Meta Platforms, Inc. et al. v. VL Collective IP LLC

I'll research this case thoroughly. Note one important framing issue up front: the metadata identifies this as an IPR at the PTAB, not a district court action — so I'll need to verify the relationship (if any) to a parallel district court suit.

Rich results. Let me dig into the parallel district court case, the patent owner's identity/campaign, and the sister IPR.

I'll research this case, keeping in mind the metadata describes a PTAB IPR (not a district court case), so I'll look for the parallel district court litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 7,266,682 and VL Collective IP.

Key finding: there's a parallel Delaware district court case. Let me dig deeper into the docket, rulings, and the related IPRs.

Framing note

The case named in the metadata — IPR2023-00923 — is the PTAB proceeding. The patent infringement litigation on U.S. Pat. No. 7,266,682 is the parallel Delaware action:

• VideoLabs, Inc. and VL Collective IP LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Instagram, Inc., WhatsApp LLC, Facebook Technologies LLC, and GIPHY, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00680-JHS (D. Del.), filed 2022-05-24, assigned to Judge Joel H. Slomsky.
• PTAB companions: IPR2023-00923 (the '682 patent) and IPR2023-00924 (U.S. Pat. No. 7,436,980), both filed 2023-05-24 by the Meta entities.

Everything below is organized chronologically and flags where I could not verify a fact.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings (2022)

• 2022-05-24 — VideoLabs, Inc. and VL Collective IP LLC file a five-count complaint in D. Del. against Meta and four subsidiaries, alleging § 271(a) infringement of:
  • Count I — U.S. 8,139,878 ('878, H.264 entropy/VLC coding)
  • Count II — U.S. 7,769,238 ('238, coding)
  • Count III — U.S. 7,970,059 ('059)
  • Count IV — U.S. 7,266,682 ('682, WebRTC/SRTP authentication)
  • Count V — U.S. 7,436,980 ('980, object detection/tracking)
    (Docs. 1; summarized in 2024-04-22 opinion, Doc. 35, at 1–4.)
• The complaint pleaded willfulness and indirect infringement (induced + contributory) on each count, and alleged notice predating suit — e.g., "VideoLabs representatives reached out to Meta representatives at least as early as 2019-10-02," knowledge of the patent family since 2020-01-30, and knowledge of the '682 patent since 2021-05-23. Accused '682 functionality was WebRTC/SRTP in Meta products/services.
• Answer/counterclaims: ⚠️ I could not verify the date

I'll research the counsel of record for the petitioners (Meta et al.) in this IPR.

I have strong initial data. Let me verify additional counsel, the hearing transcript for this specific IPR, and any updates.

Let me confirm the hearing appearances for IPR2023-00923 specifically and the attorneys' backgrounds.

Counsel of Record — Petitioner Side (Meta Platforms et al.) in IPR2023-00923

Important framing note: This is a PTAB inter partes review, not a district‑court infringement suit. The parties you list (Meta Platforms, Inc.; Instagram, Inc.; WhatsApp LLC; Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC; Giphy, Inc.) are the Petitioners, not "plaintiffs." The "plaintiff/appellant" side in the related Article III litigation and appeal is VL Collective (patent owner). So below I give the counsel of record for the Petitioner (Meta) side — the party you identified as the "plaintiff(s)."

All appearances below are drawn from the PTAB record: Petitioners' Updated Mandatory Notices (Paper filed May 8, 2024), and the deposition/oral‑hearing transcripts and pro hac vice filings in the file. Registration numbers are as stated in those filings.

Lead Counsel

Back‑Up Counsel

Additional Kirkland attorney appearing on the Meta team

Practice notes

• Firm: Kirkland & Ellis LLP is the sole outside firm of record for the Meta Petitioners in this IPR. There is no separate "local counsel" in an IPR (no local‑counsel requirement applies).
• In‑house counsel: No Meta in‑house attorney is named in the mandatory notices or powers of attorney; I found no in‑house appearance on the record.
• Parallel district court: The '682 patent was asserted in VideoLabs, Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 1:22‑cv‑00680 (D. Del.) — the D. Del. defense team is separate from (and not established by) the PTAB record here.
• Unrelated Meta "FEDER" appearance: A David Feder appears as "Plaintiff's Counsel" in a Meta enforcement/subpoena matter, Meta Platforms, Inc. et al. v. VL Collective IP LLC, No. 3:24‑cv‑04930 (D.N.J.). That is not counsel of record in IPR2023‑00923 and should not be attributed to the Meta litigation team here.

Caveats / sourcing limits

• I could not run PACER or PTAB E2E directly; the above is grounded in public PTAB filings (Updated Mandatory Notices dated May 8, 2024; pro hac vice declaration of Ethan Perbohner; deposition and oral‑hearing transcripts) surfaced via the USPTO PTAB documents portal, plus the Kirkland firm bio for Yan‑Xin Li.
• Biographical "notable past cases" for Baker, Turner, and Brit are stated only where a filing or docket confirms them; I did not find, and therefore do not assert, further specific case histories for them.
• Outcome context: the Board's Final Written Decision (Dec. 5, 2024) held claims 1–28 unpatentable; VL Collective's Federal Circuit appeal (VL Collective IP, LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 2025‑1414) was dismissed under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) on Aug. 7, 2025, and the IPR certificate issued Aug. 18, 2025.

If you want the Patent Owner (VL Collective) side as well, that team is Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP (Christine E. Lehman, Philip J. Eklem, Jaime Cardenas‑Navia, Michael Matulewicz‑Crowley) — say the word and I'll expand it.

I'll research the defense side of the parallel Delaware action (the "defendant(s)" — the Meta entities). Let me search the docket and firm sources.

The task asks for the defendant(s) side. Note the metadata labels: "Defendant(s): VL Collective IP LLC" — i.e., the patent owner (which is the plaintiff in the D. Del. infringement suit, where the Meta entities are defendants). Let me research both sides' counsel to resolve this cleanly.

Counsel of record — "defendant" side (VL Collective IP LLC)

Framing note (important): The case metadata labels VL Collective IP LLC as "Defendant(s)." In the PTAB proceeding that is the caption of this case (IPR2023‑00923), VL Collective is actually the Patent Owner (the party defending the validity of U.S. Pat. No. 7,266,682), and in the parallel Delaware infringement action it is the plaintiff. The Meta entities are the Petitioners in this IPR. Because the previously generated "plaintiff representatives" section already covered the Meta/Kirkland side, the section below covers the complementary party — VL Collective IP LLC, the "Defendant(s)" per the metadata — i.e., the patent‑owner/defendant side.

All names below are drawn from the PTAB record (Patent Owner's Power of Attorney/mandatory notices, Board orders, hearing transcripts, and the parties' service e‑mail distribution lists) and from the D. Del. docket. I flag where a fact is not independently confirmed.

---

1. IPR-side team — Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP (Patent Owner VL Collective)

Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP is the sole firm representing VL Collective in the IPRs, including IPR2023‑00923.

Practice notes:

• No in‑house counsel appears on the PTAB record for VL Collective; the IPR work is handled entirely by Reichman Jorgensen.
• I could not independently confirm a filed Power of Attorney or Updated Mandatory Notice that fixes which attorney is designated "lead" vs. "back‑up" specifically in IPR2023‑00923 (as opposed to the sister VideoLabs IPRs). The individuals above are all confirmed as being on the VL Collective side of this IPR via the parties' service lists, Board orders, and/or hearing materials.

---

2. Local counsel — Farnan LLP (Wilmington, DE)

VL Collective and VideoLabs use Farnan LLP as their Delaware local counsel in the D. Del. infringement litigation (Farnan signed the complaint and the IPR‑related D. Del. papers):

---

3. The actual D. Del. "defendants" (Meta entities) — for completeness

If by "defendant(s) in this patent infringement case" you mean the defendants in the parallel Delaware infringement action — Meta Platforms, Inc.; Instagram, Inc.; WhatsApp LLC; Facebook Technologies LLC; and GIPHY, Inc. — their defense side is the same Kirkland & Ellis team that acts as Petitioners here (lead: W. Todd Baker, Reg. No. 45,265; back‑up: Ellisen Shelton Turner, Jonathan D. Brit, Ethan Perbohner, per the Updated Mandatory Notices). ⚠️ Caveat: I could not confirm from the sources retrieved the identity of Meta's Delaware local counsel in the D. Del. action (the Kirkland team handles the substantive work, but D. Del. practice requires a Delaware‑admitted local firm, e.g., Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, Young Conaway, or similar). That local‑counsel fact is not verified here and should not be assumed.

---

Caveats / sourcing limits

• I could not query PACER or PTAB E2E directly; the above rests on public PTAB filings (Power of Attorney, mandatory notices, Board orders, service lists), the parties' e‑mail distributions of record, the D. Del. complaint/docket, the ded.uscourts.gov opinion page, and Fed. Cir. opinions surfaced via search.
• Office addresses and bar/registration numbers are as stated in those filings; Reichman Jorgensen has since used multiple addresses for the same attorneys (e.g., Lehman at both 1909 K St. NW and 1710 Rhode Island Ave. NW), so both are noted where they appear.
• Do not attribute the Meta "FEDER" / subpoena matter in D.N.J. (Meta Platforms, Inc. et al. v. VL Collective IP LLC, No. 3:24‑cv‑04930) counsel to this case; that is a separate enforcement action.

If you actually want the D. Del. defense team for the Meta entities (Kirkland + Delaware local counsel) confirmed, that requires a PACER/docket pull of No. 1:22‑cv‑00680, which I was not able to complete here.