Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Haivision Network Video Inc. et al.

I'll research this case to build an accurate overview. Let me start with several searches in parallel.

Good foundation. Let me dig into the Haivision-specific record and the '462 patent.

Now let me pin down the Haivision case's disposition and any IPR activity.

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the docket and parallel proceedings.

Now let me dig into the final disposition, the district judge's ruling, and any IPR activity on the '462 patent.

Let me get the full docket and the final disposition, plus the W.D. Texas refiling and the IPR numbers.

Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Haivision Network Video Inc., No. 1:17-cv-01520 (D. Del.)

Threshold note on the case metadata

The case file as summarized (single patent, '462) understates the scope. As pleaded, the operative complaint asserted seven patents in two families:

The '462 patent is the one patent of the seven that was never held ineligible in this case — it is the survivor, not the casualty. That distinction drives the whole outcome narrative.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

• 2017-10-26 — Complaint filed (D.I. 1). Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC (Tyler, TX) sued three Haivision entities (Delaware corporations, principal place of business Lake Forest, IL), asserting the five Fallon patents and accusing Haivision's video encoding products — Makito X H.264, Makito X HEVC, Makito X with Storage, Makito Air, Makito XCR, Makito X HARSH, and the KB series — and the Haivision Media Platform. Venue premised on Delaware incorporation.
• 2017-11-01 to 2017-11-13 — Service. Haivision Network Video Inc. and Haivision Network Video Corp. served 11/1/2017; Haivision KB Inc. served 11/13/2017 (alias service on the parent 12/5/2017).
• 2017-12-01 — First Amended Complaint (D.I. 10). This is where the '462 and '298 patents entered the case, and where Haivision KB Inc. and Haivision Network Video Corp. were brought in as named defendants (the original complaint's caption was defective, which is why alias summonses reissued on 12/4/2017).
• 2018-01-31 — Second Amended Complaint (D.I. 22), via joint stipulation (D.I. 20). This became the operative pleading: Counts for the '535, '477, '442, '907 and '046 patents (Fallon) plus the '462 and '298 patents (Non-Fallon). This is the pleading the court analyzed throughout.
• No answer and no counterclaims were ever filed. Haivision's response to the SAC was a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, which remained pending (through R&R, objections and a motion for leave to amend) until the case ended. So there are no invalidity or non-infringement counterclaims to report — an important structural point: this case never got past the pleadings.
• Case assignment: transferred to Judge Joseph F. Bataillon (D. Neb., sitting by designation) on 2018-01-31 in lieu of the vacant Delaware judgeship, with Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon designated; by late 2018 the case was before Judge Colm F. Connolly (case number appears thereafter as 17-1520-CFC-SRF).

Counsel. Realtime: Stephen B. Brauerman (Bayard, P.A., Wilmington) with Marc A. Fenster, Brian D. Ledahl, Reza Mirzaie, C. Jay Chung, Philip X. Wang and Paul Kroeger (Russ August & Kabat, LA). Haivision: Steven T. Margolin, Benjamin J. Schladweiler and Samuel L. Moultrie (Greenberg Traurig, Wilmington) with Herbert H. Finn, Howard E. Silverman and Sara M. Skulman (Greenberg Traurig, Chicago).

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

a) MDL centralization — denied (this shaped everything).

• 2018-04-10 — Realtime filed a § 1407 motion with the JPML (

I'll research the docket and counsel appearances for this case.

Counsel of Record — Plaintiff Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC

Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Haivision Network Video Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:17-cv-01520-CFC-SRF (D. Del.)

Realtime used a two-tier structure typical of D. Del. patent cases: a Wilmington firm as counsel of record filing everything on CM/ECF, and a Los Angeles patent boutique (Russ August & Kabat) supplying the substantive/lead patent lawyers, who appeared pro hac vice and were designated "Of Counsel" in the signature blocks.

Local counsel of record (Delaware)

Caveat: in the parallel Realtime Delaware cases the Bayard signature block also carried Richard D. Kirk and Vanessa R. Tiradentes. I did not find a Kirk or Tiradentes appearance, notice, or signature in the 17-1520 docket itself, so I am not listing them as counsel here. All 17-1520 filings I could review were signed by Brauerman (see, e.g., D.I. 44, Pl.'s Mot. for Leave to File Am. Compl., June 26, 2019, signed "/s/ Stephen B. Brauerman").

Lead / "of counsel" patent counsel — Russ August & Kabat (Los Angeles)

Firm address: 12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90025-1031.

Docket support for the pro hac vice group: the Dec. 6, 2017 docket text records that "Pro Hac Vice Attorney Philip X. Wang, Reza Mirzaie, Brian D. Ledahl, Marc A. Fenster, C. Jay Chung for Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC added for electronic noticing," with the notation that Delaware counsel must be the CM/ECF filer under L.R. 83.5(d). Hsieh's PHV motion (D.I. 17) was granted by Judge Thynge on 1/8/2018 alongside Haivision's PHV motions; Kroeger's PHV motion was filed 10/05/2018.

No in-house counsel

I found no Realtime Adaptive Streaming in-house attorney entering an appearance in 17-1520; the entity litigated through outside counsel only. Realtime is a licensing entity affiliated with Realtime Data LLC d/b/a IXO.

Notes, gaps, and verification status

• No sealed counsel issue. The docket in this case is not sealed as to appearances; the only PHV certifications I could not retrieve in full text are the certifications themselves (D.I. 17 attachment, Kroeger certification), which are routine.
• The 17-1520 docket is the authority here; I did not find a formal "Notice of Appearance" for Fenster/Mirzaie/Ledahl/Chung — their appearances were effected through pro hac vice motions and the "Of Counsel" designation on every plaintiff filing, which is standard practice and does not diminish their role as lead substantive counsel.
• Context on the '462 patent: the original complaint (D.I. 1, filed 10/26/2017) asserted the Fallon patents ('046, '535, '442, '907, '477). Per Haivision's D.I. 46 (July 10, 2019), Realtime's proposed Third Amended Complaint sought to "swap out" U.S. Patent No. 8,634,462 (the '462 patent) and replace it with RE46,777 — meaning the '462 entered the case through an earlier amended pleading. The same Bayard/RAK team signed that motion practice (D.I. 44–45).
• Adverse counsel, for contrast: Haivision was represented by Greenberg Traurig, LLP — Herbert H. Finn, Howard E. Silverman and Sara M. Skulman (Chicago) as of counsel, with Steven T. Margolin, Gregory E. Stuhlman (later Benjamin J. Schladweiler and Samuel L. Moultrie) in Wilmington (D.I. 24, D.I. 46).
• Accuracy flag: I have docket-level confirmation of names, firm affiliations and the PHV admissions described above. The one-line "experience" notes are drawn from public firm/brief/case records (RAK signature blocks and Federal Circuit briefs in the Realtime appeals, e.g., the Realtime appellant briefs listing Mirzaie, Fenster, Ledahl, Kroeger, Wang, Chung and Williams of Russ August & Kabat). I have not independently verified every attorney's current firm or bar status as of today's date.

I'll research the docket and counsel of record for the Haivision defendants in this Delaware case.

Now let me verify the tail end of the docket (dismissal) and confirm the individual attorneys' roles and backgrounds.

Let me pin down the remaining attorneys' profiles and the final dismissal entry.

Counsel of Record for the Haivision Defendants

Bottom line: All defense counsel came from a single firm — Greenberg Traurig, LLP — with a Chicago-based IP litigation team acting as lead counsel (admitted pro hac vice) and the firm's Wilmington office acting as Delaware/local counsel. No in-house Haivision attorney entered an appearance on the docket.

The most authoritative source for the final lineup is the signature block of D.I. 46, Defendant Haivision's Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (filed July 10, 2019), which lists counsel as follows:

Of Counsel: Herbert H. Finn, Howard E. Silverman, Sara Skulman — Greenberg Traurig, LLP, 77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 3100, Chicago, IL 60601
Steven T. Margolin (#3110), Benjamin J. Schladweiler (#4601), Samuel L. Moultrie (#5979) — The Nemours Building, 1007 North Orange Street, Suite 1200, Wilmington, DE 19801

(D.I. 46 PDF)

Chicago team (lead / merits counsel, pro hac vice)

Note on terminology: in Delaware practice the "Of Counsel:" caption line above an out-of-state firm's address typically denotes the PHV-admitted attorneys filing alongside Delaware counsel, not a formal "of counsel" relationship with the firm. Finn, Silverman, and Skulman were all admitted PHV by Judge Mary Pat Thynge's order of January 8, 2018 (D.I. 18 granted).

Delaware team (local counsel)

Counsel who appeared and then withdrew (2017–2018)

Docket confirmation: Justia docket; Unified Patents litigation portal.

Important scope caveats

1. Only Haivision Network Video Inc. was ever represented by appearance. Every notice of appearance and PHV motion in the docket is captioned "on behalf of Haivision Network Video Inc." No separate counsel of record ever appeared for Haivision Network Video Corp. or Haivision KB Inc. — consistent with the fact that Realtime voluntarily dismissed those two entities without prejudice on March 14, 2018, before any response was due from them.
2. No in-house counsel appeared. Nothing in the available docket reflects a Haivision legal-department attorney entering an appearance.
3. Nothing appears to have been filed under seal as to counsel identity; the defense filings (e.g., D.I. 24, the Rule 12(b)(6) opening brief, and D.I. 46) are publicly available with full signature blocks.
4. Timothy T. Hsieh should not be attributed to Haivision. His PHV motion (D.I. 17, granted 1/8/2018) was filed by plaintiff Realtime; the docket text reads "filed by Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC." He was part of Realtime's Russ August & Kabat team, along with Stephen B. Brauerman (Bayard), Reza Mirzaie, Marc A. Fenster, Brian D. Ledahl, Philip X. Wang, C. Jay Chung, and later Paul A. Kroeger.

Case-posture note relevant to counsel's work product

The Greenberg Traurig team's principal substantive achievement was its § 101 motion to dismiss (D.I. 23, opening brief at D.I. 24), which produced Magistrate Judge Fallon's December 12, 2018 Report and Recommendation recommending the Fallon patents be held invalid as directed to the abstract idea of encoding/decoding and compressing data — and recommending denial of leave to amend. Opinion PDF. Realtime objected (D.I. 42), then moved for leave to amend (D.I. 44) to, among other things, "swap out" the '462 patent (the patent listed in this case's metadata) and the '298 patent; Haivision opposed at D.I. 46. The case was thereafter closed following Realtime's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal as to Haivision Network Video Inc. in 2019.

Sourcing limitation: I could not retrieve the final 2019 docket entries directly from PACER, so I have not stated a precise date or docket number for that dismissal notice or the closing order. The case's A.F. Docket shows it as Closed, and no further defense appearances or substitutions appear before closure — so the D.I. 46 lineup above appears to be the operative counsel of record at termination.