VideoLabs, Inc. et al. v. Amazon.com, Inc.

I'll research this case thoroughly using web searches.

Let me dig deeper into the specific patents, the IPR proceedings, and the case's current status.

Let me verify the current case status, the '059 patent specifics, and IPR outcomes.

Case Overview & Background — VideoLabs, Inc. et al. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00079 (W.D. Tex., Waco Div.)

Note on the record: The case metadata supplied to me lists only U.S. Patent No. 7,970,059, but the complaint as filed asserts seven patents (6,880,156; 7,266,682; 7,440,559; 7,769,238; 7,970,059; 8,139,878; 8,605,794). I have treated all seven as in suit and flagged the '059 as the metadata's focus. The docket shows the original case was filed January 21, 2022 (though RPX/Mondaq coverage of the Amazon campaign is dated March 17, 2022); I note the date discrepancy rather than resolving it.

---

The parties. Plaintiffs are VideoLabs, Inc. and its subsidiary VL Collective IP, LLC (the latter formed in 2019), both Delaware corporations headquartered in Palo Alto, California, before Judge Alan D. Albright in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas. VideoLabs is a non-practicing entity / patent assertion entity, but with an unusual origin story: it was founded in 2018 as an "industry-sponsored and funded" patent collective that intended to monetize a 100-plus-asset video/communications portfolio through an annual-fee membership model. When that model failed to attract sufficient industry support (blamed in part on COVID), VideoLabs pivoted to litigation. Its portfolio is aggregated from original developers including Nokia, Alcatel-Lucent, Siemens, Swisscom, 3Com, Panasonic, Ericsson, Samsung, LG, and Hewlett Packard Enterprise. Leadership includes CEO Joe Chernesky (former Kudelski Group and Intellectual Ventures) and SVP Ira Blumberg; investors include hedge fund Bardin Hill Investment Partners (f/k/a Halcyon Capital Management) and litigation funder Soryn IP Group (~$10M Series A). VideoLabs describes its reasons for litigating as an obligation to repay investors. Defendant Amazon.com, Inc. and its subsidiary Amazon Web Services, Inc. operate the Prime Video streaming service, the AWS cloud, and consumer hardware; Amazon said in its 2021 10-K that VideoLabs sued it in January 2022.

The accused technology. The complaint attacks Amazon's video ecosystem as an integrated whole rather than a single product. Grouped by technology, the accused instrumentalities are: (1) H.264 video-coding functionality in Amazon Prime Video, Fire TV/Fire TV Cube, Fire Tablet, Echo Show, and AWS media services (Elemental MediaConvert, MediaLive, Elastic Transcoder, Kinesis Video Streams); (2) HTTP Live Streaming (HLS) in Prime Video and AWS media services; (3) WebRTC / SRTP secure real-time communications in Echo Show, Amazon Connect, and Amazon Chime; (4) Auto Scaling in AWS Auto Scaling / EC2 Auto Scaling; and (5) client-status-based content flow control in Prime Video (bookmarking/"Continue Watching," auto-download of subsequent episodes, "Skip Intro/Recap"). The infringement theory is essentially standard-compliance-as-infringement — i.e., Amazon's products are said to infringe because they implement industry standards (H.264/AVC, HLS, WebRTC/SRTP), a classic PAE assertion posture that raises attendant SEP/FRAND and essentiality questions.

The asserted patents break down as follows:

The '059 and its two sibling coding patents are the subject of the parties' § 112 ¶ 6 ("means-plus-function") fight: Amazon contends terms like "audio processing unit," "audio coding unit," and "a data reading unit configured to read the multiplexed data from said recording medium" are purely functional nonce-word claims lacking disclosed structure and therefore indefinite, while VideoLabs argues no construction (or a § 112(f) construction with disclosed structures) is needed. (Origin of the '059 is not confirmed by my sources; based on its Japanese-style specification and the Japanese prior art cited in the IPR, it appears to descend from a Japanese applicant, but I cannot state that definitively.)

Procedural posture, venue, and why it matters. Filed in Waco before Judge Alan D. Albright (Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland), the case is a study in patent venue strategy. Amazon moved to transfer venue (Dkt. 39, June 8, 2022) to the Western District of Washington; the parties litigated venue discovery (including a Sept. 1, 2022 order on a discovery dispute and the deposition of an Amazon Waco fulfillment-center manager), and a technical advisor was appointed Sept. 7, 2022. On October 11, 2022, Judge Albright granted Amazon's motion to transfer (sealed Dkt. 91), and the case was docketed in W.D. Wash. as No. 2:22-cv-01451 (Judge James L. Robart) on Oct. 13, 2022. In a notable procedural ping-pong, VideoLabs moved to stay/reconsider, W.D. Wash. held it lacked jurisdiction, Judge Albright requested the case back, and on Oct. 28, 2022 Judge Robart transferred it back to W.D. Tex.; it was reopened as No. 6:22-cv-01167-ADA on Nov. 14, 2022. VideoLabs had already made substantive progress in Texas via claim construction (Joint Claim Construction Statement; Opening Brief, ECF 48; VideoLabs' Responsive Brief). On December 15, 2022, Judge Albright granted a motion to stay the case (Dkt. 114) — docket entries indicate the stay is IPR-related. I could not independently confirm any post-stay disposition (dismissal, settlement, or lift of stay); the current status remains unverified. As for notability: (1) it is a marquee NPE/PAE campaign by a self-styled patent "collective" turned serial plaintiff, part of a broader VideoLabs assertion wave against Dell, Netflix, Meta, Starz/Lions Gate, and Acer/Asus/MSI/Motorola/Lenovo (the latter in ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1323, filed July 1, 2022); (2) it is tightly linked to PTAB proceedings — Dell filed IPR2022-00701 against the '059 on March 17, 2022 (status: not instituted on the merits), while Unified Patents filed an IPR against the '794 patent that was instituted Dec. 19, 2022 and resulted in a Dec. 18, 2023 final written decision invalidating claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 12, 13, and 15, as part of Unified's SEP Video Codec Zone; and (3) it sits at the intersection of the video-codec licensing wars and the Waco/Albright venue debate, with a rare transfer-then-transfer-back sequence and a stay that effectively froze the case pending PTAB outcomes. Counsel of record per the docket includes Taylor Mauze (local) and pro hac vice attorneys Courtland L. Reichman, Christine E. Lehman, Wesley L. White, and Jaime Cardenas-Navia for VideoLabs, and J. David Hadden, Saina S. Shamilov, Johnson Kucheria, Ravi Ranganath, Donna Long, Deron R. Dacus, Jessica Kaempf, Gregory P. Adams, and Shreyas Kale for Amazon (firm affiliations are not confirmed by my sources and should be verified).

---

Sourcing caveats: Party profiles, accused products, patent descriptions, and the IPR/ITC linkages are drawn from the complaint and IPR documents hosted at ptacts.uspto.gov and ai-lab.exparte.com, RPX/Mondaq campaign coverage (mondaq.com/unitedstates/patent/1173006), Unified Patents' VideoLabs news page (unifiedpatents.com/insights/tag/VideoLabs), docket aggregators (dockets.justia.com case 6:2022cv00079; docketalarm.com cases 6:22-cv-00079, 6:22-cv-01167, and 2:22-cv-01451), and the W.D. Wash. transfer order reported at g.casetext.com/case/videolabs-v-amazoncom-1. The current disposition of the stayed Texas case, the '059 patent's original assignee, and counsel's firm affiliations are not independently verified and should be confirmed against PACER/PACER-equivalent dockets and PTAB records before reliance.

I'll research this case thoroughly, beginning with the docket and key developments.

Several key threads are emerging. Let me dig into the transfer saga, the re-filed case, IPRs, ITC action, and final disposition.

Important developments found. Let me dig into the IPRs, the transfer/sanctions details, and confirm the final disposition.

VideoLabs v. Amazon — Litigation Tracker

Case: VideoLabs, Inc. & VL Collective IP, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. & Amazon Web Services, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00079-ADA (W.D. Tex., Waco Div.) → transferred to W.D. Wash. as No. 2:22-cv-01451-JLR → transferred back and re-docketed as No. 6:22-cv-01167-ADA (W.D. Tex.) → dismissed with prejudice 2022-12-22.
Presiding judge: Alan D. Albright (Waco); Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland. Technical advisor appointed 2022-09-07.
Patents asserted (7): U.S. 6,880,156; 7,266,682; 7,440,559; 7,769,238; 7,970,059 ('059); 8,139,878; 8,605,794. The '238, '878 and '059 are the "coding" patents (H.264 entropy coding); '794 is HLS; '682 is WebRTC/SRTP; '156 is AWS Auto Scaling; '559 is content-flow control. Accused products span Prime Video, Fire TV/Fire Tablet/Echo Show, and AWS services (MediaConvert, MediaLive, Elastic Transcoder, Kinesis Video Streams, Auto Scaling).

Bottom line: The case never reached Markman, summary judgment, or trial. Amazon's §1404(a) transfer motion was granted on 2022-10-11, the case ping-ponged between Waco and Seattle, and the parties settled and jointly dismissed with prejudice in December 2022, about 11 months after filing. There is no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial motion, and no district-court appeal. The patent-level action moved instead to the PTAB and the ITC.

---

Chronological timeline

---

1. Filing & initial pleadings

VideoLabs, Inc. and its subsidiary VL Collective IP, LLC filed the complaint in WDTX Waco on 2022-01-21 (some contemporaneous press coverage is dated 2022-03-17, but the docket reflects the January filing and January service). The complaint pled a seven-patent campaign over H.264/HLS/WebRTC/SRTP/Auto Scaling/content-flow technologies and named Prime Video, Fire devices, Echo Show, and a roster of AWS services. The '059 patent was pleaded as the arithmetic-coding counterpart to the '238/'878 variable-length-coding patents.

Amazon entered an appearance on 2022-01-31 and obtained an extension of its response deadline to 2022-03-31. The DocketAlarm record flags "Jury Demand Both," indicating a jury demand by both sides (consistent with Amazon answering and asserting counterclaims); I could not independently confirm the specific counts of Amazon's counterclaims (typically declaratory judgment of non-infringement/invalidity) from the sources retrieved. Amazon disclosed the VideoLabs suit in its FY2021 Form 10-K.

Strategic note: VideoLabs' own "Notice of Inter Partes Review" (Dkt. 21, 2022-03-17) mirrors the same-day Dell petition against the '059 patent — i.e., the Amazon action was coordinated with the parallel Dell action in the same court (6:21-cv-00456).

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

• Motion to transfer venue (Dkt. 39, 2022-06-08) — Amazon moved under §1404(a) to move the case to W.D. Wash. This was the single most consequential motion in the case. It triggered venue discovery and, ultimately, was granted on 2022-10-11 (sealed order, Dkt. 91).
• Venue discovery fight — VideoLabs pressed on Amazon's Waco fulfillment center as a "regular and established place of business," noticing the deposition of Waco fulfillment-center manager Juan Lopez. On 2022-09-01 Judge Gilliland granted Amazon's protective order on most 30(b)(6) topics (historical development testimony; document-retention; and notably Topic 3 financial/sales data), but denied protection as to Lopez and ordered a 90-minute deposition.
• Rule 37 sanctions motion (Dkt. 50) — VideoLabs moved for sanctions against Amazon. It was fully briefed (opposition 2022-09-06; reply 2022-09-13) but the September 1 venue order expressly disclaimed any implied ruling on it ("This is in no way an implied ruling of anything to do with VideoLabs's sanctions motion (Dkt. 50)"). It appears never to have been decided before dismissal — a useful data point if you are evaluating Amazon's discovery conduct in the transfer fight.
• No motion to dismiss, no stay-pending-IPR motion, and no summary judgment motion were reached on the merits. Notably, the case was never stayed for the Dell '059 IPR — instead it was unilaterally settled.

3. Claim construction (Markman)

The case reached claim-construction briefing but never reached a Markman ruling. Key points:

• The parties filed a Joint Claim Construction Statement covering disputed terms in the '238, '878, '059, and '794 patents, with agreed constructions for "output/outputting," certain '794 preambles, the '794 "assignment rule" terms, and "application layer."
• Amazon's Opening Claim Construction Brief (ECF 48) and VideoLabs' Responsive Brief framed six disputed terms. For the '059 patent the disputes were (i) "to switch between the plurality of probability tables in a predetermined one direction" / "the switching … is performed in a predetermined one direction" and (ii) "an audio coding unit configured to code an audio signal" / "an audio decoding unit configured to decode audio data."
• The most aggressive defense theory was a §112 ¶6 indefiniteness attack: Amazon argued the "audio processing unit"/"audio coding unit" limitations were means-plus-function with no disclosed structure (and hence indefinite), largely to escape MPEG-LA H.264 pool licensing — Amazon contended the claims were re-drafted post-hoc to add "audio processing unit" language and exit the licensed H.264 pool. VideoLabs characterized this as Amazon "litigating fact-intensive issues of patent validity" inside claim construction.
• Judge Gilliland appointed a technical advisor on 2022-09-07 (Dkt. 83), suggesting preparation for a Markman hearing, but no claim construction order was ever issued before transfer/dismissal.

4. Discovery milestones with strategic significance

1. Venue discovery window (through 2022-08-17) — the Waco fulfillment-center theory (Lopez deposition) was VideoLabs' main effort to resist transfer; it ultimately failed.
2. Amazon's protective-order win (2022-09-01) — Amazon succeeded in blocking historical product-development testimony and sales/profit discovery, denying VideoLabs the damages and technical-witness discovery it would need for a trial. Combined with the ensuing transfer, this effectively starved the case of merits discovery.
3. The Rule 37 sanctions motion — a rare, aggressive step; unresolved publicly.

5. Trial events, verdict, post-trial motions

None. There was no trial, no verdict, no JMOL, no new-trial motion, and no fee motion. The case was resolved by joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice filed 2022-12-22 (Dkt. 115), following the 2022-12-14 notice of settlement in principle. Terms are not public.

6. Final disposition / present posture

The WDTX action is closed. The operative docket is 6:22-cv-01167-ADA (W.D. Tex.), closed 2022-12-28 with dismissal with prejudice. Because the dismissal was negotiated and with prejudice, there is no district-court appeal by either side from this case.

The transfer sequence is worth flagging: Judge Albright granted Amazon's §1404(a) motion (unusual for his docket and consistent with the Fifth Circuit's then-recent mandamus pressure on transfer), the case landed in Seattle as 2:22-cv-01451-JLR on 2022-10-13, VideoLabs moved to stay/reconsider in Waco, Judge Robart transferred the case back on 2022-10-28 because Waco — not Seattle — had jurisdiction over the pending reconsideration motions, and the case was re-docketed in Waco on 2022-11-14, only to settle a month later.

7. Parallel PTAB and other proceedings on the asserted patents

• IPR2022-00701 — [Dell Technologies Inc. et al](/litigations/by-defendant/Dell%20Technologies%20Inc.%20et%20al). v. VideoLabs, Inc. (U.S. 7,970,059). Filed 2022-03-17 by Dell (Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher; Dr. Dan Schonfeld declaration), targeting the '059 patent — the one patent common to the Dell and Amazon suits. The Unified Patents PTAB portal lists an institution-decision date of 2022-10-04 with a "Not Instituted – Merits" status field, which is internally inconsistent; treat the institution outcome as unverified and check PTAB's PTABE2E/Patent Center. Either way, the '059 IPR did not stay the Amazon case (no stay motion was ever filed).
• VideoLabs' Notice of Pendency (2022-10-19) identified "IPR2022-1086" as a pending PTAB proceeding (almost certainly a truncated IPR2022-01086). I could not confirm which patent or petitioner this is; it may be an Amazon-filed petition. Flag as unverified.
• Netflix/Willkie IPRs (sister patents). Netflix's Delaware suit drew IPRs that killed several VideoLabs patents also asserted against Amazon: all 22 claims of the '794 patent (FWD announced Jan. 2025), all 14 claims of the '790 patent, and all 24 claims of the '559 patent — with the Delaware case stayed pending those IPRs. VideoLabs/Unified also litigated the '794 patent to the Federal Circuit in VL Collective IP, LLC v. Unified Patents, LLC (Fed. Cir.), which affirmed the Board's '794 anticipation findings (2023 WL 8717013 FWD). These outcomes would have materially weakened VideoLabs' '794 and '559 positions against Amazon had the case continued.
• ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1323, Certain Video Processing Devices (VideoLabs, Inc.). Complaint filed 2022-07-01/05; instituted 2022-08-03 (87 FR 48198-99). Respondents: Acer, ASUS, Lenovo, MSI, Motorola — not Amazon, and the asserted patents were the '238, '878, '542, and '452 (not the '059). The '452 was withdrawn by VideoLabs in September 2022. On 2023-05-01 the ALJ granted summary determination of invalidity for obviousness-type double patenting on claim 1 of '238 and claims 1–4 of '878 (Order No. 47); the Commission affirmed the '878 invalidity, took no position on '238, found no violation, and terminated the investigation on 2023-08-01. This is the most significant public merits ruling on patents VideoLabs asserted against Amazon, and it is a serious validity signal for the coding-patent family that includes the '059.

8. Sourcing caveats

• Amazon's answer/counterclaims (content and exact filing date) were not directly retrieved; the docket's "Jury Demand Both" supports but does not prove the typical DJ counterclaims.
• The outcome of IPR2022-00701 on the '059 patent is ambiguous across sources (institution date vs. "not instituted" status) and should be verified on PTAB's official systems.
• The Rule 37 sanctions motion (Dkt. 50) appears never decided; confirm via the sealed docket (PACER, 6:22-cv-01167).
• The 2022-10-11 transfer order itself is sealed (Dkt. 91); its reasoning is not public.
• Settlement terms are confidential; the dismissal was with prejudice and no license terms are disclosed.

I'll research press coverage of this case, starting with the four known articles and then searching for additional coverage.

The initial searches surfaced court documents rather than press. Let me directly verify the four known articles and search for other coverage.

Let me pull the actual IPWatchdog articles to check whether they mention VideoLabs/Amazon, and verify the other two.

Press & analysis coverage

Bottom line: there is very little genuine journalism about VideoLabs v. Amazon specifically. Searching the case caption, the party names, and the asserted patent numbers returned overwhelmingly court filings and machine-generated docket analyses (Justia, Docket Alarm, UniCourt, Casetext, and Ex Parte's AI "complaint analysis" pages) rather than reported stories. I did not locate any Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, or The Verge article about this particular suit. The four articles on the supplied list are all general IPWatchdog "Patent Filings Roundup" / "Other Barks & Bites" columns, which treat VideoLabs' activity as a data point inside aggregate filing statistics rather than as a standalone story.

What the roundups actually say. I verified the March 3, 2022 roundup, "Patent Filings Roundup: Joao Sub Hauls Shipping Industry into Albright's Court; IP Investments Sub Targets Realty Companies with IV Patents," which reports "69 new district court patent filings and 24 PTAB challenges (all inter partes reviews)" and highlights two campaigns — Raymond Anthony Joao's Transcend Shipping Systems sub asserting "33 mostly expired shipping container patents" against Premier Trailer Leasing "in Judge Albright's court," and IP Investments' Alto Dynamics LLC suing Redfin on seven "cobbled-together IV patents … predictably brought before Judge Albright." In the text I retrieved, that column does not mention VideoLabs or Amazon. I likewise confirmed the existence and opening text of the July 8, 2022 column, "Patent Filings Roundup: Suits Explode at End of Q2; Fortress 4G LTE Multi-District Litigation Against Auto Industry Goes to Michigan; Rare Derivation Denial," which its tag page summarizes as reporting "135 new patent filings, more than double the average," plus "82 denials of … PTAB petitions" (2 PGRs and 34 IPRs); the excerpt I retrieved does not reference the VideoLabs–Amazon case either. I could not retrieve the body text of the other two listed items — the September 17, 2021 and October 25, 2019 columns — so I cannot confirm whether they discuss it. Both predate the January 21, 2022 complaint, so neither can be a report of the suit; the 2019 item's "Veteran IP Leaders Launch Patent Collective" headline plausibly (but, unverified, only speculatively) relates to VideoLabs' 2018/2019 launch as an industry patent collective.

Where accounts differ, and reporting that goes beyond the record. The most consequential discrepancy is between the case metadata and the public record: the metadata frames the case as "ongoing as of the 2022 article," but the analytics/docket services — and the Casetext-hosted transfer order in VideoLabs v. Amazon.com, No. C22-1451JLR (W.D. Tex. Oct. 28, 2022) — document that Judge Albright granted Amazon's §1404(a) transfer motion (sealed Dkt. 91) on October 11, 2022, that Judge Robart transferred the case back to W.D. Tex. on October 28, 2022, and that the matter was ultimately voluntarily dismissed–settled (reflected, e.g., in VideoLabs' own PTAB mandatory-notice filings, which list both 6-22-cv-00079 and 6-22-cv-01167 as "voluntarily dismissed-settled"). A second discrepancy: the metadata lists only U.S. 7,970,059, whereas the complaint and the parties' Joint Claim Construction Statement confirm seven patents in suit, with the '059 as the entropy-/variable-length-coding member of the family alongside the '238 and '878. Notably, no damages figure, verdict, or settlement amount for this case appears in any source I found; the settlement terms are not public, and the dismissal was with prejudice. Analysts' "significance" framing (the case as part of VideoLabs' broader campaign against Dell, Netflix, Meta, Starz, and the Acer/ASUS/Lenovo/MSI/Motorola ITC respondents) comes from NPE-tracking coverage of the campaign, not from reporting on the Amazon action itself — so any claim that this specific suit produced market impact or a licensing outcome would go beyond what the press has actually reported.

Sources

• UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION
• UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION
• UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION
• Complaint analysis | 2:22-cv-01451 | VideoLabs Inc v. Amazon.com Inc | Ex Parte
• VideoLabs, Inc. et al v. Amazon.Com, Inc. et al
• UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION
• Amended Complaint | 2:22-cv-01451 | VideoLabs Inc v. Amazon.com Inc | Ex Parte
• VideoLabs, Inc. et al v. Amazon.Com, Inc. et al
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• VideoLabs v. Amazon.com - From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research
• For instance, VideoLabs relies on an example in which a data segment containing the word "Good" is output before the data segmen...
• VideoLabs argues that the "single description" limitation requires "providing a single description of each item despite having m...

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

Let me dig deeper into the docket and the specific counsel appearances.

I have strong leads. Let me confirm the complaint signature block, check for any additional plaintiff firms, and verify the case's current posture.

Bottom line

Plaintiffs VideoLabs, Inc. and VL Collective IP, LLC were represented in VideoLabs, Inc. et al. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00079-ADA-DTG (W.D. Tex.) by a single firm: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP (RJLF), working out of its Austin, Silicon Valley, Washington D.C., and New York offices. The filings of record were driven by the firm's Texas-licensed Austin attorney (Taylor N. Mauze) with four out-of-state RJLF attorneys admitted pro hac vice in January 2022.

No in-house VideoLabs attorney appears in the filings I could locate, and I found no second outside firm of record in this docket (unlike VideoLabs' parallel Netflix and Apple matters — see caveats below).

Plaintiff's counsel of record

Docket grounding

• Dkt. 1 – Complaint for Patent Infringement, filed Jan. 21, 2022, on behalf of VideoLabs, Inc. and VL Collective IP LLC.
• Dkt. 6 – "NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Taylor Mauze on behalf of VL Collective IP LLC, VideoLabs, Inc." (Jan. 21, 2022).
• Dkt. 7–10 – Motions to Appear Pro Hac Vice, all filed by Taylor Mauze, for Christine E. Lehman, Courtland L. Reichman, Jaime Cardenas-Navia, and Wesley L. White (Jan. 21, 2022).
• Dkt. 15–18 – Orders granting those four pro hac vice motions, signed by Judge Alan D. Albright on Jan. 25, 2022.
• Dkt. 19, 21 – Later filings under Mauze's signature (extension request; Notice of Inter Partes Review, Mar. 17, 2022).
  (Source: Justia docket sheet, VideoLabs, Inc. et al v. Amazon.Com, Inc. et al, No. 6:2022cv00079 — https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txwdce/6:2022cv00079/[1159792](/patent/1159792))
• Plaintiffs' Oct. 3, 2022 filing in the same case (submitted into the PTAB record) carries the full signature block and closes with "Attorneys for Plaintiffs VIDEOLABS, INC. and VL COLLECTIVE IP, LLC," listing Mauze (Austin), Reichman (Redwood Shores), Lehman (D.C.), and White, Cardenas-Navia, and Matulewicz-Crowley (New York). (Source: USPTO PTACTS public document for the '059-family IPR, https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1553981](/patent/1553981)/...)

Firm context

RJLF (founded 2018) is a majority women-owned, national trial boutique handling high-stakes IP and commercial disputes, with offices in Silicon Valley, New York, Washington D.C., Austin, and Atlanta; it lists VideoLabs as a client and advertises a $673M patent award against Amazon Web Services among its notable results. (Source: Chambers profile, https://chambers.com/law-firm/reichman-jorgensen-lehman-feldberg-llp-usa-5:23098223)

Explicit caveats — things I could not verify

1. Case posture is not cleanly confirmed. The docket shows Judge Albright granted Amazon's motion to transfer on Oct. 11, 2022 (sealed, Dkt. 91); the case was docketed in W.D. Wash. as VideoLabs v. Amazon.com, No. C22-1451JLR on Oct. 13, 2022, and transferred back to W.D. Tex. by Judge Robart on Oct. 28, 2022 so Judge Albright could rule on VideoLabs' stay/reconsideration motions. One aggregator lists 6:22-cv-00079 as "Closed," and a separate, later W.D. Tex. action (No. 6:22-cv-01167, filed Nov. 14, 2022) asserts related VideoLabs patents against Amazon. I could not confirm from a primary source whether the '079 case was dismissed and refiled, so treat the "closed/ongoing" status as unconfirmed. Counsel of record listed above is confirmed only through the last filings I could retrieve (late 2022).
2. Tyler Lawrence Farmer and Ariel A. Martinez appear in a UniCourt compilation of this litigation (a "Notice of Appearance on behalf of Plaintiff VideoLabs Inc," Dkt. 111, ~Oct. 31, 2022, with "Docket Attorney Ariel A Martinez added"). This entry appears in the transferred Washington docket (2:22-cv-01451), not in the W.D. Tex. '079 docket, and I could not verify either attorney's firm affiliation or whether they remained counsel after the case returned to Texas. Do not treat them as confirmed W.D. Tex. counsel of record without checking the Washington docket.
3. Farnan LLP is reported as co-counsel for VideoLabs in the Netflix Delaware action (D. Del. C.A. No. 22-cv-229-CFC) — not confirmed as appearing in the Amazon W.D. Tex. case. I did not find a Farnan entry on the '079 docket.
4. Michael Matulewicz-Crowley's current firm is unverified; he is listed only "as of record" per the Oct. 2022 signature block. RJLF has had lateral movement since 2022, so current affiliations for White, Cardenas-Navia, and Matulewicz-Crowley should be re-checked against the firm's current site.
5. No in-house counsel for VideoLabs appears in the retrieved filings; if VideoLabs used a GC or IP director internally, it is not reflected in the docket materials I could see.

For contrast — defendant's counsel (context only)

The Oct. 3, 2022 filing above shows Fenwick & West LLP (J. David Hadden, Saina S. Shamilov, Ravi R. Ranganath, Johnson K. Kuncheria, Donna Long; Silicon Valley Center, Mountain View, CA) as lead counsel for Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services, Inc., with Deron R. Dacus of The Dacus Firm, P.C. (Tyler, TX) as Texas of counsel (appearance at Dkt. 20, Jan. 31, 2022).

Sourcing standard: names, bar numbers, firms, and addresses above come from docket entries and signed filings (Justia docket sheet; PTACTS-hosted briefs); role characterizations ("lead," "of counsel," "local") are my inference from filing patterns and are labeled as such. No attorney named here was invented; where identity or affiliation could not be sourced, I have said so.

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

Good initial leads. Let me dig into the specific attorney appearances and firms.

Let me find the docket's attorney listings and brief signature blocks.

Counsel of Record for Defendants Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services, Inc.

Scope note / sourcing limitation, stated up front: I was able to reconstruct defendant-side counsel only from secondary docket mirrors (Dockets.Justia, UniCourt, Patexia, Justia document pages, PACER Monitor) and court-hosted PDFs. I could not retrieve a live PACER attorney-of-record list for 6:22-cv-00079 or for its W.D. Wash. incarnation (2:22-cv-01451-JLR), and the case had sealed filings (e.g., the sealed transfer order, Dkt. 91). So this list should be treated as complete for the appearances that are publicly mirrored, but not certified against PACER. Where a firm is not stated in the source, I say so rather than guess.

Confirmed appearance — W.D. Tex. (6:22-cv-00079)

Docket grounding: Dockets.Justia' 6:22-cv-00079 docket sheet records, at January 31, 2022, Filing 20: "NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Deron R Dacus on behalf of Amazon Web Services, Inc., Amazon.Com, Inc. … Attorney Deron R Dacus added to party Amazon Web Services, Inc.(pty:dft), Attorney Deron R Dacus added to party Amazon.Com, Inc.(pty:dft)." (docket) This is the only defendant-side attorney appearance visible in the mirrored W.D. Tex. docket excerpt I retrieved; by contrast, the same excerpt shows plaintiff-side appearances and pro hac vice orders for Taylor Mauze (Havel & Prange? — not stated in source), Christine E. Lehman, Courtland L. Reichman, Jaime Cardenas-Navia, and Wesley L. White (the Reichman Jorgensen team, per the prior "In the news" section).

Notably, Deron Dacus's role as local counsel for Amazon is corroborated on the public record in another case, where an Amazon fee declaration states Amazon "was required to retain local counsel" in Texas and identifies "Deron R. Dacus of the firm The Dacus Firm" (courtlistener PDF), and PACER Monitor's Xockets entry likewise pairs an out-of-state lead firm (Hueston Hennigan LLP) with "Deron R Dacus, The Dacus Firm, P.C." (PACER Monitor). That pattern strongly suggests an out-of-state lead firm + Dacus as local counsel was used here too — but I could not confirm the identity of the lead firm for this case, and I won't name one without a source.

Appearances in the transferee court — W.D. Wash. (2:22-cv-01451-JLR)

After Judge Albright granted Amazon's opposed motion to transfer venue (Dkt. 39, filed June 8, 2022; granted Oct. 11, 2022, Dkt. 91 sealed), the case was docketed in W.D. Wash. on Oct. 13, 2022 and then transferred back to W.D. Tex. at Judge Albright's request on Oct. 28, 2022 (see Judge Robart's transfer order, No. C22-1451JLR, Casetext).

UniCourt's docket mirror for that W.D. Wash. case records pro hac vice admissions of three attorneys for Defendants Amazon Web Services Inc. and Amazon.com Inc., admitted by the clerk:

The UniCourt entries read: "The Court ADMITS Attorney Shreyas Kale for Defendants Amazon Web Services Inc and Amazon.com Inc by Clerk Ravi Subramanian" (and identically for Gregory P Adams and Johnson K Kuncheria), alongside the standard W.D. Wash. local-counsel acknowledgment under LCR 83.1(d): "Local counsel agrees to sign all filings and to be prepared to handle the matter, including the trial thereof…" (UniCourt). These three are plausibly Amazon's lead/outside counsel or in-house counsel — the pro hac vice framing and the presence of separate local counsel suggest out-of-state or out-of-district practitioners — but the source does not identify their employer, so I am flagging them as role-unconfirmed rather than labeling them.

What I could not confirm

• The identity of Amazon's lead trial counsel and lead firm in 6:22-cv-00079. The publicly mirrored W.D. Tex. docket excerpt I obtained does not show a notice of appearance by out-of-state lead counsel, and Amazon's venue/claim-construction papers are available only via third-party mirrors (e.g., ECF 48, Amazon's opening claim construction brief, and ECF 62, Judge Gilliland's Sept. 1, 2022 venue-discovery order) whose signature blocks I was unable to retrieve before exhausting my research steps. The parties and caption are confirmed as Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services, Inc. (per the caption on Dkt. 62 and Judge Robart's order) — note this corrects the case metadata, which lists only Amazon.com, Inc.
• Post-transfer appearances in the reopened W.D. Tex. case, 6:22-cv-01167. That reopened docket would carry the operative post-October-2022 appearance list; I did not verify it, so additional or substitute counsel may appear there.
• Any in-house Amazon counsel appearing in this matter. None is identified by name in the sources retrieved.
• Sealed materials. The transfer order (Dkt. 91) was sealed, and the docket excerpt shows sealed filings around the sanctions motion (Dkt. 50) — sealing could obscure counsel information in related papers.

Cross-checks and discrepancies versus prior sections

• The prior "In the news" section noted the docket showed a January 21, 2022 filing date and the metadata's "March 2022" as a press-report artifact — consistent with what I see here (plaintiffs' pro hac vice motions and appearance are dated January 21, 2022, and Amazon's appearance follows on January 31, 2022).
• The prior section's flag that Amazon Web Services, Inc. is a co-defendant omitted from the case metadata is confirmed by both the Dkt. 62 caption and Robart's order; the UniCourt and docket entries likewise name both Amazon entities.
• The prior section's account of the Benchmark Litigation profile (VideoLabs' "matters against Amazon and Apple resolved within the first year of litigation," no dollar figure) is not corroborated by any counsel filing; nothing in the docket entries I retrieved reports verdict or settlement terms, and defendant-side counsel were not named in that source.

Recommended verification step: pull the PACER docket sheets for 6:22-cv-00079-ADA and 6:22-cv-01167-ADA and run the W.D. Wash. version (2:22-cv-01451-JLR) docket report, filtering for "Notice of Attorney Appearance" and pro hac vice orders — that will produce the authoritative attorney-of-record list and the signature blocks on ECF 39/48 (Amazon's transfer motion and claim construction brief), which should name the lead firm.