and Samsung (July–Aug. 2021) → TCL (Apr. 2022) — with Realtek exiting by withdrawal rather than payment.
• The Fed. Cir. decision of 2025‑03‑18 is the terminal event; with the appeal dismissed, all threads from 337‑TA‑1222 are closed.

Parallel PTAB proceedings — insufficiently verified

I was not able to confirm specific IPR/PGR docket numbers for the four asserted patents ('297, '486, '141, '749) within this research session, and I would not invent them. What is well grounded: (i) the prior section's finding that Unified Patents (which describes DivX as a Fortress entity) has mounted IPR/reexam challenges to DivX's video‑playback patents, including a "related IPR on the '297 patent"; (ii) the procedural schedule required the parties to identify USPTO proceedings early (Nov. 2, 2020 deadline), indicating known PTAB activity; and (iii) the '297 patent is the same patent family DivX has asserted across the Hulu/Netflix/Amazon/Roku campaigns, where the IPR activity is concentrated. Effect on this litigation: none demonstrable — no stay was sought or granted, no claim was cancelled in a way that altered the investigation, and the case settled out before any PTAB ruling could matter. This is a gap to fill against PTAB‑PTO before publication.

Parallel and related proceedings

• D. Del., DivX, LLC v. [LG Electronics Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/LG%20Electronics%20Inc.) et al. / DivX, LLC v. Realtek Semiconductor Corp., C.A. No. 1:20‑cv‑01202 (‑CFC‑JLH / ‑JLH): District Judge Jennifer L. Hall granted Defendants' unopposed motion to stay pending the ITC determination on 2020‑11‑19, staying all proceedings and giving Defendants 30 days from dissolution of the stay to respond; DivX later moved to stay as to Realtek pending final ITC determination. The case survived against Realtek after LG settled. Per Sterne Kessler, Realtek argued for dismissal with prejudice based on the millions spent defending the co‑pending ITC case (D.I. 74 at 9); the court held that co‑pending ITC litigation did not warrant a with‑prejudice dismissal and noted Realtek could pursue (and was pursuing) ITC sanctions — the case was then dismissed (D.I. 78, June 4, 2024).
• E.D. Tex., DivX LLC v. [Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%20Ltd.) et al., No. 2:21‑cv‑00187: filed 2021; resolved as part of the July 2021 Samsung settlement. I did not verify a stay order or a dismissal entry.
• Germany and Brazil: DivX's own statement confirms the LG/Samsung settlements closed litigation "spann[ing] the U.S. International Trade Commission, Delaware, Texas, Germany and Brazil" (Law360).
• Inv. No. 337‑TA‑1295: a follow‑on DivX ITC investigation in which Realtek was also involved; Realtek's parallel appeal No. 23‑1187 (sanctions and declassification) arises from it, and the ITC's brief in 2023‑1095 flags the two appeals as potentially affecting each other. The respondent set and outcome in 1295 are unverified here.

Contradictions and open items to resolve before publication

1. Presiding ALJ: the Commission's notices, orders and the Federal Circuit opinion all identify ALJ MaryJoan McNamara. Finnegan's experience page for 337‑TA‑1222 lists "Judge Shaw." That is almost certainly a Finnegan page error (or a reference to a different phase/case); the metadata and the primary ITC/CAFC documents control.
2. Hearing start date: Law360 says the hearing ran July 7–15, 2021; the Commission's own Aug. 2022 Federal Register notice says July 8–15, 2021. The Commission notice is the better source.
3. Commission sanctions dates: the notice of determination was published 2022‑08‑30 (87 FR 53002‑03), while the Federal Circuit brief cites a Commission Opinion dated 2022‑09‑13. Likely a notice‑then‑opinion sequence, but not confirmed.
4. Order No. 40's dual role (Markman order vs. the order Realtek says should have ended its involvement) — see above.
5. PTAB docket numbers for the '297/'486/'141/'749 patents — not verified.
6. D. Del. dismissal terms (with vs. without prejudice) and the E.D. Tex. disposition — sourced only indirectly.

I'll research press coverage of this case across multiple outlets and angles.

Let me verify the specific articles and search for mainstream/trade coverage.

Press coverage of DivX v. Samsung (Inv. No. 337‑TA‑1222)

The filing drew trade and legal-press coverage, not mainstream attention. The most substantive launch-day piece came from NextTV, which reported in October 2020 that "DivX LLC, a part of notorious patent litigator Fortress Investment Group," was suing Samsung and LG over "four DivX patents via video processing components found in products including smart TVs." NextTV noted that three of the four patents had issued within the prior year and that the oldest — the '297 — relates to "multiphase adaptive bitrate streaming," while "[t]he newer patents pertain to various video encoding techniques aimed at establishing secure, encrypted connections." It also supplied framing that goes beyond the pleadings: that Fortress was "purchased by SoftBank for $3.3 billion in 2018," "controls more than 1,000 patents," and has litigated against Netflix and Hulu, plus Statista-derived market-share figures (Samsung ~32% of the U.S. smart-TV market, LG fourth at 12%). One factual slip worth flagging: NextTV described Realtek as "LG's RealTek Semiconductor unit," which is incorrect — Realtek is an independent Taiwanese chipmaker. Chinese trade coverage came via China Daily, which reported TCL's statement that it "had evaluated the investigation, and the impact on the company's operation is limited." DivX's own side of the story was pushed through a company release on DivX.com, quoting CEO Brian Way on the company's "over 400 pending and issued patents."

The July 2021 settlements produced the only coverage with real detail. Law360 (Dani Kass, "Samsung, LG Settle DivX Patent Fights Over Smart TVs," July 29, 2021 — the copy I retrieved is a Law360 reprint docketed in the DivX v. Netflix C.D. Cal. record, since the original is paywalled) reported that the deals were confidential but "will ensure the patents aren't infringed without a license," ending litigation "that spanned the U.S. International Trade Commission, Delaware, Texas, Germany and Brazil." Law360 quoted Way: "We are very pleased with the recognition by Samsung and LG, two of the largest consumer electronics manufacturers in the world, that DivX's patented video streaming technology should no longer be used without a license." Notably, Law360's account of why the respondents settled was sourced to DivX — that Samsung and LG "bowed out" of the ITC case a week before the hearing, "after LG and Samsung lost the bulk of claim construction in March and then lost a bid for summary determination of noninfringement." That is the complainant's characterization; the press did not report a merits ruling, and no damages figure appears in any account — consistent with the ITC's inability to award money damages.

The Realtek sanctions saga is where the case generated genuine legal-analysis coverage. IPWatchdog (Steve Brachmann, Mar. 19, 2025) covered the Federal Circuit's precedential dismissal in Realtek v. ITC, No. 2023‑1095, framing the takeaway as "the importance of timely pursuing concerns over sanctionable conduct." It quoted Joshua Hartman (Merchant & Gould) explaining that Rule 210.4 "closely tracks" FRCP 11's safe-harbor, and warning that Realtek's reading would render the safe harbor "toothless"; it also quoted Evan Langdon on the value of agency-experienced counsel. Sterne Kessler read the decision as confirming the Commission "cannot be compelled to issue [a] sua sponte order," and — reporting beyond the opinion — noted the court left open "whether a petitioner may avoid sanctions at the Commission by simply terminating the investigation as to the respondent alleging sanctionable conduct," plus the parallel D. Del. dismissal (DivX v. Realtek, D.I. 78, June 4, 2024). National Law Review, VitalLaw's IP Law Daily (Kevin Finson) and the Fed Circuit Blog all summarized the ruling; VitalLaw's piece contained a notable error, stating "DivX appealed" when Realtek was the appellant. The sharpest critical take came from Dennis Crouch on Patently‑O ("Narrowly Broad: The Federal Circuit's Improper Expansion of Unreviewable Agency Discretion"), who argued the court's § 701(a)(2) discretionary-unreviewability reasoning was overbroad even if the outcome was right.

Ongoing-campaign roundups treated this case as one thread in a Fortress monetization story. IPWatchdog ("Patent Filings Roundup: … Fortress-Backed DivX Rolls On," Nov. 3, 2022) reported DivX (identified as "[SoftBank Group Corp., Fortress IP]") filing a new Amazon.com suit, 1:22‑cv‑01201, asserting the same '297 patent from this investigation plus four others — evidence the portfolio campaign continued after the ITC case closed. Caveats: the other IPWatchdog "Patent Filings Roundup" items in the provided list are real and indexed, but I could not verify their DivX-specific content within this session, so I have not attributed any claims to them. I also could not verify in this session the previously cited sammobile article, and there appears to be no Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Ars Technica, or Verge coverage of this ITC investigation specifically — coverage lived in legal/trade press (Law360, IPWatchdog, NextTV, Sterne Kessler, VitalLaw, China Daily) and DivX's own releases, and the settlement terms and any license payments remain undisclosed in every account located.

Sources

• Counsel, U
• USITC Institutes Section 337 Investigation of Certain Video Processing Devices, Components Thereof, and Digital Smart Televisions Containing the Same
• Section 337 | United States International Trade Commission
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
• 4.38. Complainant has attached as Confidential Exhibit 47 a list, which identifies certain entities who have obtained licenses t...
• Secretary to the Commission. - International Trade Commission
• Acting Secretary to the Commission. - International Trade Commission
• 中国贸易救济信息网 - 公告
• 美国ITC发布对视频处理设备及其组件和数字智能电视及其下游产品的337部分终裁
• 中国贸易救济信息网
• 美国ITC正式对视频处理设备及其组件和数字智能电视及其下游产品启动337调查

I'll research the counsel of record for DivX (the complainant) in this ITC investigation.

Good leads — Mintz appears to be DivX's counsel. Let me verify the full team and roles.

Counsel of record for the complainant, DivX, LLC (Inv. No. 337‑TA‑1222)

Bottom line: DivX was represented throughout this investigation by a single national firm, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. ("Mintz"), working out of its Boston headquarters with support from its Washington, D.C. and San Francisco offices. There is no separate "local counsel" in this case — the ITC has no local-counsel rule, so the Delaware firm (Farnan LLP) that appeared for DivX was acting only in the parallel D. Del. actions, not in the 337 investigation (see caveat below). No in-house DivX attorney is identified in the public ITC or Federal Circuit record I retrieved.

Counsel of record — complaining party DivX, LLC

Service/courtesy copies in the ITC went to the team distribution address DivX-ITC@mintz.com (and, earlier, individual Mintz addresses such as ARizk@mintz.com and MAKarambelas@mintz.com).

Key sourcing

• Federal Circuit, Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v. ITC, No. 2023‑1095 (decided Mar. 18, 2025) — identifies DivX's intervenor counsel as "William Meunier, Mintz… Boston, MA, argued for intervenor. Also represented by Samuel Davenport, Matthew A. Karambelas, Michael Renaud, Adam Rizk, James M. Wodarski; Nana Liu, San Francisco, CA." Opinion PDF
• Complainant DivX, LLC's Claim Construction Brief, Inv. No. 337‑TA‑1222 (Jan. 19, 2021) — signature block listing Renaud, Wodarski, Rizk, Weinger, McConihe, Karambelas, Perry, Nana Liu (Boston) and Aarti Shah (D.C.) as "Counsel for Complainant DivX, LLC." Document
• ITC Order No. 49 certificate of service (Apr. 2021) — "On Behalf of Complainant DivX, LLC: Adam Rizk, Esq., MINTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS GLOVSKY AND POPEO PC, One Financial Center, Boston, MA." Record copy
• DivX's Federal Circuit appearance, No. 24‑2061 (July 26, 2024) — corrected entry of appearance by Michael Renaud for appellee DivX, LLC. CourtListener docket #11
• Mintz press release, "Samsung, LG Settle DivX Patent Fights Over Smart TVs" — "The Mintz team representing DivX is led by Member and Chair of the firm's Intellectual Property Division Michael Renaud and Member Adam Rizk and includes… Matthew Hurley… Keith Carroll, Marguerite McConihe, Michael McNamara, Samuel Davenport, and Daniel Weinger, and Associates Matthew Karambelas, Jessica Perry, and Nana Liu." Mintz.com
• Michael Renaud Chambers USA profile (ITC Section 337; "primarily represents patent owners as complainants before the ITC"). Chambers
• Matthew A. Karambelas Mintz bio (ITC practice; 2024 Patexia ranking; GlobalFoundries matter). Mintz.com

Caveats and flags

1. I did not retrieve the EDIS notice(s) of appearance themselves. EDIS is the authoritative source for "counsel of record" and for any formal "lead counsel" designation under 19 C.F.R. § 210.5; the roles above are reconstructed from signed briefs, certificates of service, and the Federal Circuit opinions/appearance forms. Where I say "lead counsel," that reflects who argued and signed as principal (Renaud as "Principal Counsel" on the CAFC Form 8A; Meunier as oral advocate), not a formal ITC designation I verified in a notice of appearance.
2. District-court local counsel is not ITC counsel. In the parallel D. Del. actions (DivX v. Realtek, 1:20‑cv‑01202, and DivX v. LG, 1:20‑cv‑01203), Farnan LLP of Wilmington, Delaware — Brian Farnan, Michael Farnan, and Rosemary Jean Piergiovanni — appeared as Delaware local counsel alongside Mintz, and Mintz filed in the district court as "of counsel." Those attorneys did not represent DivX in the 337 investigation. If the question is read to include DivX's full U.S. enforcement team, Farnan LLP belongs in the answer but should be labeled district-court-only.
3. Role changes over time. The investigation ran Oct. 2020–May 2022, and the appended Federal Circuit proceedings ran to 2025; the team composition shifted (e.g., Weinger's withdrawal in the D. Del. case; Davenport and Meunier appearing mainly at later stages). I have not verified each attorney's precise appearance and withdrawal dates in EDIS.
4. Adverse-party context worth noting: the Realtek sanctions motion (Order No. 75 denied it, Apr. 22, 2022) was directed at "DivX LLC and its counsel" — i.e., the Mintz team — and Realtek's § 210.4 pre-sanctions notice was addressed to Michael Renaud. That motion reflects one party's characterization and was ultimately denied; the Federal Circuit dismissed Realtek's appeal of the denial (Fed. Cir. 2023‑1095, Mar. 18, 2025).

I'll research counsel of record for the respondents in this ITC investigation. Note that this is a Section 337 matter, so the authoritative docket is the ITC's EDIS system rather than PACER. Let me search.

Good initial data. Let me pull the full service lists and confirm per-respondent counsel.

Counsel of record — Respondents, Inv. No. 337‑TA‑1222

Threshold note on the record source. This is a Section 337 investigation, so the docket of record is the Commission's EDIS system (https://edis.usitc.gov) — not PACER. There is no jury, no "local counsel" rule (ITC practice does not require a locally-admitted attorney), and counsel appear via Notices of Appearance plus the Commission's Certificates of Service on each order. I could not log into EDIS directly; the rosters below are reconstructed from ITC Certificates of Service reproduced in public filings (notably Order No. 11, served Nov. 10, 2020, and the Mar. 8, 2021 service list, both docketed as exhibits in DivX v. Realtek, D. Del. 1:20‑cv‑01202), the Realtek sanctions motion, the Federal Circuit appeal, and firm website profiles. Where a name appears only on a service list rather than in a formal notice of appearance, I say so. Because the investigation terminated/settled (Order No. 76; 87 FR 32184), the roster reflects 2020–2022 personnel, not a live case.

---

1. Samsung — Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; Samsung Electronics HCMC CE Complex Co., Ltd.

Fish & Richardson P.C. (primary); K&L Gates also appears in the early service string.

Caveat: Ruffin Cordell is firmly documented as Samsung's lead trial counsel in the parallel district court matters; I did not find a document naming him as the ITC-1222 attorney of record, so treat his ITC role as unconfirmed. The certificate of service names Kodish and Marshall.

---

2. LG — LG Electronics Inc.; LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Discrepancy flag: Finnegan's own page lists the ALJ as "Judge Shaw," but every Commission notice and the EDIS service email (McNamara337@usitc.gov) identifies the presiding judge as ALJ MaryJoan McNamara. Treat Finnegan's ALJ name as an error.

---

3. MediaTek / MStar — MediaTek, Inc.; MediaTek USA Inc.; MStar Semiconductor, Inc.

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP

Note: This respondent group settled/terminated in March 2021 (Order No. 37), so the MediaTek appearances were short‑lived and the Quinn team rotated off early.

---

4. Realtek Semiconductor Corp.

K&L Gates LLP

Context: Angelis's team filed the rare sanctions motion against DivX (Order No. 75 denied it), and the resulting Federal Circuit appeal became the case's lasting legal artifact.

---

5. TCL family — TCL Corporation; TCL Technology Group Corp.; TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd.; TTE Technology, Inc.; Shenzhen TCL New Technologies Co.; TCL King Electrical Appliances (Huizhou) Co.; TCL MOKA International Ltd.; TCL Smart Device (Vietnam) Co.

Brinks Gilson & Lione (the firm has since become part of Crowell & Moring)

Note: The TCL service string used both TCL-1222@brinksgilson.com and TCL-1222@crowell.com, consistent with the Brinks→Crowell transition. TCL was the last respondent, terminating May 2022 (Order No. 76; 87 FR 32184).

---

Summary observations

1. Structural feature: In the ITC, each respondent group retained its own national ITC‑practice firm — Fish & Richardson → Samsung, Finnegan → LG, Quinn Emanuel → MediaTek, K&L Gates → Realtek, Brinks Gilson & Lione → TCL. There is no single defense firm and no "local counsel" layer as in district court.
2. Longevity tracks the settlement string. Quinn Emanuel (MediaTek) and K&L Gates (Realtek) exited by mid‑2021; Fish and Finnegan (Samsung/LG) exited Aug.–Sept. 2021; Brinks/Crowell (TCL) stayed to the May 2022 termination. So "counsel of record" is time‑dependent.
3. Complainant's side (for contrast, not requested): Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo (Michael T. Renaud, Adam S. Rizk, Matthew A. Karambelas, et al.), with the ITC‑appeal argument by William Meunier (Mintz) in the Realtek Federal Circuit appeal (VitalLaw).
4. In‑house counsel: I found no named in‑house attorneys in the public filings — the respondents litigated through outside counsel, as is typical at the ITC.

Honest sourcing limits: (a) I could not open EDIS itself, so the rosters rest on certificates of service quoted in public court exhibits and firm pages; a formal EDIS Notices‑of‑Appearance pull would confirm exact spellings and any additional of‑counsel. (b) Some names above (e.g., the K&L Gates/Orrick appellate list, Ruffin Cordell) come from adjacent proceedings (the Federal Circuit appeal and parallel district‑court litigation) rather than this investigation's ITC appearance filings — flagged individually. (c) I could not verify whether any individual attorney's appearance was withdrawn mid‑investigation; the mere appearance on a service list does not prove active participation on every date.