Hulu LLC v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC

I'll research the parties, the underlying district court litigation, and the IPR record before drafting.

Let me pull the IPR docket specifics (petitioner identity, grounds, appeal) and the parallel litigation landscape.

Now let me verify the appeal outcome, the Hulu/Amazon settlements, the patent's lineage, and the MDL history.

I'll research this case and its parallel district court litigation.

I have the PTAB side. Now let me dig into the district court case and the IPR docket history.

Good — key finding: Hulu and Amazon were terminated from the IPR in October 2018, leaving Netflix (later joined by Comcast). Now let me get the district court docket in detail.

I'll search for press coverage from multiple angles — the IPR number, the patent, the parties, and the two known articles.

Now let me verify the two known articles and search for additional coverage.

Let me try to retrieve the actual content of the two known articles.

Press coverage

Bottom line: this IPR generated almost no dedicated press. I found exactly one contemporaneous trade-press article reporting the petition itself, and no article reporting the Feb. 4, 2019 institution decision or the Jan. 30, 2020 final written decision. Where Realtime Adaptive Streaming appears in the press at all, the coverage is usually about the district court campaign and the resulting § 101 and fee fights involving sibling patents (the '535 and '610), not about IPR2018-01187. The two articles flagged in the index are, respectively, a weekly filing roundup and a consumer-tech piece about the Apple suit — neither is a report on this proceeding.

The one squarely on-point article. Mealey's reported on 2018-06-13 that "[a] patent covering data compression claims 'known compression concepts,' Amazon.com Inc., Hulu LLC and Netflix Inc. assert in a June 4 petition for inter partes review (IPR) by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Amazon.com Inc., et al. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC, No. IPR2018-01187, PTAB)." Two things in that single sentence are worth extracting: (i) the outlet's significance framing was the obviousness theory — that the '477 patent merely recites "known compression concepts" — rather than the dollar exposure; and (ii) Mealey's styled the caption Amazon first, consistent with the actual petition caption, which is further evidence that the "Hulu LLC v. Realtime" styling in the case metadata (and on Law360's paywalled PTAB docket page) is a later indexing artifact rather than the Board's own caption. Law360's page, notably, lists a filing date of "June 08, 2018" — four days off from the June 4 petition date used everywhere else, including the Final Written Decision.

On the two indexed articles. Patently Apple published on 2017-12-01 a piece framing Realtime as "a Colorado company who sued Netflix and others" that was "now targeting Apple's streaming products like Apple Music, iTunes." That framing is corroborated by the pleading it was evidently written from — the amended complaint in Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 1:17-cv-02869-RBJ-STV (D. Colo.) — which asserts the '477 patent alongside the '046, '462, '442, '535 and '298 patents and names as accused instrumentalities "Apple's streaming products/services (e.g., Apple's Internet Services), such as, e.g., iTunes Store, Apple Music, and devices with iOS 3.0 and later and computers with Safari 4.0 and later (e.g., iPhone, iPad, Apple TV, Mac, iPod, Apple Watch, etc.)" (Doc. 40). I could not open the Patently Apple page itself, so I am not quoting it beyond its headline, and it necessarily predates the IPR by six months and does not discuss it. The IPWatchdog item, "Patent Filings Roundup: Patent Suits Hold Steady in the Downturn" (2020-04-22), is one of Jonathan Stroud's weekly Unified Patents tallies of new district court complaints and new PTAB petitions; I confirmed the article exists at that URL via an aggregator index but could not retrieve its text, and its coverage window (roughly the week of April 13–20, 2020) falls almost three months after the Jan. 30, 2020 FWD — so if it mentions Realtime at all, it would be a new filing, not this decision. Treat it as background on filing volume, not as reporting on IPR2018-01187.

Where the press actually went, and where it outran the IPR record. The sustained coverage of Realtime is about the aftermath in district court, and it goes well beyond anything in this PTAB record — different patents, different tribunals, and figures with no analogue here. National Law Review (Timothy Bianchi) analyzed the Federal Circuit's 2024-08-23 vacatur in Realtime Adaptive Streaming v. Sling TV, tracing how the C.D. Cal. Google order (Oct. 2018) and the D. Del. Netflix order (Dec. 2018) on the '535 patent, and the PTAB's invalidation of '535 claims 1–14, became "red flags" in a $3.9 million § 285 fee award to DISH — an award the panel vacated because

Sources

• Likewise, Google studied the Netflix IPRs and tailored its Petition based on those POPRs and institution decisions
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• IPR2018-01187 - Hulu LLC et al v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC IPR of US9769477B2 | RPX Insight
• This is because it would not be possible to transmit live streaming data (such as a live video feed) at a transmission rate that...
• IPR2018- 01187, - 01630 Netflix, Inc
• VII. The combination of Madison '273 and Wolfe does not render any claim unpatentable (Ground 3).
• Final Written Decision, filed in Hewlett- Packard Enterprise Co
• **_issue in that case
• IPR2018-01630
• IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• HULU, LLC, AMAZON

I'll research the counsel of record for the petitioner/plaintiff in this IPR.

Key finding so far: the petitioner side is Baker Botts (later Sheppard Mullin). Let me verify the counsel designations and the Hulu-specific power of attorney.

Let me verify the Hulu-specific POA and the individual attorneys' backgrounds.

Threshold correction before the roster

Two things need flagging, because they change how "plaintiff's counsel" should be read here:

1. There is no plaintiff in this proceeding. IPR2018-01187 is a PTAB trial, not a civil action. The case metadata labels Hulu LLC as "Plaintiff(s)" and Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC as "Defendant(s)," but the actual caption is Amazon.com, Inc., Hulu, LLC, and Netflix, Inc. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC, with Realtime as Patent Owner. Hulu is a co-petitioner (a defendant in the underlying C.D. Cal. suit, Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Hulu, LLC, No. 2:17-cv-07611). I've treated the question as asking for petitioner-side counsel of record for Hulu.

2. Hulu's counsel left the case in October 2018. Hulu and Amazon filed a joint motion to terminate the IPRs as to themselves (Papers 10, 14 — Oct. 3 and Oct. 18, 2018), and Netflix's updated power of attorney (Paper 12, Oct. 15, 2018) re-designated counsel for Netflix alone. So Hulu had counsel of record for only the first ~4½ months of a proceeding that ran to a Jan. 30, 2020 final written decision. There is no Hulu-specific counsel designation in the record after October 2018.

---

Petitioner-side counsel of record

Phase 1 — Petition through termination of Hulu (June 4 – Oct. 2018)

Per Petitioners' Updated Mandatory Notices, Paper 8 (Aug. 21, 2018), all four were designated for the three petitioners jointly, Baker Botts L.L.P., 1001 Page Mill Road, Building One, Suite 200, Palo Alto, CA 94304: docketalarm.com PDF

Hulu filed its own power of attorney (Paper 2, June 4, 2018), as did Amazon (Paper 1) and Netflix (Paper 3), each executed alongside the petition. Caveat: I was able to confirm the identity of the Baker Botts team from the mandatory notices and the Patent Owner's certificates of service, but I could not open the text of Paper 2 itself, so the specific naming of Batts/Williams/Nall/Ponder inside Hulu's POA is inferred from the parallel filings and cross-service — treat as high-confidence but not document-verified.

Phase 2 — Netflix-only prosecution through FWD (Oct. 2018 – Jan. 30, 2020)

Netflix's Updated Power of Attorney, Paper 12 (Oct. 15, 2018) — filed after the Batts group's move from Baker Botts — re-designated:

• Harper Batts (Reg. 56,160) — Lead counsel — Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, 379 Lytton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
• Chris Ponder (Reg. 77,167) — Backup counsel — same address

Paper 12 PDF

By the merits briefing, Jeffrey Liang (Reg. 69,043) had been added as a second backup — he appears on the Patent Owner's Aug. 23, 2019 certificate of service (Paper 31) alongside Batts and Ponder, all at Sheppard Mullin. Liang (electrical engineering background, former Intel engineer) was a senior associate who later became partner. The Batts/Ponder/Liang move to Sheppard Mullin was reported Sept. 24, 2018 (The Recorder; Sheppard Mullin announcement).

Note that service on petitioner after Aug. 2019 ran to Legaltm-Netflix-Realtime-IPRs@sheppardmullin.com — the "+HAM"/"Batts/Hulu/Amazon" team mailbox structure makes clear the same team continued.

---

For completeness: Patent Owner's counsel (adverse side)

Not asked, but necessary context for the docket picture, from Realtime's Updated Mandatory Notices, Paper 31 (Aug. 23, 2019):

• Joel P.N. Stonedale (Reg. 76,924) — lead counsel — Noroozi PC, Austin, TX
• Kayvan B. Noroozi (pro hac vice, admitted per Paper 20, Dec. 11, 2018) — first backup — Noroozi PC, Los Angeles
• Neil A. Rubin (Reg. 67,030) and Kent Shum (Reg. 61,117) — backup — Russ, August & Kabat, Los Angeles (Rubin and Shum were on the original June 2018 POA, Paper 6)

---

Hulu's separate district court counsel (different proceeding — not this case)

Because the metadata frames Hulu as a "plaintiff," it's worth separating the C.D. Cal. action Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Hulu, LLC, No. 2:17-cv-07611, where Hulu was the defendant. Docket appearances there include Katherine Vidal, Andrew B. Grossman, Saranya Raghavan (admitted pro hac vice, Grossman designated local counsel), Matthew R. McCullough, Erin Greenfield Mehta, and Joe S. Netikosol — a different team from the Baker Botts/Sheppard Mullin IPR team, and a different engagement entirely. I have not independently verified firm affiliation for these attorneys from a retrieved source (Vidal and Grossman were widely reported at Winston & Strawn in that period), so I'd flag that attribution as unconfirmed rather than assert it. That case was dismissed with prejudice per an order on the docket.

---

Sourcing caveats

• Nothing on the petitioner side is sealed. All counsel designations come from public PTAB papers (Papers 1–3, 6, 8, 12, 13, 31) and are corroborated across three independent document families (petitioner mandatory notices, petitioner POAs, patent-owner certificates of service).
• Not verified: the text of Papers 1–3 (the three June 4, 2018 POAs), the Jan. 30, 2020 FWD's own counsel caption block, and whether Batts/Ponder argued at the oral hearing. The RPX case page lists names such as Georgianna Braden, Gregg Anderson, Kamran Jivani, Kevin Cherry, and Nabeel Khan — those are the Administrative Patent Judges on the panel, not counsel, and should not be conflated.
• Registration numbers are as stated in the PTAB filings and reflect the attorneys' status at the time of filing, not current status.

I'll research the counsel of record for the patent owner/defendant, Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC, in this IPR and the parallel litigation.

Good — I have the PTAB mandatory notices. Now let me verify the counsel changes, the pro hac vice status, and the parallel district court appearances.

Now let me pull the Final Written Decision's counsel listing and check the Federal Circuit appeal and any withdrawal/substitution orders.

Counsel of Record — Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC (Patent Owner / Respondent)

One threshold clarification up front. In IPR2018-01187 the "defendant" side is the patent owner, Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC — Hulu, Amazon and Netflix were the petitioners. Realtime's PTAB team is set out below, with the mid-proceeding turnover that matters for anyone citing "counsel of record" at a given date. (Note also a caption discrepancy worth flagging: the case metadata styles this "Hulu LLC v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC," but the Board's own papers alternate between "NETFLIX, INC., Petitioner" and "HULU, LLC, AMAZON.COM, INC., and NETFLIX, INC., Petitioners." All three were petitioners on the June 4, 2018 petition; Netflix appears as the nominal petitioner in later Board orders such as Paper 20.)

---

Final counsel of record (as of the Jan. 30, 2020 Final Written Decision)

Per Realtime's Updated Mandatory Notices, Paper 31 (Aug. 23, 2019) and the service list in Petitioner's Request for Oral Hearing, Paper 30 (Aug. 22, 2019):

Superseded counsel — early phase (June–December 2018)

• William P. Rothwell (Reg. No. 72,522), Noroozi PC — was lead counsel when Noroozi's pro hac vice motion was filed; the Board's order states that "lead counsel for Patent Owner, William Rothwell, a registered practitioner, filed the Motion" (Paper 20 at 1–2). He was replaced as lead by Stonedale in the 2019 updated notices and does not appear on the final service list.
• Neil A. Rubin and Kent Shum (Russ August & Kabat) were the original appointed attorneys under Realtime's Power of Attorney, Paper 6 (June 22, 2018), signed by manager Richard Tashjian — i.e., RAK was Realtime's original PTAB counsel of record before Noroozi PC took the lead role.

How the representation evolved

1. June 22, 2018 — Paper 6: RAK (Rubin, Shum) appointed.
2. Late 2018 — Noroozi PC (Rothwell as lead, Noroozi PHV) replaces RAK as lead; Dec. 11, 2018 Paper 20 grants Noroozi pro hac vice as back-up only, with a registered practitioner required as lead.
3. Aug. 23, 2019 — Paper 31: Stonedale becomes lead; Noroozi first back-up; Rubin and Shum remain as back-up counsel through the FWD.
4. Oct. 15, 2019 — consolidated oral argument with IPR2018-01630 (same '477 patent); Jan. 30, 2020 — FWD, all claims unpatentable.

---

For completeness: the petitioners' side (Hulu/Amazon/Netflix)

Because the caption names Hulu, some readers will expect Hulu's defense-side roster. In this IPR, petitioners' counsel also changed firms mid-case:

• Original (Paper 8, Aug. 21, 2018): Baker Botts L.L.P., Palo Alto — Harper Batts (Reg. 56,160, lead), Eliot Williams (Reg. 50,822), Chris Ponder (Reg. 77,167), Jennifer Nall (Reg. 57,053).
• Later (by mid-2019): Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, Palo Alto — Harper Batts (lead), Chris Ponder, Jeffrey Liang; see Petitioner's Request for Oral Hearing (Paper 30) and the July 17, 2019 Zeger deposition appearances.

Caveats

• There is no "local counsel" designation in a PTAB proceeding; the RAK/Noroozi split above is lead vs. back-up, not local vs. national.
• Nothing in this IPR was sealed — the mandatory notices, powers of attorney and PHV orders are public PTAB papers, so the roster above is complete on the face of the record.
• I did not independently verify Hulu's counsel of record in the parallel district court action, Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Hulu, LLC, No. 2:17-cv-07611 (C.D. Cal.), or Realtime's counsel there (historically Russ August & Kabat / the Fenster firms). If you need the C.D. Cal. appearances specifically, that requires a separate PACER pull — I'd rather flag that than infer it from the PTAB filings.
• Noroozi PC's addresses changed at least twice during the proceeding (Sugar Land → Austin; Santa Monica → 11601 Wilshire Blvd.), which is why some certificates of service list different addresses for the same attorneys.