Litigation

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

resolved

6:18-cv-00113

Auto-generating section 1 of 5: Case overview & background…

Each section takes ~30-60s with web-search grounding. Keep this tab open — sections will fill in below as they complete.

Court: Eastern District of Texas
Filed: 2018-03-09

Patents at issue (1)

Plaintiffs (1)

π Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC

Defendants (2)

Summary

Realtime asserted the '462 patent against Samsung entities. The USPTO AO-120 form listed '8,634,462' as patent #5. The case was resolved.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

In the news

What the press has reported about this case, summarized with links to the source articles.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Record id: 8634462-6-18-cv-00113 · edit in Admin

Further reading

Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. (2002)
Narrow your claim during prosecution and you presumptively give up the equivalents in between. The presumption is rebuttable, but in practice the prosecution history is a defendant's gold mine.
Anatomy of a shakedown: how a patent troll campaign actually works
A patent troll demand letter isn't a lawsuit. It's the output of an industrial process designed to extract money at scale, calibrated to your defense costs, and dependent on you not coordinating with the other 199 targets in the same campaign.
Bilski v. Kappos (2010)
Machine-or-transformation isn't the only § 101 test, business-method patents survived as a category, and the specific Bilski hedging method was unpatentable. The trio of Bilski, Mayo, and Alice gave defendants the modern § 101 motion.
How patent trolls operate (and why the business model works)
A junk patent generates settlement income exactly the same way as a strong one, because nobody pays $1M to test a $200k demand. The mechanics matter because the failure modes — what makes assertion campaigns expensive or risky for the troll — are exactly where defendants find leverage.
Patent law glossary
Sixty-plus patent-law terms, defined in one or two sentences each, with a link to the deeper article. The universal landing pad when an article uses a term you don't know.

All resources →