VideoLabs, Inc. v. Netflix, Inc.

I'll research this case thoroughly before drafting the overview.

Let me dig into the procedural history, the stay, and the Federal Circuit appeal.

Let me verify the stay order, the judge assignment, and the outcomes of the parallel appeals.

Parties and the Nature of the Dispute

VideoLabs, Inc. (a Delaware corporation headquartered in Palo Alto, CA) and its subsidiary VL Collective IP LLC are the plaintiffs. VideoLabs is not an operating company in the traditional sense; it is a self-described "industry-sponsored patent collective" founded in 2018/2019 that aggregates video-technology patents and licenses them to members, with original assignees including Nokia, Alcatel-Lucent, Siemens, Swisscom, 3Com, HP/Aruba, Panasonic, LG and Samsung (VideoLabs launch release, videolabsinc.com; complaint, D.I. 1 at 3–5). Its portfolio is held across the two entities, and its Series A was funded by Soryn IP Group and Bardin Hill Investment Partners. Unified Patents classifies VideoLabs in its PTAB database as an NPE/PAE; the company disputes the label, positioning itself as a "platform" that clears patent risk for members and provides "fair and just compensation" to innovators. Defendant Netflix, Inc. is a Delaware-incorporated, publicly traded streaming-entertainment company headquartered in Los Gatos, CA, operating the streaming service that VideoLabs alleged had "over 213 million subscribers" at filing. The complaint framed the dispute as a licensing negotiation gone wrong: VideoLabs alleged it offered Netflix membership/NDA-protected discussions, while Netflix allegedly demanded an indefinite covenant not to sue, then stopped responding (D.I. 1 at 3–4).

Accused Technology and Asserted Patents

The accused product is Netflix's streaming platform and its backend infrastructure — specifically the aspects VideoLabs alleged cover "the provisioning of content, content delivery, encoding, and synchronizing different forms of media" (Willkie client release, Oct. 29, 2024). The original complaint (filed Feb. 23, 2022) and the First Amended Complaint (D.I. 11, May 6, 2022) asserted four patents: U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,139,878; 7,440,559; 7,233,790; and 8,605,794. The case metadata for the present posture identifies the '790 and '559 as the operative patents at issue:

• U.S. Pat. No. 7,233,790 — "Device Capability Based Discovery, Packaging and Provisioning of Content for Wireless Mobile Devices" (issued June 19, 2007; original assignee Openwave Systems, the company later renamed Unwired Planet; the '790 was previously asserted against Apple in Unwired Planet's campaigns). Technical sketch: a server-side product catalog storing multiple "implementations" of each content item keyed to different device capabilities, so content is decoupled from its packaging/provisioning and a device is shown only a single catalog description per item (see D. Del. opinion, 22-229.pdf; PTAB FWD, IPR2023-00628).
• U.S. Pat. No. 7,440,559 — "System and Associated Terminal, Method and Computer Program Product for Controlling the Flow of Content" (issued Oct. 21, 2008; original assignee Nokia). Technical sketch: a content flow manager that receives terminal status information (and, in some embodiments, server status) and sends the terminal a response "instruct[ing]" actions that control the flow of multimedia content (Fed. Cir. opinion excerpt, VL Collective IP v. Netflix; IPWatchdog, Aug. 10, 2026).

The other two asserted patents round out the theory: the '878 patent and the '794 patent (owned by VL Collective IP; directed to synchronizing data segments and referencing MPEG-1 — see Unified Patents, Dec. 19, 2023).

Procedural Posture, Venue, and Why the Case Matters

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, Wilmington Division (No. 1:22-cv-00229), the case initially sat with Chief Judge Colm F. Connolly (early pro hac vice orders) before the merits opinion of May 14, 2024 (D.I. 39) was issued by Judge Joel H. Slomsky, a visiting judge from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (ded.uscourts.gov opinion page; Docket Alarm). Judge Slomsky denied Netflix's partial motion to dismiss (D.I. 15, filed June 10, 2022) under Alice, holding the '790, '559 and '794 claims sufficient at the pleading stage — rejecting Netflix's analogy to Affinity Labs v. Amazon and relying on SRI Int'l v. Cisco and the "improvement to computer functionality" line of authority (D.I. 39). Delaware was a natural venue (both parties are Delaware corporations; Netflix registered to do business there), and the case was filed in the same period as Judge Connolly's high-profile scrutiny of NPE standing and third-party litigation funding. Netflix responded with three IPRs filed Feb. 23, 2023 — IPR2023-00628 ('790), IPR2023-00630 ('559), and a third against the '794 — all instituted Oct. 3, 2023, after which the court stayed the district case (Willkie release). In the Oct. 2, 2024 final written decisions, the PTAB (Judges Smith, White, Belisle) found all 14 claims of the '790 and all 24 claims of the '559 unpatentable; a third FWD on Jan. 7, 2025 invalidated all 22 claims of the '794. VideoLabs appealed on Oct. 25, 2024; the Federal Circuit affirmed the '790 decision by Rule 36 judgment in Appeal No. 2025-1131 (entered May 12, 2026), and a separate appeal of the '559 FWD was also affirmed (opinion reported by IPWatchdog on Aug. 10, 2026, rejecting VideoLabs' narrowing constructions of "instructs" and "response"). The case is notable on several axes: it illustrates the IPR-first defense playbook against NPE streaming assertions (a stay plus complete PTAB invalidation); it implicates the pitched debate over "patent collective"/privateer licensing models and litigation funding; it is one front in VideoLabs' multi-defendant video-codec and streaming campaign (parallel cases against Roku (1:23-cv-01136, also stayed; Roku's IPR2025-00071/-00072 later settled), Amazon, and Starz Entertainment, LLC v. VL Collective IP, LLC, No. 1:21-cv-01448-JLH, D. Del., where the '790 was also at issue per the Federal Circuit's Statement of Related Cases); and it intersects with Unified Patents' SEP Video Codec Zone campaign against the '794. It also carried an unusual wrinkle: an ex parte reexamination of the '790 (Control No. 90/015,063, filed June 23, 2022) ran concurrently with the IPRs, and the Board noted VideoLabs did not disclose it in its mandatory notices until its preliminary response (IPR2023-00628 record).

Sourcing caveats: The specific district-court docket entry numbers for the stay order, and the reason for the reassignment from Judge Connolly to Judge Slomsky, are not confirmed in the materials I could verify — I state those as gaps rather than facts. Likewise, Netflix's Delaware/local counsel and VideoLabs' full Delaware-side team are only partially sourced (Willkie — Carrano and Sowers; plaintiffs' counsel per PHV motions and the Fed. Cir. judgment — Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP, incl. Christine Lehman, Jaime Cardenas-Navia, Michael Matulewicz-Crowley, and others). Patent-ownership captions vary between VideoLabs, Inc. and VL Collective IP LLC across the IPRs and appeals, reflecting the two-entity structure.

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the docket and the PTAB proceedings.

Good, I have substantial leads, including post-2024 developments. Let me dig into the docket history and the appeals.

Let me pin down the docket events and the PTAB/appeal specifics.

VideoLabs, Inc. v. Netflix, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00229 (D. Del.) — Key Legal Developments, Chronologically

Bottom line: This case never reached Markman, expert discovery, or trial. It was a "file-and-stay" campaign that Netflix won at the PTAB: three parallel IPRs killed the '790, '559, and '794 patents, and the Federal Circuit affirmed all three in 2026. The district court action has remained stayed, with no verdict, no JMOL, no fee motion, and no reported settlement.

---

1. Parties and patents

---

2. Chronology

Phase I — Pleadings and the § 101 motion (2022)

• 2022-02-23 — Complaint filed (D.I. 1). VideoLabs frames itself as an industry-sponsored licensing platform ("VideoLabs platform") and pleads Netflix's refusal to take a license. Pleaded infringement of the '878, '559, and '790 patents. (Docket Alarm, D.I. 1)
• 2022-05-06 — Amended complaint (FAC, D.I. 11), asserting four patents-in-suit (adding the '794).
• 2022-06-10 — Netflix's Partial Motion to Dismiss (D.I. 15) under Rule 12(b)(6): (i) § 101/Alice ineligibility of the '790, '559, and '794 patents; and (ii) dismissal of the indirect- and willful-infringement theories for inadequate pleading of pre-suit knowledge.
• 2022-06-24 — VideoLabs' opposition (D.I. 17/18), arguing the asserted claims are directed to concrete technical improvements (DDR Holdings, SRI Int'l), and that Netflix had not shown the challenged claims were representative. (PTAB exhibit copy)
• Not located: the docketed answer/counterclaims. Because Netflix's Rule 12(b)(6) motion was partial, an answer (very likely with declaratory-judgment counterclaims of non-infringement/invalidity, standard in D. Del.) must have been filed at some point, but the filing date and D.I. number are not confirmed by any source I could retrieve. Treat this as a gap rather than a documented event.

Phase II — Netflix goes to the PTAB; the district case is stayed (2023–2024)

• 2023-02-23 — Netflix files three separate IPR petitions against three of the four asserted patents, one year after service of the complaint (IPR2023-00628 on the '790; IPR2023-00630 on the '559; and a third on the '794 — the third proceeding number is not confirmed in the sources I found, though Willkie's release cites "IPR2023-00628, -00630"). (GreyB/IPVerse IPR2023-00628)
• 2023-08-02 — Netflix files updated mandatory notices in the '790 IPR listing related matters, including Starz Entertainment, LLC v. VL Collective IP, LLC, No. 1:21-cv-01448 (D. Del.) — the same '790 patent was being litigated in parallel. (PTAB filing)
• 2023-10-03 — PTAB institutes all three IPRs (Institution Decision, IPR2023-00630, and corresponding decisions in -00628 and the '794 proceeding). Panel: Judges Smith, White, and Belisle.
• ~late 2023 / 2024 — Netflix moves to stay the district court litigation pending the IPRs; the court grants the stay. Willkie confirms the stay was granted after institution: "With the IPRs going forward, Willkie moved to stay the district court litigation, which the court granted." (Willkie, 2024-10-29) ⚠️ The exact stay order date and D.I. number are not confirmed by the sources retrieved — this is the single most important unresolved docket fact.
• 2024-05-14 — Memorandum opinion and order on the partial motion to dismiss (D.I. 39) by Judge Slomsky, denying Netflix's motion in full:
  • '790: Count III not dismissed (claims 1–4 survived the § 101 challenge at the pleading stage);
  • '559: claim 1 held patent-eligible at Alice step one (analogized to SRI Int'l — "an intermediate content flow manager server" departing from the conventional "pull" model), so the court did not reach Alice step two;
  • '794: likewise held eligible.
  • (D. Del. opinion PDF; Justia copy, Doc. 39)
  • Practical note: the three-year gap between the 2022-06-10 motion and the 2024-05-14 ruling, and the substitution of Judge Slomsky for Judge Connolly, indicate reassignment/reassignment-adjacent delay. The reason for the reassignment is not documented in the sources I found.
• No Markman. No claim construction order, Markman hearing, or claim-construction joint statement appears in any source; the case was stayed before claim construction. All claim-construction activity in this dispute occurred in the IPRs and on appeal (see § 3).
• No transfer motion. Despite Netflix being a California-headquartered company, I found no § 1404(a) motion to transfer to the N.D. Cal. or any venue ruling. The case stayed in Delaware.
• No substantive discovery milestones are reported (no discovery-dispute rulings, no case-dispositive summary-judgment practice). The stay froze the case before fact-discovery disputes of strategic significance arose.

Phase III — The PTAB invalidates all three patents (2024–2025)

• 2024-10 (termination date 2024-10-02 per IPVerse) — Final Written Decision in IPR2023-00628: all 14 claims of the '790 patent unpatentable (anticipation by Mehta; alternative obviousness over Mehta + Schläpfer).
• 2024-10 (FWD announced 2024-10-29) — Final Written Decision in IPR2023-00630: all 24 claims of the '559 patent unpatentable on all three grounds — anticipation by Cassin; obviousness over Cassin + Huston; and obviousness over Huston alone.
• 2024-10-10 — Oral hearing in the third IPR (the '794).
• 2025-01-07 — Final Written Decision on the '794: all 22 claims unpatentable — the third VideoLabs patent invalidated by Netflix. (Willkie, 2025-01-09)
• Combined PTAB result: 60 claims across three asserted patents cancelled, with the Board siding with Netflix "on every issue for every claim for each invalidity ground." Because these are IPR final written decisions, § 315(e) estoppel attached to Netflix and, more importantly, the cancelled claims could no longer be maintained against Netflix in Delaware.

Phase IV — Federal Circuit appeals: Netflix affirms across the board (2026)

What the Federal Circuit rejected:

• '790 appeal (25-1131). VideoLabs argued the Board wrongly refused to import a two-layer "hierarchical" item→implementation relationship (Figs. 5–6) into the product-catalog claims, and that the Board failed to enforce the "only a single description" limitation (including an APA/procedural attack on Netflix's reply-brief evidence and a Magnum Oil-type complaint that the petition never addressed Figures 2 and 11F of Mehta). Netflix answered that VideoLabs was seeking a "do-over" and that most arguments were forfeited because they were not raised below. The Rule 36 affirmance gives no reasoning, so no precedential claim-construction law emerged from the '790 appeal. (Netflix answering brief, Apr. 2025)
• '559 appeal. VideoLabs argued the Board implicitly construed "instructs" too broadly (should require an affirmative order/command) and that "a response to the content status" must be triggered by the terminal's status transmission (so Huston, which responds to new content at the origin server, would not qualify). The court disagreed — because claim 1 requires the processor to receive both terminal status and server status and to base the response on both, "nothing in the claims necessitates that 'response' means more than merely a communication sent after the terminal sends content status." Having affirmed on the Huston obviousness ground, the court found it unnecessary to reach the Cassin/"instructs" issue. (IPWatchdog, 2026-08-10)
• '794 appeal. Affirmance turned on forfeiture — a new argument raised for the first time on appeal — plus affirmance of the Board's invalidation.

Phase V — Present posture (as of 2026-09-10)

• The '790, '559, and '794 patents are cancelled claims confirmed on appeal; those patents are out of the case as to Netflix.
• The Delaware action remains stayed; there is no judgment, no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial motion, no fee motion, and no reported settlement or voluntary dismissal. The Federal Circuit's April 2025 statement of related cases still listed VideoLabs, Inc. v. Netflix Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00229-JHS as a pending district court action, which is the last docket-status confirmation I could locate.
• Open question: whether VideoLabs ever pressed the '878 patent (the only asserted patent not put into IPR) after the 2026 affirmances, or whether the parties stipulated to dismissal. Notably, VideoLabs did not petition for certiorari in any of the three appeals as far as I can determine, and netflix did not file a fee motion (it would be the prevailing party candidate for § 285 fees only if it obtained a district court judgment — which the stay framework avoided). ⚠️ No source confirms the current docket entry or whether the case has since been dismissed.

---

3. Parallel PTAB proceedings and their effect on the litigation

Litigation effects:

1. The stay. Institution of all three IPRs drove the district court stay, which eliminated the risk of a trial on patents that the Board was simultaneously invalidating — the classic VirtualAgility-style posture Willkie relied on.
2. No claim construction in Delaware. Because the case was stayed, the '790's "in association with"/"single description" and the '559's "response"/"instructs" terms were construed (or left unconstrued) by the Board and reviewed on appeal, not by Judge Slomsky.
3. Claim cancellation mooted the § 101 fight. The court's 2024-05-14 ruling that the '790, '559, and '794 were patent-eligible at the pleading stage was rendered practically irrelevant once all claims were cancelled; VideoLabs' only "win" in Delaware was procedural.
4. Collateral/parallel matters. The same '790 patent was also asserted in Starz Entertainment, LLC v. VL Collective IP, LLC, No. 1:21-cv-01448-JLH (D. Del.), where a stay was granted on 2024-01-18, and VideoLabs pursued Roku in No. 1:23-cv-01136-JHS (also before Judge Slomsky), with separate IPRs including IPR2024-01023/-01024/-01025 on the '236 patent. The Netflix IPRs therefore served as a template that VideoLabs' other targets replicated.

---

4. What did not happen (worth stating expressly)

• No answer/counterclaim ruling, no discovery-dispute orders, no summary judgment, no Markman, no Daubert, no trial, no verdict, no JMOL/new trial, no fee award, no settlement agreement, no consent judgment. The sources are consistent on this: the only merits ruling in the district court was the 2024-05-14 denial of the partial motion to dismiss, and the only merits losses were at the PTAB and the Federal Circuit.
• No transfer motion to N.D. Cal. is reflected anywhere.

5. Source confidence notes

• High confidence: filing date (2022-02-23), FAC (2022-05-06), partial MTD (2022-06-10), IPR filing date and institution (2023-02-23 / 2023-10-03), FWD outcomes and claim counts (14/24/22 claims), Willkie/Reichman Jorgensen as counsel, the 2024-05-14 opinion and its holdings, and the three 2026 Federal Circuit outcomes with the '790 Rule 36 date (2026-05-12) and the '559 decision date (2026-08-10).
• Medium confidence: that '794 FWD date is 2025-01-07 (Willkie's release says "On January 7, Willkie secured another win," and reports 22 claims); that the '790 FWD is dated 2024-10-02 (IPVerse "termination date"); that the fourth asserted patent is the '878 (inferred from the complaint's patents-in-suit sentence plus the fact that the MTD and all three IPRs covered '790/'559/'794).
• Unverified: the exact stay order date and D.I.; the answer/counterclaims filing; the third IPR number (likely IPR2023-00629, unconfirmed); the Federal Circuit docket numbers for the '794 and '559 appeals; and the current docket status of the Delaware case after the 2026 affirmances. A PACER pull of the 22-229 docket (looking for the stay order, the answer, and any post-2026 dismissal order) would close all of these gaps; I recommend treating those four items as "to be confirmed," not as findings.

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

Let me search additional outlets and angles.

Press and trade coverage of VideoLabs v. Netflix

Bottom line: Coverage of this case is confined to the legal/patent trade press and law-firm self-announcements. I found no reporting in Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Ars Technica, The Verge, or other mainstream or general-technology outlets on this dispute, and no reporting on any settlement, damages figure, or market impact.

Law360 maintains a case page for the litigation (VideoLabs, Inc. et al v. Netflix Inc., D. Del. 1:22-cv-00229) and reported on the one substantive district-court merits ruling: in a May 14, 2024 item, Law360 reported that "a federal judge on Tuesday rebuffed Netflix's attempt to invalidate several patents it has been accused of infringing, finding the ideas underlying the handful of decade-old tech patents are inventive enough to move the lawsuit forward" — i.e., Judge Slomsky's denial of Netflix's § 101 partial motion to dismiss. That framing (VideoLabs "winning" a round) is notable because it captures the only moment in the litigation when the press narrative favored VideoLabs; the coverage of everything that followed inverts it. Law360 also covered the appellate aftermath: Law360 (Elliot Weld, Feb. 20, 2026) reported that "The Federal Circuit on Friday upheld a decision by the Patent Trial and Review Board that most of the challenged claims in a VideoLabs Collective patent for synchronizing data are invalid, finding VideoLabs had forfeited its argument by raising it for the first time before the circuit." (The retrieved copy is a syndicated reprint on thelawyersweekly.ca; the byline and dateline are Law360's.)

The most detailed press account of the case is IPWatchdog (Rose Esfandiari, Aug. 10, 2026), which covered the Federal Circuit's affirmance of the '559 IPR decision at length — explaining that the court rejected VideoLabs' proposed narrowing of "instructs" (VideoLabs wanted "order, command, direct, [or] tell," versus the Board's implicit "trigger, prompt, or leave to the recipient's discretion") and its argument that the claimed "response to the content status" must be triggered by the terminal's status transmission. IPWatchdog quoted the panel's key line: "nothing in the claims necessitates that 'response' means more than merely a communication sent after the terminal sends content status." It also reported that the court affirmed on the Huston obviousness ground and therefore found it "unnecessary to reach VideoLabs' separate argument concerning the term 'instructs' and the Board's reliance on Cassin," noting that "VideoLabs' counsel had acknowledged during oral argument that affirmance on the Huston ground would moot the Cassin issue." Legal Era Online (Aug. 10, 2026) published what appears to be a near-verbatim aggregation of the same IPWatchdog report under the headline "PTAB win for Netflix affirmed by CAFC." Neither account discusses the district-court litigation's status, and neither reports any damages, settlement, or licensing number.

The remaining "coverage" is party-side public relations, which goes beyond the court record in framing but adds little independent fact: Willkie (Oct. 29, 2024) announced a "complete victory for Netflix," confirming that the PTAB instituted all three IPRs, that "Willkie moved to stay the district court litigation, which the court granted," and that the Board invalidated "all 14 claims of the '790 patent and all 24 claims of the '559 patent"; Willkie (Jan. 9, 2025) added that "On January 7, Willkie secured another win for client Netflix, invalidating US Patent No. 8,605,794," describing it as "the third VideoLabs patent." Separately, Haynes Boone (Feb. 24, 2026) announced that it "successfully represented Unified Patents" in the appeal of the '794 invalidation, which the Federal Circuit affirmed on Feb. 20, 2026 on forfeiture grounds, with the panel "find[ing] that the board's anticipation determination was supported by substantial evidence."

⚠️ Contradiction with the previously generated sections — flagging explicitly. The earlier "Key legal developments" section attributed the Feb. 20, 2026 affirmance of the '794 patent to a VideoLabs v. Netflix appeal. The press and firm releases indicate that the Feb. 20, 2026 '794 decision arose from Unified Patents' IPR challenge (Haynes Boone represented Unified, not Netflix), so it is a related-but-distinct appeal, not the Netflix '794 IPR appeal. Relatedly, the earlier section guessed the third Netflix IPR number was "likely IPR2023-00629"; the record materials I retrieved instead consistently pair the '794 Netflix IPR with IPR2023-00891 (e.g., Starz's invalidity contentions, listing "IPR2023-00628 … IPR2023-00630 … VL Collective IP, LLC, IPR2023-00891," and Netflix's PTAB powers of attorney). Finally, the docket caption/press confirm the '559 Federal Circuit appeal is No. 25-1132 (VL Collective IP, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., panel of Taranto, Schall, and Chen, nonprecedential, Schall authoring), which the earlier section had listed as the '794 appeal number. These should be corrected in the downstream sections.

Coverage gaps worth noting: No outlet reported the entry or terms of the district-court stay order (only Willkie's after-the-fact confirmation that a stay was granted); no outlet reported any damages demand, verdict, settlement, or license in this case; and I found no reporting on the current status of the stayed Delaware action after the 2026 affirmances, including whether the '878 patent (the one non-IPR'd patent) remains live. Industry roundups on VideoLabs' broader campaign exist — e.g., PTAB filings in the Roku litigation describe VideoLabs settling the Roku/ASUSTeK IPRs in December 2024 "less than three weeks after institution" — but those are litigation papers, not press coverage of this case.

Sources

• CAFC Affirms PTAB Win for Netflix - CAFC Affirms PTAB Win for Netflix
• VL COLLECTIVE IP, LLC, Appellant v. NETFLIX, INC., Appellee
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
• VL COLLECTIVE IP, LLC v. NETFLIX, INC. , No. 25-1132 (Fed. Cir. 2026) - VL COLLECTIVE IP, LLC v. NETFLIX, INC. , No. 25-1132 (Fed. Cir. 2026)
• NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential
• Claim 1 of the '794 Patent requires the use of an "assignment rule" to "sequentially output
• United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• intellectual property Archives - Posts Tagged: "intellectual property"
• Haynes Boone Secures Federal Circuit Affirmance for Unified Patents in PTAB Invalidation Appeal
• petitions—IPR2024-01023, IPR2024-01024, and IPR2024-01025 challenging the ’236 patent, and
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

I'll research the counsel of record for VideoLabs in this case.

Let me dig into the docket entries and verify counsel details.

Let me check the docket sheet and the Federal Circuit appeal for any counsel changes.

Plaintiffs' Counsel of Record — VideoLabs, Inc. et al. v. Netflix, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00229-CFC (D. Del.)

Bottom line: Two plaintiff entities are named in the D. Del. caption — VideoLabs, Inc. (Palo Alto, CA) and its subsidiary VL Collective IP, LLC — and they are represented by a two-firm team: the Delaware local counsel Farnan LLP and the national trial boutique Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP ("RJLF"), which serves as lead trial counsel. No in-house VideoLabs attorney has appeared on this docket as far as I can determine. (Note the case is stayed and the '790 and '559 patents have been invalidated at the PTAB, so this line-up reflects the last active phase of the litigation.)

Delaware local counsel — Farnan LLP (Wilmington, DE)

Lead / national counsel — Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP (RJLF)

In-house counsel

• None identified. No VideoLabs corporate/in-house attorney appears as counsel of record on the entries I could locate for this docket. If a VideoLabs in-house lawyer is directing the litigation, that has not been reflected in a notice of appearance that I can source.

Caveats and sourcing notes

• Sealed filings: I found no indication that plaintiffs' appearances or filings in this case are sealed; the counsel list above comes from publicly available filings and the public docket. That said, I could not retrieve a complete, continuously updated docket sheet for 2024–2026, so I cannot rule out a later substitution or withdrawal of counsel after the case was stayed. The most recent substantive plaintiffs' filings I could locate (the 2024 briefing on the partial motion to dismiss and the Alice opinion) still carry the Farnan/RJLF team.
• Firm name/address drift: Early filings read "Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP"; the firm (formerly Reichman Jorgensen LLP) adopted the Lehman/Feldberg names in 2020. Its Washington, D.C. address in the 2022 D. Del. filings was 1710 Rhode Island Ave. NW; by 2023 IPR filings it is 1909 K St. NW, Suite 800. Treat office locations as of the relevant filing date.
• Role labels: Only Lehman is expressly designated "lead counsel" in a formal role filing I located — and that designation is in the PTAB IPR papers, not the D. Del. docket. In D. Del., the firm designations of "lead" vs. "of counsel" are my characterization based on who argued/signed the principal briefs; the docket does not label them.
• Parallel PTAB work (same team, different forum): In the IPRs that invalidated the '790 and '559 patents (IPR2023-00628 and related), VideoLabs/Patent Owner's counsel of record was Christine E. Lehman (lead) and Michael J.X. Matulewicz-Crowley (back-up), with service to a case-specific RJLF address, RJ_VideoLabs-Netflix@reichmanjorgensen.com. Netflix's team was Willkie Farr & Gallagher (Aliza George Carrano, argued; associate Dane Sowers), so the VideoLabs–Netflix matchup was RJLF v. Willkie.
• Post-judgment appeal: The patents' invalidation was appealed to the Federal Circuit — VideoLabs, Inc. v. Netflix, Inc., No. 25-1131, and VL Collective IP, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., No. 25-1132 (briefing and argument in 2026). Plaintiff-side appellate counsel is expected to be RJLF, but I did not verify the Federal Circuit appearance list, so I am not naming individual appellate counsel.

Representative sources

• D.I. 18, VideoLabs' Response to Netflix's Partial Motion to Dismiss (June 24, 2022) — signature block listing Farnan LLP and RJLF attorneys (reproduced at https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1553657](/patent/1553657)/download-documents?artifactId=hgKZUBrmaC5X35dLW5qhm0J-gs5ZzYhgQ5VrqRtKhutDXs_TB9PjLGQ).
• Docket entries 9 and 13 (pro hac vice motions) and the 4/22/2022 and 6/3/2022 pro hac vice noticing entries, via the Justia docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/delaware/dedce/1:2022cv00229/78114.
• D. Del. opinion, VideoLabs, Inc. et al v. Netflix Inc., No. 22-229 (Judge Joel H. Slomsky, May 14, 2024): https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/opinions/22-229.pdf.
• PTAB papers identifying Patent Owner's lead/back-up counsel: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1553655](/patent/1553655)/download-documents?artifactId=mWiCUteXdQCM7zmg6ncqy0HGA47KD1mk4UIENo_1dMkJmu34oetJlnc.
• Willkie press release (Oct. 29, 2024) confirming the IPR outcomes and the Netflix-side team: https://www.willkie.com/news/2024/10/willkie-invalidates-two-patents-on-behalf-of-netflix.
• RJLF firm profile/bios (Chambers; firm news on the name change and the VideoLabs matters): https://chambers.com/law-firm/reichman-jorgensen-lehman-feldberg-llp-usa-5:23098223 and https://www.reichmanjorgensen.com/news-events/new-name.

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

Let me dig into the docket entries and identify Netflix's Delaware local counsel and the pro hac vice teams.

Now let me identify Netflix's Delaware local counsel of record.

Counsel of Record for Netflix, Inc. — VideoLabs, Inc. v. Netflix, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00229-CFC (D. Del.)

Sourcing caveat: The D. Del. docket in this case is public (no sealed appearances that I could find), but I did not pull PACER directly; the below is reconstructed from the docket mirror on Docket Alarm/Justia, the PTAB filings Netflix served on "counsel of record" (IPR2023-00628/-00630/-00891), the CAFC docket for Appeal No. 25-1131, and Willkie's own press releases. Because the case is stayed and the PTAB invalidated the '790 and '559 (affirmed without opinion at the Federal Circuit), the appearance list is essentially frozen as of the last substantive filings. Verify individual pro hac vice admissions against the docket sheet before relying on them.

Delaware local counsel — Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP (Wilmington, DE)

Authority: Netflix's Partial Motion to Dismiss (filed June 10, 2022, D.I. 15; brief filed as D.I. 16), signature block "MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP /s/ Jennifer Ying — Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014), Jennifer Ying (#5550) … Attorneys for Defendant Netflix Inc." (copy served in PTAB IPR2023-00628).

Lead / national counsel — Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP (and, from Nov. 2024, Covington & Burling LLP)

These attorneys were admitted pro hac vice by Netflix's motion at D.I. 14 (filed June 7, 2022; granted by Judge Connolly on June 8, 2022) and appear on Netflix's district-court motion papers:

In-house counsel

I found no Netflix in-house attorney entered as counsel of record in this matter. Netflix appeared exclusively through the Morris Nichols (Delaware) + Willkie (national) team; the PTAB mandatory notices likewise list only outside counsel from Willkie/Covington.

Practice notes and role allocation (as reflected in the record)

• Division of labor: Morris Nichols (Blumenfeld/Ying) handled Delaware filings and local practice, while Willkie ran the substantive defense — the June 10, 2022 partial motion to dismiss (D.I. 15) attacking the '790, '559 and '794 patents under § 101, which Judge Joel H. Slomsky (sitting by designation) addressed in a memorandum opinion dated May 14, 2024 (D. Del. opinion PDF, 22-229).
• Parallel PTAB work: The same Willkie team filed three IPRs (IPR2023-00628, -00630, -00891) and moved to stay the district court case; the PTAB invalidated the '790 and '559, which, per Willkie's Oct. 29, 2024 release, was described as a "complete victory." Netflix's IPR lead counsel listings were updated on Nov. 21, 2024 to reflect Mukerji's and Marshall's move to Covington & Burling — worth flagging if you are serving papers on the old Willkie addresses.
• Appeal: VideoLabs appealed to the Federal Circuit (No. 25-1131, filed Oct. 30, 2024). Netflix's appellee entry of appearance named Carrano, Freimuth, Edwards and Sowers. The court's docket shows oral argument audio (May 2026) and a Rule 36 judgment (nonprecedential, May 12, 2026) — i.e., the '790 invalidity was left undisturbed.
• Sealing: I did not identify any sealed appearance or motion to seal counsel information; the limitations on this list are the stay-induced freeze in filings, not sealing.

Not verified / caveats: (1) I could not confirm from a primary source whether Linda Chang, Christopher Hong and Gabrielle K. Antonello remained actively on the matter through the stay (their last confirmed appearance is the June 2022 motion papers); (2) the exact docket number and date of the stay order were not independently confirmed — Willkie's release confirms the stay was granted after the IPRs were instituted; and (3) current firm affiliations should be re-checked, as Mukerji and Marshall changed firms in late 2024.