Giphy, Inc. v. VL Collective IP, LLC

I'll research this case and its underlying patent litigation.

Let me dig into the IPR final written decision, the district court case, and case outcomes.

Let me check the district court docket status, settlement, and the Giphy ownership angle.

Case Overview and Background

The parties. The nominal appellant, Giphy, Inc., is the well-known GIF search/creation and sharing platform — a Delaware corporation that Meta Platforms acquired in 2020 and that (per widely reported press coverage, though not something I re-verified in the docket here) was later ordered divested by the UK Competition and Markets Authority and sold to Shutterstock in 2023. It appears in this appeal only because it was named as a co-defendant in the underlying suit, alongside Meta Platforms, Inc., Instagram, LLC, WhatsApp LLC, and Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC — all treated in the complaint as one interconnected "Meta Companies" enterprise. The appellee and patent owner, VL Collective IP, LLC ("VL IP"), is a 2019 subsidiary of Palo Alto–based VideoLabs, Inc. (VL IP Holdings LLC sits in between). VideoLabs markets itself as an industry-sponsored "collective" licensing platform that aggregates video-technology patents acquired from operating companies — the complaint names Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Alcatel-Lucent, Siemens, Swisscom, 3Com, Panasonic, LG and Nokia as portfolio sources — and frames its mission as reducing "technological gridlock." In practice, however, VideoLabs/VL IP is a serial patent plaintiff (Meta, Roku, TCL, Starz, among others), and litigation databases such as RPX classify it as an NPE/PAE. The '980 patent itself is a Siemens-origin asset (inventors Leonid Sigal, Ying Zhu and Dorin Comaniciu; originally assigned to Siemens Corporate Research), which is the classic aggregation-to-assertion chain. See complaint, VideoLabs, Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00680-JHS (D. Del. May 24, 2022), Doc. 1; Apr. 22, 2024 opinion, Doc. 35, at 3–4.

The accused technology and the patent. The '980 count targeted Meta's object-detection stack — specifically what the complaint called "Meta Companies Object Detection," exemplified by Meta AI's open-source Detectron2 PyTorch library and the object-recognition features embedded across Facebook, Messenger, Instagram, WhatsApp, Oculus/Quest and Portal. VideoLabs alleged direct infringement by Meta's internal use, plus inducement and contributory infringement based on Meta publishing Detectron2 for third-party developers. The sole patent at issue in the appeal is U.S. Patent No. 7,436,980, "Graphical Object Models for Detection and Tracking" (issued Oct. 14, 2008; filed May 23, 2005; 16 claims). In one line: it claims a computer-implemented method that builds a spatio-temporal graphical model of an object as a collection of components, computes a probability that the object appears in each frame of a video, and detects the object by comparing those probabilities to a threshold. Claim 1 is representative. The '980 was Count V of five patents asserted in Delaware; the others were the '878, '238 and '059 patents (video compression/decompression/adaptive playback) and the '682 patent (RTP/SRTP authentication). Notably, the '980 theory is a stretch fit for Giphy specifically — the accused functionality was Meta's enterprise-wide computer-vision infrastructure, not GIF search or GIF moderation, which helps explain Giphy's marginal role in the appeal.

Procedural posture and why it matters. The infringement case was filed May 24, 2022 in the District of Delaware (C.A. No. 22-680-JHS) before Judge Joel H. Slomsky (sitting by designation), with venue resting on the Delaware incorporation of Meta, Meta Platforms Technologies and Giphy under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) — Delaware being both the defendants' state of incorporation and the plaintiffs' preferred forum. On April 22, 2024 the court granted in part and denied in part Meta's partial Rule 12 motion: it held the '682 patent ineligible under § 101, but held the '980 patent patent-eligible at Alice step one, accepting VideoLabs' argument that the spatio-temporal model was a technological improvement to computer vision rather than an abstract "detect an object in an image" idea (Doc. 35). That is a relatively uncommon step-one win for a software/AI claim and is the most citable ruling in the case. In parallel, Meta and Giphy petitioned for IPR on all 16 claims (IPR2023-00924, filed May 24, 2023, on Zhao, Steffens+Zhao, Ozer+Zhao, and TLP). The Board (APJs Easthom, Smith and McKone) issued its final written decision on Dec. 5, 2024, holding claims 1–3, 5–7, 9–11 and 13–15 unpatentable as obvious while upholding dependent claims 4, 8, 12 and 16 (FWD). VideoLabs appealed on Feb. 3, 2025 (25-1415); the petitioners cross-appealed on Feb. 14, 2025 (25-1454), and the two were consolidated with 25-1415 as lead. On Aug. 11, 2025 the Federal Circuit deconsolidated them, dismissed 25-1415 by stipulation, and accepted Meta's and the other Meta entities' withdrawal from 25-1454, leaving Giphy as the lone appellant (order). Roughly seven weeks later, on Oct. 2, 2025, VideoLabs and Meta filed a joint motion to dismiss the Delaware case as settled — VideoLabs' claims with prejudice, Meta's counterclaims without prejudice (Doc. 106); the case closed Oct. 3, 2025. Giphy then dismissed its appeal by agreement on Oct. 14, 2025 under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), with each side bearing its own costs

I'll research this case across the district court docket, PTAB, and Federal Circuit records.

I've found the core documents. Now let me dig into the district court docket, the PTAB final written decision, and the other parallel IPRs.

Excellent — the picture is emerging. Let me pull the district court docket details and the parallel IPR proceedings.

Framing correction before the chronology

The case metadata frames this as an infringement suit, but the appeal bearing number 2025‑1454 is not an appeal from a district court judgment. It is a cross‑appeal from a PTAB final written decision in IPR2023‑00924 on U.S. 7,436,980, captioned below as Meta Platforms, Inc. v. VL Collective IP, LLC, 25‑1454, and it was consolidated on 2025‑02‑18 with VL Collective's appeal, 25‑1415 ("24‑1415 Lead with 24‑1454 Cross‑Appeal" per the docket note). The underlying infringement litigation is:

VideoLabs, Inc. and VL Collective IP LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Instagram, Inc., WhatsApp LLC, Facebook Technologies, LLC, and Giphy, Inc., C.A. No. 22‑680‑JHS (D. Del.), filed 2022‑05‑24, terminated 2025‑10‑03, assigned to Judge Joel H. Slomsky (E.D. Pa., sitting by designation).

Five patents were asserted there: 7,769,238; 8,139,878; 7,970,059; 7,266,682; and 7,436,980. Only the ’980 is in scope for the Federal Circuit appeal.

---

Chronology

1. Filing and initial pleadings

2022‑05‑24 — Complaint filed (D. Del., Doc. 1, 112 pp., jury demand). Three accused-product groupings: (i) H.264 entropy-coding functionality (CAVLC/CABAC) under the ’238/’878/’059 patents (Facebook Live, Instagram Stories, WhatsApp video, Oculus video); (ii) WebRTC/SRTP functionality under the ’682 patent; and (iii) object-detection functionality under the ’980 patent — specifically Meta's Detectron, Detectron2 and D2Go libraries. Willfulness was pleaded on pre‑suit knowledge from licensing outreach beginning 2019‑10‑02.

2022‑08‑01 — Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8). This is the only substantive pre‑trial motion I can document. It sought § 101 dismissal of the ’682 and ’980 patents and also attacked the indirect- and willful-infringement theories across all five counts.

Answer and counterclaims. Meta's counterclaims were in fact filed — the October 2025 joint dismissal expressly disposes of "Meta's claims, defenses, and/or counterclaims for relief against VideoLabs" — but I could not source the answer/counterclaim date or their substantive content in the public materials reviewed. Flagged as unsourced.

2. Parallel PTAB proceedings (filed in parallel with the pleadings)

2023‑05‑24 — Meta/Giphy IPR petitions filed, one day short of the one-year § 315(b) bar date from service:

• IPR2023‑00924 on the ’980 patent (claims 1–16). Petitioners: Meta Platforms, Instagram, WhatsApp, Meta Platforms Technologies, and Giphy. Grounds: § 103 over Zhao; Steffens + Zhao; Ozer + Zhao; and TLP.
• IPR2023‑00923 on the ’682 patent — same petitioner group. I could not confirm the final outcome of the ‑923 proceeding from the sources reviewed; treat its outcome as unverified here.

The Petition identified the D. Del. case as the related matter. Panel on the ’980 IPR: APJs Easthom, Smith, McKone (Tech Center 2600, Art Unit 2624).

2023‑12‑06 — Institution decision in IPR2023‑00924. The Board preliminarily construed "spatio-temporal model" to encompass "a model that encodes spatial relationships between parts of the object and incorporates temporal information used to detect the moving object," and observed that the claimed model "is not used in any subsequent step recited in claim 1."

2024‑09‑10 — Oral hearing in IPR2023‑00924 (70 min petitioner / 60 min patent owner). Kirkland & Ellis (W. Todd Baker, Ethan Perbohner, Jonathan Brit, Yan‑Xin Li) for petitioners; Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg (Christine Lehman, Philip Eklem, Jaime Cardenas‑Navia) for VL.

3. Dispositive § 101 ruling in the district court

2024‑04‑22 — Opinion and order on the partial motion to dismiss (Doc. 35, 21 pp.), VideoLabs, Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 22‑680‑JHS (D. Del.). Applying Alice:

• ’682 patent — dismissed as ineligible. Claims directed to the abstract idea of authenticating transmitted data; no inventive concept beyond generic computer functions and established network protocols.
• ’980 patent — motion denied; claims survived § 101. The court found the component-based spatio-temporal modeling approach eligible.
• The indirect/willful theories were also challenged; the court noted that even their dismissal would leave the direct-infringement claims standing.

This is the single most consequential district court ruling in the case, and it split the difference: one patent out, one patent (the ’980) preserved. See IP Law Daily, "PATENT—D. Del.: Mixed results for Meta in VideoLabs' ongoing patent infringement lawsuit" (2024‑04‑23); Law360, "Meta Secures Partial Trim Of Video Technology Patent Suit" (2024‑04‑23).

2024‑06‑06 — First Amended Complaint (Doc. 45), filed after the § 101 ruling — consistent with dropping the ’682 count and re-pleading around the surviving patents. (I did not verify the precise content changes.)

4. PTAB final written decision

2024‑12‑05 — Final Written Decision, IPR2023‑00924. Split outcome:

• Unpatentable: claims 1–3, 5–7, 9–11, and 13–15.
• Survived: claims 4, 8, 12, and 16 (petitioner failed to show unpatentability by a preponderance).

The Board declined to limit "spatio-temporal model" to the graphical-model embodiments in the specification, holding that claim 3 — not claim 1 — recites a graphical model. Notably, the FWD drew a dissent on the Zhao ground: the dissent argued the majority inferred Zhao's use of motion information without evidentiary support, relying on Dr. Saber's contrary testimony that Zhao's RCR algorithm does not compare object probabilities across frames to a detection threshold.

Because claims 1 and 9 (the independents) fell, the practical effect was to eliminate the ’980 patent's asserted claims — the dependent claims 4, 8, 12, 16 survived only as narrow fallbacks.

5. Claim construction and trial

No Markman ruling and no trial occurred. This is a key negative finding. The case never reached claim construction in the district court; claim-scope disputes over "spatio-temporal model" and "comparing the probabilities … to a threshold" were litigated inside the IPR, where the Board supplied the operative constructions. VL's own mandatory notice in a later IPR described the D. Del. case as "(stayed)" (VideoLabs notice dated 2025‑08‑15, IPR2025‑01329), confirming a stay pending the IPR(s) was in place. The date of the stay order is not sourced in the materials I reviewed — flagged. Discovery therefore never reached expert-report or pretrial milestones of strategic significance; the meaningful "discovery" in this dispute was IPR discovery and cross-examination (e.g., Dr. Saber's ~80 pages of deposition testimony cited in the FWD).

6. Appeals

2025‑02‑14 / 2025‑02‑18 — Appeals docketed. VL Collective appealed the adverse claim findings (25‑1415); Giphy cross‑appealed (25‑1454). Consolidated 2025‑02‑18 with 25‑1415 as lead. Certified list received 2025‑03‑17. The apparent logic of Giphy's cross‑appeal was to challenge the Board's refusal to invalidate claims 4, 8, 12, and 16 — inference, not confirmed.

2025‑08‑11 — Federal Circuit order (nonprecedential): on the parties' stipulation under FRAP 42(b)(1), 25‑1415 was deconsolidated and voluntarily dismissed, each side bearing its own costs; Meta Platforms, Instagram, WhatsApp and Meta Platforms Technologies **with

I'll research the docket and related proceedings to identify counsel of record for Giphy, Inc.

Key finding: 2025-1454 is Giphy's appeal from IPR2023-00924. Let me pull the actual docket entries and appearances.

Short answer

The only counsel of record I can source for the appellant/plaintiff side — Giphy, Inc. — is the Kirkland & Ellis LLP patent appellate/PTAB team that had represented all five petitioners (Meta Platforms, Instagram, WhatsApp, Meta Platforms Technologies and Giphy) in the underlying IPR. On the Federal Circuit docket for No. 2025‑1454 the counsel identifier tied to the case is Kirkland & Ellis LLP and John C. O'Quinn (Washington, D.C.). No separate Giphy-only appellate firm, and no in-house counsel entry, appears in any record I could access.

A necessary framing point: in this appeal Giphy is the appellant (petitioner below in IPR2023‑00924), not a district-court plaintiff. In the underlying infringement suit, VideoLabs, Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 1:22‑cv‑00680‑JHS (D. Del.), Giphy was a defendant. Your metadata styles Giphy as plaintiff, so I am answering as to Giphy's side.

---

Counsel of record — Giphy, Inc. (appellant)

Caveat on role allocation: Kirkland represented all five petitioners jointly, and the IPR papers do not disaggregate which Kirkland lawyer was retained by Giphy alone. Likewise, the Federal Circuit entry-of-appearance forms (which would formally identify who is "principal attorney" for Giphy post‑August 2025, after Meta's withdrawal) are behind PACER and I could not pull them document-by-document. The O'Quinn attribution rests on the 25‑1454 docket index; treat the "lead vs. of counsel" labels at the Federal Circuit stage as probable, not confirmed.

---

What happened to the appeal (context for why the record is thin)

• Feb. 18, 2025 — Appeal docketed as No. 2025‑1454 and consolidated as a cross-appeal to No. 2025‑1415 (VL Collective's appeal), lead case 25‑1415. Docketing notice, ECF No. 1 (Justia docket).
• Mar. 17, 2025 — Certified list received, ECF No. 4.
• Aug. 7, 2025 — No. 2025‑1414 (appeal from IPR2023‑00923, the '682 patent) dismissed by agreement (order).
• Aug. 11, 2025 — Order deconsolidating 25‑1415 and 25‑1454, dismissing 25‑1415, and setting Giphy's opening brief in 25‑1454 due in 60 days, expressly noting Meta/Instagram/WhatsApp/Meta Platforms Technologies' withdrawal from 25‑1454 (order, 25‑1415).
• Oct. 14, 2025 — Appeal voluntarily dismissed under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b); each side bears own costs; mandate issued same day (ECF No. 8) (order, 25-1454; Justia).

Because the case died roughly on the due date for Giphy's opening brief, no merits briefs were filed, so there is no brief caption block to cross-check the appearance information — an unusual gap for a counsel-identification exercise.

---

Substantive posture (why Giphy was the last appellant standing)

The appeal came from the Board's final written decision in IPR2023‑00924 on U.S. Patent No. 7,436,980 ("Graphical Object Models for Detection and Tracking," originally Siemens), which held claims 1–3, 5–7, 9–11 and 13–15 unpatentable over Zhao and combinations, but upheld claims 4, 8, 12 and 16. That split outcome produced cross-appeals: patent owner VL Collective appealed the invalidation (25‑1415) while petitioners cross-appealed the surviving claims (25‑1454). Giphy's continued participation after the Meta entities withdrew is consistent with Giphy having been divested by Meta to Shutterstock (May 2023), leaving it with its own litigation posture.

Opposing counsel (for context, not the answer): VL Collective IP is represented by Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP — Christine E. Lehman and Philip J. Eklem (Washington, D.C.), Jaime F. Cardenas‑Navia and Michael Matulewicz‑Crowley (New York) — per the IPR service lists and the Sept. 10, 2024 hearing transcript.

---

Confidence and sourcing notes

• High confidence: Kirkland & Ellis LLP represented Giphy in the IPR and on the Federal Circuit; the named timekeepers above are documented on Giphy's power of attorney, petitioners' filings, and the Sept. 10, 2024 hearing transcript (IPR2023‑00924 final written decision; hearing transcript).
• Moderate confidence: John C. O'Quinn as the Federal Circuit principal attorney — sourced to a third-party docket index for 25‑1454, not to the EOA document itself.
• Not verified: whether any Kirkland attorney withdrew and was replaced for Giphy alone after August 2025; whether in-house counsel (Meta or Shutterstock/Giphy legal) entered an appearance; and whether any EOA was filed under seal. I found no evidence of any of these, but I cannot affirm a negative from the records accessible here. Nothing in this memo should be read as confirming counsel I could not source.

Threshold point on posture (read this first)

The caption is inverted from the district court case. In Fed. Cir. 2025‑1454, Giphy, Inc. is the Appellant and VL Collective IP, LLC is the Appellee — VL is the owner of U.S. 7,436,980 and was the plaintiff below in VideoLabs, Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 1:22‑cv‑00680 (D. Del.). So the party whose counsel you're asking about (the "defendant‑side"/appellee party in the appeal) is VL Collective IP, LLC, and the appeal arises from IPR2023‑00924 (Meta/Instagram/WhatsApp/Meta Platforms Technologies/Giphy v. VL Collective IP), not from a district‑court judgment. See the Aug. 11, 2025 deconsolidation order, 25‑1415 Order at 1–2, and the Oct. 14, 2025 Rule 42(b) dismissal, 25‑1454 Order.

Sourcing caveat: I could not pull the 2025‑1454 entry‑of‑appearance documents themselves. Free docket mirrors stop at the March 17, 2025 certified list (Justia docket), the case was consolidated into 25‑1415 as the lead appeal (Dkt. 3, Feb. 18, 2025) so most appearances were filed in the lead appeal, and later entries sit behind PACER. The roster below is reconstructed from (i) the consolidated/related Federal Circuit appeals where VL's appearances are public, (ii) the PTAB hearing appearances in IPR2023‑00924, and (iii) third‑party litigation-database counsel listings for 25‑1454. Verify against the 25‑1454/25‑1415 EOA and any amended EOA before relying on it.

Counsel of record for Appellee VL Collective IP, LLC

All from Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP (the firm is VL/VideoLabs'长期 appellate and PTAB counsel). VL is a non‑practicing licensing entity; no in‑house counsel appeared on the public docket, and there is no "local counsel" concept at the Federal Circuit.

Primary sourcing: PTAB oral hearing transcript in IPR2023‑00924 (appearances for Patent Owner: Lehman, Eklem, Cardenas‑Navia) — hearing transcript; VL's Federal Circuit EOAs, e.g. 25‑1132 Dkt. 2 and 24‑1890 Dkt. 6/11; counsel listing for 25‑1454 in the PatSnap case profile (names Baran, Lehman, Cardenas‑Navia, Matulewicz‑Crowley, Eklem; firm Reichman Jorgensen).

For completeness — opposing side (Appellant Giphy, Inc.)

Giphy is represented by Kirkland & Ellis LLP: W. Todd Baker (Washington, DC — lead, argued the IPR for the Meta petitioners), Ethan Perbohner (Chicago), Jonathan Brit (New York), and Yan‑Xin Li (San Francisco), with John C. O'Quinn (Kirkland, DC) listed in the 25‑1454 counsel database as counsel for the Giphy/Meta appellants. Source: IPR2023‑00924 hearing transcript, Petitioner appearances; 25‑1454 counsel listing. Kirkland also handled the Meta/Giphy side of the related § 1782 discovery proceeding, In re Meta Platforms, No. 3:24‑mc‑80086 (N.D. Cal.), where Yan‑Xin Li signed the filings.

Notes and open items

• No sealed or under‑seal counsel issue here; the gap is purely docket‑access, not sealing. The dismissal came on the parties' joint agreement (Rule 42(b)) with no merits briefing completed, so no merits briefs with counsel blocks were ever filed in 25‑1454 — which is why an authoritative printed counsel list is thin.
• A "withdrawal" worth flagging: Kirkland's Meta‑entity clients (Meta Platforms, Instagram, WhatsApp, Meta Platforms Technologies) withdrew from 25‑1454 in August 2025, leaving Giphy as sole appellant (Aug. 11, 2025 order). Any amended EOAs reflecting that contraction are not visible on free mirrors.
• Do not confuse with VL's later Texas counsel. In VL's 2026 E.D. Tex. suits (e.g., VL Collective IP v. Microsoft, 2:26‑cv‑00346; v. IBM, 2:26‑cv‑00986), VL appears through a different team — Sal Lim, Hong S. Lin, Andrew G. Hamill, Russell Tonkovich, pro hac vice counsel J. Paul Barabas, Jeremiah Armstrong, Ryan Dooley and Nick Martini, plus David Alberti/Andrea Fair as local Texas counsel (E.D. Tex. docket). Those attorneys had no role in the 25‑1454 appeal.

Confidence: high on the Reichman Jorgensen core team (Lehman, Cardenas‑Navia, Matulewicz‑Crowley, Hasan, Baran, Eklem) as VL's Federal Circuit and PTAB counsel in this consolidated appeal; medium on the precise 25‑1454 EOA composition and designation of principal vs. non‑principal counsel, which should be confirmed against the docket itself.