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

Case overview & background

The parties. The petitioners are the Meta operating companies — Meta Platforms, Inc., Instagram, Inc., WhatsApp LLC, Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC (formerly Facebook Technologies) and Giphy, Inc. — i.e., the corporate family that operates Facebook/Instagram/WhatsApp, the Quest/Portal hardware line, and the Giphy GIF platform (Final Written Decision at 2 (RPI section), IPR2023-00924, https://patentlyo.com/media/2025/04/IPR2023-00924-FD-ready-for-mailing.pdf; D. Del. Compl. ¶¶ 16–17). The patent owner side is a licensing entity: VideoLabs, Inc. (Palo Alto, DE-incorporated), its subsidiary VL IP Holdings LLC, and the record owner of the ’980 patent, VL Collective IP LLC — the Board and the Federal Circuit both recaptioned the proceeding to VL Collective after the patent was moved within the group. VideoLabs launched in October 2019 as an "industry-sponsored patent collective" selling memberships to a portfolio acquired from Nokia, Alcatel-Lucent, Siemens, Swisscom, 3Com, HPE, Panasonic and LG, and it is led by licensing veterans (Joe Chernesky, Bill Goldman, Ira Blumberg); it describes itself as a collective, but it is functionally a non-practicing assertion entity and is treated as such by defendants (VideoLabs launch release, https://www.videolabsinc.com/focus/videolabs-launches-patent-collective-to-disrupt-inefficient-patent-system; D. Del. D.I. 35 at 3–4).

The accused technology and the patents. This IPR is a satellite of VideoLabs, Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., C.A. No. 1:22-cv-00680-JHS (D. Del., filed May 24, 2022), which asserted five patents in five counts: (1) U.S. 8,139,878 and (2) 7,769,238 — H.264 CAVLC entropy encoding/decoding (predicting the number of non-zero coefficients to select a VLC table); (3) 7,970,059 — H.264 CABAC decoding; (4) 7,266,682 — application-layer authentication inserted at the end of a whole RTP packet payload, accused of being practiced by Meta's WebRTC/SRTP implementations in Messenger, Instagram, WhatsApp and Portal video calling; and (5) U.S. 7,436,980 — the only patent at issue here — "Graphical Object Models for Detection and Tracking" (Siemens; inventors Sigal, Zhu, Comaniciu), which claims a computer-implemented method that builds a spatio-temporal model of an object, measures the object as a collection of components in each frame, computes a probability of presence, and detects the object by comparing probabilities to a threshold (claim 1). The ’980 accused products are Meta's object-detection stack — the open-source Detectron2 library and the AI "Smart Camera" in Portal devices (Compl. ¶¶ 251–260; FWD at 3–5; D.I. 35 at 3–5).

Posture, venue, and why it matters. The D. Del. suit landed in Delaware because every Meta entity is a Delaware corporation, which plaintiffs used to satisfy § 1400(b) "residence" venue (Compl. ¶¶ 19–28); it was assigned to Judge Joel H. Slomsky (docket suffix "JHS"; the ’682/’980 § 101 opinion is VideoLabs, Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (D. Del. Apr. 22, 2024), D.I. 35, https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.79020/gov.uscourts.ded.79020.35.0.pdf). That court split Meta's

I'll research this. Note up front: the metadata describes a PTAB inter partes review, not a district court case — so I need to verify whether there is a parallel district court action and pair the two together.

Now I need the parallel district court action: VideoLabs, Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00680 (D. Del.). Let me dig into that docket and the appeals.

Good — the parallel district court case is confirmed. Now the D. Del. procedural history (MTD, stay, Markman) and the Federal Circuit appeal outcomes.

Threshold note on the case framing

The metadata supplied is for a PTAB inter partes review (IPR2023-00924), not a district court case. But it sat atop a real

I'll research this. Note upfront: the case metadata describes an IPR before the PTAB, not a district-court infringement suit — so the "plaintiff-side" counsel here are the petitioners' counsel of record (Meta et al.). Let me verify the record.

Good — the record identifies Kirkland & Ellis for petitioners and Reichman Jorgensen for the patent owner. Let me nail down lead vs. backup designations and the Federal Circuit counsel.

Let me pull the petition's mandatory notices to confirm the formal lead/backup designations, plus the related district court docket.

Threshold clarification: which side is "plaintiff"?

Two things in the framing need correcting before the counsel list, and both affect the answer:

1. IPR2023-00924 is not a patent infringement case. It is an inter partes review before the PTAB. There is no plaintiff or defendant; there is a petitioner (Meta Platforms, Inc.; Instagram, Inc.; WhatsApp LLC; Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC; Giphy, Inc.) and a patent owner (VL Collective IP LLC, with VL IP Holdings LLC and VideoLabs, Inc. as parents — captioned in the metadata as "VL IP Holdings LLC"). I have treated the Meta entities as the "plaintiffs" you asked about, i.e., petitioners' counsel of record. I also list patent owner's counsel at the end in case the sides were reversed.
2. The true infringement suit is elsewhere. The Final Written Decision identifies the co-pending district court case as VideoLabs, Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00680 (D. Del.), filed May 24, 2022 — where Meta is the defendant, not the plaintiff. (FWD at 2, "Related Matters," citing Pet. 2 and Paper 8, 2.) So there is no Meta-side "plaintiff's infringement counsel" in this record to identify.

Also note a sourcing limitation: I was able to retrieve the oral hearing transcript, the FWD, and party papers, but not the § 42.8(b)(3) lead/backup-counsel table from the petition itself. The role designations below are therefore reconstructed from the Sept. 10, 2024 hearing transcript (Paper 53) and the certificate-of-service lists in the papers — they are accurate as to who appeared and in what order, but the formal "Lead Counsel / Back-Up Counsel" labels are inferred, not quoted.

---

Petitioners' counsel of record — Kirkland & Ellis LLP

All from a single firm; no local counsel or in-house counsel appears in the PTAB record (PTAB practice does not use local counsel). Service in the proceeding ran through Meta_VideoLabs@kirkland.com. (See Patent Owner's Notice of Stipulation, Jan. 31, 2024, certificate of service.)

On Federal Circuit appeal. The FWD was appealed; the two appeals were consolidated and then split by the court's Aug. 11, 2025 order: No. 2025-1415 (VL Collective IP, LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc.) was voluntarily dismissed, and only No. 2025-1454 survives, now captioned Giphy, Inc. v. VL Collective IP, LLC after Meta/Instagram/WhatsApp/Meta Platforms Technologies withdrew. Giphy's opening brief was due 60 days out. VL Collective IP, LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Nos. 2025-1415, 2025-1454 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 11, 2025) (nonprecedential order). Third-party dockets list John C. O'Quinn (Kirkland & Ellis) as appellate lead with W. Todd Baker for Giphy — I flag that as unverified against PACER/CM-ECF; I only have an aggregator page for the CAFC docket.

Terminal note: the patent Office's Gazette shows an Inter Partes Review Certificate for the '980 patent issued Dec. 19, 2025 (US 7,436,980 K1), which ordinarily follows exhaustion of appeal — consistent with the appeal having resolved in petitioners' favor, but I have not retrieved the Rule 36/summary affirmance or other disposition and won't assert one.

---

Patent owner's counsel (in case the sides were reversed) — Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP

• Christine E. Lehman (USPTO Reg. No. 38,535) — lead; Washington, D.C. (1909 K St., N.W., Suite 800). Signed the stipulation as "Counsel for Patent Owner."
• Philip J. Eklem — Washington, D.C.; handled the Dec. 20, 2023 Director Review request correspondence.
• Jaime F. Cardenas-Navia — New York (400 Madison Ave., Suite 14D); argued for patent owner at the Sept. 10, 2024 hearing.

RJLF is VideoLabs' long-standing counsel across the campaign against Netflix, Starz, and Meta in D. Del. and the PTAB — a point corroborated by expert CVs in the record describing retention "through Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP on behalf of VideoLabs, Inc."

---

Confidence and gaps

• High confidence: identity of the four Kirkland attorneys at the hearing and their offices; Baker as the presenting/lead advocate; RJLF's three attorneys; the D. Del. related case number.
• Medium confidence: the formal lead/backup designations (inferred, not quoted from the petition's mandatory notice); Ellisen Shelton Turner's status (appears on service lists but not at hearing).
• Low confidence / unverified: Federal Circuit appellate counsel designations (aggregator only); the final disposition of No. 2025-1454.
• No sealing issue: the record I relied on is public. The Board did enter a protective order (Paper 40, July 3, 2024), but counsel identities were never sealed.

If you want the district court side of the dispute — actual infringement counsel of record for the plaintiff VideoLabs in D. Del. 1:22-cv-00680 — that is a different docket and I'd need to pull it separately; my attempt timed out.

I'll research the defense-side counsel. In the parallel infringement suit (VideoLabs, Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., D. Del. 1:22-cv-00680), the defendants are the Meta entities — the same companies that are petitioners here. Let me pull that docket and firm confirmations.

Good progress. Now let me pull the signature blocks from Meta's district-court filings (MTD, answer/counterclaims) and confirm the Kirkland-side lead counsel plus whether Giphy had separate counsel.

Let me pull the CourtListener docket entries with signature blocks and check Giphy's status as a defendant.

Framing: who is the "defendant" here?

The task asks for defense-side counsel. Two answers are possible depending on which proceeding you mean, and they point to different firms:

• In the infringement suit (VideoLabs, Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00680-JHS, D. Del.), the defendants are the Meta entities — Meta Platforms, Inc., Instagram, Inc., WhatsApp LLC, Facebook Technologies, LLC (now Meta Platforms Technologies), and originally Giphy, Inc. Their defense team is Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP (Delaware counsel) + Kirkland & Ellis LLP (national trial/appellate counsel). That is the set below.
• In this IPR, there is no "defendant" — the Meta entities are petitioners, and the party in the defensive posture is the patent owner, VL Collective IP LLC / VL IP Holdings LLC, represented by Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP (Christine E. Lehman, Philip J. Eklem, Jaime F. Cardenas-Navia, Michael Matulewicz-Crowley). Those names were already covered in the prior section and I don't repeat them here.

---

Defendants' Delaware counsel — Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP

Both appear in the signature block of the Joint Motion to Dismiss filed Oct. 2, 2025, expressly "Attorneys for Defendants Meta Platforms, Inc., Instagram, Inc., WhatsApp LLC and Facebook Technologies, LLC."

Confidence: high. The Oct. 2, 2025 joint motion is a public, signed filing and is the best available confirmation of who was on the Delaware defense signature block at the end of the case (reproduced at Bloomberg Law, https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/VideoLabsIncetalvMetaPlatformsIncetalDocketNo122cv00680DDelMay242/3).

---

Defendants' trial counsel — Kirkland & Ellis LLP

Kirkland led the substantive defense (the § 101 partial motion to dismiss, D.I. 8, and defendants' briefing, D.I. 15) and also ran the parallel IPR campaign. Third-party case records for 22-680 list the following as recorded Meta-side counsel, alongside Jacobs and Clark (Patsnap, supra):

Confidence: medium-high on LoCascio/Turner/Brit as the Kirkland D. Del. team (aggregator-recorded, corroborated by Turner's and Brit's PTAB appearances in the same campaign); medium on O'Quinn as appellate counsel (aggregator only, not verified against the CAFC docket).

---

Contradiction / discrepancy to flag

Giphy, Inc. appears as a named defendant in the complaint but not in the dismissal. The complaint (D.I. 1, May 24, 2022) names five defendants including Giphy, Inc. ("Complaint for Patent Infringement … Against Facebook Technologies, LLC, Giphy, Inc., Instagram, Inc., Meta Platforms, Inc., Whats App LLC," per the 22-680 docket index, https://docketnexus.com/case/videolabs-inc-v-meta-platforms-inc-63335915/). But the Joint Motion to Dismiss (Oct. 2, 2025) recites only Meta, Instagram, WhatsApp, and Facebook Technologies, and Morris Nichols signed for only those four. That tells us Giphy was dropped from the D. Del. case at some earlier point — I could not retrieve the order or stipulation effecting that dismissal, so I am not asserting a date or mechanism. This matters for your metadata because Giphy did remain a petitioner in IPR2023-00924 (and, per the prior section, is the sole remaining appellant as Giphy, Inc. v. VL Collective IP, LLC, No. 2025-1454) even though it was not a defendant of record at the close of the district court case.

Also worth flagging as a timing note rather than a contradiction: the district court case was dismissed Oct. 2–3, 2025, i.e., after the IPR FWD (Dec. 5, 2024) but before the Federal Circuit's Aug. 11, 2025 consolidation/split order ripened into the Giphy-only appeal. The dismissal was part of a global resolution, and the joint motion recites that the parties "have resolved VideoLabs' claims … and Meta's claims … asserted in this case" (Law360, "Meta, VideoLabs Resolve Video Tech Patent Dispute," Oct. 2, 2025, https://www.law360.com/cases/628e4bcc75a3449ba2ae9da3/articles).

---

What I could not verify

1. Formal lead-counsel designation. D. Del. does not file a § 42.8-style lead/backup notice, and I did not retrieve the defendants' Answer and Counterclaims signature block (which would normally list the full Kirkland team and the Delaware sponsor). The Morris Nichols names are quoted from the dismissal motion; the Kirkland names are from a case-record aggregator rather than a signed filing I read directly. Treat "lead" for LoCascio as inferential.
2. In-house counsel. No Meta/Instagram/WhatsApp/Meta Platforms Technologies in-house attorney appears on the 22-680 docket that I could retrieve; the defense ran through outside counsel.
3. No sealing issue on identities. Filings in 22-680 were public (the § 101 opinion, D.I. 35, is published at https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.79020/gov.uscourts.ded.79020.35.0.pdf). The PTAB protective order (Paper 40, July 3, 2024) in IPR2023-00924 did not seal counsel identities.
4. Kirkland's § 101 brief counsel. The defense's winning motion (D.I. 8) and brief (D.I. 15) are cited in the D.I. 35 opinion but I did not pull their signature blocks; a name-level attribution of who argued the § 101 motion would require that pull.

Bottom line: for the infringement case, the defendants' counsel of record are Karen Jacobs and Cameron P. Clark (Morris Nichols, Wilmington) as Delaware counsel, working with Kirkland & Ellis — Gregg F. LoCascio (D.C.) on the trial side and Ellisen S. Turner (L.A.) and Jonathan D. Brit (N.Y.) as the lawyers who also carried the parallel IPR work, with John C. O'Quinn (D.C.) on the appellate side.