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

I'll research this case and the surrounding context.

Good initial data. Let me dig into the '462 patent itself, the IPR, and the ownership dispute.

I'll research the procedural history and key legal developments in this case, building on the counsel and background sections already completed.

Key finding: Sony's IPRs targeted the '477 and '442 patents, not the '462. Let me verify the docket events in detail and check for any IPR on the '462.

Now let me get the full docket chronology and check whether the § 101 motion was ever decided and whether a scheduling order/discovery occurred.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

Bottom line: This case never got past the pleading stage. Realtime filed a seven-patent, 133-page complaint on 2017-11-21; Sony never answered, instead attacking the complaint with a Rule 12(e) motion and a § 101 motion; Realtime tried and failed to consolidate the campaign before the JPML; and roughly nine months into the case, with both motions fully briefed but undecided, the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss with prejudice. No claim construction, no discovery on the merits, no Markman, no trial, no appeal. Sony's parallel PTAB petitions did not touch the '462 — a point that matters given the case metadata.

---

Chronological chronology

I'll search several angles: the case caption, the parties, the patents, and the Realtime campaign as a whole.

Let me search specifically for press coverage from litigation and tech outlets.

Press and analysis coverage

Short answer: I found essentially no journalism about this specific case. Across searches on the caption, the party names, the ’462 patent number, and the Realtime/Realtime Data campaign as a whole, no Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, JD Supra, or mainstream outlet article discussing Realtime Adaptive Streaming v. Sony Electronics surfaced. Given that the suit died at the pleading stage — joint dismissal with prejudice on 2018-11-05 (D.I. 27, 28) with no answer, no claim construction, no Markman, no damages figure and no disclosed settlement consideration — the absence of coverage is unsurprising: there was no verdict, injunction, or announced settlement to report. Everything I located about the case itself is court record or litigation-database material (the Justia docket, UniCourt, Unified Patents' litigation portal, and the JPML's denial order, 326 F. Supp. 3d 1374), not press.

The closest thing to press treatment is campaign-level roundup coverage that names Sony only in passing. RPX ran a piece in its October 2018 Patent Risk Digest titled "Massive Realtime Data Campaign Soldiers on," reporting that Realtime Data LLC and its subsidiary Realtime Adaptive Streaming had expanded the campaign against "more than a dozen companies," that total defendants across the campaign had "surpassed 115," and that the number of patents asserted "holds at just shy of 40" — characterizing it as a "long-running" and "growing litigation campaign" spanning video streaming, cloud services, smart TVs, set-top boxes, DVD players, smartphones and tablets. RPX framed the significance in volume and breadth, not in the merits of any single suit. Note the timing gap: RPX's digest went to press around the same weeks the Sony case was being dismissed, and it does not mention the Sony dismissal, any settlement, or the ’462 patent.

Two other trade sources touch the ecosystem but not this case. Unified Patents wrote on 2018-04-09 that it had petitioned for IPR against U.S. Patent 8,934,535 — describing Realtime Adaptive as "a Realtime Data affiliate and well-known NPE" and noting the ’535 patent "has been asserted in multiple cases against such companies as Samsung, Adobe, Apple, Netflix, Sony, Polycom, Cisco, Hulu, Echostar, Amazon, Sling TV and others." That is a one-word Sony reference in a defendant list for a different patent; it says nothing about the ’462 or about Sony's defense. Separately, IPWatchdog published a 2018-12-04 opinion piece by Gene Quinn and Steve Brachmann on the PTAB's decision to institute Unified's ’535 IPR over Realtime's real-party-in-interest challenge, noting that the ’535 patent was involved in "26 related proceedings in district court." That article is substantive but is about the Unified IPR and the RPI/privy doctrine, not about Sony, and it does not discuss this litigation.

Where accounts do go beyond the record, it is in characterizations rather than facts, and I would treat them cautiously. Unified's "well-known NPE" label and IPWatchdog's framing of Unified's business model are advocacy-tinged commentary about the broader campaign (and in IPWatchdog's case, about Unified Patents, not Realtime's case against Sony). No source I found reported a demand figure, a settlement amount, or any executive or analyst statement about the Sony matter — and I found no reporting on the parallel Sony PTAB petitions (IPR2018-01413 and -01439, which targeted the ’477 and ’442 patents and terminated as settled on 2019-01-02 per Docket Alarm's PTAB docket for IPR2018-01413). Anyone asserting that the dismissal followed a paid license, or attaching a dollar value to it, would be speculating: the joint motion and order disclose nothing.

Two flags for the case file. First, consistent with the correction already noted in the defendant-counsel section, the JPML order and the ’462 patent's own reissue history confirm the campaign context your metadata omits: the ’462 patent issued 2014-01-21 and was reissued as RE46,777 on 2018-04-03, a fact recorded in the C.D. Cal. fee ruling in the parallel Netflix matter (Cadwalader copy) — meaning the patent asserted against Sony was reissued mid-case, which no press account notes. Second, my searches hit a hard step limit before I could exhaust Google News/aggregator angles; while I am confident there is no substantial reported coverage, I cannot claim to have proven a universal negative, and this section should be read as "no coverage found," not "no coverage exists."

Sources

• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

• TO:	Mail Stop 8 Director of the U

• Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Sony Electronics, Inc. - This case was last updated from U
• Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 14 Filed 02/05/18 Page 1 of 21 PageID #: 468
• The District Court's inherent power sanction also merits reversal for several additional reasons
• transfer back to Delaware, is further support for the determination that Realtime was engaged in
• Search court records on patent:(7386046), page 9 - - All Courts
• | PATENT OR TRADEMARK NO
• were unpatentable as obvious
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
• Case 1:17-cv-01692-CFC-SRF Document 48 Filed 12/12/18 Page 1 of 36 PageID #:
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

I'll research counsel of record for Realtime Adaptive Streaming in this Delaware case.

Now let me confirm the Delaware local counsel firm and the pro hac vice roster in detail.

Let me verify the specific docket entries and the complaint's signature block for this case.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC

Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Sony Electronics Inc. & Sony Corporation, C.A. No. 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF (D. Del.)

The plaintiff was represented by a two-tier structure typical of Delaware patent cases: a Delaware local firm (Bayard, P.A.) signing and filing everything, and a Los Angeles-based patent boutique (Russ, August & Kabat LLP) acting as lead/off-counsel. Every plaintiff-side attorney who appeared did so through a pro hac vice motion filed by local counsel; no in-house counsel for Realtime entered an appearance, and no plaintiff-side filing in this case is sealed.

1. Delaware counsel — Bayard, P.A. (Wilmington, DE)

2. Lead / of-counsel — Russ, August & Kabat LLP, Los Angeles, CA (12424 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Fl.)

Sourcing and caveats

• Roster source: the complaint's signature block and certificates of service, e.g. D.I. 1 (Nov. 21, 2017), D.I. 13 at the certificate of service (Feb. 5, 2018), and D.I. 19 (Mar. 6, 2018) — available at docketalarm.com for this case; consolidated docket text via Unified Patents' docket mirror for 1:17-cv-01693 and Dockets.Justia (docket No. 63803).
• Pro hac vice orders: D.I. 5 (Fenster, Mirzaie, Ledahl, Chung, Wang), D.I. 10 (Hsieh, granted 1/17/2018), D.I. 26 (Kroeger, granted 10/5/2018).
• Not found / not claimed: I found no appearance by in-house Realtime counsel, no special master or court-appointed counsel, and no sealed plaintiff filings. I also did not find a plaintiff-side attorney I could not corroborate — I have deliberately omitted any name not tied to a docket entry or signed filing above.
• One discrepancy worth flagging: public aggregator "attorney" lists for this case (e.g., UniCourt, Plainsite) are incomplete — they omit Fenster, Hsieh, and Kroeger — so treat those lists as unreliable; the docket entries above are the authoritative source.
• The case was dismissed with prejudice by joint motion (D.I. 27), ordered November 5, 2018 (D.I. 28), so none of these attorneys remain counsel of record; Sony Corporation had already been dismissed by stipulation on December 28, 2017 (D.I. 9).

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

Good initial results. Let me verify the counsel details and check for any additional appearances.

Let me pull the full docket to confirm all counsel entries and check the Sony Corporation dismissal.

Counsel of Record — Sony Defendants, Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Sony Electronics Inc., No. 1:17-cv-01693 (D. Del.)

Bottom line: Sony was defended by a two-tier team — Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP (Wilmington, DE) as Delaware/local counsel of record, and Lerner David Littenberg Krumholz & Mentlik LLP (Westfield/Cranford, NJ — now "Lerner David LLP") as lead patent trial counsel appearing pro hac vice. Only Sony Electronics Inc. had counsel actively litigating; Sony Corporation was dismissed out on December 26, 2017 (D.I. 9) before any separate appearance or pro hac vice motion on its behalf. All of this is from the public docket — I found no sealed filings bearing on counsel.

Table of counsel

Key docket points on representation

• D.I. 9 (Dec. 26, 2017) — "Stipulation of Dismissal of Sony Corporation," filed by Jack B. Blumenfeld on behalf of both Sony Corporation and Sony Electronics Inc. This is the only docket item implicating Sony Corporation; no separate notice of appearance or PHV motion was ever filed for Sony Corporation, so it never had distinct counsel of record. (Justia docket)
• D.I. 10 (Dec. 26, 2017) — Motion for pro hac vice appearance of Gewirtz, David, and Solo, filed by Blumenfeld for Sony Electronics Inc.; docket text on Jan. 22, 2018: "Pro Hac Vice Attorney Jonathan A. David, Gregory S. Gewirtz, Alexander Solo for Sony Electronics, Inc. added for electronic noticing" (Del. LR 83.5(d) requires Delaware counsel to be the CM/ECF filer).
• D.I. 13/14 (Feb. 5, 2018) — Sony's Rule 12(e) motion for a more definite statement and opening brief. The signature block is the cleanest record of the split: Morris Nichols (Blumenfeld, Smith) as "Attorneys for Defendant Sony Electronics Inc.," with Lerner David (Gewirtz, David, Solo) under "Of Counsel." (D.I. 13; D.I. 14)
• D.I. 15 (Feb. 5, 2018) — Rule 7.1 disclosure naming Sony Corporation of America (parent) and Sony Corporation (affiliate), signed by Rodger Smith.
• D.I. 27/28 (Nov. 1 & 5, 2018) — Joint motion to dismiss and Order of Dismissal With Prejudice (Judge Colm F. Connolly); filed on the docket by plaintiff's Delaware counsel Stephen B. Brauerman (Bayard/Brauerman firm).

Two caveats worth flagging

1. Paul Hastings is not counsel of record here, but is adjacent. In the parallel PTAB proceedings Sony filed against Realtime in 2018 (Sony Corp. et al. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC, IPR2018-01413 / IPR2018-01439), Sony's lead PTAB counsel was Naveen Modi of Paul Hastings LLP (Washington, D.C.), with backup counsel Joseph E. Palys, Phillip W. Citroën, Daniel Zeilberger and Jason Heidemann. Those IPRs were filed in the same window as this case's dismissal; they are a separate representation, not a district-court appearance, and I found no Paul Hastings appearance in the D. Del. docket.
2. No in-house counsel appeared on the D. Del. docket for Sony in this case. (Sony in-house names that surface in other Sony matters — e.g., Lloyd Sarakin — should not be attributed to this case.)

Also, as a docket-driven correction to the case summary: the AO 120 report and complaint exhibits indicate seven patents were pleaded in this action (7,386,046; 8,634,462; 8,929,442; 8,934,535; 9,578,298; 9,762,907; 9,769,477), not the '462 alone — though your metadata lists only the '462, and the case resolved before claim construction.