DivX, LLC v. TCL Technology Group Corporation

I'll research this case thoroughly using web search.

Let me dig deeper into the specifics of the EDTX case and the '486 patent.

Let me verify the patents asserted in the Texas case and the case outcome.

Case Overview and Background

The parties. DivX, LLC v. TCL Technology Group Corporation et al., No. 2:21-cv-00264 (E.D. Tex.), is one front in DivX's multi-front licensing campaign over its video-streaming, DRM and adaptive-bitrate patent portfolio. DivX, LLC is a San Diego–based patent holder and licensor — by the time of this suit it was no longer primarily a consumer-product operating company but a portfolio-licensing business (per the August 19, 2025 declaration of DivX CEO/CLO Noel Egnatios filed in IPR2025-01062, DivX has licensed its portfolio to "at least seven companies in the consumer electronics space," including TCL, plus streaming/platform companies). The DivX brand traces to the original DivX video codec/software business; note that in a 2024 Delaware declaratory-judgment complaint, TPV alleged that the original operating entity "then known as 'DivX, LLC' [is] now known as 'NLD, LLC' ('Old DivX')," implying the current DivX, LLC is a licensing vehicle — I flag this as a party allegation, not an adjudicated fact. TCL Technology Group Corporation is the Chinese consumer-electronics parent whose affiliates (TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd., TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCT Mobile International Ltd., and Huizhou TCL Mobile Communication Co. Ltd.) were named in this case. Significantly, the EDTX defendants are the TCL mobile-handset/TCT Mobile side of the group — not TTE Technology, the U.S. TV importer that DivX sued in Delaware and at the ITC.

The accused technology. The operative First Amended Complaint (D.I. 9, filed Aug. 10, 2021) accuses TCL smartphones and Roku-integrated TVs — exemplified by the TCL 10 Pro handset and the TCL 8-Series Roku TV — that ship with pre-installed Netflix and Hulu streaming applications. DivX's theory (Counts I–II) is that playback of Hulu/Netflix content on those devices practices the asserted claims, mapping the accused functionality onto industry standards: Hulu's fragmented MP4 files with moof/mdat/trun (track-run) boxes as the claimed "index," and the ISO Common Encryption / Microsoft PIFF sample-encryption boxes as the claimed per-frame DRM data (per-sample initialization vectors, and NumClearBytes/NumEncryptedBytes as the claimed offset-value/number-value pair). DivX pleaded direct, induced, and contributory infringement (TCL pre-installs and promotes the apps, inducing end-user infringement). On the patent question, the metadata in this case file needs correction: the D.I. 1 complaint's exhibits were Exhibit 1 = U.S. Patent No. 10,992,955 ('955) and Exhibit 2 = the '641 patent (recited in the FAC as a multimedia file-structure/encoding-and-decoding patent naming Eric Grab, an OVS-era DivX engineer). U.S. Patent No. 10,212,486 ('486, "Elementary Bitstream Cryptographic Material Transport Systems and Methods," issued Feb. 19, 2019; app. 15/615,626; expires Nov. 15, 2030) was not pleaded in this EDTX action — it was asserted in the parallel ITC investigation 337-TA-1222 and in DivX's Delaware suits. The likely reason this docket appears on the '486's litigation page is that the '955 and '486 share a common DivX encryption/elementary-bitstream family (as does the '749 patent), not that the '486 was asserted here. I could not independently confirm the full patent number for the " '641" reference from the sources retrieved in this session.

Posture, venue, and why the case matters. Filed July 15, 2021 in the Marshall Division and assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap — the highest-volume patent venue in the country and a plaintiff-friendly draw; the docket shows a jury demand, corporate disclosure, first amended complaint adding the TCL mobile entities, and D.I. 12 (Sept. 1, 2021) granting DivX's motion to appoint an international process server, consistent with serving Chinese/Hong Kong/Vietnamese defendants. The case did not proceed to claim construction or trial: it ran alongside ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1222 (instituted Oct. 19, 2020, 85 FR 66355), which DivX brought in September 2020 on the '297, '486, '141 and '749 patents against LG, Samsung, Realtek, MediaTek and the TCL entities. DivX narrowed the '486 claims in April 2021 (Order No. 49), the ITC held an evidentiary hearing against TCL (as the sole remaining respondent) July 7–15, 2021, and in April 2022 DivX and TCL settled, terminating the investigation (Order No. 76; Commission notice, 87 FR 32184-85 (May 27, 2022)). The same settlement coincided with DivX's April 26, 2022 voluntary dismissal of its Delaware action against TCL (D. Del. 1:20-cv-01203, D.I. 15). I could not retrieve a dismissal entry for 2:21-cv-00264 itself, but the timing and the Egnatios declaration listing TCL as a portfolio licensee make a global resolution by mid-2022 the strongly indicated outcome; that link is inferential. The case is notable for three reasons: (1) it shows DivX's supply-chain-targeting strategy — suing chipmakers (Realtek, MediaTek), TV OEMs (LG, Samsung, TCL/TTE), and handset affiliates simultaneously in district court, at the ITC, and abroad (Germany, Brazil) — which drew a scathing Realtek sanctions motion (Oct. 4, 2021) accusing DivX of "abusing the Section 337 process" to "extort settlement payments" from intermediate suppliers, and which fed Realtek's ongoing appeal of the D. Del. court's dismissal-without-prejudice order (CAFC No. 2024-/2025, briefing through 2025); (2) it illustrates the NPE/licensing-entity posture of a legacy consumer brand monetizing standards-adjacent streaming/DRM patents against the Netflix/Hulu ecosystem; and (3) it is a data point in DivX's broader campaign that remains live — a second § 337 action (No. 337-TA-1297, filed Nov. 24, 2021 on the '297 and '792 patents, terminated by settlement in June 2022), litigation against Netflix (C.D. Cal. 2:19-cv-1602, now approaching trial with exhaustion/ensnarement defenses) and against Amazon (E.D. Va., with Amazon's 2025 IPRs, IPR2025-01062/-01222/-01223).

Sourcing caveats: docket facts above come from the UniCourt/Law360/Patexia dockets and the FAC text reproduced in PTAB filings; ITC facts from the Commission's Federal Register notices and Order Nos. 49, 70 and 76; the D. Del. Realtek dismissal posture from the June 4, 2024 Memorandum Order and the Federal Circuit briefing (gov.uscourts.cafc.21912). Facts I could not verify to a primary source are flagged inline (the disposition of 2:21-cv-00264 specifically, the identity of the '641 patent, and the current corporate ownership/structure of DivX, LLC).

I'll research this case systematically. Let me begin with searches on the docket and case basics.

Let me get the actual docket and more specific developments.

Let me dig into the specific E.D. Tex. case docket and any PTAB proceedings on the '486 patent.

DivX, LLC v. TCL Technology Group Corporation, No. 2:21-cv-00264 (E.D. Tex.) — Key Developments & Outcome

Scope caveat up front. The E.D. Tex. docket text retrievable for 2:21-cv-00264 is a stale third-party snapshot (UniCourt, last updated 2021-09-13) and shows only the pleading/service phase — no answer, scheduling order, Markman, summary-judgment, or judgment entry. Nothing in the retrieved materials shows the '486 patent being asserted in the Texas case; the original complaint's exhibits are captioned "'955 Patent" and "'641 Patent." The '486 patent was asserted against TCL Technology Group Corporation, but in the parallel D. Del. No. 1:20-cv-01203 (the AO-120 for that case lists US 8,832,297; 10,212,486; 10,412,141; and 10,484,749 against the TCL and MediaTek defendants). That is the resolution of the "unconfirmed '486 assertion" flag: the '486 was pleaded against TCL in Delaware and in the ITC, not (on the retrieved record) in E.D. Tex.

What follows separates (A) the Texas case, (B) the controlling parallel proceedings, and (C) the outcome.

---

A. The E.D. Tex. case (2:21-cv-00264, Judge Rodney Gilstrap)

Notably, the defendants named in Texas include TCL's handset affiliates (TCL Communication Technology Holdings, TCT Mobile International, Huizhou TCL Mobile Communication) — entities that were not in the Delaware TV case — which is why the Texas action reads as a mobile-device assertion on different patents from the '486.

No answer, counterclaim, motion to dismiss/transfer/stay, Markman order, summary-judgment motion, trial, verdict, or judgment appears in the retrieved Texas docket. There was therefore no Texas-side JMOL/new-trial/fee practice.

Source: https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-divx-llc-v-tcl-technology-group-corporation-et-al-[958128](/patent/958128)

---

B. The parallel proceedings that actually drove the '486 dispute

1. ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1222 — Certain Video Processing Devices, Components Thereof, and Digital Smart Televisions Containing the Same (the case that included the '486 patent against TCL).

• 2020-09-10 (complaint) / 2020-10-19 (institution): DivX asserts the '297, '486, '141 and '749 patents against Samsung, LG, MediaTek, Realtek and TCL. 85 FR 66355. https://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/337/337_1222_notice_10142020sgl.pdf
• 2021-01-15: Order No. 25 — partial termination of certain withdrawn claims.
• 2021-02-08: DivX serves initial infringement contentions, including '486 allegations against Realtek.
• 2021-03-12: Order No. 40 — the Markman order construing the disputed terms of the asserted patents, including the '486 patent. This is the only claim-construction ruling touching the '486. DivX publicly characterized it as a win (Law360: LG and Samsung "lost the bulk of claim construction in March"); Realtek later argued that DivX's continued assertion of the '486 against Realtek's chips violated Order No. 40 and that, had DivX complied, Realtek would have been out of the investigation by March 2021.
• 2021-03-12: Order No. 37 terminates MediaTek (settlement); 2021-04-21 Order No. 49 grants DivX's unopposed motion to partially terminate claims (including claims 3, 7, 9, 13–14 of the '486) against all respondents.
• 2021-07-06/08–15: DivX withdraws its complaint as to Realtek on the eve of the evidentiary hearing; the hearing proceeds against TCL only (July 8–15, 2021). Order No. 67 (2021-07-16) terminates Realtek, unreviewed 2022-08-04.
• 2021-07-29: DivX announces settlements with LG and Samsung (confidential), ending the ITC/Delaware/Texas/Germany/Brazil litigation as to them. Order No. 69 (2021-08-12) terminates LG and Samsung.
• 2022-04-19/22: DivX and TCL jointly move to terminate based on a settlement agreement; Order No. 76 (2022-04-22) grants termination; Commission determines not to review, 2022-05-24 (87 FR 32184–85). This is the settlement that resolves TCL — and, by extension, the Texas and Delaware TCL actions.
• Realtek sanctions saga: Realtek's 2021-03-07 Rule 11 motion in D. Del. and its 2021-10-04 ITC sanctions motion (alleging DivX misled the ALJ and brought frivolous claims to obtain discovery); opposition 2021-10-14; Order No. 75 (2022-04-22) denying sanctions; Realtek petition for review 2022-06-01; DivX cross-motion for sanctions 2022-06-16; Commission notice 2022-08-30 denying review and terminating both sanctions proceedings. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/full_text/xml/2022/08/30/2022-18606.xml

2. D. Del. No. 1:20-cv-01203 (TCL/MediaTek) and No. 1:20-cv-01202 (LG/Realtek) — the mirror-image district cases asserting the same four patents, '486 included.

• '1203 was stayed and administratively closed on 2021-07-26 (Judge Connolly) pending the ITC; TCL's answer deadline was extended to 2022-03-21; DivX voluntarily dismissed the TCL case on 2022-04-26 (D.I. 15), with the AO-120 reporting the '486. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18422115/
• In the Realtek case ('1202), Judge Hall's 2024-06-04 Memorandum Order granted DivX's motion to dismiss without prejudice over Realtek's objection, reasoning that "[w]hen the Court stayed this case in 2021, it was in its infancy. It still is. There is no scheduling order and there has been no discovery." Realtek argued the delay/ITC record warranted prejudice and invoked Pathway, Mirtech and DivX's "wait-and-see" conduct. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ded-1_20-cv-01202/pdf/USCOURTS-ded-1_20-cv-01202-1.pdf
• 3. D. Del. No. 1:21-cv-01828 (DivX v. TCL, US 8,472,792) — a second TCL case in Delaware; TCL moved for a mandatory stay under 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a) on 2022-03-02 (granted same day), administratively closed 2022-03-30, and voluntarily dismissed 2022-04-26 (D.I. 11) — the same day as the '1203 dismissal. This pattern corroborates that the Texas action was likewise resolved as part of the April 2022 global TCL settlement.
• 4. Second, TCL-only ITC complaint — Certain Video Processing Devices … (II); DivX's public-interest statement in that investigation is dated 2021-11-24 and names the TCL respondents. (Investigation number not confirmed in the materials retrieved; verify against the ITC docket.)
• 5. Related DivX assertion of the same family: DivX v. Samsung, No. 2:21-cv-00187 (E.D. Tex.), and DivX's 2020 D. Del. LG/Realtek actions — all settled or dismissed in 2021–2022.

Discovery of strategic significance occurred almost entirely in the ITC, not in Texas: DivX's February 2021 infringement contentions, Realtek's technical discovery and Rule 11/sanctions papers, and DivX's stated intention to import the Commission record into the district cases (28 U.S.C. § 1659). The Delaware court's prejudice analysis turned on DivX's admitted aim of using the ITC trial record against Realtek — the same conduct the Texas court never had to reach because the case was overtaken by the TCL settlement.

---

C. PTAB / parallel IPR-PGR

No IPR, PGR, or CBM petition against U.S. Patent No. 10,212,486 by TCL (or any party) was identified in the materials reviewed. The '486 is a 2019-issued patent; the '486 dispute was litigated and settled at the district/ITC level first, so no PTAB institution decision is reflected. This should be confirmed against the PTAB Patent Trial and Appeal Board Endpoint/PTAB docket and against the '486 patent's litigation page before being treated as definitive.

---

D. Outcome / present posture (as of 2026-10-01)

• The Texas action did not reach claim construction, dispositive motions, or trial. The last verifiable docket entry is 2021-09-01; the pleadings-stage docket ends there.
• TCL's exposure on the '486 was resolved by the April 2022 settlement between DivX and TCL terminating ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1222 (Order No. 76, 2022-04-22; Commission notice 2022-05-24), followed by 2022-04-26 voluntary dismissals of the Delaware TCL actions ('1203 D.I. 15; '1828 D.I. 11). The Texas case should be treated as subsumed by that settlement and dismissed/closed on or about that date — but the specific termination entry in 2:21-cv-00264 is unconfirmed and should be pulled from PACER/RECAP.
• The last litigation activity in the family is Realtek's post-dismissal challenge to the D. Del. dismissal-without-prejudice order (a Federal Circuit appellate/mandamus filing referencing the 2024-06-04 order appears in RECAP; the appellate case number and disposition are unconfirmed) and Realtek's unsuccessful sanctions campaign (Commission notice 2022-08-30).
• Downstream royalty value continued via DivX's TPV/Top Victory dispute (California Superior Court contract/patent demands; the TPV Chinese parent disclosed a $38.5M settlement in a March 2026 filing), which is context on DivX's monetization but not part of this case.

Bottom line: 2:21-cv-00264 was a pleadings-stage TCL action (Gilstrap, E.D. Tex.) that generated no contested rulings and was resolved as part of DivX's April 2022 global settlement with TCL terminating ITC 337-TA-1222; the '486 patent's substantive history — Markman (ITC Order No. 40, 2021-03-12), the Realtek termination/sanctions fight, and the Delaware dismissal motions — sits in the parallel ITC and D. Del. proceedings, with no PTAB challenge to the '486 identified.

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

Let me dig deeper into the docket and the parties' counsel.

I'll research the defendant's counsel of record for TCL Technology Group Corporation in this case.

Let me pull the actual docket and counsel appearances for this specific case.

Let me check the CourtListener docket directly for defendant counsel appearances.

Let me look for the specific docket entries and defendant counsel appearances.