VideoLabs, Inc. et al. v. Meta Platforms, Inc. et al.

I'll research this case systematically across dockets, opinions, and PTAB records.

Good progress. Let me dig into the parties' identities, the § 101 ruling reasoning, and the parallel PTAB/IPR activity.

Case Overview & Background

The parties. Plaintiffs are VideoLabs, Inc. and its licensing subsidiary VL Collective IP LLC (with VL IP Holdings LLC positioned between them in the ownership chain — the PO's real-party-in-interest statement in IPR2023-00924 identifies "VL Collective … VL IP Holdings LLC … and VideoLabs, Inc."). VideoLabs is not an operating company, university, or classic shell PAE: it was founded in 2018 and launched publicly in October 2019 as an "industry-sponsored patent collective" that buys video-technology patents from operating companies and licenses them (or grants "membership") to implementers. Its founders/leadership are IP-licensing veterans Joe Chernesky (CEO), Bill Goldman and Ira Blumberg; its Series A was led by Soryn IP Group and Bardin Hall Investment Partners, and it has described a portfolio sourced from HPE, Alcatel-Lucent, Siemens, Swisscom, 3Com, Panasonic, LG, Nokia, Ericsson, Samsung, Kodak and IBM (see videolabsinc.com press release, Oct. 17, 2019; VL Collective IP program page). Defendants are Meta Platforms, Inc. and subsidiaries Instagram, Inc., WhatsApp LLC, [Facebook Technologies, LLC](/litigations/by-defendant/Facebook%20Technologies%2C%20LLC) (the Oculus/Portal entity) and, originally, Giphy, Inc. VideoLabs alleged it approached Meta in October 2019, that Meta said in June 2020 it was not interested in licensing, and that none of the Meta entities ever joined the platform (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 243; Doc. 35 at 3–4).

The accused technology. The complaint targets three technology clusters inside Meta's products: (i) H.264 entropy coding — video compression in Facebook Live, Instagram Stories, WhatsApp video calls and Oculus/Portal video — accused under the '878, '238 and '059 patents; (ii) WebRTC/SRTP real-time calling (Messenger video chat, Instagram Live video chat, VR chat), accused under the '682 patent, with VideoLabs alleging Messenger alone carried 400+ million voice/video calls per month; and (iii) object identification, specifically Meta's open-source Detectron, Detectron2 and D2Go computer-vision libraries, accused under the '980 patent (Compl. ¶¶ 84–119; First Amended Complaint, Doc. 45 (June 6, 2024)). The five asserted patents, with one-line sketches:

Procedural posture and venue. Suit was filed May 24, 2022 in the District of Delaware, C.A. No. 22-680, assigned to Judge Joel H. Slomsky (E.D. Pa. senior judge sitting by designation — hence the "JHS" suffix), and venue rested on the Meta entities' Delaware incorporation/residency. Delaware matters here for the usual reasons: it is the leading patent forum with a deep local patent bar and mature case-management rules (the Farnan firm for VideoLabs; Morris Nichols for Meta), and it let VideoLabs consolidate a multi-patent, multi-defendant case against a Delaware-incorporated corporate family. On August 1, 2022 Meta moved to dismiss (Doc. 8): § 101 as to the '682 and '980 patents, and Rule 12(b)(6) as to the indirect- and willfulness-theories pleaded in all five counts. In a 21-page opinion dated April 22, 2024 (Doc. 35; 2024 WL 1788824-ish, reported at VideoLabs, Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 1:22-cv-00680 (D. Del. 2024)), the court granted the motion as to the '682 patent (claims held ineligible) and denied it as to the '980 patent, allowing Count V to proceed — Law360, "Meta Secures Partial Trim Of Video Technology Patent Suit" (Apr. 23, 2024). VideoLabs filed an amended complaint on June 6, 2024 (Doc. 45). On October 2, 2025 the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss: VideoLabs' claims with prejudice, Meta's counterclaims/defenses without prejudice, each side bearing its own fees and costs; the case closed October 3, 2025 (Law360, "Meta, VideoLabs Resolve Video Tech Patent Dispute," Oct. 2, 2025).

Why it is notable. Three things make this case worth studying. First, it is a window into the "patent collective" model as a soft privateer: VideoLabs markets itself as an industry-funded alternative to nuisance assertions and litigation, yet its monetization campaign has run against Amazon (W.D. Tex. 6:22-cv-01167 / 6:22-cv-01451), Roku (D. Del. 1:23-cv-01136), Hisense (E.D. Tex. 2:24-cv-00904), Starz (which filed a DJ action), and Dell (which filed IPRs, including IPR2022-00629 on the '878 patent), while signing licensees such as HP (its 20th licensee, May 2025) and 17 licensees as of IAM's February 2025 profile. Second, there is a striking IPR linkage and race to judgment: Meta filed a family of IPRs in May 2023, including IPR2023-00924 on the '980 patent (instituted Dec. 6, 2023; FWD Dec. 5, 2024), in which the Board held claims 1–3, 5–7, 9–11 and 13–15 unpatentable over Zhao/Steffens/Zhao/Ozer/TLP but did not prove claims 4, 8, 12 and 16 unpatentable — i.e., the PTAB invalidated the very independent claim (claim 1) the district court had just refused to dismiss under § 101, with a notable dissent-flavored split on the Zhao "motion information" rationale. Both sides appealed to the Federal Circuit (PO notice of appeal Feb. 3, 2025; Meta cross-appeal Feb. 14, 2025), and those appeals were dismissed on October 22, 2025, consistent with the settlement. Third, it sits inside the broader video-codec royalty war (H.264/HEVC/AV1, Access Advance/Via LA, Nokia/Ericsson/Sisvel programs), where the market significance is not the patentee's damages but the precedent: how H.264/WebRTC standard compliance is pleaded as infringement

I'll research this case systematically across dockets, PTAB proceedings, and legal news.

Good foundation. Now let me dig into the docket, PTAB proceedings, and claim construction.

VideoLabs, Inc. et al. v. Meta Platforms, Inc. et al., C.A. No. 22‑680 (JHS) (D. Del.) — Chronology of Key Developments

Built on the existing summary (which covers the 2022 filing, the 2024‑04‑22 § 101 ruling on the ’980/’682 patents, and the October 2025 settlement). This section supplies the docket‑level sequence, the PTAB overlay, and strategic annotations.

Assigned judge: Joel H. Slomsky (E.D. Pa., sitting by designation in D. Del.). VideoLabs counsel: Farnan LLP (Brian E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan, Rosemary J. Piergiovanni); Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP (Christine E. Lehman, Jaime Cardenas‑Navia) handled the PTAB work. Meta counsel: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP (Karen Jacobs, Cameron P. Clark); Kirkland & Ellis LLP (Ellisen Shelton Turner, W. Todd Baker, and colleagues) on both the district court and IPR side.

---

1. Pre‑suit licensing campaign (context for willfulness)

• 2019‑10‑02 — VideoLabs' first written outreach to Meta regarding its portfolio (Compl. ¶ 243).
• 2020‑06‑26 — VideoLabs email records Meta's representatives as saying on a call that Meta "w[as] not interested in good faith licensing discussions"; the complaint alleges Meta never re‑engaged. VideoLabs alleges Meta knew of the ’682 family from 2020‑01‑30 and of the ’682 patent specifically from 2021‑05‑23 — the notice dates pleaded to support willfulness and inducement.
  • Source: complaint text reproduced at https://ai-lab.exparte.com/documents/dct/[4315675](/patent/4315675)/1-22-cv-00680_ded_complaint_exparte.pdf

2. Filing and initial pleadings

• 2022‑05‑24 — Complaint filed (Doc. 1, 112 pages, ~95+ paragraphs of infringement contentions). Five counts, all under § 271(a) plus indirect (§ 271(b)/(c)) and willful infringement theories:
  1. ’878 (Count I) — VA LC/CAVLC; H.264 encoders/decoders
  2. ’238 (Count II) — CAVLC decoding
  3. ’059 (Count III) — CABAC entropy coding
  4. ’682 (Count IV) — RTP/SRTP authentication; WebRTC‑based Messenger/WhatsApp calling
  5. ’980 (Count V) — object detection; Detectron2
• Defendants named: Meta Platforms, Instagram, WhatsApp, Facebook Technologies, and Giphy — all Meta subsidiaries.
• Answer/counterclaims: Meta's answer and counterclaims are referenced in the dismissal papers ("Meta's claims, defenses, and/or counterclaims for relief"), but I could not verify the answer's docket number or filing date from available sources — treat the specific content (likely DJ counts of non‑infringement/invalidity) as unconfirmed.
• No motion to transfer and no motion to stay pending IPR appears in the materials I could retrieve; the case remained in D. Del. throughout. (Not an exhaustive docket check.)

3. Pre‑trial motions of substance

3.1 Partial motion to dismiss (Rule 12(b)(6) + § 101)

• 2022‑08‑01 — Meta files Partial Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8) and opening brief (Doc. 9). Two attacks:
  • § 101 as to Counts IV (’682) and V (’980) only;
  • Rule 12(b)(6) as to the indirect (inducement/contributory) and willful infringement allegations in all five counts.
• 2022‑08‑29 — Plaintiffs' response (Doc. 15).
• 2022‑09‑12 — Meta reply (Doc. 16).
• 2023‑01‑27 — Plaintiffs' Notice of Subsequent Authority (Doc. 24); 2023‑02‑08 — Meta's Notice of Supplemental Authority (Doc. 27).
• 2023‑02‑09 — Hearing on the motion.
• 2023‑03‑01 — Meta supplemental authority (Doc. 30); 2023‑03‑14 — Plaintiffs' response (Doc. 32).
• The ~20‑month gap between the 2023‑02‑09 hearing and the 2024‑04‑22 ruling is itself a strategic footnote: the ’682 patent expired in the interim (estimated expiry 2026‑06‑04 for the ’878; the ’682's term ran from a 1999‑era priority), and the delay meant the ’980 § 101 question was decided against a backdrop in which the PTAB had already instituted Meta's IPR on that patent.

3.2 The April 202

I'll search multiple angles to find press coverage of this case.

What the press actually reported

Coverage is thin and almost entirely trade/legal-news. I found no Reuters, Bloomberg News, Ars Technica, The Verge, or mainstream business coverage of VideoLabs v. Meta, and no IPWatchdog or Patently-O article about this Delaware case. The reporting that exists comes from legal trade outlets, a litigation-analytics vendor, and one low-grade aggregator.

Law360 is the only outlet I found with sustained docket-level coverage, and its case page carries two items: a 2024-04-23 story headlined "Meta Secures Partial Trim Of Video Technology Patent Suit," summarized as a federal judge narrowing the suit by "throwing out one of VideoLabs' patents but letting the patent owner keep moving forward with another"; and a 2025-10-02 story, "Meta, VideoLabs Resolve Video Tech Patent Dispute," summarized only as VideoLabs having "agreed to end its case in Delaware federal court accusing Meta Platforms of infringing various patents related to video technology." Both pieces sit behind Law360's paywall, so only the published summaries were reviewable, and neither summary states a settlement figure or license terms — consistent with the docket, where the joint motion to dismiss (D.I. 106, filed 2025-10-02) recites only that the parties "have resolved" their claims, with VideoLabs' claims dismissed with prejudice, Meta's counterclaims without prejudice, and each side bearing its own fees and costs.

The most substantive account of the April 2024 ruling is VitalLaw / IP Law Daily (2024-04-23), which walked through Judge Slomsky's Alice analysis: the '682 patent (WebRTC/SRTP authentication, originally Siemens) was held ineligible because it applied "generic computer functions and established network protocols," while the '980 patent (spatio-temporal object detection, also originally Siemens) survived step one as a "specific improvement in computer vision technologies," making step two unnecessary. VitalLaw also listed all five asserted patents and described them as covering H.264 compression/decompression (the '878, '238 and '059 patents), secure real-time transmission (the '682) and object detection (the '980). The opinion itself is at D. Del. D.I. 35.

Where accounts differ, and what goes beyond the record

Framing diverges noticeably even though both 2024-04-23 pieces describe the same order. Law360 cast the ruling as a defense win ("Meta Secures Partial Trim"), while VitalLaw's headline framed it as "Mixed results for Meta" — a difference in emphasis, not in substance, since both report one patent dismissed and one sustained. On the ending, Legal News Feed (October 2025) describes a "settlement" that "effectively conclud[ed] the case," a characterization the docket supports only indirectly: the parties filed a stipulated dismissal and disclosed nothing about money, so "settlement" is an inference from the joint motion's "resolved" language rather than a reported term. The litigation-analytics vendor Patsnap records the case as filed 2022-05-24 and closed 2025-10-03, with the termination basis logged as "case dismissed," and identifies the accused functionality as WebRTC/SRTP implementations, H.264 entropy coding, and "object identification" features across Meta, Instagram, WhatsApp and Facebook Technologies products — the same accused-product categories spelled out in the complaint. Notably, no outlet I found reported a damages demand, a damages award, or any settlement dollar figure; the complaint sought damages "in an amount to be proven at trial," so there is no public number to report.

The parallel PTAB fight, which the press largely skipped

The most consequential development beyond the trade coverage is the inter partes review. Meta's petition IPR2023-00924 (naming Meta, Instagram, WhatsApp, Meta Platforms Technologies and Giphy as real parties) produced a Board final written decision, a copy of which is hosted on patentlyo.com, holding that Meta had shown claims 1–3, 5–7, 9–11 and 13–15 of the '980 patent unpatentable but had not carried its burden on claims 4, 8, 12 and 16. I did not find any press article reporting that decision in connection with this case; it appears to have been covered, if at all, only through the docket and PTAB filings. The case's own papers show Meta and other defendants also pushed to stay Delaware proceedings pending overlapping IPRs and the VideoLabs campaigns against Roku, Netflix and others — context that the two Law360 items and the VitalLaw summary do not develop.

Bottom line for the reader: there is no meaningful press narrative here — no investigative or industry-reaction coverage, no executive statements from VideoLabs or Meta, and no analyst commentary. The publicly reported facts are essentially the two April 2024 § 101 outcomes and the October 2025 dismissal; everything about money, licensing impact, or why the parties settled remains undisclosed in the court record and unreported in the press.

Sources

• VideoLabs, Inc. et al v. Meta Platforms, Inc. et al
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
• Intellectual Property : Law360 : Legal News & Analysis - Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
• Media & Entertainment : Law360 : Legal News & Analysis - Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
• Delaware : Law360 : Legal News & Analysis - Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
• VideoLabs et al. v. Meta Platforms et al. | Patent Lawsuit 1:22-cv-00680 - VideoLabs, Inc. et al. v. Meta Platforms, Inc. et al.
• Corporate : Law360 UK : Legal News & Analysis - Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
• UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
• Bloomberg Law
• petitions—IPR2024-01023, IPR2024-01024, and IPR2024-01025 challenging the ’236 patent, and
• |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
• Bloomberg Law

I'll research plaintiff-side counsel in this case using multiple sources.

Good initial data. Let me verify the full counsel roster and check for mid-case changes.

Let me pull the actual docket to confirm which attorneys entered appearances and when.

Plaintiff-Side Counsel of Record — VideoLabs, Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00680-JHS (D. Del.)

Plaintiffs VideoLabs, Inc. and VL Collective IP LLC were represented by a two-tier structure typical of District of Delaware practice: a Delaware boutique as local counsel of record and a national trial boutique (Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP) as lead/merits counsel. That structure held from the May 24, 2022 complaint (D.I. 1) through the October 2, 2025 joint motion to dismiss (D.I. 106) and the October 3, 2025 closure order.

Roster

Verification notes and gaps

• Source for the roster: the complaint's signature block (D.I. 1, filed 5/24/2022) names Farnan LLP and six RJLF attorneys (Reichman, Lehman, White, Cardenas-Navia, Matulewicz-Crowley, Mauze). The October 2, 2025 joint motion to dismiss (D.I. 106) is signed only by Farnan LLP for plaintiffs and Morris Nichols for Meta — consistent with D. Del. Local Rule 83.5(d), which requires Delaware counsel to file all papers; it does not by itself show that RJLF withdrew. The April 22, 2024 § 101 opinion credits VideoLabs' answering brief (Doc. No. 15) and secondary coverage identifies Brian E. Farnan as plaintiffs' counsel of record at that stage.
• Wesley L. White: I confirmed his pro hac vice motion and admission in the companion Netflix case but did not locate the PHV order in 22-cv-680. He also does not appear on the later Federal Circuit entries of appearance for VideoLabs, which suggests he may have departed RJLF; treat his status in this case as unconfirmed.
• Reichman Jorgensen team churn: in the Federal Circuit appeal of the related Netflix matter (Nos. 25-1131/25-1132), VideoLabs' appearances were filed by Lehman, Cardenas-Navia, Matulewicz-Crowley, Naveed Hasan, Brian C. Baran, and Savannah H. Carnes. Hasan, Baran, and Carnes are not confirmed on the 22-cv-680 district docket and should not be listed as counsel of record here without a PACER check.
• In-house counsel: no VideoLabs in-house attorney appears in any filing I reviewed; VideoLabs' licensing/enforcement function appears to have been run entirely through RJLF and Farnan LLP. If in-house counsel participated, they did not enter an appearance.
• Docket access limitation: I did not have direct PACER access and worked from Bloomberg Law docket reproductions, CourtListener/RECAP copies of D.I. 35, the D. Del. opinion page, PTAB service lists, and Unified Patents' docket mirror. Filings are not sealed in this case, but I could not independently verify the complete list of pro hac vice orders; a PACER pull of the docket text (or the D. Del. CM/ECF "attorneys" tab) would close that gap.

Relevant experience context

RJLF was founded in 2018 as a national trial boutique, and VideoLabs is a publicly listed representative client of the firm (Chambers firm profile). Lehman's VideoLabs work spans the parallel D. Del. cases against Netflix (22-cv-229), Roku (23-cv-1136), and Starz, as well as N.D. Cal. 3:23-cv-01307 against Apple, plus the resulting PTAB and Federal Circuit proceedings — making her the single lawyer with continuity across the whole portfolio campaign, including this Meta matter. Brian E. Farnan's firm served as Delaware counsel to VideoLabs across the same set of cases, and the Farnans are named in the VitalLaw report on the April 23, 2024 § 101 ruling as plaintiffs' counsel.

I'll research the counsel of record for the Meta defendants in this Delaware patent case.

I have the local counsel identified. Now let me find the lead/outside counsel who appeared pro hac vice.

The IPR filings reference Meta's lead PTAB counsel. Let me identify that firm and cross-check against the district court appearances.

Bottom line

The public record supports a two-tier defense team. Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP (Wilmington, DE) is the Delaware counsel of record and the only firm whose name appears on the case's signed filings. Kirkland & Ellis LLP is the national/lead firm — its role is documented in the parallel PTAB proceedings, where Kirkland partners served as Meta's lead and back-up counsel, and where Kirkland's own pro hac vice papers attest to the firm's participation "in the district court litigation" in D. Del.

---

Counsel of record — Defendants

No in-house Meta attorney appears by name on any public filing I could locate.

---

Sourcing and docket anchors

• D.I. 106, Joint Motion to Dismiss (Oct. 2, 2025) — the operative appearance document. Signed for the defense by /s/ Cameron P. Clark, Morris Nichols, "Attorneys for Defendants Meta Platforms, Inc., Instagram, Inc., WhatsApp LLC and Facebook Technologies, LLC." This is the cleanest confirmation of who was counsel of record at the close of the case.
• D.I. 35 (Apr. 22, 2024) — 21-page § 101 opinion by Judge Joel H. Slomsky, granting dismissal as to U.S. 7,266,682 and denying as to U.S. 7,436,980; underlying motion at D.I. 8 (Aug. 1, 2022).
• IPR2023-00923 (U.S. 7,266,682), Meta Platforms, Inc., Instagram, Inc., WhatsApp LLC, Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC, and Giphy, Inc. v. VL Collective IP LLC / VideoLabs — petition filed May 24, 2023; caption lists Kirkland & Ellis as Petitioner's counsel (Baker, Turner, Brit); Petition's mandatory notice identifies the D. Del. action as the related district court case.
• Petitioners' Unopposed Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Ethan Perbohner (May 8, 2024), with Ex. 1030 declaration; confirms Baker as lead counsel (Reg. #45,265).
• VitalLaw, IP Law Daily, "PATENT—D. Del.: Mixed results for Meta in VideoLabs' ongoing patent infringement lawsuit" (Apr. 23, 2024) — attributes Meta's representation to "Karen Jacobs (Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP)."

---

Caveats — what I could not verify

1. No confirmed pro hac vice entries for Kirkland in D. Del. I did not retrieve the D. Del. docket entries admitting Baker, Turner, Brit, or Perbohner pro hac vice. Kirkland's trial-court role is a strong inference from (a) USPTO correspondence addressed to Baker as "Counsel for Petitioner" using a Meta_VideoLabs@kirkland.com alias, and (b) Perbohner's declaration that he participated in the district court litigation. Treat the Kirkland "lead trial counsel" designation as inferred rather than docket-confirmed.
2. Giphy's counsel is unaccounted for. Giphy, Inc. was a named defendant in the complaint and an IPR petitioner, but it is absent from the caption of the Oct. 2025 Joint Motion to Dismiss. Giphy apparently exited the case earlier (likely stipulation or voluntary dismissal); I could not locate that order.
3. Entity renaming. The IPR caption uses "Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC" where the district court caption uses "Facebook Technologies, LLC" — the same entity, renamed. Do not treat these as separate defendants.
4. No sealed-material inference drawn. Nothing in the retrieved record indicates defense counsel identities were sealed; the appearances are public.
5. Counsel-of-record may have changed over 2022–2025. The Morris Nichols team was stable across the § 101 briefing (2024) and dismissal (2025). I did not independently verify the 2022 initial appearance (D.I. 8/9) signatories.