Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Avaya Inc.

I'll research this case thoroughly before drafting.

Now let me dig into the termination, the accused products, and any IPR linkage.

Let me get the docket entries after the answer and the specific accused Avaya products.

Case Overview — Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Avaya Inc., No. 1:18-cv-01046 (D. Colo.)

Parties. The plaintiff, Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC, is a Texas limited liability company with a listed address at 1828 E.S.E. Loop 323, Tyler, Texas — the same Tyler address used across the Realtime family of entities. Its complaint recites that it "has researched and developed specific solutions for data compression" and "holds multiple United States patents and pending patent applications" (Dkt. 1 ¶ 1, via Docket Alarm). In practice it functioned as a licensing/assertion vehicle: in its own SEC disclosure, DISH Network described Realtime Adaptive Streaming as "an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein" (EchoStar 10-K). The entity was carved out of Realtime Data LLC d/b/a IXO in 2017 to hold the video/audio-side patents, while Realtime Data retained the storage/compression patents; the two plaintiffs ran parallel campaigns from the same office. The defendant, Avaya Inc., is a Delaware corporation then headquartered in Santa Clara, California, and a long-established enterprise unified-communications and contact-center vendor — a large operating company but one that had only recently emerged from Chapter 11 when the May 2018 complaint landed. Critically for venue, Avaya maintained facilities at 8744 Lucent Boulevard, Highlands Ranch, CO and 12121 Grant Street, Thornton, CO, and was registered to do business in Colorado (Dkt. 1 ¶ 2; Avaya admitted these facts in Dkt. 22 ¶¶ 2, 5).

Patents and accused technology. The complaint asserted three patents — U.S. Patent Nos. 7,386,046, 8,934,535 and 9,769,477 (Dkt. 1 ¶ 6) — even though this case's database record lists only the '046 as the patent at issue, which appears to be an indexing artifact rather than a pleading fact. One-line sketches: the '046 ("Bandwidth Sensitive Data Compression and Decompression," issued June 10, 2008) claims techniques for analyzing available communication bandwidth and selecting or switching among compression/decompression schemes accordingly; the '535 ("Systems and methods for video and audio data storage

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the docket and key events.

Key finding: the case terminated 2018-09-21, only ~4.5 months after filing. Let me get the docket entries and dismissal details.

Now let me dig into the docket detail, Avaya's counterclaims, and parallel PTAB proceedings on the '046 patent.

Bottom line

This action never got past the pleading stage. Realtime Adaptive Streaming sued Avaya on 2018-05-04 over three Fallon-family compression patents (the '046, '535 and '477), Avaya answered and counterclaimed on 2018-07-03, the parties entered a stipulated protective order and a scheduling order in August 2018, and then on 2018-09-20 filed a joint motion to dismiss. Judge Brimmer granted it the next day, 2018-09-21, dismissing Realtime's claims with prejudice and Avaya's counterclaims without prejudice, each side bearing its own fees and costs. There was no motion to dismiss, no transfer motion, no stay motion, no summary-judgment motion, no Markman proceeding, no trial, no verdict, and no appeal. Total pendency: ~4.5 months.

---

Chronological developments

1. Filing and initial pleadings

2018-05-04 — Complaint (Dkt. 1), 42–43 pp.
Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC (Tyler, TX) sued Avaya Inc. in D. Colo., Denver Division, asserting U.S. Patent Nos. 7,386,046 ("Bandwidth Sensitive Data Compression and Decompression," issued 2008-06-10), 8,934,535 ("Systems and methods for video and audio data storage and distribution," issued 2015-01-13), and 9,769,477 ("Video data compression systems," issued 2017-09-19) — collectively the "Fallon patents," all sharing a common specification. Note the discrepancy with the case metadata: the file caption lists only the '046, but the operative complaint pleaded all three patents. Jury trial demanded. Assigned to Judge Philip A. Brimmer; referred to Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak (Dkt. 16, 2018-06-05), with the pretrial referral later carried by Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews (who signed the 2018-08-17 protective order).
Complaint text · Docket

2018-05-15 — Service on Avaya (Dkt. 10, summons returned executed); answer due 2018-06-05.

2018-06-05 — Unopposed extension (Dkt. 15), granted (Dkt. 18), pushing Avaya's response deadline to 2018-07-05; a telephonic status conference was set and later vacated (Dkt. 20, 2018-06-26).

2018-07-03 — Avaya's Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims (Dkt. 22), 21 pp.
Avaya denied infringement and admitted venue/personal jurisdiction "for purposes of this case" only (preserving nothing on § 1400(b), but conceding the point). It asserted affirmative defenses and brought counterclaims against Realtime, and filed a corporate disclosure statement identifying Avaya Holdings Corp. as parent. Defense counsel of record included Christopher O. Green, Jonathan B. Bright, and Noah C. Graubart; Realtime was represented by Russ August & Kabat (Eric B. Fenster, Marc A. Fenster, Reza Mirzaie, Philip X. Wang, Brian D. Ledahl, Neil A. Rubin, Kent Shum) with C. Jay Chung appearing in the Colorado filings.
Answer/counterclaims PDF

Caveat: the retrieved copy confirms the counterclaims exist and that Avaya challenged infringement and validity, but I could not verify from a primary source the exact count structure (e.g., declaratory-judgment counts of non-infringement and invalidity patent-by-patent). Treat the specific counterclaim counts as unconfirmed.

2018-07-20 — Realtime's answer/reply to Avaya's counterclaims, denying the invalidity and non-infringement allegations.

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

None were filed. The retrieved docket — which runs through the terminal order at Dkt. 38 — contains no Rule 12(b)(6) motion, no § 1404(a) transfer motion, no motion to stay pending IPR, and no summary-judgment motion. The only contested-adjacent filings were housekeeping matters (extension of time, protective order, consent to magistrate jurisdiction). This is the single most important structural point about the case: Avaya never tested the '046 patent on the merits in this forum.

3. Claim construction (Markman)

Never reached. The scheduling order contemplated a normal D. Colo. patent track, but no preliminary or final infringement/invalidity contentions, no joint claim-construction statement, and no Markman hearing or order appear on the docket. There is accordingly

I'll research the counsel of record for the plaintiff in this case.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC

Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Avaya Inc., No. 1:18-cv-01046-PAB-STV (D. Colo.)

Bottom line: Plaintiff was represented by a two-tier team — a Los Angeles patent-litigation boutique, Russ August & Kabat LLP (RAK), acting as lead/national counsel, and a Colorado-licensed solo practitioner, Eric B. Fenster, LLC (Denver), acting as local counsel of record. Five RAK attorneys and Fenster entered appearances before the case was dismissed roughly four and a half months after filing (case terminated Sept. 21, 2018, following a joint motion to dismiss). Nothing in the record I could locate was sealed as to counsel identity.

Procedural notes worth flagging

• Appearance sequence (from the D. Colo. docket): Complaint filed 5/4/2018 by Eric B. Fenster → Notice of Case Association and AO-120 notice by Fenster → Philip X. Wang appearance 5/31/2018 → Marc A. Fenster 6/1/2018 → Reza Mirzaie and Brian D. Ledahl → C. Jay Chung 7/9/2018. Avaya appeared through Christopher O. Green, Jonathan B. Bright and Noah C. Graubart (Green/Bright of Denver; Graubart of Los Angeles) and answered with counterclaims on 7/3/2018 (Dkt. 22).
• Case ended quickly: after a stipulated protective order (8/17/2018), a scheduling conference (8/29/2018) and a joint motion to dismiss, the case was terminated 9/21/2018 — before claim construction or expert discovery completed. I did not locate a public opinion or substantive ruling on the '046 patent in this docket; the dismissal papers themselves (and any settlement terms) are the place to check for prejudice/cost terms, which I could not confirm.
• Parallel PTAB work on the '046 patent: the same RAK team (Wang, Chung, Mirzaie, plus Kent N. Shum and Neil A. Rubin) is identified as patent-owner counsel for U.S. Pat. No. 7,386,046 in IPR2019-00209, where RAK's mandatory notices later show Joel P.N. Stonedale of Noroozi PC (Austin, TX) taking over as lead counsel with Kayvan B. Noroozi as first back-up — useful if you are tracing continuity of RAS's counsel across the district-court and IPR tracks.

Sourcing and caveats

• Counsel identities and appearance dates are drawn from the D. Colo. docket as mirrored by Justia Dockets (docket no. 179782), the Unified Patents litigation portal entry for 1:18-cv-01046, Docket Alarm's docket page (termination date 9/21/2018), and UniCourt's party/attorney listing (Fenster, Fenster, Mirzaie, Wang, Ledahl).
• Fenster's Colorado bar number, firm address and local-counsel role are confirmed from signed filings in the companion Realtime matters (e.g., the 3/26/2018 opposition in RAS v. Apple, 1:17-cv-02869; the 6/4/2018 stipulation in RAS v. Sling TV, 1:17-cv-02097), where he appears alongside the same RAK team "Attorneys for Plaintiff Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC."
• I did not have direct PACER/CM-ECF access for this docket, so I cannot rule out a later-served pro hac vice paper or a withdrawn appearance that the free mirrors did not capture; no sealed-counsel filing is indicated. No in-house counsel for RAS appeared on this docket.

I'll research the docket and counsel of record for Avaya Inc. in this District of Colorado case.

Let me dig into the docket and the attorneys' firms and appearances.