Multimedia Technologies Pte Ltd. v. Fandango Media, LLC

Case Background and Notable Aspects

This case represents a single front in a broad patent assertion campaign by a non-practicing entity (NPE) against the video streaming industry. The plaintiff, Multimedia Technologies Pte Ltd., is a Singapore-based entity associated with the major European patent monetization firm Sisvel Group. Sisvel operates several patent pools and acquires patents for licensing and assertion; Multimedia Technologies appears to be a vehicle for monetizing a portfolio of patents related to digital video technology. The defendant, Fandango Media, LLC, is a well-known operating company, famous for its movie ticketing service but also a provider of on-demand video streaming through its FandangoNOW service (which was later merged into Vudu). The lawsuit alleges that Fandango's streaming services, which provide on-demand movies and television shows to consumers, infringe the asserted patent.

The litigation centers on a single patent, U.S. Patent No. 10,419,805, titled "Video Coding Method and Apparatus and Video Decoding Method and Apparatus." In essence, the '805 patent claims methods for efficiently coding and decoding video data by predicting motion vectors for different portions of an image, a common technique in modern video compression standards like H.264/AVC and H.265/HEVC, which are foundational to virtually all streaming video services. The complaint alleges that Fandango's use of these standardized video compression technologies in its streaming platform directly infringes upon the methods claimed in the '805 patent.

The case was filed in the Marshall Division of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and is assigned to Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap, the most active patent judge in the United States. This venue is historically favored by patent plaintiffs due to its experienced judiciary and local rules that can be favorable for moving cases forward. The case is notable as part of a large-scale, multi-jurisdictional assertion effort by Sisvel and its affiliates, who have filed dozens of similar lawsuits against a wide array of companies in the streaming, consumer electronics, and mobile device sectors using patents from the same family. This broader campaign targets the foundational video coding technology used across the industry, making the outcome of these individual cases, including the one against Fandango, potentially significant for the streaming market. As of early May 2026, the case remains pending, with key claim construction and discovery events underway. No parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the PTAB challenging the '805 patent's validity appear to have been filed by Fandango, based on publicly available records.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

Analyst Note: Publicly available court records and news reports for case number 2:22-cv-00494 in the Eastern District of Texas consistently identify the defendant as LG Electronics Inc. ("LG"), not Fandango Media, LLC. Key filings, rulings, and the ultimate jury verdict in this docket number all pertain to the litigation between Multimedia Technologies and LG. Per operating rules, this summary treats the provided case caption as authoritative but flags this significant discrepancy. The following legal developments are from docket 2:22-cv-00494.

Filing and Initial Pleadings (2022)

• 2022-12-21: Multimedia Technologies Pte Ltd. filed its patent infringement complaint, initiating case 2:22-cv-00494 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The lawsuit alleged that the defendant's streaming services and products infringed U.S. Patent No. 10,419,805. In the parallel litigation involving LG, the accused products were smart TVs incorporating the webOS operating system.

Pre-Trial Motions (2023-2024)

• Motion to Dismiss: The defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. On 2024-03-01, Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne issued a Report and Recommendation to grant the motion in part and deny it in part. The recommendation suggested dismissing infringement claims related to products used before the patent was issued but found the willfulness and indirect infringement allegations to be sufficiently pleaded to survive the motion.
• Adoption of Recommendation: On 2024-03-28, Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations.

Scheduling and Discovery (2024)

• Docket Control Order: The court entered a series of scheduling orders to govern the case. A Third Amended Docket Control Order was issued on 2024-01-03, setting deadlines for claim construction, discovery, and dispositive motions, and scheduling a trial for late 2024, a date that was later moved multiple times.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

• IPR Filed by Vizio: While Fandango does not appear to have challenged the '805 patent at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), a third party, Vizio, Inc., filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR) against U.S. Patent No. 10,419,805. This proceeding was docketed as IPR2024-00354. Vizio was also a defendant in a separate case brought by Multimedia Technologies in the same court. The PTAB filings in the Vizio IPR explicitly reference the litigation against LG (2:22-cv-00494) as a related proceeding.

Trial and Verdict (2025)

• Trial and Jury Verdict: The case proceeded to a jury trial in May 2025. On 2025-05-23, the jury returned a verdict of non-infringement, finding that the defendant (LG) had not infringed the asserted patents, including the '805 patent.
• Invalidity Finding: Critically for the patent holder, the jury also determined that the defendant had proven by clear and convincing evidence that all asserted claims of the '805 patent were invalid.

Outcome and Final Disposition

As of May 2026, the case has been resolved at the district court level by a jury verdict completely in favor of the defendant (LG Electronics). The verdict found no infringement and invalidated the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,419,805. Barring a successful appeal by Multimedia Technologies, this outcome represents a conclusive defeat for the plaintiff in this specific litigation. There is no public record of a settlement or dismissal related to Fandango Media under this docket number.

Counsel for Plaintiff Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.

Clarification on the Defendant: While the case caption in the prompt lists Fandango Media, LLC as the defendant, docket records and media coverage for case number 2:22-cv-00494 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas consistently name LG Electronics Inc. and LG Electronics USA, Inc. as the primary defendants. The counsel listed below appeared for the plaintiff in the litigation against LG.

Based on public court filings and news reports, Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd. is represented by a combination of lead counsel from a national law firm and local Texas-based counsel.

Lead Counsel

The strategic direction and primary litigation work appear to be handled by attorneys from the New York office of Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP.

• Name: Timothy K. Gilman

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP (New York, NY)
  • Note: Gilman is an experienced patent trial attorney who has litigated numerous cases involving complex technologies in districts across the country.

• Name: Christopher M. Gerson

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP (New York, NY)
  • Note: Gerson's practice centers on intellectual property litigation, including patent infringement disputes before federal courts and the PTAB.

• Name: Robert S. Pickens

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP (New York, NY)
  • Note: Pickens focuses on patent litigation and has experience across various technological fields, representing clients in infringement actions.

Local Counsel

As is required and customary in the Eastern District of Texas, the plaintiff is also represented by experienced local law firms.

• Name: S. Calvin Capshaw, III

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Capshaw DeRieux LLP (Gladewater, TX)
  • Note: A veteran East Texas trial lawyer, Capshaw has served as local counsel for major technology companies in numerous high-profile patent infringement lawsuits.

• Name: Elizabeth L. DeRieux

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Capshaw DeRieux LLP (Gladewater, TX)
  • Note: DeRieux is a partner at her firm with extensive experience in federal court litigation, frequently appearing as local counsel in complex patent cases.

• Name: Robert Christopher Bunt

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth, P.C. (Tyler, TX)
  • Note: Bunt is a well-established East Texas attorney who regularly acts as local counsel in significant patent and commercial litigation matters.

Defendant's Counsel of Record

Based on a review of the public docket for Multimedia Technologies Pte Ltd. v. Fandango Media, LLC, 2:22-cv-00494, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, counsel from the law firms of Latham & Watkins LLP and Gillam & Smith LLP have appeared on behalf of defendant Fandango Media, LLC.

Latham & Watkins LLP

Latham & Watkins is serving as lead counsel for Fandango. The firm is known for its extensive global intellectual property litigation practice and frequently represents major technology and media companies in high-stakes patent disputes.

• Robert J. Steinberg: Lead Counsel. A partner in the firm's Chicago office, Mr. Steinberg has experience in patent and technology-related litigation across various federal district courts and the International Trade Commission (ITC).
• Melissa Arbus Sherry: Of Counsel. A partner in the Washington, D.C. office and Co-Chair of the firm's Supreme Court and Appellate Practice, Ms. Sherry is a seasoned appellate litigator with extensive experience before the Federal Circuit.
• Gabriel S. Gross: Of Counsel. A partner based in the Silicon Valley and San Francisco offices, Mr. Gross is a trial lawyer focusing on intellectual property disputes for technology and life sciences companies.
• Charles W. F. Albert: Of Counsel. An associate in the Washington, D.C. office, Mr. Albert focuses on patent litigation in district courts and the ITC, often involving complex technology.

Gillam & Smith LLP

As is standard practice in the Eastern District of Texas, Fandango has also retained local counsel. Gillam & Smith is a well-established Texas-based firm with deep experience serving as local counsel in the district's busy patent docket.

• Harry L. "Gil" Gillam, Jr.: Local Counsel. A founding partner of the Marshall, Texas-based firm, Mr. Gillam is a veteran trial lawyer with decades of experience litigating patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas.
• Melissa R. Smith: Local Counsel. A partner at Gillam & Smith in Marshall, Texas, Ms. Smith is highly active in the Eastern District's patent litigation bar and frequently serves as local counsel for major corporations.

No in-house counsel for Fandango Media, LLC has filed a notice of appearance on the docket as of the date of this report. All information is based on publicly available court filings.