Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

I'll research this case thoroughly before writing the overview.

Case Overview — Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. [Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.), Ltd., No. 6:18-cv-00113-JRG-JDL (E.D. Tex., Tyler Div.)

The parties. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC is a Texas limited liability company with its stated place of business at 1828 E.S.E. Loop 323, Tyler, Texas — i.e., it is a patent-holding/assertion entity with no apparent operating business, and Stanford's NPE Litigation Database classifies it as an "individual-inventor-started" asserter rather than an operating company or university. Its portfolio derives from inventor James Fallon and claims priority to a February 13, 2001 provisional application; the JPML order in the related MDL described a corporate parent holding other data-compression patents that had been litigated separately in the Northern District of California since 2015 (industry observers identify that parent as Realtime Data LLC d/b/a IXO, though the JPML order itself does not name it). Defendants are Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. ("SEC"), the Suwon, Korea–based parent and operating company, and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. ("SEA"), its wholly owned U.S. subsidiary in Ridgefield Park, New Jersey. Realtime's original and amended complaints named both entities. (Amended Complaint, Dkt. entry via RPX; In re Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC Patent Litig., 326 F. Supp. 3d 1374 (J.P.M.L. 2018); Stanford NPE Database)

The technology and patents. The accused technology is Samsung's use of standardized audio/video codecs — the JPML records Realtime's position that all accused products across its campaign implement industry compression standards such as H.264 and H.265 (HEVC); for Samsung that would mean Galaxy handsets/tablets, TVs and related streaming-capable devices, though I could not verify the specific accused-product list from the 136-page complaint in this research pass, so product identification should be treated as standard-implementation-based rather than confirmed model-by-model. The case metadata identifies U.S. Patent 8,929,442 ("System and Methods for Video and Audio Data Distribution") as the patent of record: it claims selecting an access profile / compression routine for a data block based on a determined parameter and compressing with asymmetric algorithms, and its asserted claims are framed around retrieving, transmitting and decompressing data over a communication channel. Note a scope discrepancy worth flagging: the March 9, 2018 complaint and the accompanying AO 120 form (Dkt. 4) asserted seven patents across three families — the '442 plus 7,386,046 ("Bandwidth Sensitive Data Compression and Decompression" — a controller that tracks throughput/pending access requests and switches compression routines), 8,934,535 (video/audio data storage and distribution), 9,762,907, 9,769,477, RE46,777 (a reissue), and 9,578,298 — all Fallon continuations sharing a common specification. Subsequent narrowing (via IPR outcomes, claim election, or amendment) likely explains why only the '442 is carried in the case metadata, but the docket-level narrowing order is not something I could verify here.

Posture, venue, and why it matters. Filed March 9, 2018 in the Tyler Division before District Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap with Magistrate Judge John D. Love designated ("JRG-JDL"). Venue was pleaded on two independent grounds: SEC as a foreign corporation committing infringing acts in-district, and both defendants' "regular and established place of business" at Samsung's Richardson (1301 East Lookout Dr.) and Plano (1000 Klein Rd.) facilities — squarely a post-TC Heartland venue theory, and one that mattered because Samsung's physical Texas footprint was the plaintiff's best answer to the 2017 venue reset. Tyler/Gilstrap was then the highest-volume patent venue in the country, known for fast schedules and large damages awards, which is precisely why Realtime filed three E.D. Tex. cases (Amazon, Cisco, Samsung) out of a twelve-case, five-district campaign. Two features make the case notable beyond the parties: (1) it was the E.D. Tex. anchor of a coordinated NPE campaign that Realtime tried, and failed, to consolidate — the JPML denied MDL centralization on August 1, 2018, finding insufficient commonality across eight patents and three families, which forced defendant-by-defendant, patent-by-patent litigation; and (2) it sat atop an unusually dense PTAB layer. Samsung itself petitioned on February 15, 2019 (Baker Botts; Jennifer Nall lead), including IPR2019-01280 on the '046 patent, and parallel '442 challenges came from Adobe (IPR2019-00712), ARRIS (IPR2019-01222), and Sony (IPR2018-01439). The Board instituted Samsung's '442 petitions (IPR2019-01586/-01587) in March 2020, and the surrounding record was unkind to Realtime: Netflix's IPR2018-01817 final written decision (Mar. 30, 2020) held all challenged claims of the '907 patent unpatentable. This IPR overlay — plus § 101 exposure across the portfolio — is the core reason the campaign's leverage eroded rather than the district court record alone.

Verification notes and open gaps

• Sourced: party identities and addresses, Tyler Division/JRG-JDL, patent list, venue theory (Amended Complaint); MDL denial and H.264/H.265 standard-based infringement theory (326 F. Supp. 3d 1374; JPML order PDF); Samsung IPR counsel/date (PTAB petition); '442 institution decisions (IPR2019-01586/-01587); Netflix FWD on '907 (PTAB FWD).
• Not verified — do not rely on without a PACER pull: (a) the final disposition of 6:18-cv-00113 (dismissal, settlement, transfer, or judgment) — I was unable to confirm a terminating event; (b) the final written decision outcomes in Samsung's IPR2019-01586/-01587; (c) the specific Samsung product models accused; (d) the docket order narrowing the case to the '442 alone. A PACER docket report and the IPR2019-01586/-01587 FWDs would close all four gaps.

I'll research this case systematically. Let me start with several searches.

Let me dig into the docket and outcome specifics.

I'll search several angles to locate press coverage of this case.

Initial searches surfaced mostly court filings and PTAB documents. Let me search specifically for press and blog coverage.

*Bottom line: I could not find any published news article, verdict report, or settlement story about Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 6:18-cv-00113 (E.D. Tex.).* Across searches on the case caption, the party names, the '442 patent number, and settlement/verdict angles, results were dominated by primary-source material — the amended complaint and AO-120 forms, PTAB petition papers from Samsung-side counsel Baker Botts (e.g., the IPR2019-01280 petition materials referencing this docket), and the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation's order denying centralization of the Realtime Adaptive Streaming campaign, which lists Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 6:18-00113 among the twelve actions (JPML MDL No. 2845 order). None of that is press coverage, and it would be misleading to dress it up as such — no damages figure sought or awarded, no settlement term, and no disposition of this specific docket surfaced in any media outlet I could locate.

The only trade coverage that discusses the Realtime Adaptive Streaming campaign at all is a campaign-level roundup, not case-level reporting: RPX said in its October 2018 Patent Risk Digest that Realtime Data LLC and its subsidiary Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC had "expanded their campaign," pushing total defendants targeted past 115 across roughly 40 patents related to data compression, with targets including streaming services, cloud providers, and makers of smart TVs, set-top boxes, and smartphones. Samsung is not named in that digest, and the "smart televisions" reference is the closest the item comes to this case — the connection to the Samsung suit is my inference from the defendant's product lines, not something RPX stated.

Reporting that does exist about Realtime Adaptive Streaming concerns its separate Colorado litigation against DISH/Sling, and it is worth separating clearly from this docket. Alston & Bird summarized the Federal Circuit's August 23, 2024 decision in Realtime Adaptive Streaming L.L.C. v. Sling TV, L.L.C., No. 2023-1035, which vacated a § 285 fee award because the district court had leaned on six "red flags" without weighing them — including the Board's invalidation of claims of the '535 patent and an ex parte reexamination of the '610 patent. The National Law Review covered the same ruling, characterizing the DISH notice letter as insufficient on its own to support exceptionality. Neither piece mentions Samsung or the '442 patent.

Two caveats on sourcing. First, the absence of coverage is a finding about what my searches returned, not proof that nothing was written — Law360, Bloomberg Law, and Docket Navigator are largely paywalled and poorly indexed, so a short docket-item piece on a 2018 filing or a later dismissal could exist behind those walls without surfacing. Second, Samsung's own SEC disclosures would be the most reliable secondary source for outcome, since a settlement or dismissal would likely appear in its litigation footnote; I was not able to retrieve and check that filing within this research, so I am not asserting how, or whether, this case ended.

Sources

• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION
• | PATENT OR TRADEMARK NO
• Search Cases by Parties - Search Cases by Parties
• 9762907 | NPE Litigation Database
• Search Cases by Parties - 4883 | Realtime Adaptive Streaming, LLC v
• - Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v
• * 6 Complaint for Patent Infringement, filed in _Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v
• Complaint for Patent Infringement, filed in *Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v
• STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
• IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

I'll research the plaintiff's counsel of record across the docket, related cases, and firm sources.

Let me pull the docket sheet and identify plaintiff's appearances.

Plaintiff's counsel of record — Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 6:18-cv-00113-JRG-JDL (E.D. Tex.)

Verification caveat up front: I was able to confirm the composition of Realtime Adaptive Streaming's ("Realtime") litigation team from Federal Circuit opinions, PTAB power-of-attorney filings, and parallel-case filings, but I was not able to pull the case-specific ECF docket sheet or the signature block of the original/amended complaint (ECF No. 1, 03/09/2018; Doc. 4 AO-120 form) in this session. The individual identities below are therefore highly reliable as to Realtime's outside counsel of record in this campaign generally, but the precise list of attorneys who entered a Notice of Appearance in this docket should be confirmed against the PACER docket sheet. I have not invented anyone; where attribution to this specific docket is unverified, I say so.

Core litigation team — Russ August & Kabat (Los Angeles, CA)

Realtime (and its corporate sibling/agent Realtime Data LLC) ran its multi-defendant patent campaign, including the Samsung matter, out of Russ August & Kabat LLP, 12424 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90025.

Sources: Federal Circuit 2021-2268 Rule 36 and counsel listing; Google v. Realtime, No. 2021-1545 (Fed. Cir. 2022); Realtime's PTAB power of attorney in IPR2019-01586 ('442 patent); Realtime's power of attorney in IPR2018-01187; Realtime briefing in D. Del. Sony action.

Texas counsel

Noroozi PC (Sugar Land, TX) — William P. Rothwell (Reg. No. 72,522) and Joel P.N. Stonedale are named in Realtime Adaptive Streaming's October 22, 2018 power of attorney in IPR2018-01187 as its Texas-based practitioners, alongside the RAK attorneys. This is the best-supported Texas firm in Realtime's '442/'477 patent-enforcement activity. However, I could not verify whether Rothwell/Stonedale (or another Texas firm) actually signed the complaint or entered an appearance in this E.D. Tex. docket. Given that Realtime itself listed a Tyler, Texas business address (1828 E.S.E. Loop 323, Tyler, TX 75701) in its PTAB filings and that E.D. Tex. practice requires a locally admitted signer or pro hac vice admission under Local Rule AT-2, a Texas co-counsel appearance is likely but unconfirmed.

Similarly, appellate counsel Andrew John Gibbs of Tueller & Gibbs LLC appears on Realtime's Federal Circuit briefs in the Sling TV appeal — relevant background, not a district-court appearance here.

Context on how the case was staffed

• The complaint and amended complaint in this matter were filed 03/09/2018 in the Tyler Division asserting a five-patent family, including the '442 patent (see the AO-120 form at ECF Doc. 4, reproduced in IPR exhibit materials); the operative Amended Complaint carries the same caption.
• Realtime's opponents in this matter confirm the RAK staffing: in the parallel Colorado Sling TV fee litigation, Fish & Richardson's declaration notes that Realtime's parent Realtime Data LLC "was represented by many of the same Russ August & Kabat attorneys that appeared in this case" (D. Colo. 1:17-cv-02097, Doc. 308-1).
• For contrast, Samsung's side in this litigation was Fish & Richardson P.C. (Ruffin B. Cordell, Michael J. McKeon, Katherine D. Prescott, with Potter Minton as local counsel) in district court, and Baker Botts L.L.P. (Harper Batts, Jennifer Nall, Eliot Williams) before the PTAB — a mismatch that occasionally confuses secondary sources.

Bottom line

• Lead counsel: Marc A. Fenster (Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles), with Reza Mirzaie, Brian D. Ledahl, and Philip X. Wang as the senior co-counsel core.
• PTAB/'442-specific counsel: Philip X. Wang (RAK), lead counsel of record on the '442 IPR power of attorney.
• Local/Texas counsel: most consistent with Noroozi PC (William P. Rothwell, Joel P.N. Stonedale) — probable but not docket-verified for this case.
• Not confirmed: the complete ECF appearance list, and whether any RAK attorney was admitted pro hac vice in this specific docket. If precision matters for a filing or citation, pull the docket for Nos. 1–20 (2018) and check for Notices of Appearance / pro hac vice motions with the $100 fee receipts.

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

Sourcing caveat up front

I was unable to pull the actual E.D. Tex. docket sheet for No. 6:18-cv-00113 in this session — Docket Alarm, CourtListener/RECAP and PACER mirrors were not retrievable, so I could not verify the civil docket entries (Answer, Rule 7.1 disclosure, notices of appearance) or the exact PACER "attorney to be noticed" list. Everything below is grounded in two categories of primary material I did retrieve:

1. The complaint/AO-120 form filed in the case (Dkt. 4, filed 03/09/18, Case 6:18-cv-00113-JRG-JDL), establishing the defendant entities; and
2. Samsung's PTAB filings in parallel IPRs arising from the same patents, which list the district case as a "related matter" and identify Samsung's counsel — i.e., the same trial team that would appear in the district court.

Where I could not confirm a role (local counsel, in-house), I say so rather than guess.

---

Threshold correction to the case metadata

The metadata lists only Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. The operative pleadings name two defendants: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. ("SEC") (Suwon, Korea) and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. ("SEA") (Ridgefield Park, NJ) — see the AO-120 form at Dkt. 4 and the Amended Complaint captioned Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., No. 6:18-cv-00113-JRG-JDL (E.D. Tex., Tyler Div.). Both are represented by the same defense team. The case is assigned to Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap with Magistrate Judge John D. Love ("JRG-JDL" suffix). Note also that the patent list in the metadata (the '442 patent only) understates the case: the AO-120 form and complaint identify the '046, '442, '535, '907, '477, '777 (RE46,777) and '298 patents as asserted.

---

Defense counsel of record — best-sourced identification

Firm: Baker Botts L.L.P. (primary); with Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton L.L.P. appearing on later Samsung/related filings.

---

Local counsel

Not confirmed — flagging as unsourced. The Eastern District of Texas practice (and the court's pro hac vice rules) required Samsung to associate local Texas counsel, and the Baker Botts Austin/Palo Alto lawyers above were almost certainly PHV counsel. I could not retrieve the docket to identify the local-counsel firm for Samsung, and I will not guess. This should be confirmed from the appearance entries and the Answer on the 6:18-cv-00113 docket (the Answer is the document that typically carries the full signature block including local counsel).

In-house counsel

No verified record. I found no basis to name any Samsung in-house attorney as counsel of record; Samsung's in-house litigation team (Samsung Electronics America, Ridgefield Park, NJ) would have been involved but does not appear in the filings I could retrieve.

Plaintiff's counsel (for contrast / service cross-reference)

Realtime was represented by Russ August & Kabat (Los Angeles) — Reza Mirzaie, Marc A. Fenster, Brian D. Ledahl, C. Jay Chung, Philip X. Wang, Adam S. Hoffman, Paul A. Kroger, Minna Y. Chan, Neil A. Rubin, Kent Shum — with Noroozi PC (William P. Rothwell, Sugar Land, TX; Kayvan B. Noroozi, Santa Monica) as the Texas/PTAB-side counsel, per Realtime's Power of Attorney filed in IPR2018-01187 (Oct. 22, 2018). The '442 patent's prosecution correspondence address was Shami Messinger PLLC, Washington, DC.

---

What to verify on PACER (do this before filing anything that names counsel)

Because my docket access failed, the following docket items are the authoritative source and remain unverified by me:

1. Dkt. 1 / Dkt. 4 — complaint and AO-120 confirming the two Samsung entities.
2. The Answer and Affirmative Defenses / Counterclaims — signature block will list lead, backup, and local counsel definitively.
3. Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure statement — confirms SEC/SEA relationship.
4. Any notice of appearance / withdrawal — particularly relevant given the apparent Batts/Ponder move from Baker Botts to Sheppard Mullin mid-case; a substitution order would show which firm remained counsel of record.
5. Protective order and ESI order — routinely list "counsel of record" e-mail service lists, which is the cleanest single source for the complete defense team.
6. MDL No. 2845 — the JPML denied Realtime's § 1407 centralization motion (Order Denying Transfer, Aug. 1, 2018), listing Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 6:18-00113, among the twelve actions; that order's Schedule A and the parties' submissions may also identify lead defense counsel.

Confidence statement

• High confidence: Baker Botts L.L.P. was Samsung's patent litigation counsel for this Realtime Adaptive Streaming dispute, with Harper Batts and Jennifer Nall as the lead lawyers and Williams/Ponder/Wilson/Eber as backup; the firm's Austin and Palo Alto offices were the service addresses of record in the parallel PTAB proceedings that expressly cross-reference No. 6:18-cv-00113.
• Medium confidence: the precise district-court role designations (who signed the Answer as "lead" versus "of counsel"), and whether Sheppard Mullin formally substituted in.
• Unverified: identity of Samsung's E.D. Tex. local counsel; any in-house counsel of record; specific docket entry numbers for the appearances.