Litigation

Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Sony Electronics Inc. et al.

dismissed with prejudice

1:17-cv-01693

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: District of Delaware
Filed: 2017-11-21
Terminated: 2018-11-05

Patents at issue (1)

Plaintiffs (1)

π Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC

Defendants (2)

Summary

Realtime asserted the '462 patent against Sony entities. The case was dismissed with prejudice on November 5, 2018, upon joint motion.

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: 8634462-1-17-cv-01693 · edit in Admin

Further reading

Obviousness under § 103
Most patented inventions are combinations of existing ideas. The modern KSR standard makes those combinations easier to attack than they used to be.
The patent litigation lifecycle
Most patent cases never reach trial. A defendant who understands the lifecycle makes better decisions about when to fight, when to settle, and when to invest in IPR — instead of overspending on whatever phase they happen to be in.
TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC (2017)
Pre-TC Heartland, plaintiffs sued in plaintiff-friendly E.D. Tex. by default. Post-TC Heartland, venue is a real defense — and Delaware is where most U.S. patent cases land.
How to read a patent claim chart
The claim chart is where the plaintiff's case actually lives. The complaint is a pitch deck; the chart is the homework — and most patent troll homework doesn't survive a careful read.
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.

All resources →