Top Victory Investments Limited v. DivX, LLC

I'll research this case across multiple sources.

Excellent material. Let me dig deeper into the ownership structure, the parallel state court case, the dismissal, and related PTAB proceedings.

Case overview and background

The parties. The plaintiff, Top Victory Investments Limited, is not a patent owner or a litigating shell — it is the IP-holding affiliate of the TPV Technology group, a large TV/consumer-electronics contract manufacturer. Its Rule 7.1 disclosure identifies Top Victory International Limited as corporate parent and TPV Technology Co., Ltd. as an affiliate (D.I. 4), and the complaint describes TPV as an assembler of "televisions and other electronic devices" for brand-owner customers such as LG Electronics — plus a smaller own-brand/licensed-brand business — with products distributed globally, including in the United States. The defendant, DivX, LLC, is nominally the San Diego video-technology company, but the entity as constituted is a Fortress Investment Group monetization vehicle: it was formed December 15, 2017 as "DivX CF Holdings LLC," acquired certain DivX assets and IP from NeuLion for $41.5 million (deal closed Feb. 12, 2018), and renamed itself DivX, LLC the same day — while the legacy operating company became "NLD, LLC." Filings by Netflix and Hulu in the parallel DivX campaigns describe DivX as Fortress-backed (Fortress is a SoftBank subsidiary), 97%-owned by DivX CF Investors LLC (all Fortress entities), with "no engineering department," one engineer, an attorney at the helm, and litigation/licensing as its primary business (see NeuLion/GlobeNewswire release; Hulu's opposition, C.D. Cal. 2:19-cv-01606, Dkt. 145). In other words, this is a case pitting an operating manufacturer against what is functionally a PAE — but with an unusual twist: the manufacturer is the declaratory-judgment plaintiff, racing to federal court to get out ahead of a contract/royalty fight.

The technology and the patents. Top Victory's December 18, 2024 complaint (D.I. 1) seeks a declaration that TPV does not infringe twelve DivX patents — 7,295,673; 7,460,668; 7,515,710; 8,289,338; 8,472,792; 8,656,183; 8,731,369; RE45,052; 9,184,920; 9,762,937; 10,542,303; and 11,245,938 (D.I. 3) — and that, because there is no direct infringement, there is no induced or contributory infringement. The accused instrumentalities are TPV's televisions and consumer-electronics products, current and over the prior six years; TPV's non-infringement theory is essentially that its devices "do not perform encryption or decryption," "do not enable DRM functionality," and "do not use the specific file formats, indexes, or data structures" recited in the claims (see complaint analysis at Ex Parte AI Lab; original complaint via RPX Insight). A one-line sketch of the asserted family: the '792 patent ("Multimedia Distribution System," issued June 25, 2013) covers trick-play/abridged-index functionality over encoded video frames and was asserted against Hulu's app; the '673 and '668 patents cover partially encrypted frames with synchronized "frame decryption stream" data and master-key-based secure playback control (asserted against Netflix); the '710, '183, '920, '938 family covers "federated digital rights management schemes including trusted systems" and graduated authentication; '338 covers font-file optimization for multimedia files; '369 covers multimedia distribution with subtitle information; RE45,052 covers a multi-track digital data file format; and '937/'303 cover protecting elementary bitstreams incorporating independently encoded tiles (the H.264/HEVC-style encoding patents DivX has litigated globally).

Procedural posture, venue, and why it matters. Filed in the District of Delaware and assigned to Chief Judge Colm F. Connolly; TPV is represented by O'Melveny & Myers (Mark A. Samuels, John C. Kappos, Vision Winter, Clarence Rowland) with Richards, Layton & Finger (Frederick L. Cottrell III, Gabriela Z. Monasterio) as Delaware counsel; Farnan LLP (Michael Farnan) appeared as DivX's Delaware counsel in the extension stipulation (D.I. 12). Delaware was a natural and defendant-friendly forum — DivX is a Delaware LLC with a Wilmington registered agent — but the case turned on a parallel California Superior Court action, Top Victory Investments Ltd. v. DivX, LLC, No. 37-2022-00024579-CU-CO-CT, in which TPV sued first after DivX demanded "tens of millions" based on the allegedly manipulated "Connor audit," and DivX counterclaimed (fourth amended cross-complaint) for breach of contract, conversion, receipt of stolen property and Cal. Civ. Code § 980(b) arising from the parties' three expired 2012/2013/2015 license agreements. DivX moved to dismiss (D.I. 13–14), arguing in the alternative Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6); the court granted dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) on September 23, 2025 (Opinion, D.I. 47; D. Del. opinion page; opinion PDF; CourtListener; Law360 coverage, Sept. 24, 2025), and the docket shows the case closed 09/23/25. Applying MedImmune, Streck, Microsoft v. DataTern, Benitec and SanDisk, Chief Judge Connolly held that DivX's repeated disclaimers — in a sworn, superseding interrogatory response that it "does not assert claims that [Top Victory] has infringed any DivX intellectual property rights, including patent rights" and is unaware of "any unauthorized use" in the U.S., plus counsel's stipulation that "we do not contend in this case that [Top Victory] is liable for patent infringement" — eliminated any "reasonable potential" of an infringement claim, even though an earlier interrogatory response had purported to reserve them and even though DivX's cross-complaint pleads ongoing breaches of surviving contract terms (§§ 3.4, 5.6 of the 2013 Agreement).

Why it is notable. First, it is a useful (and somewhat unusual) Federal Circuit-law data point on declaratory-judgment jurisdiction in the licensing/royalty-stack context: courts have increasingly refused to manufacture patent jurisdiction out of what is really an expired-contract dispute, and this ruling — following the same court's and the Federal Circuit's line of cases — is a reminder that a patentee's unequivocal disclaimers can defeat DJ jurisdiction even for a party facing eight-figure royalty demands. Second, it illuminates DivX's broader monetization campaign: the Fortress-backed entity has sued Netflix (C.D. Cal. 2:19-cv-01602), Hulu (2:19-cv-01606 and 2:21-cv-01615), Amazon (including an ITC action DivX lost), Samsung, TCL, LG and MediaTek, and has won injunctions in Brazil against Samsung, TCL, Amazon and Hisense — including Brazil's first permanent tech-patent injunction against Netflix in December 2023 (IAM). Third, the IPR linkage is substantial and cuts against several of the 12 patents in this DJ complaint: Netflix's and Unified Patents' IPRs invalidated challenged claims of the '673 patent (FWD 12/15/21, aff'd 4/18/2023), wiped out the '920 patent entirely on remand, and eliminated four of five asserted claims of the '792 patent — precisely the patent highlighted in this case's docket — while DivX has also litigated the '588 patent through the Federal Circuit (see Netflix/DivX joint status reports, C.D. Cal. 2:19-cv-01602, Dkts. 146-1, 164; Unified Patents' June 2025 note on a DivX video-codec patent being affirmed invalid, Unified Patents). The net effect is a case of more strategic than merits significance: a TV ODM tried to use Delaware as a preemptive patent safe harbor, and the effort failed on jurisdiction before any claim construction or infringement merits were reached.

Sourcing notes / open items. The dismissal order and its reasoning are well documented (D.I. 47; opinion PDF and CourtListener text above). I could not verify from the retrieved record whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice, whether TPV appealed, or the exact disposition of the California state court action beyond the filings described; DivX's non-Delaware lead counsel is not confirmed in the docket excerpts I retrieved; and the prior case-summary characterization of a "covenant not to sue" expressly covering the '792 patent does not correspond to anything I found in this docket — the record instead shows expired license agreements plus DivX's express reservation and subsequent disclaimer of infringement accusations, which is what the court relied on. The '792 assignment/ownership facts and the NeuLion/Fortress chain cited above come from DivX's own complaint exhibits and NeuLion's press release.

I'll research this case systematically across the docket, PTAB, and legal news sources.

Good — I've located the core outcome. Let me dig into the docket specifics, the parallel PTAB proceedings, and any appeal.

Let me pin down the docket entries, the remand FWD, and whether DivX gave a covenant not to sue.

Bottom line

This was a declaratory-judgment (DJ) action that never got past the pleading stage on the merits — it was dismissed for lack of Article III subject matter jurisdiction on 2025-09-23. Top Victory Investments Limited (a Hong Kong entity in the TPV Technology family) sued DivX, LLC on 2024-12-18, in D. Del., seeking declarations that it does not infringe twelve DivX patents, including U.S. Pat. No. 8,472,792 (the patent listed in the case metadata). Chief Judge Colm F. Connolly granted DivX's Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss because DivX had repeatedly and unambiguously disclaimed any accusation of patent infringement, leaving no "substantial controversy … of sufficient immediacy and reality." There was no answer, no counterclaims, no Markman, no fact discovery, no trial, and no merits ruling. Meanwhile, the ’792 patent itself has had a full parallel life in the PTAB and in DivX v. Netflix — most recently a March 2026 jury verdict of no infringement in the C.D. Cal. case.

---

I. Filing and initial pleadings

The complaint's theory was that DivX had "accused" TPV of using the DivX patents in a parallel California state-court breach-of-contract/fraud action (San Diego Superior Court, Top Victory Inv. Ltd. v. DivX, LLC, No. 37-2022-00024579-CU-CO-CT), after three license agreements (2012, 2013, 2015) with "Old DivX" expired and a new Fortress-affiliated entity acquired the assets and launched audits/demands. Each count recited that TPV's products (TVs and consumer electronics assembled for brands like LG and under TPV's own/licensed brands) lack the claimed functionality (e.g., no DRM, no tile-based partial encryption, no dual-index multimedia files).

No answer and no counterclaims were ever filed — DivX moved to dismiss instead.

---

II. Pre-trial motions of substance

The motion to dismiss was the only substantive motion in the case.

• DivX's motion to dismiss (D.I. 13) and opening brief (D.I. 14), filed on the extended deadline (~2025-02-27). Two grounds: (1) Rule 12(b)(1) — no subject matter jurisdiction, because "[t]he only purported basis for jurisdiction is an allegation that DivX is accusing [Top Victory] of infringing twelve DivX patents," and "[t]hat allegation is demonstrably false"; (2) in the alternative, Rule 12(b)(6).
• Before moving, DivX emailed Top Victory reiterating it was not accusing it of infringement and asked Top Victory to voluntarily dismiss; Top Victory refused (D.I. 15-12).
• 13 exhibits (D.I. 15-1 through 15-13) attached to the motion — the three license agreements, DivX's state-court cross-complaint, state-court hearing transcripts, and discovery correspondence. This is the entire evidentiary record of the case; there was no federal fact discovery.
• Top Victory's opposition (D.I. 22), arguing inter alia that a substantial controversy existed under SanDisk Corp. v. STMicroelectronics, Inc., 480 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007) because DivX's state-court pleadings alleged ongoing, post-expiration conduct and TPV maintained it had the right to act without a license.
• No motion to transfer, no motion to stay pending IPR (none was filed), and no summary-judgment motion.

---

III. The dismissal ruling — 2025-09-23

Top Victory Invs. Ltd. v. DivX, LLC, No. 1:24-cv-01390-CFC (D. Del. Sept. 23, 2025) (Connolly, C.J.) — D.I. 47; 2025 WL op. (Delaware court opinions page; CourtListener opinion 10676621; Justia Doc. 47).

• Framing under MedImmune v. Genentech, 549 U.S. 118 (2007), Streck v. Research & Diagnostic Sys., 665 F.3d 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2012), Benitec v. Nucleonics, 495 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2007), and Microsoft v. DataTern, 755 F.3d 899 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (burden on the DJ plaintiff to show jurisdiction existed at filing and continued).
• The court held DivX never accused Top Victory of infringement, citing: state-court hearing statements ("We do not contend in this case that [Top Victory] is liable for patent infringement. I would stipulate to that."); the discovery referee's and DivX's repeated representations; and DivX's superseding interrogatory response ("DivX does not assert claims that [Top Victory] has infringed any DivX intellectual property rights, including patent rights. Nor is DivX aware of any unauthorized use by [Top Victory] of DivX's patents in the United States."), plus counsel's post-complaint email ("It is in no way an accusation of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271").
• SanDisk distinguished: DivX was not "assert[ing] rights under a patent" — its state-court claims were for breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, and breach of the implied covenant, tied to contractual restrictions that allegedly survived expiration (e.g., §§ 3.4, 5.6 of the 2013 Agreement via the survival clause § 10.5). Ongoing post-expiration conduct was therefore contractual, not patent, activity.
• Because jurisdiction failed under 12(b)(1), the court expressly did not reach Rule 12(b)(6).
• The docket reflects the case closed on 2025-09-23; Law360 reported the dismissal on 2025-09-24 ("saying the court has no jurisdiction in the matter").

Claim construction (Markman): not reached. The case was terminated before any scheduling order. Claim construction of the ’792 patent has instead occurred in the PTAB/C.D. Cal. track (see below).

---

IV. Discovery milestones

None of strategic significance in this case. The only "discovery" that mattered was state-court discovery used as evidence against Top Victory: its own interrogatory to DivX in the San Diego action and DivX's superseding response, which the Delaware court treated as eliminating any infringement controversy. Whether Top Victory sought jurisdictional discovery in Delaware is not confirmed in the sources reviewed.

---

V. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. No trial, no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial motion, no fee motion identified. The case ended at the 12(b)(1) stage.

---

VI. Final disposition and present posture

• Dismissed 2025-09-23 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice is not confirmed in the sources I reviewed (a 12(b)(1) dismissal is ordinarily without prejudice).
• Appeal: I found no notice of appeal and no Federal Circuit docket for this case. For a non-U.S. appellant the deadline would have been 30 days from entry (≈ 2025-10-23). Treat the absence of an appeal as unverified, not confirmed.
• The real dispute continues in San Diego Superior Court (the contract/fraud case), which is where DivX has consistently said the parties' dispute belongs.
• Update needed to the prior summary: the earlier narrative referred to a "covenant not to sue … expressly cover[ing] U.S. Patent No. 8,472,792." In the sources reviewed for this update (the complaint, the 2025-09-23 opinion, and the docket), what appears is not a formal covenant not to sue but DivX's repeated extrajudicial disclaimers — counsel emails, hearing statements, and interrogatory responses — plus the license agreements. I could not verify an express covenant not to sue covering the ’792 patent; that detail should be treated as unconfirmed.

---

VII. Parallel PTAB proceedings on the ’792 patent (and their effect)

This Delaware case was never stayed or affected by an IPR, because Top Victory filed none. But the ’792 patent has an extensive PTAB history:

1. IPR2020-00646 — Netflix, Inc. & Hulu, LLC v. DivX, LLC (U.S. Pat. 8,472,792).

   • 2020-03-06: Petition filed (Netflix); Hulu joined as petitioner. Challenged claims 1, 5, 8, 9, 13–15, 18, 21–23 as obvious over Zetts in view of Kaku. FWD cite list: Paper 47 (2021). Defendants’ related district cases: DivX v. Netflix, No. 2:19-cv-01602 (C.D. Cal.) and DivX v. Hulu, No. 2:19-cv-01606 (C.D. Cal.).
   • 2021-09-09: Final Written Decision — Board found Netflix had not shown unpatentability, holding Kaku was not analogous art because Netflix failed to articulate the ’792 patent's field of endeavor.
   • 2023-09-11: Federal Circuit, Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, No. 2022-1138, 80 F.4th 1362 — vacated and remanded: the Board abused its discretion in demanding "magic words" to identify a field of endeavor, while the reasonable-pertinence finding was supported by substantial evidence. Mandate 2023-10-18.
   • 2023-11-30: Board order on conduct of remand proceedings; 2024-02-22: Board granted a joint motion to terminate as to Hulu only, after the DivX–Hulu settlement (C.D. Cal. case dismissed 2022-08-25); Netflix remained a party.
   • April 2024 (reported termination 2024-04-17): Board final written decision on remand again rejecting Netflix's challenge. Source: PTAB docket aggregator (Docket Alarm); I could not pull the full remand FWD text, so the precise reasoning on the field-of-endevor question is not verified here.
   • Net effect: the ’792 patent survived the Netflix/Hulu IPR — the claims were not invalidated — which is why the patent remained available as leverage in DivX's licensing campaign against TPV and others.

2. Unified Patents PATROLL. On 2020-01-23 Unified added the ’792 patent to its crowdsourced prior-art program (with the ’720 patent); a $1,500 award for ’792 prior art was announced 2021-03-18. No evidence in the sources reviewed that Unified filed an IPR on the ’792 patent.

3. Other DivX PTAB/Federal Circuit activity (context, different patents):

   • DivX, LLC v. Unified Patents, LLC — Fed. Cir. affirmed PTAB unpatentability of U.S. Pat. 10,326,987 (adaptive bitrate streaming) (2025-06-25).
   • Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC (IPR2020-00558, a different DivX streaming patent) — the Board upheld patentability on remand (2024-02-22), and the Federal Circuit in 2026 (2026 WL 405791) reversed the Board's claim construction and vacated, remanding for obviousness analysis.

4. ITC. DivX's 2021-11-24 § 337 complaint (instituted by the Commission 2022-02-03, 87 Fed. Reg. 6068) asserted the ’297 and ’792 patents against "certain video processing devices … and digital smart televisions," including claims 15–23 of the ’792 patent. (The investigation number and respondents are not confirmed in the snippets I reviewed.)

5. District-court enforcement of the ’792 patent, most relevant recent development:

   • DivX, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., No. 2:19-cv-01602 (C.D. Cal.) — asserted ’673, ’651, ’792, and ’486. Jury verdict 2026-03-25: Netflix has not infringed, including "has not infringed and does not infringe claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 8,472,792"; proposed/entered judgment dated 2026-05-07.
   • DivX, LLC v. Hulu, LLC — dismissed 2022-08-25 after settlement.
   • DivX, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-02061 (E.D. Va., filed 2024-11-15) — ’303/’938 patents (cited in Top Victory's complaint as evidence of DivX's litigation posture).
   • DivX, LLC v. Realtek Semiconductor Corp. / LG (D. Del. 1:20-cv-01202-JLH) — Federal Circuit appeal dismissed by agreement 2025-07-01.

---

VIII. Strategic takeaways

1. The standing defect, not the patent merits, killed the case. DivX's litigation discipline — never pleading patent infringement in the state-court contract case, and papering the record (hearing statements, discovery referee, interrogatory responses, counsel email) with disclaimers — gave it a clean 12(b)(1) win. A patentee that wants to preserve a licensee's DJ exposure should be careful about the "your use is covered by our patents" framing; here DivX expressly distinguished § 271 infringement from contractual breach.
2. The ’792 patent is expired or near expiration (filed 2005-10-24 as a CIP of applications filed 2004-12-17 and 2003-12-08; term would run 20 years from the earliest § 120 reference, subject to PTA — I could not verify the adjusted expiration date). That reality undercuts the "immediacy" of any future DJ controversy and caps past damages.
3. No Top Victory-side PTAB challenge exists on the ’792 patent, so there was never a stay fight — a notable asymmetry given the ’792 patent's active assertion against Netflix, Hulu, ITC respondents, and the TPV/state-court narrative.
4. Open items to verify: (a) whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice; (b) whether any notice of appeal was filed; (c) the full reasoning of the Board's April 2024 remand FWD in IPR2020-00646; (d) any express covenant not to sue referenced in the earlier case summary; (e) the ’792 patent's exact expiration date.

Primary sources: D. Del. opinion PDF, https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/opinions/24-1390.pdf; D. Del. opinions index, https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/opinion/top-victory-investments-limited-v-divx-llc; CourtListener op. 10676621; Justia Doc. 47 (https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/delaware/dedce/1:2024cv01390/87678/47/); dockets.justia.com docket 1:24-cv-01390; Law360 case page 67641e028fa7e31e037c0db7; Fed. Cir. op. 2022-1138, https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1138.OPINION.9-11-2023_2188240.pdf; IPR2020-00646 record at lowensteinweatherwax.com and docketalarm.com; 87 Fed. Reg. 6068 (2022-02-03); Unified Patents PATROLL notices.

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

Let me verify the firms and roles for each attorney.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Top Victory Investments Limited

Bottom line: Top Victory (the TPV Technology affiliate) was represented by a two-firm team — Delaware local counsel from Richards, Layton & Finger and a four-attorney O'Melveny & Myers trial team admitted pro hac vice. All appearances below are grounded in the docket entries I could retrieve (dockets.justia.com / Justia docket for 1:24-cv-01390). The case was dismissed on subject-matter-jurisdiction grounds on 9/23/2025 (D.I. 47), so all of the below is the counsel roster as it stood through dismissal.

Delaware counsel (local counsel of record)

Under D. Del. Local Rule 83.5(d), only Delaware-bar counsel may be CM/ECF registered filers, which is why the out-of-state team below needed Cottrell/Monasterio as local counsel.

Pro hac vice counsel (O'Melveny & Myers LLP)

Four PHV motions were filed on December 26, 2024 (D.I. 7–10), fees paid (D.I. 11), and the attorneys were added to the electronic noticing list on December 27, 2024:

Caveats and gaps

• No in-house counsel identified. Nothing in the retrieved docket identifies TPV/Top Victory in-house attorneys entering an appearance; corporate disclosures (D.I. 4) identify Top Victory International Limited as parent and TPV Technology Co., Ltd. as affiliate, not counsel.
• Signatures on the complaint. I did not retrieve the signature block of D.I. 1 itself; the filing was made through Delaware counsel of record, which is why the PHV motions followed within days. If you need the exact signature block, pull D.I. 1 from PACER.
• Defendant's side (for contrast, not your question): the docket shows Michael J. Farnan (Farnan LLP, Wilmington) filed the extension stipulation (D.I. 12) for DivX. DivX's merits briefing team is separately identifiable from the briefs (D.I. 14, 20), but I have not verified that roster here.
• Case status note: I confirm the case is closed — Chief Judge Colm F. Connolly dismissed the declaratory-judgment complaint for lack of Article III subject-matter jurisdiction on 9/23/2025 (D.Del. opinion, 24-1390; D.I. 47), finding DivX was not accusing Top Victory of patent infringement. This is consistent with, and rounds out, the prior summary's observation that final disposition was unverified: the covenant/licensing dispute with DivX did not produce the DJ relief Top Victory sought.
• One inconsistency to flag for the case file: the case metadata lists only U.S. Patent No. 8,472,792, but the complaint (per D.I. 3, the Patent/Trademark Report) actually listed twelve patents — 7,295,673; 7,460,668; 7,515,710; 8,289,338; 8,472,792; 8,656,183; 8,731,369; RE45,052; 9,184,920; 9,762,937; and one or more further 10,xxx,xxx patents. The '792 patent is simply one of the twelve, not the sole patent at issue.

I'll research the counsel of record for DivX, LLC in this Delaware action.

I have a lead — Michael Farnan filed for DivX. Let me confirm the full defense team and any pro hac vice appearances.

Let me pull the full docket entry list and the motion-to-dismiss briefing to identify DivX's pro hac vice counsel.

Counsel of Record — DivX, LLC (Defendant)

Bottom line: The only DivX attorney I can confirm on the docket of Top Victory Investments Ltd. v. DivX, LLC, No. 1:24-cv-01390-CFC (D. Del.), is Michael J. Farnan of Farnan LLP (Wilmington, Delaware). I was unable to verify the identity of DivX's non-Delaware (pro hac vice) counsel from this case's filings within my search budget, and I will not guess at them.

Confirmed

Docket support: D.I. 12 ("STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for Defendant to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the Complaint to 2/27/2025 – filed by DivX, LLC. (Farnan, Michael)"), so-ordered by Chief Judge Colm F. Connolly on 12/30/2024; dockets.justia.com docket sheet for 1:24-cv-01390 (party/representation field).

Firm background relevant to DivX's defense

• Farnan LLP (Brian E. Farnan, No. 4089, and Michael J. Farnan, No. 5165) has served as DivX's Delaware counsel in its patent-enforcement campaign, including DivX, LLC v. Realtek Semiconductor Corp., C.A. No. 20-cv-1202-CFC-JLH (D. Del.) and DivX, LLC v. TCL Technology Group Corp., C.A. No. 20-cv-1203-CFC (D. Del.). See, e.g., DocketAlarm copies of Farnan LLP signature blocks in the Realtek and TCL dockets.
• In those parallel matters, DivX's pro hac vice counsel came from Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. (Michael T. Renaud, Adam S. Rizk, Daniel B. Weinger, Matthew A. Karambelas — see the pro hac vice motion filed 3/26/2021 in Realtek).
• In separate DivX patent litigation in the Central District of California, DivX was represented by Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (e.g., Mary (Mindy) V. Sooter, Christopher T. Casamassima, Jeffrey A. Dennhardt, Joseph Taylor Gooch).

⚠️ These Mintz and WilmerHale appearances are in other DivX cases, not verified for No. 1:24-cv-01390. They establish which outside firms DivX typically uses, not who entered an appearance here.

What I could not verify (and why)

1. DivX's pro hac vice / lead counsel in this case. The publicly cached docket sheet I retrieved (dockets.justia.com) was "last retrieved on December 30, 2024" — essentially the opening weeks of the case — and therefore does not show any later pro hac vice motions or notices of appearance for DivX. The only attorney-fee/PHV activity captured in that window (D.I. 7–11) was for Top Victory's counsel (Mark A. Samuels, John C. Kappos, Clarence Rowland, and Vision Winter), not DivX's.
2. Who signed DivX's motion to dismiss (D.I. 13) and brief (D.I. 14), and its reply. The Court's opinion (D.I. 47, 9/23/2025) quotes and cites these filings but does not name the signing attorneys in the excerpts I retrieved.
3. Any in-house DivX attorney. No in-house counsel name surfaced in the materials I reviewed.

Suggested next steps to close the gap

• Pull the full PACER docket for 1:24-cv-01390 and look for: (a) DivX's Rule 83.5 pro hac vice motions (typically filed within weeks of an appearance), (b) the signature blocks on D.I. 13/14 (motion to dismiss and opening brief) and D.I. 23 (DivX's reply), and (c) any notice of appearance entries. Those will name DivX's lead/outside counsel directly.
• Check the CourtListener/RECAP docket for 1:24-cv-01390, which mirrors PACER and exposes document PDFs (and thus signature blocks) that the free Justia/dockets.justia.com listings omit.

I've deliberately refrained from naming any attorney as DivX's lead or pro hac vice counsel for this case because I could not confirm it from the docket or a filing signature block.