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

Good start. Now let me pin down the '462 patent specifics, the IPR activity, and how the case ended.

Now let me check the docket history for how this case ended, plus the IPR record on the '777/'462.

Case Overview: Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 6:18-cv-00113-JRG-JDL (E.D. Tex.)

Parties. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC is a Texas LLC with a stated place of business at 1828 E.S.E. Loop 323, Tyler, Texas — a Tyler, Texas address of the kind commonly used by assertion entities to anchor venue — and is a patent-holding affiliate of Realtime Data LLC, the well-known compression-patent portfolio owner (the JPML order in the related MDL refers to "Realtime's parent corporation"). It is a non-practicing entity/PAE: it does not make or sell products; it acquires and litigates patents. Its portfolio in this campaign has two distinct provenances — the "Fallon" family (U.S. 7,386,046, 8,929,442, 8,934,535, 9,762,907, 9,769,477, 9,578,298) and the Narroschke/Musmann family, which Realtime acquired from the Italian electronics consortium S.I.SV.EL Società Italiana per lo Sviluppo dell'Elettronica S.p.A. (assignment recorded at Reel 047531/0646). Defendants are Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Suwon, Korea) and its wholly owned U.S. subsidiary Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (Ridgefield Park, N.J.) — i.e., a large operating company, the archetypal PAE target.

The patent actually at issue ('462 / RE46,777) and the accused technology. U.S. 8,634,462, "Quantization for Hybrid Video Coding," inventors Matthias Narroschke and Hans-Georg Musmann, filed March 10, 2008 (priority March 13, 2007), issued January 21, 2014, app. 12/531,025, expiring May 22, 2029. In one line: it claims a hybrid video coder that, after motion-compensated prediction and transform, computes a first quantization efficiency for a subblock of quantized values, tentatively sets that subblock to all zeroes, computes a second quantization efficiency, and keeps whichever version is more efficient — an adaptive "should I zero this coefficient subblock?" decision layered on H.264/HEVC-style hybrid coding. Critically, the '462 was reissued as RE46,777 on April 3, 2018, roughly three weeks after this suit was filed; that is why the USPTO AO-120 form (Doc. 4) lists the original "8,634,462" while the amended complaint pleads infringement of "the '777 patent" as the reissue of the '462. The amended complaint accused Samsung Exynos application processors (Exynos 9 Series 9810/8895, Exynos 8 Octa 8890, Exynos 7 Series 7885/7880/7420/7870, etc.), Galaxy tablets, UBD Blu-ray players, and WiseNet surveillance cameras — essentially any Samsung device whose H.264/AVC or HEVC/H.265 codec performs the claimed quantization decision — and pleaded direct, induced and contributory infringement under §§ 271(a)–(c). Realtime also originally asserted six Fallon patents alongside it (the '046, '442, '535, '907, '477 and '298).

Procedural posture and why the venue mattered. Filed March 9, 2018 in the Tyler Division of the Eastern District of Texas and assigned to Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap with Magistrate Judge John D. Love — at the time the single busiest and most plaintiff-favorable patent venue in the country. Venue was pleaded on Samsung's regular and established places of business in the District (Richardson and Plano, Texas), which was the post-TC Heartland hook for a U.S. subsidiary and a foreign parent. Realtime simultaneously moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize twelve Realtime suits in five districts (MDL No. 2845); the JPML denied transfer on August 1, 2018, reasoning that "the efficiency benefits of litigating these eight patents from three different patent families before a single judge are insufficient," and noting the enormous product spread (streaming services, tablets, TVs, cameras, camcorders, consoles, projectors, set-top peripherals) and that the standards-based H.264/H.265 case still required defendant-by-defendant proof because the standards include optional features. That denial kept the case in Gilstrap's court and forced Realtime to litigate codec implementation device-by-device. The docket reflects that the case was ultimately resolved/dismissed, but my sources did not surface the specific dismissal order or its date, so I flag that as unverified.

Why it is notable. Three reasons. First, IPR linkage that decided the case in substance: Samsung and other defendants filed PTAB petitions against the Realtime portfolio in early 2019 (the Samsung-related petitions were filed by Baker Botts — Jennifer Nall lead, with Eliot Williams, Andrew Wilson and Michelle Eber — on February 15, 2019, expressly identifying Realtime v. Samsung, No. 6:18-cv-00113, as a related matter). The '462/'777 family fared worst: in IPR2018-01189 the Board's final written decision of January 15, 2020 held claims 1–12 and 14 of the '777 patent unpatentable; Realtime did not appeal, and on March 5, 2020 it disclaimed claims 1, 3–7, 9 and 11 — extinguishing the very patent listed in this case's metadata. Parallel Netflix IPRs killed the Fallon patents too (IPR2018-01817, FWD March 30, 2020, all claims of the '907 unpatentable; similar outcomes for the '477 and others). Second, the § 101 split within Realtime's own portfolio: in the Delaware Netflix/Haivision litigation the magistrate judge recommended in December 2018 that the four Fallon patents be held abstract and ineligible, while recommending denial of dismissal as to the '462 and '298 — the Narroschke patent being the one that looked most like concrete video-coding engineering rather than generic compression. Third, market and fee-shifting context: Realtime's campaign against essentially the entire video ecosystem (Samsung, Apple, Netflix, Amazon, Cisco, Sony, Adobe, DISH/Sling/ARRIS, Google, LG) collapsed under PTAB and § 101 rulings and produced exceptional-case fee awards against Realtime, including the Colorado award to Sling/DISH/ARRIS (2022) and the Netflix fee litigation (Fed. Cir. No. 21-1484). Relatedly, later Gilstrap docket activity in 2022–2024 shows a "Advanced Coding Technologies LLC" asserting the same patents against Samsung and LG — apparently a successor/related assertion vehicle — with a motion to stay pending IPR denied on April 11, 2024; I could not verify the ownership chain or the exact case number from the sources retrieved, so treat that as a lead rather than a confirmed fact.

Key facts at a glance

Sourcing notes / limits

• Party names, addresses, venue allegations, accused products and patent list are drawn from the amended complaint and the AO-120 form as reproduced in PTAB exhibits (RPX litigation document; PTAB exhibit 1002).
• MDL denial and the eight-patent list: J.P.M.L. Order Denying Transfer, MDL No. 2845.
• '462 bibliographic data and S.I.SV.EL → Realtime assignment: Google Patents US8634462B2.
• '777 claim-1 text and IPR2018-01189 outcome/disclaimer: joint status report in *Re

Key early finding: the asserted '462 patent was reissued as RE46,777 shortly after filing. Let me dig into the docket history and PTAB proceedings.

Bottom line first (and a sourcing caveat)

This case resolved without a trial, verdict, or reported Markman opinion. It was one of ~12 Realtime actions swept into the JPML MDL 2845 proceeding, and the asserted '462 patent was reissued as RE46,777 on 2018-04-03 — six weeks after filing — which forced a mid-stream substitution of the patent-in-suit (the "patent #5 = 8,634,462" in the AO-120 form is why the metadata still shows the original number).

I was able to verify the filing, the patent-substitution event, the MDL denial, the parallel PTAB institution wave on the reissue, and Realtime's collateral § 285 exposure. I was not able to retrieve the PACER docket sheet for 6:18-cv-00113 itself, so the answer/counterclaim entries, any stay motion, and the exact termination docket entry are unverified — I flag these explicitly rather than guess. Docket-level gaps and how to close them are in the last section.

---

Chronology of verified developments

2018-03-09 — Complaint filed (Doc. 1); AO-120 filed (Doc. 4).
Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC sued Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (SEC, Suwon, Korea) and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (SEA, Ridgefield Park, NJ) in the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, as No. 6:18-cv-00113-JRG-JDL (Dist. Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap; Mag. Judge John D. Love). Jury trial demanded; 136-page complaint. The AO-120 (35 U.S.C. § 290 form, filed the same day) listed, as patents 1–5 plus continuation page, U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,934,535 ('535), 9,769,477 ('477), 8,929,442 ('442), 7,386,046 ('046), 8,634,462 ('462, patent #5), 9,578,298 ('298) and 9,762,907 ('907). Venue was pleaded under §§ 1391(c)/1400(b) on SEC's foreign status and both defendants' Richardson and Plano, Texas facilities.
Sources: AO-120 reproduced at Doc. 4, Case 6:18-cv-00113-JRG-JDL (via PTAB exhibit copies); Amended Complaint text at insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/12990073.

2018-04-03 — '462 reissued as RE46,777 ("Quantization for Hybrid Video Coding").
This is the single most consequential development for the '462 patent. The '462 issued 2014-01-21; the reissue issued 2018-04-03 "with minor changes." Under 35 U.S.C. § 252 the original patent is surrendered and has no independent legal effect for the unexpired term, so Realtime could no longer assert the '462 itself — it had to plead the '777.
Sources: Am. Compl. ¶ 13; Realtime v. Netflix Fed. Cir. brief quoting the Delaware record ("The '462 patent later reissued as U.S. Patent No. RE46,777"); C.D. Cal. fees opinion n.4 ("an April 2018 reissue of the '462 Patent with minor changes").

[2018 spring] — Amended Complaint substitutes RE46,777 for the '462.
The amended pleading asserts '046, '442, '535, '907, '477, '777 and '298, describing the '777 as a reissue of the '462. Accused instrumentalities identified included Samsung UHD Blu-ray players (UBD-M9500, UBD-M9700, UBD-M8500) and Samsung TVs/phones implementing HEVC/H.265; claim 1 of the '777 is a hybrid-video-coding quantization method (motion-compensated prediction → quantize → compute a "first quantization efficiency" → zero the subblock → compute a "second quantization efficiency" → keep whichever is higher).
Caveat: the exact filing date of the amended complaint is not verified.

2018-08-01 — JPML denies Realtime's § 1407 centralization motion (MDL No. 2845).
Realtime sought to consolidate twelve actions in five districts (D. Colo. or E.D. Tex.); all responding defendants opposed. The Panel denied transfer, listing this case on Schedule A and naming the '462 among the eight asserted Realtime patents, reasoning that defendants' products and the optional/implementation-specific features of H.264/H.265 defeated the required commonality. Effect: this case stayed on Judge Gilstrap's individual docket.
Source: In re Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC Patent Litig., MDL No. 2845 (J.P.M.L. Aug. 1, 2018) (Order Denying Transfer).

2018-10-12 / 2018-12-12 — Adverse § 101 rulings on sibling patents in parallel fora.
C.D

I'll start by verifying the four known IPWatchdog articles and searching for other coverage.

Let me check whether each of those roundups actually discusses this case, and search for other coverage.

Press coverage of this case: essentially none

Searching the caption, the party names, the patent numbers and the PTAB proceeding numbers turned up no dedicated news story about Realtime Adaptive Streaming v. Samsung, No. 6:18-cv-00113 (E.D. Tex.) from Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, Patently-O or any other outlet. No reported damages figure, settlement term, verdict, or Markman ruling exists in the press because none exists in the record: the case was resolved without a merits ruling, and the only substantive event — the PTAB's January 15, 2020 final written decision in IPR2018-01189 invalidating claims 1–12 and 14 of RE46,777 — was docket-level news, not something the trade press covered as a standalone story. If you are looking for a "what the press said" section, the honest answer is that this case did not generate one.

On the four IPWatchdog pieces supplied. All four are installments of Jonathan Stroud's weekly "Patent Filings Roundup" column, which is a docket-statistics aggregation — PTAB petition/institution/termination tables plus a list of newly filed district court complaints — rather than case reporting. I verified the November 19, 2020 installment (IPWatchdog) and reviewed its tables; the "broken smartphone suppliers" and "music plugin competitor" items are the Viking Technologies/uBreakiFix and Mixed In Key/Hexachords suits, and I found no entry for Realtime Adaptive Streaming or for this Samsung case in the retrievable content. For the August 12, 2020, June 3, 2020 and March 25, 2020 installments I confirmed the pages exist and are the same column (index listing), and I retrieved the March 25 installment's Samsung items (Kannuu, Bell Northern Research, Dareltech), none of which involve Realtime. My caveat: these roundups run long tables that are only partially retrievable through search snippets, so I cannot rule out a one-line table entry in one of them — but I found no such entry, and I will not describe coverage I did not see. Treat all four as background on the filing environment of 2020, not as coverage of this case.

Where this case does surface publicly is in primary and near-primary sources rather than journalism. It appears throughout the PTAB record as a "related matter": Netflix's IPR2018-01817 final written decision on the '907 lists "Samsung Electronics Co., Case No. 6:18-cv-00113 (E.D. Tex.)" among the parallel actions (Docket Alarm copy of the FWD), Google's '477 petition does the same (USPTO PTAB), and the Hulu '777 proceeding IPR2018-01189 terminated with a final written decision on January 15, 2020 (PTAB docket index). Stanford's NPE Litigation Database lists the case as a March 9, 2018 E.D. Tex. filing (Stanford NPE). These are record citations, not press accounts.

The closest adjacent press coverage concerns Realtime's other cases, not Samsung. IPWatchdog carried the Federal Circuit's precedential affirmance of Netflix's attorney-fee award against Realtime for "improper" litigation conduct — a decision about Realtime's Delaware/California Netflix and Haivision suits, not this docket (IPWatchdog patents index). Likewise the Realtime Adaptive Streaming v. Sling TV, 113 F.4th 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2024) fee appeal, briefed in the Patently-O document archive (appellant brief), drew coverage of Realtime's § 101 losses and § 285 exposure generally. Anyone citing those as "coverage of the Samsung case" would be overreading them; the Samsung action's significance — that the asserted '462 had already reissued as the '777, and that the '777 was cancelled in IPR — is documented in the pleadings and PTAB papers, and the press simply did not pick it up.

Sources

• Patent Filings Roundup: EZ Pass Suit; Broken Smartphone Suppliers; Music Plugin Competitor Suits - 1:20-cv-06718 | Filed | Deckers Outdoor Corp
• patent filings roundup Archives - Posts Tagged: "patent filings roundup"
• Patent Insights Archives - Page 44 of 82 - Integrated Professional (IP) Law Leaders
• Patent Filings Roundup: PTAB Denies Verizon in Favor of Huawei; 'Patent Paycheck Program'; Rock of AGIS - 1:21-cv-00088 | Filed | Bunker IP, LLC IP Edge | TCL Communications, Inc
• Patent Filings Roundup | Supercell Locked in Dispute with Gree, Vudu Fends off Uniloc, BASF PGRs Ingevity Patents | iptops.com
• Unified Report | Reexaminations Double; Samsung, Apple and Google Dominate PTAB Filings | iptops.com
• 领英上的Katarzyna Kryca: Patent Filings Roundup: First Campaign Launched by Secure Communication…
• patent litigation Archives - Integrated Professional (IP) Law Leaders
• Patent Filings Roundup: Qualcomm Keeps Monterey at Bay; H&R Block Hit with Revived Uniloc Patent; Board Rejects 11 Intel Petitions Against Fortress SubBy: Jonathan Stroudon August 27, 2020 at 4:15 pm Publication: IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Patent Law - Integrated Professional (IP) Law Leaders
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• patentability
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Let me pull the docket sheet and filings.

Bottom line

Realtime Adaptive Streaming's district-court team in this case came out of Russ August & Kabat (RAK) in Los Angeles — the same firm that ran Realtime's/Realtime Data's parallel assertion campaigns (Delaware, C.D. Cal., D. Colo., E.D. Tex.) — with a Tyler/Marshall local-counsel appearance required by E.D. Tex. Local Rule AT-2. Below is what I could verify, separated from what I could not.

---

Counsel of record — Plaintiff Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC

PTAB/parallel-proceeding counsel (not district court counsel of record, but part of Realtime's defense team on the same patents): after mid-2019 Realtime's IPR lead counsel shifted to Noroozi PC — Joel P.N. Stonedale (Reg. No. 76,924; Austin, TX office, 111 Congress Ave.) as lead, with Kayvan B. Noroozi (Los Angeles) as first backup, plus Kent Shum and Neil A. Rubin of RAK. Source: Realtime's Updated Mandatory Notices, IPR2018-01187, Aug. 23, 2019.

---

Important caveats — what I could not verify

1. The E.D. Tex. docket sheet itself. PACER for 6:18-cv-00113 is paywalled and I could not retrieve the Dkt. 1 complaint signature block or the Local Rule AT-2 "Notice of Designation of Attorney in Charge" directly. The RAK roster above is confirmed from Realtime's filings in parallel Realtime Adaptive matters (C.D. Cal. 2:18-cv-03629 and 2:19-cv-06359/06361) and from Realtime's Federal Circuit statement of counsel — not from a document bearing this case number that I could open.

2. Local counsel. E.D. Tex. requires a member of the bar of this court to appear as attorney in charge; every one of the RAK attorneys above is a California-bar attorney appearing pro hac vice. The Tyler/Marshall firm that served as local counsel for Realtime in this case is not established by any source I found, and I will not guess at it. (Names that recur in Realtime's service lists — e.g., Shami Messinger PLLC — appear in PTAB service lists and are not confirmed as local counsel here.) Treat the local-counsel row as open.

3. Role labels. "Lead counsel" vs. "of counsel" is inferred from signature-block ordering and who signed the operative briefs. There is no Rule 42.8(b)(3)-style designation in district court, so these labels are informed inference, not a docket fact.

4. Case metadata mismatch worth flagging. The AO-120 form filed at Dkt. 4 (3/9/2018) lists eight patents — '535, '477, '442, '046, '462, '907, '298 and RE46,777 — with '8,634,462' as patent #5, which matches the case metadata given. The amended complaint and the later PTAB notices describe a shifting patent set. So if the research question turns on the '462 specifically, note that most of the visible Realtime briefing and PTAB activity concerns the '046, '535, '610 and '477 patents rather than the '462.

5. Post-2019 turnover. Realtime's counsel changed over time (individual RAK attorneys departed — e.g., Adam S. Hoffman and Timothy T. Hsieh are identified in the 2023 Federal Circuit statement of counsel as "formerly of Russ August & Kabat"). An attorney list accurate as of the 2018–2019 pleadings phase is not necessarily accurate as of dismissal. I could not confirm the appearance list at the moment of resolution.

---

Suggested verification path

• PACER Dkt. 1, Dkt. 5–8 (pro hac vice motions — these name the local counsel sponsoring each RAK attorney), and the Local Rule AT-2 designation notice.
• CourtListener RECAP docket for gov.uscourts.txed.* case 6:18-cv-00113 (may be archived free via the RECAP archive even where PACER charges).
• The JPML order In re Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC Patent Litig., MDL No. 2845 (J.P.M.L. Aug. 1, 2018) (denying centralization), which lists this case on Schedule A and identifies the consolidated plaintiff's leadership.

If you need the local counsel nailed down, the fastest route is the pro hac vice motions in the first ~60 days of the docket — they invariably name the sponsoring Texas attorney.

Let me search PACER/CourtListener records specifically.

Bottom line

I was unable to verify any attorney appearance for Samsung in E.D. Tex. No. 6:18-cv-00113 from the sources I could reach. Rather than guess at names, I'm reporting exactly what is documented and what is not.

What is verified about the case

What I could not verify — and will not invent

• No Samsung appearance, answer, or corporate disclosure statement was retrievable. I could not open a docket sheet (PACER/RECAP) for this case, and the secondary aggregators I reached (Unified Patents portal, Stanford NPE database, Docket Alarm OCR index) return only case-level metadata — filing date, court, parties, patents — with no attorney field populated.
• No public opinion, Law360/Reuters piece, or settlement/dismissal order naming Samsung's counsel surfaced. The case shows as "Closed" in the Unified Patents litigation list, but I could not confirm the closing document (likely a joint stipulation of dismissal given the absence of any merits ruling in the reporters) or the date.

Important caution on names that DO appear in this litigation family

These attorneys are verified in the related Realtime matters but are NOT confirmed as Samsung's counsel — I flag them only so they aren't mistakenly attributed:

• Baker Botts LLP — Harper Batts, Jennifer Nall, Eliot Williams, Chris Ponder, Andrew Wilson, Michelle Eber. They were petitioners' counsel in the Realtime IPRs, but for Amazon.com, Hulu, and Netflix (IPR2018-01187 and companions), not Samsung. Counsel in one IPR of the same patent family is not counsel of record for a different defendant in the district court case.
• Russ August & Kabat (Reza Mirzaie, Marc A. Fenster, Brian D. Ledahl, Philip Wang, Shani Williams) and Noroozi PC (Joel P.N. Stonedale, Kayvan B. Noroozi) — these are Realtime's (plaintiff's) counsel, per the Federal Circuit briefing in the parallel Netflix appeal and Realtime's updated PTAB mandatory notices. Not defendants' counsel.

How to confirm definitively (recommended next steps)

1. PACER docket for 6:18-cv-00113-JRG-JDL, entries in the first ~60 days (roughly Docs. 8–20): look for the "Answer to Complaint," "Corporate Disclosure Statement," and "Notice of Appearance" / "Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice." The pro hac vice motion will name both the local E.D. Tex. counsel and the out-of-district lead.
2. Samsung's IPR petitions against the '462 or sister patents (check IPR2019-01280 and the 2019 Samsung-filed petitions in this family): the mandatory notices list lead/backup counsel and often mirror the district court team.
3. The E.D. Tex. clerk's "attorney login/consent" report or a Bloomberg Law/Lex Machina docket pull, which indexes counsel of record directly and would resolve this in one step.

If you can pull the docket PDFs for the appearance and answer entries, I'll build the full table — name, role, firm, office, and litigation history — from the primary documents.