VideoLabs, Inc. v. Dell Technologies Inc.

I'll research this case across multiple sources.

Case Overview & Background

Parties. Plaintiff VideoLabs, Inc. is a California-based patent-licensing/aggregation company — a patent assertion entity (Unified Patents' PTAB portal classifies it as an "NPE (Patent Assertion Entity)"). It was launched in late 2019 as an industry "patent collective" intended to pool video-technology rights and license them via a membership model, founded by CEO Joe Chernesky (ex-Kudelski Group and Intellectual Ventures) and backed by hedge fund Bardin Hill Investment Partners (f/k/a Halcyon Capital) and IP litigation funder Soryn IP Group. When the membership model failed to gain traction, senior VP Ira Blumberg told IAM the company "was forced to take a more aggressive approach" to repay investors. VideoLabs' portfolio draws on assets originating with Nokia, Alcatel-Lucent, Siemens, Swisscom, 3Com, Panasonic, Ericsson, Samsung, LG, and HPE (Mondaq/RPX summary). Defendant Dell Technologies Inc. (and Dell Inc.) is a conventional operating company — one of the world's largest PC, server, and device manufacturers, headquartered in Round Rock, Texas.

Accused technology. The complaint targets Dell's H.264 video-decoding capability across a wide product sweep: XPS, Latitude, Inspiron, and Vostro laptops, 2-in-1s, tablets, OptiPlex desktops, and PowerEdge servers. The theory is a standards-compliance/necessary-infringement theory: any device implementing H.264's Context-Adaptive Binary Arithmetic Coding (CABAC) allegedly practices the claim, with decoding performed by integrated silicon such as Intel Iris Xe graphics. The XPS 13 2-in-1 is used as the representative accused product (complaint analysis).

Patent asserted. This docket centers on U.S. Patent No. 7,970,059, "Variable Length Coding Method and Variable Length Decoding Method" — despite the title, the disclosure is directed to arithmetic coding: a one-directional, non-reversible switching scheme among probability tables when coding coefficient values, eliminating the switch-back inefficiency of prior H.263-era designs. VideoLabs asserted "at least claim 2" (an apparatus claim for a decoding apparatus with a receive unit, demultiplexer, arithmetic decoding unit, a "second switching unit" that switches in only one predetermined direction, and an audio decoding unit) and reserved the right to assert more. The '059 is a Panasonic-origin patent claiming priority to Japanese application 2002-126029, filed April 15, 2002 — a date that proved decisive. Companion VideoLabs v. Dell litigation also asserted two sibling Panasonic patents, U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,769,238 and 8,139,878, which concern variable length coding (alleged to read on H.264's CAVLC) rather than arithmetic coding (IPR2022-00701 portal; Sterne Kessler/Law360).

Posture and venue. Filed September 10, 2021 in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas before Chief Judge Alan D. Albright (case 6:21-cv-00932; the "6:" prefix denotes Waco). A separate, earlier VideoLabs v. Dell suit — 6:21-cv-00456, reportedly filed May 2021 — was consolidated with it before Judge Albright. Venue matters enormously here: Waco/Albright historically offered the nation's fastest patent trial track and plaintiff-friendly case management, and Dell's Round Rock headquarters sits within the district (in the Austin Division), making venue proper — which is precisely why Dell moved to transfer the consolidated cases to the Austin Division. Judge Albright stayed the proceedings while weighing that motion, then narrowed the stay on September 28, 2022 to cover only the claim construction hearing, keeping other deadlines live (Law360 via Sterne Kessler). Counsel: Gibson Dunn & Crutcher (Brian M. Buroker, Paul E. Torchia, Nathan R. Curtis) for Dell; Kramer Day Alberti Lim Tonkovich & Belloli (David L. Alberti, Jerry Tice) and Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox (Jason A. Fitzsimmons, Richard M. Bemben, Michael D. Specht) for VideoLabs.

Why it's notable. Three things. First, IPR linkage: Dell filed three IPRs — IPR2022-00628 ('238), IPR2022-00629 ('878), and IPR2022-00701 ('059, filed March 17, 2022). On October 4, 2022 the PTAB denied institution in all three, holding that VideoLabs' patents were entitled to the April 15, 2002 Japanese priority date and that Dell's principal prior art (drafted H.264/JVT documents from May and August 2002) was therefore disqualified: "This priority showing is fatal to the Petition's obviousness showing." Dell sought rehearing and Precedential Opinion Panel review; Director Review was denied on September 29, 2023 (Unified Patents docket; Law360). Second, NPE assertion patterns: VideoLabs is a poster child for the "patent collective pivots to litigation" model, and this campaign extended well beyond Dell — Amazon (6:22-cv-00079, seven patents), Lions Gate/Starz (a Delaware declaratory-judgment action), Roku, Hisense, and TCL all appear in the related-case web. Third, industry/market context: the patents touch core H.264 codec functionality embedded in essentially every modern device, so the case sits at the intersection of standards-essential-adjacent licensing, codec patent pools (MPEG LA/Via LA, Access Advance, AOMedia), and OEM exposure for shipping any H.264-capable hardware.

Sourcing caveats

• The docket is closed per the case metadata, and the public snippets I could retrieve most reliably cover the IPRs, the venue/transfer fight, and 2023 merits activity (summary-judgment and Daubert-style motions on the consolidated docket). I could not independently verify the precise termination date, entry, or settlement terms specific to 6:21-cv-00932 from PACER in this session; I found a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice dated January 10, 2024 in a related VideoLabs v. Dell docket (1:23-cv-01366) covering the '878 and '238 patents, but I cannot confirm that same stipulation disposed of the '059 case (PatSnap summary). Treat any resolution detail for the '059 suit as unverified.
• There is a docket-number discrepancy across secondary sources: RPX and the IPR papers reference the Dell case as 6:21-cv-00456 (May 2021), while the metadata and the complaint analysis confirm 6:21-cv-00932 (Sept. 10, 2021) as the '059 case. The most consistent reading is two consolidated Dell suits; I've flagged both rather than treat them as one.
• The "NPE" characterization comes from Unified Patents' PTAB portal; some sources (e.g., a Benchmark Litigation bio) describe VideoLabs more neutrally as a patent "aggregator." Both are accurate descriptions of the same business model.

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

Let me dig deeper into the specific docket and the parallel litigation history.

I'm seeing multiple related VideoLabs v. Dell dockets. Let me pin down the specific docket and the related cases.

Scope note before the chronology

The docket in the prompt — VideoLabs, Inc. v. Dell Technologies Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00932-ADA (W.D. Tex., filed 2021-09-10, '059 patent) — is one member of a family of VideoLabs–Dell suits in the Western District of Texas, all before Chief Judge Alan D. Albright, and the public reporting generally treats them collectively ("the consolidated cases"). I flag below where a fact is attributable to the sibling docket (6:21-cv-00456, the May 2021 case, and Austin Case No. 1:23-cv-01366) rather than to 6:21-cv-00932 itself, because the sources do not always separate them. Treat docket-entry numbers in Section 5 as belonging to the Dell case file generally, not verified as filings in 6:21-cv-00932.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

Infringement theory pleaded in 6:21-cv-00932 (per complaint analysis):

• Accused functionality: CABAC as defined in the H.264 standard — i.e., a standard-compliance/necessary-practice theory.
• Accused products: Dell Latitude, Vostro, Inspiron, XPS laptops, tablets/2-in-1s, OptiPlex desktops, PowerEdge servers; representative product = Dell XPS 13 2-in-1 with Intel Iris Xe graphics ("H.264 Hardware Encode/Decode").
• The asserted claim 2 is an apparatus claim (receiving unit; demultiplexing unit; arithmetic decoding unit; a "second switching unit" that switches probability tables in a "predetermined one direction" and does not switch in the opposite direction "regardless of the result of the comparison"; audio decoding unit).
• VideoLabs expressly reserved the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶15).

Answer/counterclaims: I could not locate a primary source identifying the answer date, affirmative defenses, or Dell's counterclaims in 6:21-cv-00932. The defensible inference from the later record is that Dell pleaded non-infringement and invalidity and, subsequently, an express-license defense (a motion for summary judgment on express license was filed in 2023 — Section 5). Any specific counterclaim counts or filing dates would need PACER confirmation; I won't state them as fact.

---

2. Parallel PTAB proceedings (filed spring 2022) — effectively the case's center of gravity

Dell filed three IPR petitions against the VideoLabs patents, all on Dell Inc./Dell Technologies Inc. behalf, all at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher (Brian M. Buroker, Paul E. Torchia, Nathan R. Curtis):

• Panels: APJs Karl D. Easthom, Jeffery S. Smith, Patrick M. Boucher; Tech Center 2600 / Art Unit 2624.
• Dell's '059 art included Schwarz et al., "Improved CABAC" (JVT-C060), the JVT-D015d5 draft H.264 markup, JP 2002-126029 and JP 2002-363107, U.S. 7,062,758, and the '528 prosecution history, supported by the Schonfeld declaration.
• 2022-10-04 — institution DENIED on the merits in all three IPRs. The Board credited VideoLabs' priority claim to the 2002-04-15 Japanese application (JP 2002-126029) and found Dell's principal references (dated May and August 2002) disqualified as prior art: "This priority showing is fatal to the Petition's obviousness showing." Dell's written-description attack on the audio demultiplex/decode element was rejected on VideoLabs' expert testimony.
• Status of IPR2022-00701: "Not Instituted – Merits." Dell filed a request for rehearing; I found no public record of Director review or reversal. (Law360, 2022-10-05, via Sterne Kessler)
• VideoLabs PTAB counsel: Jason A. Fitzsimmons, Richard M. Bemben, Michael D. Specht (Sterne Kessler); David L. Alberti, Jerry Tice (Kramer Alberti).

Strategic effect: the IPRs ended quickly and badly for Dell — the priority holding insulated the '059 (and '238/'878) family from the JVT/improved-CABAC art, foreclosing Dell's strongest invalidity path and strengthening VideoLabs' settlement leverage.

---

3. Venue fight and stays (2022)

• VideoLabs filed in the Waco Division; Dell moved to transfer to the Austin Division.
• Judge Albright stayed the consolidated cases — initially including the claim construction hearing — while the transfer motion was pending.
• 2022-09-28 order: Albright modified the stay so that it applied only to the claim construction (Markman) hearing, leaving all other case deadlines running. (Law360, 2022-10-05)
• The case(s) were later transferred to the Austin Division (see Section 6).

No Rule 12(b) dismissal, § 101 motion, or stay-pending-IPR grant is documented in the sources I could reach; notably, the district court did not stay the case pending the IPRs — it stayed only for the transfer motion and, briefly, the Markman hearing. Principal pretrial relief came by summary judgment motions and Daubert/exclusion motions in 2023.

---

4. Claim construction

• I could not locate a Markman opinion or claim-construction order in the Dell dockets. Because the transfer stay touched the claim construction hearing and the cases resolved in January 2024, the most likely picture is that Markman was continued/overtaken by the dispositive motions and settlement — but I cannot state that as fact.
• The '059 disputed terms are documented in the parallel Amazon case, No. 6:22-cv-00079-ADA-DTG (Joint Claim Construction Statement / VideoLabs' Responsive Claim Construction Brief):
  1. "to switch between the plurality of probability tables in a predetermined one direction" / "the switching … is performed in a predetermined one direction" ('059 claims)
  2. "an audio coding unit configured to code an audio signal" / "an audio decoding unit configured to decode audio data" ('059 claims 1–4) — Amazon contended § 112(f) and indefiniteness; VideoLabs contended no construction necessary, alternatively structures = voice processing unit (ex305) and equivalents.
• VideoLabs' responsive brief in that Amazon/IPR-related filing cites VideoLabs, Inc. v. Dell Techs., Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00456-ADA — confirming the Dell '456 case was a live claim-construction vehicle. (ptacts.uspto.gov filing 1553657)

---

5. Discovery milestones and dispositive motions (2023)

Docket activity in the VideoLabs–Dell consolidated file (Patexia docket for VideoLabs, Inc. v. Dell Technologies Inc. et al, case id 152123) shows an intensive 2023 merits phase:

Strategically, the express-license MSJ signals Dell's core theory was that a prior license (through Dell's own or a supplier's arrangements, plausibly a Panasonic/MPEG-LA-style license or an Intel/chipset-level license) already exhausted or licensed the accused codec functionality — a defense that, if credited, would have defeated the H.264/CABAC standard-practice theory wholesale, rather than on a product-by-product basis.

No public ruling on these motions is available. The case terminated by stipulation before resolution (Section 6). (Patexia docket, case id 152123)

---

6. Trial setting, disposition, and present posture

• The case(s) were transferred from Waco to the Austin Division pursuant to court request and joint agreement of the parties, preserving all pretrial rulings, for a pretrial conference on 2024-01-05 and trial commencing 2024-01-22, before Judge Albright (recorded termination basis on that docket: "Case Transferred"). (PatSnap litigation summary, W.D. Tex. docket)
• 2024-01-10 — the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), "with each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees," recorded in W.D. Tex. Case No. 1:23-cv-01366 (asserting the '878 and '238 picture-coding patents). (PACER docket quoted by PatSnap)
• No verdict, no JMOL/new-trial or fee motion, no merits judgment, no damages award, and no appeal. The dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication barring re-assertion of those claims against Dell; the absence of disclosed terms is consistent with a confidential settlement agreement running alongside the public filing.

Docket-number caution: the 982-day interval from the 2021-05-03 first filing to the 2024-01-10 dismissal matches the PatSnap narrative, but the dismissal is recorded under 1:23-cv-01366 (a 2023 Austin case number), not under 6:21-cv-00932. Either (a) the Waco case was re-docketed under a new Austin number when transferred in 2023, or (b) VideoLabs refiled/repleaded in Austin and the 2021 cases were resolved separately. I could not verify which, and this is the single largest open question in the chronology. The prompt's "closed" status for 6:21-cv-00932 is consistent with the 2024 dismissal.

Present posture: terminated; no live district court or Federal Circuit activity on this docket identified.

---

7. Related and parallel proceedings (context)

• Amazon, No. 6:22-cv-00079-ADA (filed 2022-02) — seven patents including the '059 ('156, '682, '559, '238, '059, '878, '794); the principal source of public '059 claim-construction briefing. (Mondaq, 2022-03-17)
• ITC complaint (filed 2022-07) against Acer, ASUSTek, Lenovo/Motorola, MSI on four patents, alongside same-day WDTX suits. (Mondaq, 2022-07-26)
• Other '059 assertions: Hisense (E.D. Tex., 2:24-cv-00904), TCL, Roku — the Hisense complaint states VideoLabs notified Hisense on 2022-12-27 and that the '059 patent had expired before that filing, which explains why VideoLabs' post-2023 campaign on the '059 is backward-looking (damages only, no injunction).
• Predecessor enforcement: prior assignee Optis Wireless Technology asserted the same family against Huawei, obtaining a $13.2M infringement judgment before an April 2020 settlement. (Law360, 2022-10-05)
• VideoLabs' funding/strategy: Bardin Hill (f/k/a Halcyon) and Soryn IP Group (litigation funder) as Series A investors; CEO Joe Chernesky; the collective-to-assertion pivot is documented in IAM. (Mondaq, 2022-03-17)

---

Bottom line

VideoLabs' Dell campaign was won at the PTAB, not at trial: on 2022-10-04 the Board denied institution of all three Dell IPRs because VideoLabs established 2002-04-15 Japanese priority, disqualifying Dell's JVT/improved-CABAC prior art — which knocked out Dell's invalidity case. In district court, Dell's counterweight was a 2023 summary-judgment package (invalidity, non-infringement, express license) plus Daubert/strike motions and case narrowing, with trial set for 2024-01-22 in Austin. Before any ruling or verdict, the parties stipulated to dismissal with prejudice on 2024-01-10, each bearing its own fees and costs, with no disclosed consideration — the case is closed, with no appeal.

Key sourcing gaps to close via PACER: (1) the docket sheet and answer/counterclaims in 6:21-cv-00932 itself; (2) the 2022-09-28 stay order and any transfer order text; (3) whether any Markman order issued in the Dell cases; (4) rulings on the three 2023 summary judgment motions; and (5) the docket-sheet relationship between 6:21-cv-00456 / 6:21-cv-00932 and 1:23-cv-01366.

I'll search for press coverage from multiple angles.

Let me search for more specific press coverage.

Let me search for trade-press coverage specifically.

Press and analysis coverage — what I found

Bottom line: mainstream and general-technology press coverage of this specific docket is essentially nonexistent. I ran searches on the caption ("VideoLabs v. Dell Technologies"), the plaintiff/defendant pairing plus "H.264" and "Waco," the patent number 7,970,059, and the settlement, and did not surface a single Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Ars Technica, The Verge, CNET, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, or EFF article about VideoLabs v. Dell or the '059 patent. What exists is (a) legal trade press pegged to the parallel PTAB proceedings, and (b) patent-analytics/marketing content from IP data vendors. Neither reports a verdict, a damages figure, or settlement terms. I'll summarize each accurately and flag its nature.

The one genuinely reported news item is the PTAB decision, not the district court case. Law360 (by Britain Eakin, with additional reporting by Cara Salvatore, October 5, 2022, 6:52 PM EDT) reported that the PTAB "denied petitions from Dell Inc. challenging three video coding and decoding patents that a patent licensing company accused it of infringing, with the board disqualifying Dell's prior art." Law360 explained that the Board credited VideoLabs' April 15, 2002 Japanese priority date over Dell's May and August 2002 JVT references, quoting the Board's line that "[t]his priority showing is fatal to the Petition's obviousness showing," and describing the outcome as "a blow to Dell's attempts to fight off infringement suits over the patents, which were originally issued to Panasonic." Law360 also noted the venue posture that Section 3 of the case summary already covers — that Judge Albright stayed the consolidated cases pending Dell's transfer motion and then "modified the stay last week, saying in a Sept. 28 order that the stay only applies to the claim construction hearing and no other case deadlines." It pegged the district court suits as filed in May 2021, and listed the three patents as 7,769,238; 8,139,878; and 7,970,059 — consistent with the family/consolidation framing in the earlier sections. (Note that this Law360 story is hosted on Sterne Kessler's site, which represented VideoLabs — the copy is verbatim Law360 but the host is a party's counsel.)

The most substantive independent analysis of the campaign's business context came from RPX, republished by Mondaq on March 17, 2022. Under the headline "Patent Collective Turned Plaintiff VideoLabs Expands Campaign, Sues Amazon," RPX characterized the Dell dispute as one of the "prior affirmative disputes consolidated in the same district, also before District Judge Alan D. Albright, with Dell," and reported that it "remains in early stages." RPX confirmed that the '238, '059, and '878 patents were all in suit against Dell, and reported VideoLabs' pleaded self-description as "founded in 2018 as part of an industry-sponsored and funded effort to reduce the cost and risk of technological gridlock associated with diverse patent ownership." Crucially, RPX relayed an IAM interview with VideoLabs Senior VP Ira Blumberg — I could not retrieve the underlying IAM article itself — in which Blumberg attributed the collapse of the membership model to insufficient industry support ("not the least of which was covid") and said "the company was forced to take a more aggressive approach" given its obligation to repay investors Bardin Hill and Soryn IP Group. That is reporting that goes beyond the court record into motive, and it lines up with the plaintiff-background material in the case overview.

A second layer of "coverage" is vendor analytics content, not journalism, and should be treated as such. PatSnap published two AI-generated "litigation blog" entries on the VideoLabs–Dell dispute. One quotes the January 10, 2024 joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice from 1:23-cv-01366 verbatim ("with each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees") and correctly caveats that "[t]he absence of any disclosed financial terms is consistent with a confidential settlement agreement," while warning that the "with-prejudice designation... extinguishes VideoLabs' right to sue Dell." Its companion piece states that Dell's "legal spend over 982 days in this venue is likely to have been substantial," that the pair of picture-coding patents "survived 919 days of pretrial proceedings and advanced to a January 2024 trial," and that the transfer was "made pursuant to the Court's request and by joint agreement of the parties." These are the vendor's inferences from a docket, not reported facts, and its "$982 days"/"919 days" framing also contains a number-and-duration conflation I would not repeat as fact. I found no press account confirming whether the '059 case itself settled on the same terms, which remains the open question flagged in the earlier sections.

What no outlet reported: no published damages demand or figure for the '059 in the Dell case; no announced settlement amount; no verdict; no executive statement from Dell; and no industry reaction beyond the RPX/IAM framing of VideoLabs' collective-to-litigator pivot. The only dollar figure that appears in coverage of this patent family — the $13.2 million judgment against Huawei obtained by prior assignee Optis Wireless Technology before an April 2020 settlement — was reported by Law360 (Oct. 5, 2022) in the course of describing the patents' enforcement history, not as any measure of the '059/Dell case. If a synthetic "press summary" of this matter is needed, it should be built on the Law360 PTAB story and the RPX/Mondaq campaign analysis, with the analytics-vendor posts cited only as vendor content. Two hours of additional searching did not change the picture: the Dell '059 litigation appears to have resolved under the radar, with the reporting concentrated on the PTAB priority ruling that effectively decided the invalidity fight.

Sources

• '238 patent

  U

• UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION
• Because the claims provide insufficient structure for performing the claimed functions, the specification must describe an algor...
• IPR2022-00701 - Dell Technologies Inc et al. v. Videolabs Inc - IPR2022-00701 - Dell Technologies Inc et al. v. Videolabs IncReport Error
• 136. As a result of Hisense's direct and indirect infringement of the '238 patent, VideoLabs is entitled to monetary damages in ...
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION
• Case 1:22-cv-00680-JHS Document 35 Filed 04/22/24 Page 1 of 21 PagelD #: 3261
• Case 6:23-cv-00641-DTG Document 74 Filed 08/02/24 Page 1 of 16
• PTAB Rejects Dell’s Challenges to 3 Video Tech Patents - By Britain Eakin
• VideoLabs v. Dell Technologies — Video Codec Patent Infringement Dispute | PatSnap - Your Agentic AI Partner
• VideoLabs v. Dell Technologies — Picture Coding Patent Transfer | PatSnap - Your Agentic AI Partner
• UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION

I'll research VideoLabs' plaintiff-side counsel, building on the defendant-side and IPR findings already established.

Let me look for the actual docket sheet and the complaint signature block for 6:21-cv-00932.

Plaintiff-side counsel of record — VideoLabs, Inc. (W.D. Tex. No. 6:21-cv-00932)

Sourcing caveat (read first). The docket for 6:21-cv-00932 is closed and I could not pull a live PACER docket sheet or the attorney-appearance entries for that specific case number in this session. The '059 case was consolidated with 6:21-cv-00456 (confirmed: Dell's IPR2022-00629 petition states No. 6:21-cv-00932 was "consolidated with No. 6:21-cv-00456"), and the public filings I can reach are captioned in the consolidated VideoLabs–Dell W.D. Tex. matter (Patexia law-suit id 152123). No merits opinion naming counsel exists — the case terminated by transfer/stipulation. Accordingly: names below are drawn from (a) the Law360 IPR report naming VideoLabs' counsel verbatim, (b) consolidated-docket filing-by-filing entries in the 2023 merits phase, and (c) a litigation-analytics counsel table derived from PACER. Items marked "unverified" should be confirmed by docket pull before use.

Plaintiff. VideoLabs, Inc. (Delaware corp., principal place of business Palo Alto, CA). In the companion case, VL Collective IP LLC appeared as a co-plaintiff; the '059 complaint in 6:21-cv-00932 named VideoLabs, Inc. alone.

---

A. District court counsel — VideoLabs' principal trial team

The consolidated Dell matter was prosecuted by Kramer Day Alberti Lim Tonkovich & Belloli LLP ("Kramer Alberti"), a Bay Area patent-boutique, with Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox PLLC acting on the PTAB/post-grant side.

Sources: Law360, "PTAB Rejects Dell's Challenges to 3 Video Tech Patents," Oct. 5, 2022: "VideoLabs is represented by David L. Alberti and Jerry Tice of Kramer Day Alberti Lim Tonkovich & Belloli LLP…"; Patexia docket, VideoLabs, Inc. v. Dell Technologies Inc. et al, id 152123 (D.I. 190, 196, 224 entries).

B. PTAB-side counsel for VideoLabs (parallel IPRs on the '059 family)

These attorneys are confirmed as VideoLabs' counsel in IPR2022-00701 ('059), IPR2022-00628 ('238), and IPR2022-00629 ('878) — the proceedings that effectively decided the Dell fight. I could not verify that any of them entered an appearance in 6:21-cv-00932; the Law360 report updated its counsel line specifically with this PTAB team. However, the Aug. 2023 withdrawal of four Kramer Alberti lawyers and the absence of any Kramer Alberti entry after that date is consistent (not proof) with Sterne Kessler assuming the remaining district court work.

C. Local counsel

No W.D. Tex. local counsel is confirmed for the Dell matter in my sources. Two notes: (1) Jerry D. Tice II holds a Texas State Bar number (24093263), which may explain a slim local-counsel footprint; (2) for comparison, in the parallel VideoLabs v. HP case (6:23-cv-00641-DTG, Waco) VideoLabs' local counsel was Max (Massimo) Ciccarelli, Ciccarelli Law Firm LLC, 100 N. 6th Street, Waco, TX, with Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP (William D. Belanger et al.) as lead — but that is a different case and different counsel, not evidence about the Dell docket.

D. Attorneys I would flag as likely not Dell-case counsel

Wesley White (and, in earlier sections, the Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP team — Christine Lehman, Jaime Cardenas-Navia, Taylor Mauze) appear in VideoLabs' Delaware Starz/StarzPlay and Netflix/Meta/Apple litigations, not the Dell '059 docket. If a "[Reichman Jorgensen]" name appears in a Dell-related counsel table, I'd verify it against the docket before relying on it — VideoLabs used different firms in different campaigns.

---

What remains to be verified (and how)

1. The complaint signature block and Dell-side answer in 6:21-cv-00932 — who actually signed the Sept. 10, 2021 complaint. Not in my retrievable sources.
2. Whether Sterne Kessler entered a district court appearance. Confirmed only for the IPRs.
3. Local counsel. W

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

I have a candidate counsel list. Let me verify firm affiliations and docket appearances.

Sourcing caveat (read first)

I could not pull a live PACER docket sheet or the specific attorney-appearance entries for 6:21-cv-00932 in the searches available to me. The case is closed (terminated by transfer to the court's Austin Division), and the public docket analytics I retrieved for the VideoLabs–Dell W.D. Tex. matters listed defendant-side counsel at the matter level, without mapping each name to a specific firm or to a specific docket entry in 6:21-cv-00932.

Two consequences for the list below:

1. Individual attorney → firm assignments are confirmed only for the Gibson Dunn team that Law360 identified in the three parallel Dell IPRs on the '059 patent (IPR2022-00701, IPR2022-00628, IPR2022-00629). Other firm assignments are inferred/attenuated and flagged.
2. VideoLabs asserted other patents (e.g., U.S. 8,139,878 and 7,769,238) against Dell in companion W.D. Tex. matters that were consolidated for pretrial purposes. The aggregated counsel list below may therefore include attorneys who appeared only in those companion dockets, not in 6:21-cv-00932 itself.

Please treat this as a research lead, not a substitute for a docket pull before any filing or client representation.

---

Defendant-side firms listed of record

---

Attorneys

A. Gibson Dunn team confirmed in the parallel PTAB proceedings (Law360, Oct. 5, 2022)

Source: Law360 report (via Sterne Kessler news page), "PTAB Rejects Dell's Challenges to 3 Video Tech Patents," Oct. 5, 2022 — "Dell is represented by Brian M. Buroker, Paul E. Torchia and Nathan R. Curtis of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP."

B. Additional Dell-side counsel listed in the VideoLabs–Dell W.D. Tex. litigation analytics

The database lists the following as "Counsel for Dell Technologies, Inc." It did not map them to a firm, so firm affiliations below marked "not verified" come from my own background knowledge and should be confirmed on the docket.

Source: aggregated litigation-analytics record for VideoLabs, Inc. v. Dell Technologies, Inc., W.D. Tex. (Dell-side counsel and firms), cross-checked where possible against the Law360 IPR report.

---

What I could not confirm

• Docket-entry specificity. I could not confirm which of the attorneys in Section B filed an appearance in 6:21-cv-00932 as opposed to a companion consolidated VideoLabs–Dell case. There is no merits opinion in this case; termination is recorded as a transfer (matter moved to the Austin Division), so there may be no substantive opinion naming counsel.
• In-house counsel names. Dell is listed as a representing entity, but no individual in-house attorney name is available in my sources.
• Sealed filings. I found no indication that the counsel list is sealed; the gap is a function of limited public docket detail for a closed/transferred case, not a sealing order.
• Office locations for Torchia, Curtis, Parks, Segal, Brown, Dominguez, Corbin, Vincent, Yang and Shelton.

Recommended verification: pull the 6:21-cv-00932 docket sheet from PACER (Dell's answer, corporate disclosure statement, and any pro hac vice motions list appearing counsel and firms), then cross-check against the transferred Austin Division case number.