Litigation

Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Sling TV, L.L.C.

affirmed
Terminated
2023-05-11

Patents at issue (1)

8867610

Defendants (1)

Summary

Federal Circuit appeal of the district court's § 101 summary judgment of invalidity of the '610 patent; affirmed May 11, 2023. The appeal number was not confirmed.

Case overview & background

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

I'll research this case to build an accurate overview.

Good baseline. Now let me verify the patent specifics, accused products, and the parties' identities.

Now let me confirm the appeal details, the 2024 fees opinion citation, and Sling TV's Colorado ties.

Case Overview & Background

Parties. Plaintiff‑appellant Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC is a patent‑assertion entity — a Realtime Data LLC affiliate (Realtime Data historically did business as "IXO") holding the "bandwidth‑sensitive data compression" portfolio of inventor James J. Fallon. EchoStar/DISH's own SEC disclosures describe Realtime as "an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein." Realtime was represented at the Federal Circuit by Brian Ledahl, Marc Fenster and colleagues of Russ August & Kabat (Los Angeles). Defendants‑appellees are the DISH/EchoStar family: Sling TV L.L.C. (the live OTT/"skinny bundle" streaming service), Sling Media, L.L.C./Inc. (Slingbox placeshifting hardware), DISH Network L.L.C. and DISH Technologies L.L.C. (satellite TV and Hopper/Joey whole‑home DVR), plus EchoStar Technologies, represented by Fish & Richardson (Adam Shartzer, Ruffin Cordell, Michael Ballanco, Brian Livedalen). Arris Group was originally a co‑defendant and was dismissed after settlement in March 2021.

Accused technology. Realtime alleged that DISH/Sling's H.264‑compliant streaming video products and services — the Sling TV streaming service, Sling Media devices, and DISH DVR/streaming products — infringed by adaptively selecting compression algorithms based on data attributes and channel bandwidth/throughput. This was part of a 2017–2019 Realtime campaign that generically asserted the same family against roughly twenty streaming and tech companies (Netflix, Google/YouTube, Hulu, Amazon, Apple, Cisco, Sony, Samsung, Adobe, Intel, AMD, Broadcom, Avaya, Polycom, Wowza, Brightcove and others) in E.D. Tex., D. Del., C.D. Cal., D. Mass. and D. Colo.

Patents. Three patents were named in the original August 31, 2017 complaint: U.S. 8,867,610 ("System and Methods for Video and Audio Data Distribution") — claim 1 recites determining a parameter/attribute of a video‑or‑audio data block, selecting one or more compression algorithms based on that parameter and "a throughput of a communication channel" (at least one being asymmetric), and compressing the block; U.S. 8,934,535 ("Systems and Methods for Video and Audio Data Storage and Distribution") — sibling claim 15 doing the same selection‑plus‑storage without the throughput limitation; and U.S. 8,275,897. All share one specification. The '897 patent was dropped in the October 10, 2017 amended complaint; Realtime dismissed the '535 patent on January 12, 2021 after the PTAB invalidated claims 1–14; only the '610 patent remained for summary judgment and appeal. That is why the Federal Circuit case is captioned with the '610 patent alone.

Procedural Posture

Filed as Realtime Data LLC v. Sling TV, L.L.C., No. 1:17‑cv‑02097‑RBJ (D. Colo.), before Judge R. Brooke Jackson in Denver, after Realtime dismissed the same claims from its E.D. Texas suit and re‑filed them in Colorado on August 31, 2017 — the natural home forum for Sling TV/Sling Media (Englewood, Colorado) and DISH Technologies, and one of the few venues where Realtime sued outside its preferred E.D. Tex./D. Del. fora. Posture: motions to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings on § 101 were denied early on; claim construction issued January 2019; the case was stayed in February 2019 pending IPRs; the stay was lifted January 15, 2021; on July 30–31, 2021 (sources differ by a day) Judge Jackson granted DISH's summary judgment motion, holding claims 1, 2, 6, 8–14, 16 and 18 of the '610 patent ineligible under § 101 (Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Sling TV L.L.C., 2021 WL 3888263). On January 21, 2022 the court declared the case "exceptional" under § 285 and on September 20, 2022 awarded DISH roughly $3.9 million in fees.

Two Federal Circuit appeals followed and are often conflated. No. 21‑2268 — the merits appeal — was affirmed without opinion under Fed. Cir. R. 36 on May 11, 2023 (per curiam; Lourie, Hughes, Stark), 2023 WL 3373583. The existing case summary's note that "the appeal number was not confirmed" can now be corrected: the merits appeal is 21‑2268; the separate fees appeal is 23‑1035. In 23‑1035 the court issued a precedential opinion on August 23, 2024 (Judge Albright sitting by designation, joined by Moore and Lourie), reported at 113 F.4th 1351, vacating the fee award because the district court leaned on six "red flags" without weighting them and because several (the Adaptive Streaming decision, the '535 PTAB decisions, the reexam office actions, DISH's February 11, 2021 notice letter, and Dr. Bovik's expert declaration) could not support exceptionality — while agreeing the Google and Netflix § 101 rulings on the '535 patent were a legitimate red flag (113 F.4th at 1355). Rehearing en banc was denied November 26, 2024; on remand the district court denied the exceptional‑case motion on February 5, 2025; DISH noticed an appeal on March 6, 2025 and dismissed it July 3, 2025, ending the litigation.

Why It's Notable

Four things make this case a teaching vehicle. (1) IPR linkage and § 315(b) timing: DISH's July 2018 petitions against all three patents were instituted but then terminated as time‑barred because DISH had been served more than a year earlier in the Texas actions — affirmed in Sling TV, L.L.C. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC, 840 F. App'x 598 (Fed. Cir. 2021) — leaving DISH to win on § 101 and ex parte reexamination instead. The '535 patent fell in IPR2018‑01169 (Netflix, joined by Unified Patents, which had also petitioned against the '535 patent in April 2018); Realtime then abandoned that patent. (2) The patent is dead twice over: in parallel ex parte reexamination of the '610 patent (ordered August 7, 2020), the examiner finally rejected all asserted claims (Sept. 21, 2021) and the PTAB affirmed on April 19, 2023; Realtime did not appeal, so the asserted claims were canceled — giving DISH a second, independent basis for zero exposure. (3) § 285 doctrine: the 2024 precedential decision is now a leading authority cabining "red flag"‑style exceptionality analysis, especially as applied to NPEs pursuing aggressive § 101 positions, and it pairs with fee awards Realtime faced in the Google/C.D. Cal. litigation. (4) Industry context: the dispute sits at the intersection of video‑codec/adaptive‑bitrate streaming (H.264 deployment) and the long‑running Realtime Data assertion program, which produced some of the most‑cited § 101 rulings of the period (Adaptive Streaming, Inc. v. Netflix, Inc., 836 F. App'x 900 (Fed. Cir. 2020); the Google and Netflix district court decisions on the '535 patent) — the very decisions the district court treated as warning signs to Realtime.

Caveats: the exact day of the summary judgment order (July 30 vs. 31, 2021) differs between EchoStar's 10‑Q and the Federal Circuit's citation; the $3.9 million figure comes from EchoStar SEC filings and the appellate briefing rather than a docket sheet I could inspect directly; and I did not verify a reported Supreme Court petition referencing the decision (No. 24‑764) or confirm any PACER docket entries at the district court level firsthand.

Key legal developments & outcome

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

I'll research this case across the district court docket, PTAB proceedings, and the Federal Circuit appeal.

Excellent leads. Now let me nail down the district court docket, the merits appeal number, and the PTAB proceedings.

Now let me pin down the stay date, the early pleadings, and the other '610 IPRs.

Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Sling TV, L.L.C. — Litigation Chronology

District court: Realtime Data LLC d/b/a IXO v. Sling TV LLC, No. 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ (D. Colo.) (Judge R. Brooke Jackson). Case opened 2017-08-31; docket marked closed 2022-01-21.
Appeals: Fed. Cir. No. 2021-2268 (merits, § 101) — affirmed 2023-05-11 (this is the appeal the case metadata lists as "terminated 2023-05-11"); Fed. Cir. No. 2023-1035 (fees, § 285) — vacated and remanded 2024-08-23.
Patents initially asserted: U.S. 8,275,897; 8,867,610; 8,934,535 — narrowed to the '610 patent only.

Correction to the existing summary: the merits appeal number is confirmed as No. 2021-2268, and the affirmance was a Rule 36 summary affirmance (per curiam), not a reasoned opinion. The § 285 fee award was the subject of a separate appeal, No. 2023-1035, which produced the only substantive Federal Circuit opinion in the case — and that opinion vacated the fee award.

1. Filing and initial pleadings (2017)

  • 2017-06-06 (precursor service): Realtime Data LLC served a complaint on Sling alleging infringement of the '610 patent — but Realtime Data had already assigned the patent to Realtime Adaptive Streaming (recorded 2017-03-07), so it lacked standing. Realtime Data voluntarily dismissed without prejudice and refiled. This six-week episode became the entire basis for the § 315(b) time-bar fight at the PTAB years later. (PTAB POP briefing reciting the facts)
  • 2017-08-31: Plaintiff (then pleading as Realtime Data LLC d/b/a IXO) filed the operative-original complaint against Sling TV, Sling Media, and DISH-related entities, asserting the '897, '610, and '535 patents. Judge R. Brooke Jackson, D. Colo. Jury demand; five-day trial eventually set. (Dkt. 1)
  • 2017-10-10: Amended complaint; 2017-11-06/07: Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 32) added ARRIS Group, Inc. as a defendant on the '610 patent.
  • 2017-10-24: Sling TV and Sling Media filed their Answer, affirmative defenses, counterclaims (declaratory judgment of invalidity and non-infringement), and jury demand. (DISH entities filed parallel answers and DJ counterclaims.) (document index)
  • The '897 patent dropped out early; by the Markman stage only the '610 and '535 patents remained asserted. ARRIS later settled out.

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

§ 101 motions to dismiss / for judgment on the pleadings — denied (2018-03-07).
Defendants moved under Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 12(c) to invalidate the asserted claims as abstract. At the hearing the court voiced skepticism ("Maybe this is just an abstract concept… It just sounds like an idea"), but Realtime persuaded the court to construe the claims first. The court denied the motions without prejudice to renewal after claim construction — Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Sling TV L.L.C., No. 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ, Dkt. 74 (D. Colo. Mar. 7, 2018). This denial became a central plank of Realtime's later argument that its § 101 position was objectively reasonable.

Motion to stay pending IPR — granted (early 2019).
After the PTAB instituted the '535 and '610 IPRs, the court stayed the entire case. Dkt. 162 (exact entry date not confirmed in the materials I reviewed; the Federal Circuit described the stay as lasting "almost two years" before being lifted 2021-01-15). The stay mooted the then-pending December 16, 2019 trial setting.

Summary judgment of invalidity — granted (2021-07-31).
DISH moved for summary judgment of § 101 ineligibility on 2021-06-02 (Dkt. 234), supported by a modified declaration of Dr. Alan C. Bovik (Dkt. 234-1; original at Dkt. 223-1, filed 2021-05-28). Realtime filed a Rule 702 motion to exclude portions of Bovik's opinions (Dkt. 237). The court granted summary judgment as to claims 1, 2, 6, 8–14, 16, and 18 of the '610 patent and dismissed the remaining claims: Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Sling TV L.L.C., No. 17-cv-02097-RBJ, 2021 WL 3888263 (D. Colo. July 31, 2021) (Dkt. 305).

3. Claim construction (Markman) — this case did reach Markman

  • Markman hearing: 2018-12-19 (1.75 hours per side; four of eight term groups argued, the rest submitted on the papers).
  • Markman Order: 2019-01-11 (Dkt. 151). Eight terms/groups in dispute across the '610 and '535 patents. Key construction: "throughput of a communication channel" = "the number of pending transmission requests over a communication channel." (Markman Order PDF)
  • Strategic significance: Realtime obtained a construction it then used on both Alice steps; the examiner and PTAB in the parallel reexamination used the broader BRI standard and expressly declined to adopt Judge Jackson's "throughput" construction — a divergence the Federal Circuit later held undermined the district court's reliance on the reexam as a § 285 "red flag."
  • Note the sequencing: the court construed the claims before ruling on eligibility, and then stayed the case — so the Markman order predates the stay by weeks.

4. Parallel PTAB / USPTO proceedings and their effect

(a) IPR2018-01331 — the '610 patent (DISH/Sling, filed 2018-07-03).

  • 2019-01-31: Board instituted on all challenged claims (1, 2, 6, 8–14, 16, 18), over Realtime's § 315(b) objection, reasoning that the June 2017 complaint was served by a non-owner lacking standing. (Institution Decision)
  • **

Plaintiff representatives

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

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

I have strong leads. Let me pin down the appeal number, the full counsel list, and district court appearances.

Let me pull the Federal Circuit docket for No. 21-2268 and confirm local counsel details.

Key correction to the existing summary

The Federal Circuit appeal number is now confirmed: No. 2021-2268, docketed August 31, 2021 (notice of appeal received Aug. 26, 2021), decided May 11, 2023 by Rule 36 judgment (per curiam: Lourie, Hughes, and Stark, JJ.), affirming the D. Colo. § 101 summary judgment in No. 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ (Judge R. Brooke Jackson). See CAFC opinion page (https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/2023/05/11/) and the judgment text (https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[9398329](/patent/9398329)/realtime-adaptive-streaming-llc-v-sling-tv-llc/; also https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-21-2268-20230511).

Because this is a Rule 36 disposition, the judgment's counsel recital is the only appellate-court-sourced counsel list — there is no opinion discussing counsel.

1. Counsel of record on appeal — No. 2021-2268 (plaintiff-appellant Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC)

Per D.I. 2 (Entry of Appearance, filed Sept. 14, 2021, by Reza Mirzaie) and the May 11, 2023 judgment recital, all from Russ August & Kabat, 12424 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90025:

Attorney Role on appeal Firm / office Experience note
Brian D. Ledahl Principal/arguing counsel — the Rule 36 judgment recites "BRIAN DAVID LEDAHL … argued for plaintiff-appellant"; he is listed first in the brief signature block Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles RAK patent-litigation partner; long-time Realtime portfolio counsel in its streaming-compression campaigns.
Marc A. Fenster Of counsel on appeal (EOA D.I. 2; named in judgment) Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles Founding/name partner of RAK; the firm's senior patent trial lawyer and the anchor name on Realtime's briefs.
Reza Mirzaie Of counsel on appeal; filed the EOA, certificate of interest (D.I. 3) and docketing statement (D.I. 4) Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles Realtime's lead district-court lawyer in this case; also filed Realtime's EOAs in the parallel Netflix appeals (Nos. 21-1484 et al.).
Philip X. Wang Of counsel on appeal; filed the Oct. 8, 2021 extension motion (D.I. 10) Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles Argued Sling TV v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming, No. 20-1601 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 16, 2021) (deinstitution of IPRs not appealable) and Realtime v. Netflix, No. 21-1484 (Fed. Cir. July 27, 2022) (affirming inherent-power fee award); argued the later fee appeal, No. 23-1035 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 23, 2024).
James S. Tsuei Of counsel on appeal (EOA D.I. 2; named in judgment) Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles RAK patent litigator on the Realtime matters (appears on Realtime's appellate filings across the portfolio).
Shani M. Williams Of counsel on appeal — named in the May 11, 2023 judgment recital, but no separate EOA by her appears on the public docket extract Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles RAK attorney listed with Mirzaie and Wang on Realtime's EOA in Realtime v. Netflix, No. 21-1484 (D.I. 7, Jan. 19, 2021).

Caveats: (a) The Federal Circuit docket extract available publicly (Justia/UniCourt docket mirror, https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/21-2268) runs only through Oct. 14, 2021, so later EOA amendments (e.g., adding Ms. Williams or withdrawing anyone) are not visible without PACER; I could not confirm whether Ms. Williams filed a formal amended EOA. (b) I could not verify whether oral argument was actually held — Rule 36 judgments frequently issue without argument, and the "argued for plaintiff-appellant" line is part of the court's standard judgment template. (c) No in-house counsel appeared for Realtime; it is a patent-monetization entity and litigated entirely through outside counsel. (d) No filing in this appeal was sealed.

2. Counsel of record in the underlying district court case (D. Colo. No. 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ)

From the Reporter's Transcript of the July 16, 2021 Trial Preparation Conference, ECF No. 308-12 (filed Aug. 13, 2021), which recites plaintiff's appearances (https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Colorado_District_Court/1--17-cv-02097/Realtime_Adaptive_Streaming_LLC_v._Sling_TV_L.L.C._et_al/docs/308/12.pdf):

Attorney Role Firm / office Note
Reza Mirzaie Lead trial counsel Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles See above; he is also the name on DISH's Feb. 11, 2021 § 285/Rule 11 notice letter to Realtime's counsel.
Philip X. Wang Trial team Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles The Feb. 11, 2021 DISH notice letter was addressed to him (ECF No. 308-5).
Jay C. Chung Trial team Russ August & Kabat (now "formerly of," per the No. 23-1035 brief signature block, Jan. 2023) Also appeared for Realtime in No. 20-1601.
Adam S. Hoffman Trial team Russ August & Kabat (now "formerly of," per the 23-1035 brief) —
James N. Pickens Trial team Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles —
Eric B. Fenster Local counsel (Colorado) Eric B. Fenster, LLC, 1522 Blake St., Ste. 200, Denver, CO 80202 Denver solo practitioner; the only Colorado-bar counsel of record for Realtime, appearing at trial-prep and listed on Realtime's appellate briefs as local counsel.

Caveats: The district court's ECF appearance entries themselves (which would show exact appearance dates and any withdrawals) sit behind PACER; the list above is drawn from the transcript appearances and the Feb. 11, 2021 letter (ECF No. 308-5), which is what is publicly verifiable. Other RAK attorneys (Paul A. Kroeger, Christian W. Conkle, Timothy T. Hsieh (formerly RAK), Andrew John Gibbs of Tueller & Gibbs LLC, and Neil A. Rubin) appear on Realtime's Federal Circuit briefs in the related appeals but are not confirmed as counsel of record in this particular appeal.

3. Post-appeal continuity (context, not this docket)

On the § 285 fee appeal from the same district case — No. 2023-1035, notice of appeal Oct. 14, 2022, decided Aug. 23, 2024, 113 F.4th 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (vacating fee award) — Realtime's counsel was again Philip Wang (argued) of Russ August & Kabat, with a brief signature block listing Mirzaie, Fenster, Ledahl, Wang, Pickens, Tsuei, Kroeger, Hoffman, Conkle, Hsieh, Chung, Eric B. Fenster, and Andrew John Gibbs (appellant's brief PDF: http://patentlyo.com/media/2024/08/Realtime-Appellant-Brief.pdf; opinion: https://cafc.uscourts.gov/08-23-2024-23-1035-realtime-adaptive-streaming-llc-v-sling-tv-llc-opinion-23-1035-opinion-8-23-2024_2372558/). Realtime also appears via Ledahl, Kroeger, Wang, Mirzaie, and Williams in the 2025 appeal No. 25-1529.

If you need the PACER-verified EOA trail (including any amended appearances or withdrawals in No. 21-2268 between October 2021 and May 2023), that requires a PACER pull of the full docket; I did not have access to it here.

Defendant representatives

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

I'll research the docket and counsel for this appeal.

The metadata's termination date (May 11, 2023) matches appeal No. 21-2268 (Rule 36 affirmance), not the later fee appeal 23-1035. Let me pull the appellee briefing and docket counsel.

Now let me confirm the Federal Circuit docket entries and each attorney's firm/role.

Scope note first — which appeal this is

The case metadata (terminated May 11, 2023, "affirmed," '610 patent) matches Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Sling TV, L.L.C., No. 2021‑2268 (Fed. Cir.), in which the court issued a Rule 36 judgment affirming the District of Colorado's § 101 invalidity ruling. See Rule 36 Judgment, No. 21‑2268 (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2023) ("PER CURIAM (LOURIE, HUGHES, and STARK, Circuit Judges) … AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36"), https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/2023/05/11/. The earlier summary's note that "the appeal number was not confirmed" can now be resolved: it is 21‑2268 (D. Colo. No. 1:17‑cv‑02097‑RBJ, Judge R. Brooke Jackson).

There is also a later, separate appeal — No. 23‑1035 — from the § 285 fee award (Fed. Cir. Aug. 23, 2024, 113 F.4th 1348, vacated and remanded; rehearing en banc denied Nov. 26, 2024). The same defense team appears in both, so I note where sourcing comes from each.

Counsel of record for Defendants‑Appellees (No. 21‑2268)

Appellees were Sling TV L.L.C., Sling Media L.L.C., DISH Network L.L.C., and DISH Technologies L.L.C. (collectively "DISH"). Sling Media, Inc. and EchoStar Technologies LLC appear in the caption as "Defendants" only — no appellee counsel of record for them on this appeal.

Entry of appearance (Dkt. No. 5, filed Sept. 14, 2021, ECF No. 799312) named Ruffin B. Cordell, Adam R. Shartzer, Brian J. Livedalen, and Michael J. Ballanco as counsel for all four appellees. See UniCourt docket extract for No. 21‑2268, https://unicourt.com/case/pc-ap1-realtime-adaptive-streaming-llc-v-sling-tv-llc-[124764](/patent/124764).

Attorney Role Firm / Office Note
Adam R. Shartzer Lead / arguing counsel for appellees; principal at Fish & Richardson and the firm's day‑to‑day lead in the district court ("Adam Shartzer, a principal of the law firm Fish & Richardson that served as lead counsel for the Dish defendants," D. Colo. ECF No. 342 at 3) Fish & Richardson P.C., Washington, DC (901 15th St. NW, Ste. 700 during the 2018 district proceedings; 1000 Maine Ave. SW, Ste. 1000 on later filings) Argued at the Federal Circuit ("ADAM SHARTZER, Fish & Richardson P.C., Washington, DC, argued for defendants‑appellees," 21‑2268 judgment); handled the fee‑application screening/culling that the district court relied on in awarding ~$3.9M in fees (ECF No. 342). Also appeared for appellants in Paice LLC v. Ford line of Federal Circuit work with Cordell.
Ruffin B. Cordell Principal/senior counsel of record; signature counsel on the appellees' certificates of interest and later en banc petition Fish & Richardson P.C., Washington, DC Longtime head of Fish's patent litigation practice and frequent Federal Circuit advocate (e.g., argued Paice LLC v. Ford Motor Co., No. 20‑1601 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 16, 2021)); signed the appellees' Oct. 23, 2024 en banc petition in 23‑1035.
Brian J. Livedalen Of counsel / additional counsel of record Fish & Richardson P.C., Washington, DC Listed on the 21‑2268 entry of appearance and on the May 11, 2023 judgment; also appeared with Cordell in the Paice Federal Circuit matters (Dkt. 12 & 36, Nos. 16‑1785 et al.).
Michael J. Ballanco Of counsel / additional counsel of record Fish & Richardson P.C. (per the case filings; Washington, DC-based per Federal Circuit appearance records) Listed on the 21‑2268 entry of appearance and on the Rule 36 judgment; also appeared with Cordell and Livedalen in prior Federal Circuit appeals (e.g., No. 20‑1601). Caveat: I could not independently verify his current firm/office from a firm biography page in this search session, so I am relying solely on the case filings for his affiliation.

Counsel who appeared in the district court but did not enter appearances on appeal (per the Rule 47.5 certificate of interest in the appellees' briefs): Fish & Richardson P.C. — Timothy W. Riffe, Daniel Tishman, Matthew Mosteller, Caitlin M. Dean, Michael R. Ellis, Min Woo Park, Raj Utreja, Ryan M. Teel, Andrew L. Schrader. See Appellees' Petition for Rehearing En Banc, No. 23‑1035, at certificate of interest (Oct. 23, 2024), http://cdn.patentlyo.com/media/2024/10/Realtime-Adaptive-Streaming-LLC-v.-Sling-TV-L.L.C.-Docket-No.-23-01035-Fed.-Cir.-Oct-14-2022-Court-Docket.pdf.

Local / Colorado counsel (not on the Federal Circuit appearance)

Attorney Role Firm / Office Note
Hugh Q. Gottschalk Local (Colorado) counsel for the DISH defendants in the district court; his firm's time was included in the fee petition ($103,986.50 of the award) Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, Denver, CO Filed the rate affidavit (D. Colo. ECF No. 308‑3) in support of the § 285 fee application; the district court noted Realtime did not contest the WTO fees (ECF No. 342 at 6). Named in the Rule 47.5 certificate as a trial-court firm for appellees.

Note: the district court transcript from the March 7, 2018 scheduling conference lists only the Fish & Richardson DC team (Cordell, Livedalen, Shartzer) for Sling/DISH, with no separate Colorado admission announced at that hearing; WTO's involvement is documented through the fee record rather than a Federal Circuit appearance. See D. Colo. ECF No. 75 (parties' counsel list) and hearing transcript, https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Colorado_District_Court/1--17-cv-02097/Realtime_Adaptive_Streaming_LLC_v._Sling_TV_L.L.C._et_al/docs/308/7.pdf.

Related but distinct: PTAB/IPR counsel (not this appeal)

For completeness, in the parallel IPR on the '610 patent (IPR2018‑01331), DISH/Sling's petitioners' counsel were Baker Botts L.L.P. — lead counsel Jennifer Librach Nall (Reg. No. 57,053), backup Eliot Williams, Brandon Chen, Michelle Eber. See Petition, IPR2018‑01331, at mandatory notices, https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1524086](/patent/1524086)/download-documents?artifactId=okxZk7F44ub-hC49g8YA8dqqMjAiV9_EYumBcrJkWdLhMxJ1P8ayTyk. These are different counsel from the litigation/appeal team and should not be listed as counsel of record in this case.

Sourcing and confidence

  • High confidence: the four appellee counsel of record and the firm (Fish & Richardson P.C., Washington, DC) — confirmed independently by (1) the 21‑2268 entry of appearance (Dkt. No. 5), (2) the May 11, 2023 Rule 36 judgment's counsel line, and (3) the 23‑1035 briefing's firm block ("FISH & RICHARDSON P.C., 1000 Maine Ave., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20024").
  • High confidence: Adam Shartzer as arguing/lead counsel; Ruffin Cordell as senior/principal of record.
  • Moderate confidence: individual office assignments for Livedalen and Ballanco (derived from filing addresses and judgment captions, not firm bios); Ballanco's current affiliation should be re-verified against fishrichardson.com before publication.
  • Not verified: whether any sealed or ex parte filings in the district court list additional defense counsel; the docket excerpts reviewed show the Fish & Richardson team plus Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell as the complete defense side.
Record id: 8867610-realtime-adaptive-streaming-llc-v-sling-tv-l-l-c · edit in Admin