The Walt Disney Company v. WAG Acquisition, L.L.C.

Case Overview and Background: The Walt Disney Company v. WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. (IPR2022-01227)

Parties and their roles. This docket is an inter partes review before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, not a district-court infringement suit: petitioner The Walt Disney Company (joined by Disney Streaming Services LLC and Hulu, LLC) sought cancellation of U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 owned by WAG Acquisition, L.L.C., a Flanders, New Jersey limited liability company that holds a family of streaming-media patents invented by Harold Edward Price and appears to operate purely as a patent-assertion/monetization entity (Unified Patents' database classifies WAG as an "NPE," and the W.D. Wash. stay opinion observed the parties "are not competitors" with damages being an adequate remedy for the patent owner—a hallmark of a licensing/PAE posture). WAG had sued Disney, Disney Streaming Services, and Hulu in the Central District of California (No. 2:21-cv-08230-JAK-E, filed Oct. 18, 2021), asserting the '636 patent together with two related patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 9,742,824 and 9,729,594) against Disney's streaming platforms—Disney+ and Hulu—which distribute both pre-recorded and live audio/video over the Internet using segmented, client-request-driven delivery. Disney answered the suit by petitioning the PTAB in July 2022 to invalidate all of the '636 claims (claims 1–12), part of a coordinated wave of nine IPR petitions that Amazon, Google, and Disney filed against WAG's three streaming patents. (See Patexia case summary for IPR2022-01227; UniCourt case 2:21-cv-08230; CAFC Rule 36 judgment in WAG Acquisition, LLC v. Walt Disney Co., Nos. 2024-1627 et al. (Mar. 9, 2026), https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-1627.RULE_36_JUDGMENT.3-9-2026_2658147.pdf.)

The patent and accused technology. The '636 patent, titled "Streaming media delivery system" (issued Sept. 12, 2017, from an application claiming priority back to Sept. 12, 2000), claims methods and systems for distributing streaming media such as audio/video over the Internet. In technical terms, it describes a server-side architecture that ingests a live (or pre-recorded) digitally encoded program, breaks it into serially identified "media data elements" stored in a server-controlled data structure, and then serves each element in response to client requests that specify the element's serial identifier—sending data faster than the playback rate and as fast as the connection allows, without the server keeping a per-user record of the last element sent (a stateless, "client-pull," HTTP-style segmented streaming design). WAG's infringement complaints (the template is reflected in the Amazon, Google, and Netflix filings) accused the streaming services of exactly this architecture: server-side segmentation of content into numbered chunks (e.g., mp4 segments requested via HTTP GETs with incrementing identifiers) plus client-side player software (e.g., JavaScript players) that automatically issues follow-on requests to maintain a buffer. The PTAB's Final Written Decision (issued Jan. 31, 2024) found all challenged claims 1–12 unpatentable, principally as obvious over U.S. Patent No. 6,154,778 to Carmel (a prior-art "live media streaming over multiple links" system), and WAG's appeal centered on whether Carmel inherently or expressly disclosed the claimed client-pull limitation. (See PTACTS-published Disney petition materials for IPR2022-01227; CAFC appellee brief in 24-1627 at 15–17, https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cafc.21452/gov.uscourts.cafc.21452.22.0.pdf.)

Procedural posture, venue, and significance. The IPR was heard by a PTAB panel of Administrative Patent Judges Steven M. Amundson (author of the Final Written Decision), Hubert C. Lorin, and John A. Hudalla; institution was granted Feb. 3, 2023, and the Final Written Decision issued Jan. 31, 2024. WAG appealed to the Federal Circuit, where the Disney '636 appeal was consolidated with the Disney '824 appeal and the Amazon '636/'824 appeals (Nos. 2024-1627, -1628, -1631 through -1634); on March 9, 2026, a per curiam panel (Judges Lourie, Wallach, and Chen) affirmed under Fed. Cir. R. 36, with the appellee brief noting that the Board's unpatentability findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the six appeals could all be affirmed on the Amazon IPRs' Carmel-obviousness ground alone. Meanwhile, the underlying C.D. Cal. infringement case before Judge John A. Kronstadt (with Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick) was stayed in November 2022 pending resolution of the nine IPRs, and parallel actions against Amazon (W.D. Wash., Judge Robart) and Google/Netflix (N.D. Cal.) were likewise stayed—a demonstration of how a critical mass of IPRs can freeze an entire multi-forum NPE campaign. The case is notable for several reasons: it is a prominent example of an NPE asserting a patent family with a September 2000 priority date (patents that issued in 2017) against the core infrastructure of modern OTT streaming (Disney+, Hulu, YouTube, Prime Video, Netflix); it shows coordinated, competitor-style IPR responses (Disney, Amazon, and Google) to a single assertion campaign; and the affirmed invalidation of every challenged claim of the '636—and its siblings—removed a substantial damages exposure from the streaming industry.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

Preliminary note on case mapping

The case metadata you supplied — IPR2022-01227, The Walt Disney Company v. WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. — is the PTAB inter partes review, not a district-court infringement suit. The underlying patent infringement litigation is:

• WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. v. The Walt Disney Company, Disney Streaming Services LLC, Hulu LLC, et al., No. 2:21-cv-08230-JAK-E (C.D. Cal.), Judge John A. Kronstadt (Magistrate Charles F. Eick), filed 2021-10-18.
• A related, originally separate Hulu case (No. 2:21-cv-08242-JAK-E) was consolidated/coordinated into the same action; Hulu appears on the docket as a "Consol Defendant."

The patent at issue in IPR2022-01227 is U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 ("Streaming Media Delivery System"), issued 2017-09-12, asserted by WAG alongside related patents 9,742,824 and 9,729,594 (same family; inventor Harold Price, formerly of SurferNETWORK; WAG's campaign is litigation-funded). What follows covers the C.D. Cal. litigation as it relates to the '636 patent, the parallel IPR, and the Federal Circuit appeal.

---

Chronology

1. Filing and initial pleadings

• 2021-10-18 — WAG filed its complaint in C.D. Cal. (Dkt. #1) alleging infringement of the '824, '594, and '636 patents by Disney streaming services (Disney+, etc.). Three claims for relief (one per patent); WAG sought damages, treble damages where applicable, fees under 35 U.S.C. §§ 284–285. WAG later filed a First Amended Complaint (Dkt. #81, filed 2022-08-11) adding BAMTech LLC, Disney Platform Distribution Inc., Disney Streaming Technology LLC, and ESPN, Inc. as defendants.
• 2022-06-22 — Disney defendants filed their First Amended Answer (Dkt. #74) (leave granted by in-chambers order, Dkt. #73); the amended answer was the operative answer on non-infringement/invalidity theories. (Source: Unicourt/Patexia docket summaries — I could not confirm from PACER whether the answer included declaratory-judgment counterclaims; treat that detail as unverified.)
• 2022-10-11 — BAMTech, Disney Platform Distribution, Disney Streaming Technology, and ESPN answered the FAC (Dkt. #99).
• 2022-07-13 — Disney (The Walt Disney Company, Disney Streaming Services LLC, Hulu LLC) filed the IPR petition in IPR2022-01227 challenging all claims 1–12 of the '636 patent; Disney filed a parallel IPR (IPR2022-01228) on the related '824 patent and a third petition on the '594 patent.

2. Claim construction (Markman)

• The scheduling order (Dkt. #76, entered 2022-07-18) set opening Markman briefs by 2022-08-12, responding briefs by 2022-08-26, and a Markman hearing for 2022-09-19 (moved from 09-12). The parties exchanged infringement/validity contentions and claim-construction positions identifying disputed terms.
• The Markman hearing never occurred — it was vacated when the court stayed the case (below). No claim-construction order was ever issued in the district court.

3. Discovery milestones

• Through late 2022, the parties had exchanged infringement and invalidity contentions, one set of interrogatories, and requests for production; no depositions had been taken when the stay was sought.
• The parties jointly stipulated to extend the discovery cutoff to 2023-05-23 (Dkt. #101, filed 2022-10-29) — a stipulation overtaken by the stay.
• 2022-10-28 — Joint status report re settlement/mediation (Dkt. #100); a scheduled post-mediation status conference (2022-11-07) was taken off calendar (Dkt. #103), indicating mediation had run its course without resolving the case.

4. Motion to stay pending IPR — granted

• ~2022-09 — Disney defendants moved to stay pending resolution of the IPR petitions (Dkt. #94). WAG opposed (Dkt. #96, filed 2022-09-15); Disney replied (Dkt. #97, filed 2022-09-22).
• 2022-11-09 — The court granted the stay (Dkt. #104), finding: (1) the IPRs challenged all asserted claims of all three patents, so PTAB resolution would significantly simplify the case; (2) the case was still early (no depositions, no Markman hearing, no trial before May 2024); and (3) no undue prejudice to WAG (non-competitor, money damages adequate). All deadlines, including the Markman hearing, were vacated.
• 2023-03-24 / 2023-03-31 — The court continued the stay pending final written decisions in all instituted IPRs (joint status report Dkt. #105; text-only order), requiring the parties to report within 10 days after the last FWD.

5. Parallel PTAB IPR proceedings — the '636 patent is invalidated

• 2023-02-03 — PTAB instituted IPR2022-01227 on Disney's petition challenging claims 1–12 of the '636 patent (Disney's IPR on the '824 patent was instituted ~2023-02-06; the '594 petition's institution decision came ~March 2023). Panel: APJs Amundson (author), Lorin, and Hudalla.
• 2024-01-31 — Final Written Decision (IPR2022-01227): all challenged claims 1–12 of the '636 patent held unpatentable (obviousness, principally over the "Carmel" prior art, with the Disney-specific issue being whether Carmel inherently/expressly discloses limitation 1.k). Parallel FWDs issued in the Disney '824 IPR (IPR2022-01228) and in the Google (IPR2022-01412/01413) and Amazon (IPR2022-01430/01433) IPRs on the same family.
• Parallel district cases against other defendants were likewise stayed pending the IPRs — e.g., WAG Acquisition LLC v. Amazon.com, No. C22-1424JLR (W.D. Wash.), stayed 2023-02-14 by Judge Robart on essentially the same reasoning.

6. No trial; post-IPR posture

• The case never proceeded to trial, verdict, JMOL, or fee motions. The stay (Dkt. #104) froze the litigation, and the PTAB's invalidation of every asserted claim of the '636 patent (and of the related patents in the parallel IPRs) removed the predicate for WAG's infringement claims.

7. Federal Circuit appeal — affirmance

• 2024 — WAG appealed the FWDs to the Federal Circuit. Six IPRs were consolidated: Nos. 2024-1627, 2024-1628, 2024-1631, 2024-1632, 2024-1633, 2024-1634 (covering the Disney IPRs 2022-01227/01228, Google IPRs 2022-01412/01413, and Amazon IPRs 2022-01430/01433). Appellees included Disney, Disney Streaming Services, Hulu, Netflix, Google, and Amazon; WAG was represented by Ronald Abramson (Liston Abramson), appellees by DLA Piper (Disney/Hulu/Netflix), Cooley (Google), and Fenwick & West (Amazon).
• 2024-11-04 — Appellees' merits brief filed (arguing substantial evidence supported the Board's obviousness findings and that WAG's claim-construction arguments were moot because the Board adopted WAG's constructions).
• 2026-03-09 — Federal Circuit (per curiam: Lourie, Wallach, Chen) AFFIRMED under Fed. Cir. R. 36 in a nonprecedential judgment, upholding the Board's unpatentability determinations across all six IPRs.

8. Outcome / present posture

• PTAB (IPR2022-01227): Final Written Decision (2024-01-31) — all challenged claims 1–12 of the '636 patent unpatentable.
• Federal Circuit: Rule 36 affirmance (2026-03-09) — the invalidation is final as to the appealed IPRs.
• C.D. Cal. litigation (2:21-cv-08230): stayed since 2022-11-09 pending the IPRs and appeals; with final affirmance, WAG's infringement claims on the '636 (and related) patents are foreclosed because all asserted claims have been cancelled. I could not confirm from publicly available docket summaries whether a formal stipulated dismissal or judgment of non-infringement has yet been entered in the district court — treat the final district-court paper disposition as unverified. The practical outcome, however, is a complete defense win for Disney/Hulu/Netflix/Google/Amazon: the asserted patents were invalidated, and WAG recovered nothing.

---

Sources relied on

• C.D. Cal. docket summaries (Unicourt; Patexia case No. 2:21-cv-08230): Dkts. #1, #73, #74, #76, #81, #94–#97, #100–#105.
• WDWA stay order in WAG Acquisition LLC v. Amazon.com, No. C22-1424JLR (W.D. Wash. 2023-02-14) (Casetext/PDF), which recounts the C.D. Cal. stay order (Dkt. #104) and PTAB institution dates (2023-02-03 for the '636 IPR; 2023-02-06 for the '824 IPR).
• Patexia/IPR summary for IPR2022-01227 (petition 2022-07-13; institution 2023-02-03; FWD 2024-01-31).
• Federal Circuit judgment, 2026-03-09, Nos. 24-1627 et al. (Rule 36 affirmance, per curiam) (cafc.uscourts.gov / CourtListener).
• Amazon appellees' brief (Fed. Cir. 24-1627, filed 2024-11-04) and RPX/iIPLA/IPWatchdog coverage of the WAG streaming campaign.

Caveats: I did not have PACER-level access to confirm (a) whether Disney's answer contained counterclaims, (b) the '594-IPR number, or (c) any district-court dismissal entry after the 2024 FWDs / 2026 affirmance. Those points are flagged above as unverified rather than asserted as fact.

Important framing point before the answer

IPR2022-01227 is not a patent infringement case. It is an inter partes review before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, in which The Walt Disney Company is the petitioner (challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636) and WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. is the patent owner. PTAB proceedings have no "plaintiffs" or "defendants"—the case caption The Walt Disney Company v. WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. reflects the petitioner/patent-owner posture, not an infringement suit.

Separately, there is a parallel district court infringement action—WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. v. The Walt Disney Company, No. 2:21-cv-08230-JAK (C.D. Cal.)—in which WAG is the plaintiff and Disney is a defendant. If you meant the "plaintiff" in that underlying infringement suit, the answer differs from the Disney-side counsel below. I address both.

---

1. Counsel for Disney (the party your metadata labels "plaintiff"; correctly, the IPR petitioner)

I could not retrieve the PTAB's own docket/paper entries for IPR2022-01227 (the lead and backup counsel of record filed in the petition) from the accessible sources in my searches. What is well-sourced is the representation of Disney in the same proceeding on appeal: after the PTAB's Final Written Decision (Jan. 31, 2024) invalidating the challenged claims, WAG appealed to the Federal Circuit (WAG Acquisition, LLC v. The Walt Disney Co., Nos. 2024-1627, -1628, -1631 to -1634), and the Federal Circuit affirmed under Rule 36 on March 9, 2026. The CAFC judgment expressly identifies Disney's appellate counsel, who defended the PTAB's IPR2022-01227 decision:

• Stanley Joseph Panikowski III — argued for appellees The Walt Disney Company, Disney Streaming Services LLC, Hulu, LLC, and Netflix, Inc.

  • Role: Lead/arguing counsel (appellate defense of the IPR outcome).
  • Firm/location: DLA Piper LLP (US), San Diego, CA.
  • Experience note: Co-chair of DLA Piper's Appellate Advocacy practice; former law clerk to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor; extensive Federal Circuit patent appellate record (e.g., Ergo Licensing v. CareFusion, Sanofi-Aventis v. Glenmark, United Therapeutics v. SteadyMed — the last affirming a PTAB decision invalidating all claims). Source: CAFC judgment, 2026-03-09; CourtListener docket 68554165; DLA Piper bio.

• Larissa S. Bifano — also of record for the same Disney-side appellees.

  • Role: Counsel on the brief (arguing counsel's co-counsel).
  • Firm/location: DLA Piper US LLP, Boston, MA.
  • Experience note: Boston-based DLA Piper IP litigator appearing with Panikowski on the Disney-side briefs in the consolidated IPR appeals. Source: CAFC judgment, 2026-03-09; CourtListener party docket 68554165.

Caveat: These are the documented counsel at the appellate stage of IPR2022-01227. I did not find an independent source listing the exact PTAB "lead counsel/backup counsel" named in the July 13, 2022 petition itself (e.g., the PTAB docket or PRPS entries). Given the continuity of DLA Piper's representation of Disney across the district court and Federal Circuit stages, DLA Piper very likely appeared for Disney before the Board as well—but I will not assert that as fact without the PTAB docket in hand. No in-house Disney counsel appears in the sources I retrieved.

---

2. If you meant the plaintiff of the underlying infringement case (WAG Acquisition, L.L.C.)

In the related district court litigation and on the Federal Circuit appeal, WAG Acquisition (the actual infringement plaintiff) is represented by:

• Ronald Abramson — argued for appellant WAG Acquisition, LLC at the Federal Circuit.

  • Role: Lead counsel (arguing).
  • Firm/location: Liston Abramson LLP, New York, NY.
  • Experience note: Name partner at Liston Abramson; argued the consolidated appeal of six IPR final written decisions involving the SurferNETWORK/WAG streaming-media patents. Source: CAFC judgment, 2026-03-09.

• Ari Jason Jaffess — also of record for WAG.

  • Role: Counsel of record (co-counsel; the CAFC party docket marks him "COR NTC Retained").
  • Firm/location: Liston Abramson LLP, New York, NY (405 Lexington Ave., Chrysler Building).
  • Experience note: Longtime co-counsel with Abramson in the WAG/SurferNETWORK streaming-patent campaign against Disney, Amazon, Google, and Netflix. Source: CAFC judgment; CourtListener party docket 68554165.

---

Bottom line

• If "plaintiff" = Disney (as your case metadata labels it): the best-documented counsel of record are Stanley J. Panikowski III (DLA Piper, San Diego) and Larissa S. Bifano (DLA Piper, Boston)—but verify the PTAB's petition-level counsel-of-record entries directly, since my sources only confirm them at the Federal Circuit stage of IPR2022-01227.
• If "plaintiff" = the true infringement plaintiff in the parallel case: that is WAG Acquisition, represented by Ronald Abramson and Ari Jason Jaffess of Liston Abramson LLP (New York).
• No filings appear to be sealed that would hide counsel; the limitation is simply that the PTAB-level docket entries were not directly accessible in my searches.

Threshold clarification

IPR2022-01227 is not a patent infringement case—it is an inter partes review at the PTAB, captioned The Walt Disney Company (petitioner) v. WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. (patent owner/respondent). The underlying infringement suit is WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. v. The Walt Disney Company et al., No. 2:21-cv-08230-JAK (C.D. Cal.), where WAG is the plaintiff and Disney is the defendant. Below I address the party adverse to Disney in this IPR (WAG, i.e., the "defendant"/patent owner in the caption), and flag the district-court defendant separately.

Counsel of record for WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. (patent owner/respondent in IPR2022-01227)

The Federal Circuit's Rule 36 judgment in the consolidated appeal from the Final Written Decisions in IPR2022-01227 (and companion IPRs) identifies WAG's counsel as:

• Ronald Abramson — Lead counsel (argued for WAG before the Federal Circuit in Appeal No. 24-1627)

  • Firm/location: Liston Abramson LLP, Chrysler Building, 405 Lexington Ave., 46th Floor, New York, NY 10174
  • Note: Longtime IP trial lawyer and name partner at Liston Abramson; he presented WAG's oral argument in the consolidated appeal of the PTAB's unpatentability findings in IPR2022-01227/01228 and related IPRs. (Source: CAFC Rule 36 Judgment, 24-1627, March 9, 2026; CourtListener party listing.)

• Ari Jason Jaffess — Of/backup counsel (also listed as counsel for WAG on the CAFC docket, "COR NTC Retained")

  • Firm/location: Liston Abramson LLP, Chrysler Building, 405 Lexington Ave., 46th Floor, New York, NY 10174
  • Note: USPTO-registered patent attorney and IP litigator with district court, PTAB, ITC, and Federal Circuit experience; his firm bio highlights representing patent holders asserting streaming-media and software patents against Fortune 100/500 companies. (Sources: Liston Abramson LLP attorney bio; CourtListener party listing for No. 24-1627.)

Sourcing caveat

I confirmed Abramson and Jaffess as WAG's counsel through the Federal Circuit appeal record (Docket No. 24-1627) and the CAFC Rule 36 disposition, both of which explicitly list them for WAG in the appeal arising out of IPR2022-01227. I did not retrieve the PTAB's own IPR2022-01227 docket entries (e.g., the patent owner's mandatory notices/powers of attorney), so if additional backup counsel entered an appearance solely before the Board in the IPR itself, they would not be captured here. No filings in the IPR appear sealed on that point.

If you meant the defendant in the parallel infringement action (Disney)

In the underlying C.D. Cal. infringement case (No. 2:21-cv-08230-JAK, WAG v. Disney et al.), the defendants (Disney, Disney Streaming Services, Hulu, Netflix) were represented on appeal by DLA Piper LLP (US):

• Stanley Joseph Panikowski III, DLA Piper (San Diego, CA) — argued for the Disney/Netflix appellees in No. 24-1627.
• Larissa S. Bifano, DLA Piper (Boston, MA) — also on the appellate briefs.
• In the district court IPR-adjacent work, Fenwick & West LLP represented Amazon (a separate appellee), not Disney.

If you intended this second reading, the district-court appearances of record for each defendant entity would need to be pulled from the C.D. Cal. docket (2:21-cv-08230), which I did not retrieve directly.