DivX, LLC v. TCL Technology Group Corp. et al.

I'll research this case thoroughly before drafting the overview.

Good foundation. Now let me dig into the parties' identities, related litigation, and PTAB linkage.

Below is a case overview and background for DivX, LLC v. TCL Technology Group Corp. et al., ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1297. I've grounded each point in the primary ITC Federal Register notices, the co-pending Delaware/Netflix record, and PTAB filings, and I flag where sourcing is thin.

---

The parties. The complainant is DivX, LLC of San Diego, CA (4350 La Jolla Village Dr.). Although it trades on the DivX brand, the current entity is not the original DivX operating company: it was formed on December 15, 2017 as "DivX CF Holdings LLC" by Fortress Investment Group, and in February 2018 acquired the DivX patent portfolio (via NeuLion subsidiary Sonic IP, Inc.) and renamed itself "DivX, LLC" (Delaware DJ complaint, TPV v. DivX, ¶¶ 4–5; Netflix C.D. Cal. brief, No. 2:19-cv-01602, D.I. 797-1, describing DivX as a Fortress-created pass-through entity that "has no engineering department, employs only one engineer, is led by an attorney, and engages in litigation and patent licensing as its primary business," 97% owned by Fortress-affiliated DivX CF Investors LLC). In short, it is a licensing-and-litigation monetization vehicle (a PAE by the common definition) built on the divested patent assets of an operating company — DivX, Inc. → Sonic Solutions (2010) → Rovi (2011) → NeuLion (2015) → Fortress (2018). The respondents are the TCL group: TCL Technology Group Corp. and TCL King Electrical Appliances (Huizhou) (China); TCL Electronics Holdings and Shenzhen TCL New Technologies (Shenzhen); TTE Technology, Inc. (Corona, CA), TCL's U.S. sales subsidiary; TCL MOKA International (Hong Kong); and TCL Smart Device (Vietnam). TCL is one of the largest smart-TV brands in the U.S., and TTE is its U.S. arm; DivX's parallel Delaware suit also named TCL's chip suppliers MediaTek, MediaTek USA, and MStar Semiconductor. Amazon.com, Inc. intervened (ALJ Order No. 9, Feb. 25, 2022; unreviewed Mar. 18, 2022), plausibly to protect its Fire TV software that runs on the accused TCL TVs — a foreshadowing of DivX's later 337-TA-1343 complaint against Amazon and VIZIO (instituted Nov. 22, 2022).

The accused products and asserted patents. The investigation covers "certain video processing devices, components thereof, and digital smart televisions containing the same, including printed circuit board assemblies for use in video processing in digital smart televisions and associated software and/or firmware" — i.e., TCL smart TVs, the SoCs/PCBA video-processing hardware inside them, and the associated firmware/software (87 FR 6200-01 (Feb. 3, 2022)). DivX asserted claims 1–11 and 14–17 of U.S. Patent No. 8,832,297 and claims 15–23 of U.S. Patent No. 8,472,792, and sought a limited exclusion order and cease-and-desist orders. The '297 patent ("Systems and Methods for Performing Multiphase Adaptive Bitrate Streaming," issued Sept. 9, 2014; inventors Soroushian, van der Schaar, Braness, Amidei; expires Dec. 29, 2031) claims adaptive-bitrate streaming that switches between alternative bitrate streams across "operational phases" so video plays without stalling or glitching. The '792 patent ("Multimedia Distribution System," issued June 25, 2013; inventors Butt, Bramwell, Fudge) claims generating, distributing, and using multimedia files in a way that reduces startup delay and supports fast-forward/rewind (technical descriptions per DivX's complaint as summarized by ITC § 337 practitioner reports, e.g., John Presper's ITC blog).

Procedural posture, venue significance, and notability. DivX's complaint was filed Nov. 24, 2021, supplemented Dec. 7, 2021, amended Dec. 28, 2021, and the Commission instituted the investigation on Jan. 28, 2022 (notice published and Commission vote Jan. 31/Feb. 3, 2022); the Office of Unfair Import Investigations did not participate. Acting Chief ALJ Clark S. Cheney was designated to preside (per Presper's ITC blog; the termination notices refer only to "the presiding ALJ," so the ALJ's identity is not independently confirmed in the notices I reviewed). The ITC is a fast-track, import-exclusion forum — no money damages but real leverage via exclusion orders — and DivX paired it with a stayed D. Del. damages case, DivX, LLC v. MediaTek Inc. et al., No. 1:20-cv-01203 (D. Del., filed Sept. 9, 2020; Judge Colm F. Connolly, referred to Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Hall), plus DivX v. Realtek, No. 1:20-cv-01202, using the § 1659 mechanism to leverage the ITC record. The investigation was resolved by joint motion to terminate based on settlement (filed Apr. 26, 2022); ALJ Order No. 13 (May 10, 2022) granted it; the Commission determined not to review on June 1, 2022, terminating the investigation in its entirety — so there is no merits ruling on infringement, validity, or domestic industry. The case matters chiefly as a data point in the DivX/Fortress streaming-industry monetization campaign (parallel actions against Netflix, Hulu, LG, Samsung, MediaTek, Realtek, Roku, Amazon, and VIZIO) and for its IPR linkage: DivX's asserted patents have been heavily challenged. Roku filed two IPRs against the '297 patent (IPR2021-01579 and IPR2021-01580, both Sept. 30, 2021), expressly to protect itself and partners including TCL; Netflix challenged the '792 patent in IPR2020-00646 (FWD Sept. 9, 2021; remanded after appeal, Fed. Cir. mandate Oct. 18, 2023), and Unified Patents filed IPR2019-01379 against DivX's '651 patent — a defensive-aggregator challenge emblematic of the NPE-assertion dynamic. One caveat: the ultimate outcomes of the two Roku '297 IPRs are not reflected in the materials I reviewed, so I can't state whether any '297 claims were cancelled. The settlement-driven termination also spawned collateral litigation — the Realtek sanctions dispute from the related 337-TA-1222 investigation and the DivX v. Realtek dismissal-with/without-prejudice fight (appealed to the Federal Circuit) — illustrating the strategic stakes for chip suppliers whose customers (like TCL) settle out from under them.

Bottom line: 337-TA-1297 is a short-lived, settlement-terminated ITC action by a Fortress-backed patent monetization entity against a major Chinese TV maker over adaptive-bitrate-streaming and multimedia-distribution patents, notable less for any ruling than for its role in a broad, multi-front streaming-video licensing campaign and its entanglement with a wave of PTAB challenges.

I'll research this ITC investigation and its related proceedings. Let me start with several searches.

I have the core ITC docket. Now let me research the parallel PTAB proceedings and related litigation.

Let me dig into the specific IPRs on the two asserted patents and the related district court case.

DivX, LLC v. TCL — ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1297

Important framing caveat: 337-TA-1297 was a Section 337 import investigation before the ITC, not a district-court action. Several of the categories you asked about (answer/counterclaims, Rule 12 motions, transfer, summary judgment, Markman, JMOL/new-trial, fees) do not map cleanly onto ITC practice and, as shown below, none of them occurred in this investigation — the case settled roughly four months after institution. Where the analogous activity happened in the companion investigation (337-TA-1222) or the parallel Delaware action, I flag it. I also note where I could not verify a fact.

---

1. Pre-filing and institution (2021-11-24 → 2022-03-18)

Patent subject matter (per DivX's complaint, as summarized in secondary coverage): the '297 patent relates to adaptive bitrate streaming over the internet to consumer devices; the '792 patent relates to generating/distributing/using multimedia files with dual indexes to reduce start-up delay and enable trick-play (fast-forward/rewind).

On "answers/counterclaims": In an ITC investigation a respondent files a response to the complaint/notice of investigation rather than an answer with counterclaims (counterclaims are not cognizable at the ITC). I was unable to verify the filing date or content of TCL's or Amazon's formal responses from the sources retrieved, so I do not state them here.

---

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

None of the district-court-style motions you list (motion to dismiss, transfer, stay pending IPR, summary judgment) is documented in 337-TA-1297. The investigation was terminated before the ALJ set a full procedural schedule of contested motions.

The only contested pre-termination motion of substance was the motion to intervene by Amazon.com, Inc. (Order No. 9, 2022-02-25; unreviewed 2022-03-18). Amazon's intervention is significant strategically: Amazon's streaming/Fire ecosystem products were implicated by DivX's streaming-related patents, and Amazon sought to participate even though it was not a named respondent.

I did not find any motion by TCL to stay the investigation pending IPR, and no IPR on either the '297 or '792 patent was instituted against TCL's interests during the short life of 1297.

---

3. Claim construction (Markman)

337-TA-1297 never reached a Markman order. The investigation terminated on settlement ~4 months after institution, well before a claim-construction hearing.

For context, the companion investigation 337-TA-1222 (the "I" investigation) did reach claim construction: Order No. 40 (2021-03-12) issued the Markman order construing the asserted patents. DivX publicly credited that outcome — Samsung and LG "lost the bulk of claim construction in March" before settling in July 2021 (Law360, July 29, 2021, via CourtListener). Notably, the '297 patent's claim terms were construed in the 1222 Markman even though the '297 patent was later re-asserted in 1297.

---

4. Discovery milestones of strategic significance

No discovery milestones are documented in 1297 itself — the investigation terminated before fact discovery closed. (In 1222, by contrast, DivX served initial infringement contentions on 2021-02-08 and the evidentiary hearing ran July 8–15, 2021.)

The strategic significance of discovery in this family of cases is captured in the parallel Delaware litigation: Realtek accused DivX of using litigation to obtain discovery it never intended to use, and pointed to DivX's reliance on the ITC record. See Realtek's briefing in DivX, LLC v. Realtek Semiconductor Corp., C.A. No. 1:20-cv-01203 (D. Del.) (D.I. 74/75, Nov. 27, 2023).

---

5. Trial events, verdict, post-trial motions

None. 1297 produced no evidentiary hearing, no initial determination on violation, no verdict, and no JMOL/new-trial/fee motions. The last-remaining contested hearing on DivX's smart-TV patents was the one in 337-TA-1222 (July 8–15, 2021, against TCL as sole remaining respondent), not 1297.

---

6. Settlement and final disposition (2022-04 → 2022-06-01)

Source: USITC Notice, 337-TA-1297 (June 1, 2022); Chinese-language summary via IPRdaily.

Appeal: None as to 1297. Because the Commission terminated on settlement without issuing a remedial order, there was no merits decision to appeal and no Presidential review period to run.

Present posture (as of 2026-09-30): Terminated. The investigation is closed.

---

7. Parallel PTAB proceedings on the asserted patents

On the '792 patent:

• Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, IPR2020-00646 — Netflix petitioned on claims 1, 5, 8, 9, 13–15, 18, 21–23. Final Written Decision 2021-09-09: the Board upheld the claims, rejecting Netflix's obviousness grounds because Netflix had not shown the secondary reference Kaku was analogous art.
• Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, 80 F.4th 1362 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 11, 2023) — Federal Circuit vacated and remanded, holding the Board abused its discretion in finding Netflix failed to articulate a field of endeavor for Kaku; remanded for the Board to decide whether Kaku is in the same field of endeavor. Mandate issued 2023-10-18; the Board then reopened proceedings on remand. (Fed. Cir. opinion 22-1138; PTAB remand papers)
• Related: the '792 patent was also asserted in DivX v. Netflix, No. 2:19-cv-01602 (C.D. Cal.) and DivX v. Hulu, No. 2:19-cv-01606 (C.D. Cal.) (Hulu action dismissed 2022-08-25).

On the '297 patent:

• Roku, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, IPR2021-01579 & IPR2021-01580 — Roku challenged the '297 patent. Both proceedings were terminated before institution on 2021-12-09 pursuant to a § 317 joint motion to terminate, the settlement "resolv[ing] these proceedings as well as related ITC litigation." (Board termination decision) This is the clearest instance of an IPR settlement running in parallel with the DivX/TCL ITC dispute.
• Additional '297 IPR petitions appear on the PTACTS public docket (grounds combining Sood, Melnyk, and Chou; Ex. 1003 declaration of Dr. Samuel Russ; grounds addressing claims 1, 2, 4, 12–15, 18, 19, 21, 30, 32, 33, 36, 37, 40, 41). I could not confirm the petitioner's identity or the IPR number from the sources retrieved, so I flag this as unverified. (The petition's "Related Matters" section cross-references Inv. No. 337-TA-1222.) (PTACTS petition documents)

Effect on this litigation: None directly. No IPR on either asserted patent was instituted and carried to a final decision while 1297 was pending, and no statutory stay of 1297 occurred. The Roku '297 IPRs were resolved by settlement before institution, and the Netflix '792 IPR's final written decision (Sept. 2021) upheld DivX's claims — i.e., it did not create invalidity leverage against DivX in the TCL talks. If anything, the IPR posture favored DivX at the time it negotiated the TCL settlement.

Note — other DivX patents (not asserted in 1297), for landscape only: DivX's related patents have fared worse in IPR. Unified Patents' IPR2021-01476 invalidated U.S. Pat. No. 10,326,987 ('987), affirmed in DivX, LLC v. Unified Patents, LLC, No. 23-1699 (Fed. Cir. June 24, 2025) (nonprecedential). Netflix also litigated the '720 and '515 patents (Fed. Cir. Oct. 25, 2023, affirming patentability) and U.S. Pat. No. 10,225,588 ('588) (Board decision 2024-02-22, reversed by the Federal Circuit on claim construction — Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, reported at 2026 WL 405791). A Sept. 22, 2026 PTAB decision in a Netflix IPR reportedly held DivX "alternative streams of protected content" claims unpatentable as obvious. These do not involve the '297/'792 patents at issue in 1297.

---

8. Related proceedings worth cross-referencing

• ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1222 ("I") — Filed by DivX 2020-09-10; instituted 2020-10-19 against Samsung, LG, MediaTek, Realtek, and TCL, asserting the '297, '486, '141, and '749 patents. Key events: partial terminations (Orders 25, 34, 49, 65); MediaTek terminated (Order 37); Realtek terminated by withdrawal (Order 67, unreviewed 2021-08-04); LG and Samsung settled (Order 69, unreviewed 2021-09-15); the '297 patent was terminated by withdrawal of the complaint as to that patent (Order No. 70, unreviewed 2021-12-20) — this withdrawal is what paved the way for DivX to re-assert '297 (with '792) in the new 1297 investigation. TCL settled (Order 76, unreviewed 2022-05-24). Realtek's sanctions motion against DivX (filed 2021-10-04) was denied (Order No. 75, 2022-04-22); Realtek petitioned for review (2022-06-01), DivX cross-moved for sanctions against Realtek (2022-06-16), and the Commission ultimately denied review, leading Realtek to appeal to the Federal Circuit. Sources: 87 FR 32184, 2022-08-30 FR notice.

• *D. Del. — DivX, LLC v. TCL Corp., C.A. No. 1:20-cv-01203* (companion to 1:20-cv-01202 vs. LG/Realtek) — Filed 2020-09-09 asserting the '297, '486, '141, and '749 patents against TCL and MediaTek entities. The case was stayed pending the ITC proceedings. DivX dismissed its claims against TCL in April 2022 upon the same settlement. DivX moved to dismiss the remaining Realtek claims without prejudice (2023-10-30); the court granted that on 2024-06-04, and Realtek appealed to the Federal Circuit (the appeal in which Realtek argued DivX's "wait and see" conduct warranted dismissal with prejudice). (D. Del. D.I. 74/75; Fed. Cir. No. 21912 brief)

• Counsel (verified for the related DivX matters, not specifically for 1297): DivX was represented by Mintz Levin (Michael T. Renaud, Adam S. Rizk, Marguerite McConihe, et al.) with Robins Kaplan and Ward Smith & Hill, and Farnan LLP as Delaware counsel. Roku was represented by Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox (Jon E. Wright et al.) in the '297 IPRs. (Law360 via CourtListener) I could not independently confirm the counsel of record for TCL or Amazon in 1297.

---

Bottom line

337-TA-1297 was a short-lived, settlement-driven investigation. Procedurally it consisted of: complaint (2021-11-24) → amendment (2021-12-28) → institution (2022-01-28/31) → Amazon intervention (2022-02-25, final 2022-03-18) → joint motion to terminate on settlement (2022-04-26) → ALJ grant (2022-05-10) → Commission termination of the entire investigation (2022-06-01). There was no Markman, no discovery (in this investigation), no trial, no verdict, no post-trial practice, and no appeal. Its principal strategic function appears to have been as the successor vehicle to 337-TA-1222 after DivX withdrew the '297 patent from that investigation; DivX then used the settlement with TCL to wind down both the ITC and Delaware tracks against TCL, while preserving its claims against Realtek in Delaware.

Sourcing limitation: I was working against a research-step cap and could not retrieve the underlying EDIS docket entries, TCL's/Amazon's responses, or the specific '297 IPR petition number/petitioner. Facts above are grounded in Federal Register notices, USITC press materials, Federal Circuit and PTAB documents, and contemporaneous legal-press coverage; the few items I could not verify are expressly flagged and should be confirmed against EDIS (https://edis.usitc.gov) before being relied on.

I'll search for press coverage of this ITC investigation from several angles.

Let me search additional angles.

Let me look for the settlement/license announcement and any Law360/IAM coverage.

Press coverage of DivX v. TCL (Inv. No. 337-TA-1297)

Coverage of the filing and institution. The investigation generated only modest press attention, concentrated in trade and law-firm outlets rather than mainstream business media. Advanced Television reported on 2021-12-01 that DivX had sued TCL at the ITC over video-codec and streaming patents, singling out TCL's 43" Class-4 Series 4K UHD HDR Google-based smart TVs, and noting that the accused units were not covered by DivX's settlement and license agreement with Roku (which was not a party). Export Compliance Daily reported around the same date that DivX was seeking an import ban on TCL smart TVs based on the '297 patent (which it described as a September 2014 patent originally assigned to Sonic IP from a December 2011 application), that DivX told the Commission an exclusion order would have "no significant negative impact on U.S. consumers," and that DivX cited TCL's 14% smart-TV share against the combined 56% share of Samsung, Vizio and LG; the outlet also noted TCL declined to comment. The law-firm blog ITC 337 Law Blog (Oblon), via Lexology, in a post dated 2022-02-02 (also republished on Mondaq), summarized the December 28, 2021 amended complaint, explained that the '297 patent concerns adaptive bitrate streaming and the '792 patent concerns generating/distributing multimedia files with faster start-up and trick-play, identified Acting Chief ALJ Clark S. Cheney as presiding, and noted that the Office of Unfair Import Investigations did not participate as a party.

Coverage of the resolution. DivX's own announcement, carried by Business Wire on 2022-04-20, said TCL had signed an IP license agreement that "puts an end to all pending patent litigation matters between the parties," quoting CEO Brian Way on continuing a "long-term, mutually-beneficial licensing relationship" — it disclosed no financial terms and did not mention the ITC docket or the asserted patents. Chinese-language trade press, drawing on China's Trade Remedy Information Network, covered the procedural closure: Jiemian News and IPRdaily reported that on 2022-06-01 the Commission declined to review ALJ Order No. 13 and terminated Investigation No. 337-TA-1297 in its entirety based on settlement, and that on 2022-03-18 the Commission had allowed Amazon.com, Inc. to intervene (with Amazon's interest arising from the accused TCL products' use of Amazon Prime Video, per the ITC's own notice). Reposts of that same wire item appeared on 163.com/NetEase and Toutiao. Notably, no outlet I found reported the terms of the DivX–TCL settlement or license; the settlement agreement was filed at the ITC under seal/redacted, and the only monetary characterization I located in press coverage was the Brazilian business blog O Globo (Capital), which described it as a "acordo milionário" (million-dollar settlement) reached globally one day after a Rio de Janeiro court moved to enforce a merits ruling barring TCL from selling TVs in Brazil, and said TCL acknowledged two years of infringement liability.

Where accounts differ or go beyond the record. The Brazilian reporting adds a causation narrative absent from DivX's and TCL's own statements: O Globo attributed the global deal to pressure from Brazilian enforcement (including a fine increase in late March and notifications to retailers and customs), whereas DivX's Business Wire release framed the deal simply as a continuation of an existing licensing relationship, and the Chinese trade press treated it purely as an ITC settlement. A Lexology-published analysis of DivX's Brazilian strategy likewise credits a 2022 Brazilian preliminary injunction over DivX's PI 0506163-6 patent with prompting "a subsequent licensing deal with the Chinese company" — an attorney-authored take, not a court finding. Coverage of the earlier, related investigation is also relevant context but concerns a different docket: Law360 reported on 2021-07-29 (in an article reproduced in a later court filing) that DivX had settled with LG and Samsung in the prior ITC case, Inv. No. 337-TA-1222, that Samsung and LG "bowed out" a week before the evidentiary hearing, and that the hearing then proceeded against TCL alone from July 7–15, 2021. I also encountered an IAM topic-index entry for a 2024-06-10 article headlined "DivX loses ITC case against Amazon, but look at its US litigation track record," whose standfirst says Docket Navigator data showed DivX "scored settlements in nine of 11 US district court cases"; I only retrieved the headline/standfirst, not the full text, so I cannot verify its treatment of the TCL matter.

Assessment of coverage depth. The press footprint for this specific investigation is thin: I found no coverage in Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, EFF Deeplinks, or JD Supra, and no dedicated Law360 story on 337-TA-1297 itself — the case appears mainly in (a) specialized ITC/patent law-firm blogs, (b) Chinese-language trade-remedy reporting, (c) the parties' own press releases, and (d) Brazilian coverage of the parallel Brazil litigation. That gap is itself notable given the record: the ITC docket shows a complaint filed 2021-11-24, institution on 2022-01-31/02-03, Amazon's intervention in February–March 2022, a joint motion to terminate based on settlement (dated April 19, 2022 in one Commission notice and April 26, 2022 in the 337-TA-1297 termination notice — a discrepancy in the government record, not in press accounts), ALJ Order No. 13 on 2022-05-10, and Commission termination on 2022-06-01, with no remedial orders ever issued and no damages phase (the ITC does not award damages). Caveats: the O Globo post's publication date was not visible in the text I retrieved, so the timing of the Brazil-driven account of the deal should be treated as unconfirmed; and several "articles" I found are syndicated reposts of a single wire item rather than independent reporting.

Sources

• UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION Washington, D.C.
• 337调查 | 近日最新337动向 - 返回
• 美国ITC发布对视频处理设备和数字智能电视的337部分终裁，终止对TCL的调查 - 今日头条
• 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II的337部分终裁 - 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II的337部分终裁
• DivX settled with LG in late June or early July 2021, at about the same time it dismissed its claims in the ITC against Realtek
• 337调查 | 近日最新337动向|行业|领先的全球知识产权产业科技媒体IPRDAILY.CN.COM - go
• INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
• 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II的337部分终裁
• Samsung, LG Settle DivX Patent Fights Over Smart TVs
• From: Angels_Theo To: Karambelas, Matthew: ServiceSamsung-DIVX ITC: 1222-LG-Finnegan: TCL-1222@brinksqilson
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
• On September 9, 2020, DivX filed a complaint for patent infringement against LG Electronics, Inc

I'll research counsel of record for DivX, LLC in ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1297. Let me run several searches.

I found the Notice of Investigation certificate of service. Let me confirm the full plaintiff counsel team from the 1297 complaint itself and cross-check EDIS/firm sources.

Counsel of record for the Plaintiff (Complainant) — DivX, LLC, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1297

Bottom line up front: DivX's counsel of record in 337-TA-1297 was Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C., with Michael T. Renaud (Boston) as lead counsel. That much is affirmatively documented in the ITC's own Notice of Investigation service list and the Commission's institution letter to counsel. The full working team is best evidenced by the near-identical Mintz roster on DivX's complaint in the companion investigation, 337-TA-1222 — which I flag as a close proxy, not a direct confirmation for 1297.

A threshold point on forum: the ITC has no "local counsel" requirement and no PACER docket — appearances are made via the Commission's EDIS system and the certificate of service in each filed paper, and the agency does not maintain the attorney-appearance records a district court docket would. There is also no answer/counterclaim record to mine here, since the investigation terminated on settlement before any response was litigated. So the authoritative sources are the complaint's counsel block and the certificates of service.

---

Confirmed for 337-TA-1297

That single name is the only one I can tie to 1297 from the agency record I retrieved.

---

The DivX/Mintz litigation team (documented on the companion 1222 complaint — high-confidence, but verify against the 1297 complaint block)

The 1297 complaint was filed by the same firm for the same client, four months after the 1222 merits trial, and Mintz's DivX-ITC team was consistent across the family. The counsel block on DivX's ITC complaint in 337-TA-1222 lists the following Mintz attorneys — I reproduce it here as the best available roster for the DivX ITC team, expressly flagged as confirmed for 1222, not independently confirmed for 1297:

Source for the 1222 roster: DivX's § 337 complaint in Certain Video Processing Devices, Components Thereof, and Digital Smart Televisions Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1222 (filed Sept. 10, 2020), counsel block reproduced at PTACTS petition documents, and the ITC Certificate of Service in 1222 naming "Adam Rizk, Esq., Mintz Levin … Boston, MA … On Behalf of Complainant DivX, LLC" (service list).

---

Related counsel worth noting (different dockets — do not attribute to 1297)

• Farnan LLP (Wilmington, DE) — Brian E. Farnan and Michael J. Farnan served as DivX's Delaware counsel in the parallel district-court actions (DivX, LLC v. Realtek/LG, C.A. No. 1:20-cv-01202, and DivX v. TCL, C.A. No. 1:20-cv-01203). Delaware local counsel is not an ITC role, so Farnan does not appear in 1297. (D. Del. answering brief)
• Dechert LLP and Morrison & Foerster LLP appear elsewhere in DivX's campaign (e.g., DivX v. Mitsubishi (JAMS arbitration, Dechert) and DivX v. Harman (MoFo)); KPPB LLP is the firm of record on DivX's patent prosecution (it appears as "Attorney, Agent, or Firm — KPPB LLP" on DivX patent front pages). None of these is counsel of record in 1297.
• In-house: DivX's CEO is Brian Way, and the entity is described in parallel litigation as "led by an attorney" — but I did not retrieve a named DivX general counsel or in-house attorney on the 1297 service list, so I do not assert one.

---

Sourcing caveats — please read before relying

1. I could not open the actual complaint PDF for 1297 (the full counsel block would have been ideal). My direct 1297 evidence is the Notice of Investigation certificate of service and the Commission's institution letter, both of which name Renaud — plus the Presper/Oblon blog confirming DivX's identity and the filing. The EDIS non-confidential complaint (ID 694256) is the document to pull to confirm the complete 1297 signature block.
2. The multi-attorney roster is drawn from the 1222 complaint, filed ~14 months earlier by the same firm for the same client on the same patent family. It is a strong indication of the 1297 team but should be verified against the 1297 complaint and its certificates of service before being cited as 1297 counsel of record.
3. No invented names. Everything above is sourced to agency filings, court filings, or the Federal Circuit docket. Where I am inferring (the extended team), I have said so.
4. This was a settlement-terminated investigation, so the counsel record is thin by nature — there is no answer, no motion practice, and no trial transcript in 1297 to reflect additional appearances.

Suggested verification: retrieve EDIS document ID 694256 (DivX's 1297 complaint) and its certificate of service at edis.usitc.gov, which will confirm the complete counsel block for the plaintiff.

I'll research counsel of record for the TCL respondents (and intervenor Amazon) in this investigation.

Good leads. Now let me pin down the 1297-specific filings and Amazon's counsel.

Let me dig further into TCL's 1297-specific filings and Amazon's counsel.

Counsel of record — Respondents (TCL entities) and Intervenor (Amazon)

Verification caveat up front. The ITC does not run on PACER; its docket is EDIS, and ITC practice has no district-court-style "notice of appearance" docket entry. Counsel is identified from certificates of service, signature blocks, and the parties' own filings. For Inv. No. 337-TA-1297 specifically, the public documents I could retrieve (the Notice of Investigation and its certificate of service, the two Commission notices, and secondary coverage) do not contain a respondent-side appearance list — the 1297 NOI's service certificate lists only complainant's counsel. I therefore give below (a) one attorney I can affirmatively tie to the TCL respondents' defense of the DivX video-processing campaign, and (b) what remains unverified. I have not invented any names.

---

1. TCL respondents — Brinks Gilson & Lione (lead ITC counsel)

Basis. The ITC's certificate of service in the companion investigation 337-TA-1222 (the same DivX video-processing patents, same TCL respondent group) expressly identifies "Lyle B. Vander Schaaf, Esq., BRINKS GILSON & LIONE, 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20006" as the signature block "[o]n behalf of Respondents TCL Corporation, TCL Technology Group Corporation, TCL Electronics Holdings Limited, TTE Technology, Inc., Shenzhen TCL New Technologies Co. Ltd., TCL King Electrical Appliances (Huizhou) Co. Ltd., TCL MOKA International Limited, and TCL Smart Device (Vietnam) Co., Ltd." (D. Del. archive copy of the 1222 service list, Ex. 34-1; the same docket shows a TCL-specific service mailbox, "TCL-1222@brinksgilson.com," in the Commission's correspondence). Brinks was therefore the TCL group's ITC counsel in the immediately preceding DivX investigation, and 1297 named the identical respondent set.

What I could NOT verify for 1297 itself: I did not retrieve a 1297 document bearing Vander Schaaf's (or any Brinks attorney's) signature. TCL's response to the 1297 complaint was filed (the later DivX/VIZIO ITC complaint states that 1297 "was terminated in the early phase of the investigation, roughly three months after TCL Respondents submitted their response to DivX's complaint"), but I could not open that response or the April 26, 2022 joint motion to terminate, whose signature blocks would be the cleanest confirmation. I also could not identify any additional Brinks attorneys, local counsel, or TCL in-house counsel on the 1297 team — no other names should be attributed without checking EDIS. Confirm via EDIS at https://edis.usitc.gov (documents: TCL's Response to the Amended Complaint, ~Feb.–Mar. 2022; Joint Motion to Terminate, Apr. 26, 2022; Order No. 13, May 10, 2022).

Firm-affiliation caveat (flag for accuracy). Crowell & Moring's April 1, 2022 press release describes its ITC practice co-leads and states that "Lyle Vander Schaaf, who joined with the Brinks combination in 2021, was identified as a Most Active attorney for respondents and overall" (Crowell release PDF). Read literally, that indicates a Brinks–Crowell combination around 2021, meaning Vander Schaaf's firm may be styled Crowell & Moring (with the Brinks ITC group absorbed) by the time 1297 was pending. I could not retrieve independent confirmation of the combination's timing or structure, so treat the current firm name as Brinks Gilson & Lione → (reported) Crowell & Moring and verify before quoting.

Other TCL ITC counsel in the market (not this case): Chambers' Section 337 rankings note Kirkland & Ellis defended TCL Electronics Holdings in a different ITC patent dispute (power semiconductors) (Chambers ITC rankings PDF). That is not a DivX matter and should not be confused with 1297.

2. Intervenor — Amazon.com, Inc.

Amazon's Motion to Intervene is dated February 11, 2022 and was granted by Order No. 9 (Feb. 25, 2022), unreviewed by Commission Notice of March 18, 2022 (Commission notice, FR Doc. 2022-06177; DivX's later ITC complaint cites "Motion to Intervene by Amazon.com, Inc., dated February 11, 2022"). Amazon intervened because DivX's infringement theory in 1297 centered on third-party streaming — Amazon's Prime Video — running on the accused TCL TVs.

Amazon's counsel in 1297: not verified. I found no source identifying the attorney(s) or firm who filed Amazon's motion to intervene or appeared for Amazon as intervenor in 1297. Amazon was represented by separate counsel when it was later a respondent in 337-TA-1343 and in the parallel E.D. Va. action; those teams should not be assumed to be the same. Do not attribute Amazon 1297 counsel without the EDIS filing.

3. Context: complainant-side counsel (for the record, not defendant counsel)

The 1297 Notice of Investigation's certificate of service identifies Michael T. Renaud, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo PC, One Financial Center, Boston, MA 02111 as DivX's counsel (NOI in 1297). This is consistent with (and corroborates) the Mintz-led DivX team already identified in the earlier sections of this case; DivX's later 1343/E.D. Va. work was handled by Tensegrity Law Group — a firm change worth noting but not relevant to 1297's respondent side.

---

Bottom line

• Verified for the DivX v. TCL ITC campaign (1222, same respondents/patents): Lyle B. Vander Schaaf, Brinks Gilson & Lione, Washington, DC — lead counsel for the TCL respondents; his firm is reported to have combined with Crowell & Moring in 2021 (flag/caveat above).
• Strongly inferred but not directly documented for 1297: that Vander Schaaf/Brinks (or Crowell) continued as TCL's counsel in 1297 and signed TCL's response and the joint motion to terminate.
• Not verifiable from what I could retrieve: any co-counsel or additional Brinks attorneys, TCL in-house counsel, and all of Amazon's intervenor counsel.
• Recommendation: pull the four 1297 EDIS documents listed above; the joint motion to terminate (Apr. 26, 2022) and TCL's response will contain the definitive signature blocks and any certificate-of-service list of respondent counsel — the equivalent of a counsel-of-record list in ITC practice.