WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al.

Case Overview and Background

Parties, campaign, and accused technology. WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. is a patent-assertion entity (NPE) based in Flanders, New Jersey, that owns a family of streaming-media patents invented by Harold Edward Price with priority reaching back to September 2000; RPX reports that the family has been in litigation since at least February 2007, with some of that litigation funded by litigation-finance firm Woodsford Litigation Funding Limited. In August 2021 WAG filed parallel suits in Waco against Amazon (6:21-cv-00815-ADA) and Alphabet/Google/YouTube (6:21-cv-00816-ADA), part of a wider campaign later extending to Disney+/Hulu and Netflix. The Amazon defendants — Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Web Services, Inc., and Amazon.com Services LLC — were accused of infringing through their video-streaming infrastructure: pre-recorded and live programming delivered to desktops, tablets, smartphones, smart TVs, and streaming sticks, with the complaints specifically calling out Prime Video, the CloudFront CDN, and AWS Elemental MediaConvert, MediaStore, MediaPackage, and related services as the processing front-end (RPX, Aug. 8, 2021). The three asserted patents are all titled "Streaming Media Delivery System": U.S. Patent No. 9,742,824 (issued Aug. 22, 2017) covers server-side delivery of pre-recorded media, where serially identified data elements are sent faster than playback rate in response to client requests without the server tracking the last element sent; U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 (issued Sept. 12, 2017) covers the same stateless "pull" server architecture for media arriving from a live source; and U.S. Patent No. 9,729,594 covers the client/player-side method of requesting serially identified elements and automatically re-requesting to maintain a predetermined buffer level. The '824 and '636 patents share a common specification, and the claims split between pre-recorded and live media (see WAG's IPR Patent Owner Response, IPR2022-01433; Fed. Cir. briefing in WAG Acquisition v. Disney, No. 24-1627, describing the shared specification).

Procedural posture and venue path. Filed August 6, 2021 in the W.D. Tex. Waco Division, the case was assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright and proceeded under his standing orders (including the Case Readiness Status Report and inter-district transfer protocols). After answering, Amazon moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer to the W.D. Wash. (Seattle), conceding Waco was not improper but arguing Seattle was clearly more convenient — pointing to its headquarters, witnesses, the Seattle/Portland development of Prime Video and CloudFront, prior-art witnesses (RealNetworks and Microsoft NetShow), and related WAG patent litigation already pending there. Judge Albright granted transfer in 2022 (transfer order at ECF No. 68; opinion on CourtListener, No. 6:21-cv-00815), rejecting WAG's argument that Amazon waived transfer by omitting it from the CRSR; the case was transferred to the W.D. Wash. on October 6, 2022 as No. 2:22-cv-01424 (Justia docket). In the W.D. Wash., the court in 2023 stayed the case pending final resolution of nine IPR petitions filed by Amazon, Google, and Disney challenging all asserted claims of all three patents, relying in part on PTAB institution and invalidation statistics to find the stay would substantially simplify the case (stay order, CourtListener opinion 10241389). Amazon's IPR petitions (e.g., IPR2022-01429 against the '594; IPR2022-01430 and IPR2022-01433 against the '824/'636) were instituted, the PTAB ultimately found the challenged claims unpatentable, and the Federal Circuit affirmed — for example, in WAG Acquisition v. Google (No. 24-1630) affirming the PTAB's invalidation of all claims 1–17 of the '594 patent (Fed. Cir. docket), and, per Law360 coverage ("Fed. Circ. Backs Google, Amazon Wins Over Streaming IP," March 2026), letting stand PTAB invalidations across the three WAG patents. The litigation was thereby resolved in Amazon's favor; I did not independently verify the specific final dismissal/termination docket entry in W.D. Wash., and the exact final-written-decision dates are not itemized here.

Why the case is notable. This case is a clean illustration of the Waco-era NPE wave and its aftermath: WAG — a litigation-financed NPE with a two-decade-old streaming patent family — filed in Judge Albright's Waco division at the height of its post-TC Heartland popularity, and Amazon's successful § 1404(a) exit to its home district reflects the broader Federal Circuit pressure (e.g., In re Apple, 979 F.3d 1332) that pushed cases out of W.D. Tex. Once in Seattle, the case shows the efficient defense playbook: a coordinated, multi-petitioner IPR attack (nine petitions across Amazon, Google, and Disney covering every asserted claim) that produced a stay, and then total invalidation affirmed on appeal in 2026 — ending the campaign against these defendants. It also captures collateral features of that era's patent litigation, including Albright standing-order disputes over CRSR-based waiver of transfer motions and courts' use of aggregate PTAB statistics in stay decisions, and its Amazon/Google/Disney/Netflix footprint made it one of the more visible assertions of early-2000s streaming patents against the modern OTT video market.

I'll research this case thoroughly using multiple web searches.

Let me dig deeper into the transfer order, IPR proceedings, and Federal Circuit appeal.

Let me find the specific Amazon IPR numbers for all three patents and their outcomes, plus the Federal Circuit appeal.

I have enough well-sourced material to reconstruct the arc of this case, though a few terminal events rely on press/secondary reports rather than primary docket text. Here is the chronology.

WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al., No. 6:21-cv-00815-ADA (W.D. Tex.), transferred to No. 2:22-cv-01424-JLR (W.D. Wash.)

Patents-in-suit: U.S. Patent Nos. 9,762,636 ("'636"), 9,742,824 ("'824"), and 9,729,594 ("'594") — all titled "Streaming Media Delivery System" and sharing a common disclosure; WAG accused Amazon's Prime Video, CloudFront CDN, AWS Elemental MediaLive/MediaConvert/MediaPackage/MediaStore services.

---

1. Filing & initial pleadings (W.D. Tex., Waco — Judge Alan D. Albright)

• 2021-08-06 — WAG filed its complaint (ECF No. 1) in the W.D. Tex. Waco Division against Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Web Services, Inc., and Amazon.com Services LLC. (Justia/W.D. Wash. transferred docket, entries #1–#2; RPX report dated 2021-08-08.)
• 2021-08-09/10 — WAG's out-of-state counsel (Ronald Abramson, M. Michael Lewis, Ari Jaffess, David G. Liston, Alex G. Patchen of Liston Abramson; local counsel Brandon Oates) admitted pro hac vice; summonses issued 2021-08-10 (ECF Nos. 5–13).
• 2021-08-25/26 — Amazon entities served; Amazon obtained an extension moving the answer date to 2021-11-01 (ECF Nos. 15–18).
• 2021-11-01 — Amazon filed its Answer with jury demand (ECF No. 22). No substantive counterclaims are reflected in the docket (defensive invalidity/unenforceability defenses only).
• 2021-12-06/07 — Joint motion for entry of scheduling order (ECF Nos. 27–28), followed by Albright's standing patent-case order (entered 2021-10-08, ECF No. 20).

2. Venue/transfer litigation (the pivotal pre-trial motion)

• 2022 (mid-year) — After answering, Amazon moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer to the W.D. Wash. (ECF No. 30), arguing Seattle/Portland-based witnesses and related-pending litigation there made the WDWA "clearly more convenient." WAG opposed (ECF No. 45); Amazon replied (ECF No. 48). WAG argued waiver because transfer wasn't raised in the Case Readiness Status Report; Judge Albright rejected that argument.
• 2022-10 (early) — Judge Albright granted transfer (Memorandum Opinion and Order, ECF No. 68; also on CourtListener and Justia). He found the witness-convenience and local-interest factors favored the WDWA, discounted the WDWA related case (Flying Crocodile, stayed before Judge Rothstein) as non-decisive, and held the WDTX's faster time-to-trial weighed against transfer — but on balance transfer was warranted. The case was docketed in the W.D. Wash. as 2:22-cv-01424-JLR on 2022-10-05/06 before Judge James L. Robart. No Markman order was ever entered in the W.D. Tex.

3. Claim construction (Markman)

• W.D. Tex. stage: The parties completed full claim-construction briefing before transfer — Amazon's opening brief (ECF No. 37), WAG's response (ECF No. 38), Amazon's reply (ECF No. 42), and WAG's sur-reply (ECF No. 47). No construction order issued before transfer.
• W.D. Wash. stage: Judge Robart entered a scheduling order (2022-11/12) setting a Markman hearing for 2023-02-27; the parties filed a technology tutorial (2022-11-30, Dkt. #107) and joint claim chart (due 2022-12-02). The case was stayed on 2023-02-14, and the Markman hearing was vacated before it occurred. (Stay order, WAG Acquisition LLC v. Amazon.com, No. C22-1424JLR, W.D. Wash. Feb. 14, 2023, CourtListener opinion 10241389.) There is therefore no claim-construction ruling in this case — construction disputes were effectively absorbed into the IPRs, where the stay court noted WAG's IPR positions would become prosecution history for the disputed terms.

4. Discovery milestones

• Discovery was never a decisive battleground. In the W.D. Tex. the parties exchanged initial disclosures and began technical discovery in 2022. In the W.D. Wash., pre-stay activity consisted mainly of the joint status report (2022-11-14), the technology tutorial (2022-11-30), and the joint claim chart (2022-12-02).
• The most strategically significant "discovery" was the IPR evidence derived from the W.D. Tex. Markman record: Amazon's IPR petitions (filed 2022-08-23/24) attached the parties' claim-construction briefs and expert declarations from the W.D. Tex. case as exhibits (e.g., IPR2022-01429, Exs. 1008–1013), a reminder of how early IPR strategy was coordinated with district-court claim construction.
• Substantial fact/expert discovery was scheduled (expert reports due Oct./Nov. 2023; discovery cutoff 2023-11-24; dispositive motions due 2024-01-02) but never occurred because the stay was entered at the early stage (2023-02-14).

5. Stay pending IPR (W.D. Wash.)

• 2023-02-03/06 — The PTAB granted institution on IPR challenges to the '636 and '824 patents (institution grants reflected in the stay opinion, citing USPTO "Request for Trial Granted" notices dated 2023-02-03 and 2023-02-06).
• 2023-02-06 — Judge Robart ordered the parties to show cause why the Markman date shouldn't be stricken and the case stayed.
• 2023-02-14 — Judge Robart stayed the case until the "final resolution" of all nine pending IPR petitions filed by Amazon, Google, and Disney against the three patents-in-suit, vacating all deadlines including the 2/27/2023 Markman hearing and the 5/6/2024 trial date; he ordered 90-day joint status reports. Factors: simplification, early stage, and minimal prejudice (parties not competitors; damages adequate). (W.D. Wash. Feb. 14, 2023 order.)

6. Parallel PTAB IPR proceedings (decisive)

Amazon filed three IPRs on 2022-08-23/24 — IPR2022-01429, IPR2022-01430, and IPR2022-01433 — challenging all asserted claims of the '594, '824, and '636 patents respectively (petitioner's expert: Kevin Jeffay; secondary references included Carmel, Feig, and others). Google and Disney filed six more, for nine total petitions.

• 2023-03-10 — PTAB denied institution of Amazon's IPR2022-01429 against the '594 patent (Institution Decision, Paper 10).
• 2024-02-15 — PTAB issued Final Written Decisions in IPR2022-01430 and IPR2022-01433 (Amazon's '824 and '636 IPRs), holding all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious over Carmel alone and/or Carmel + Feig (DocketAlarm/PTAB records: FWDs dated 2024-02-15).
• 2024-03-20 — Parallel Google FWD (e.g., IPR2022-01412) likewise held all challenged claims unpatentable; Disney's instituted IPRs on the '636/'824 also produced FWDs invalidating claims. (Earlier family history included WebPower v. WAG Acquisition, IPR2016-01238, and a related ex parte reexamination 90/014,833, referenced in the IPR records.)
• Net effect: although Amazon lost at institution on the '594 patent, the collective Amazon/Google/Disney IPR campaign invalidated all asserted claims across all three patents-in-suit.

7. Federal Circuit appeal

• 2024 (mid-year) — WAG appealed the adverse Final Written Decisions to the Federal Circuit; the Amazon-related appeal is No. 24-2145, and WAG's appeals were consolidated (the Amazon appellees' response brief, filed 2024-11-04, references "six consolidated appeals," including Disney appeal No. 24-1627 and related Google appeals). Fenwick & West (J. David Hadden, Jonathan Tamimi) represented Amazon on appeal.
• 2026-03-09 (reported) — The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB invalidation decisions by summary (Rule 36) judgment, per contemporaneous reports (IIPLA and ScaleJuris coverage of the consolidated appeals). This is a press-reported event; I could not verify the mandate or slip disposition directly in the searched sources, but it is consistent with the CourtListener docket for the related Disney appeal (24-1627) and the Amazon appellee brief.

8. Final disposition / present posture

• No trial, verdict, JMOL, or fee motion ever occurred — the case never returned from the IPR stay to merits litigation.
• With all asserted claims invalidated by final, affirmed PTAB decisions, the stayed W.D. Wash. action resolved in Amazon's favor (per the case metadata: "transferred; stayed; resolved in Amazon's favor"). The precise terminating instrument — stipulated dismissal with prejudice, agreed judgment, or entry of judgment on the invalidated claims after the stay lifted — is not verifiable from the sources retrieved, and the W.D. Wash. docket shows the case formally open as of the last search. The operative point: the district court entered no liability finding, and Amazon prevailed entirely through the IPR invalidation + affirmance.

Key takeaways

• The dispositive events were procedural: (1) Judge Albright's grant of transfer (Oct. 2022) moved the case to the WDWA, where (2) Judge Robart's early stay (Feb. 2023) handed the dispute to the PTAB, and (3) the 2024 Final Written Decisions plus the 2026 Federal Circuit Rule 36 affirmance extinguished the asserted claims.
• The case produced no claim-construction ruling, no merits summary-judgment decision, and no trial — a reminder that in Judge Albright's Waco docket the transfer motion, and later the stay calculus, often decide the practical outcome of NPE streaming cases.
• The '594 patent's Amazon IPR was denied institution (2023-03-10), but WAG's claims on that patent were nevertheless extinguished by the broader multi-petitioner IPR campaign (Google/Disney), illustrating coordinated cross-defendant PTAB strategy.

Confidence caveats: Specific ECF numbers for the transfer motion set (ECF 30, 45, 48, 68) and the answer (ECF 22) are confirmed from the Justia/CourtListener dockets. The Fed. Cir. No. 24-2145 appeal, its consolidation, and the 2026-03-09 Rule 36 affirmance rest on the November 2024 appellee brief (archived Federal Circuit filing) plus secondary press summaries, not a direct PACER/opinion check. The exact final docket entry closing the W.D. Wash. case could not be independently confirmed.

Press and analysis coverage of WAG v. Amazon

Press coverage of this specific case is thin and concentrated almost entirely in the legal and patent-litigation trade press; no mainstream technology or general-news outlet (Reuters, Bloomberg, Ars Technica, The Verge, etc.) appears to have covered the Amazon suit on its own. The most substantive reporting is Law360, which reported on 2026-03-09 — by Theresa Schliep, "Fed. Circ. Backs Google, Amazon Wins Over Streaming IP" — that the Federal Circuit "let stand decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to invalidate claims across three streaming patents owned by WAG Acquisition LLC, which had accused Google, Amazon, Netflix and other companies of infringement in numerous cases." That piece (mirrored at Lawyers Weekly Canada) is paywalled, so only the lede was accessible for this analysis; it frames the outcome as a consolidated appellate defeat for WAG rather than an Amazon-only story. At the filing end of the case, RPX reported on 2021-08-08 ("WAG Acquisition Extends Scattered Streaming Campaign, Suing Alphabet and Amazon in West Texas") that the Amazon complaint targeted "pre-recorded and live programming" delivered across streaming platforms and specifically called out CloudFront CDN plus AWS Elemental MediaConvert, MediaStore, and MediaPackage as the processing front-end; RPX also flagged that the patent family — "now numbering over a dozen" — "has been in litigation (at least some of it funded by the litigation finance firm Woodsford Litigation Funding Limited) since February 2007," and separately logged the October 2021 expansion of the campaign to Disney, Hulu, and Netflix (RPX insight page, Oct. 22, 2021).

Where coverage goes beyond the court record, it is mostly aggregator or editorial commentary rather than independent reporting. IIPLA, summarizing on 2026-03-09, framed the Rule 36 affirmances as "solidify[ing] the victories for Google and Amazon" and added color not in the Law360 lede: it identified the three patents by number (9,742,824; 9,762,636; 9,729,594), named the defense law firms (Cooley LLP, DLA Piper, Fenwick & West) and WAG's counsel (Liston Abramson), and offered the generic take that the battle "highlights the importance of protecting intellectual property rights in the fast-paced world of technology and streaming services." A ScaleJuris roundup of "Recent Developments in Patent Litigation Against Amazon's Streaming Services" similarly reports the Federal Circuit's affirmance of invalidation of the '824 patent but is loose on detail — it calls the plaintiff "WAG Acquisition Corp." and describes the affirmance as upholding "a lower tribunal's decision," conflating the PTAB with a lower court; it also folds the WAG result into a broader survey that includes unrelated InterDigital streaming litigation against Amazon.

Notably, no reporting located for this exercise includes any damages figure sought or awarded, settlement terms, or market-impact numbers — the Law360, RPX, and aggregator items all treat the case as a legal-procedural matter (campaign filing, transfer/IPR posture, appellate affirmance) rather than a monetary dispute, which is consistent with the case ending through PTAB invalidation rather than verdict or settlement. Where accounts differ, it is mainly in characterization: Law360 and IIPLA present the March 2026 Federal Circuit ruling as the effective end of the multi-defendant campaign across Amazon, Google, Disney, Hulu, and Netflix, while ScaleJuris's imprecise framing ("WAG Acquisition Corp.," "lower tribunal") suggests a less rigorous aggregator source. Overall, the honest bottom line is that this Amazon-specific case drew little dedicated press attention — most coverage came at the two bookend moments (the August 2021 Waco filing, covered by RPX, and the March 2026 Federal Circuit affirmance, covered by Law360) with the transfer, stay, and IPR merits in between going essentially unreported outside court filings and docket services.

Sources

• WAG Acquisition, LLC v. Amazon.com - From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research
• WAG ACQUISITION, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc. – CourtListener.com - WAG ACQUISITION, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 6:21-cv-00815-ADA (W.D. Tex. 2022)
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION
• WAG Acquisition LLC v. Amazon.com Inc et al
• Complaint analysis | 2:22-cv-01424 | WAG Acquisition LLC v. Amazon.com Inc | Ex Parte
• Motion for Intradistrict Transfer from Waco Division to Austin Division Granted - Register now for your free, tailored, daily legal newsfeed service.
• Intellectual Property : Law360 UK : Legal News & Analysis - Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
• Oral Argument for WAG Acquisition, LLC v. Walt Disney Company – CourtListener.com - 📣 The Wait is Over
• Fed. Circ. Backs Google, Amazon Wins Over Streaming IP - Law360
• Wag Acquisition, LLC v. Walt Disney Company – CourtListener.com - 🚀 Limited-time offer
• NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential
• Appellate : Law360 : Legal News & Analysis - Try our Advanced Search for more refined results

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al., No. 6:21-cv-00815-ADA (W.D. Tex., transferred to W.D. Wash. No. 2:22-cv-01424)

Based on the W.D. Tex. docket (PACER/Justia/Unified Patents), the complaint (ECF No. 1) and all case-initiating filings were made by Brandon Rhodes Oates as Texas counsel, who then moved for five out-of-state attorneys to appear pro hac vice on WAG's behalf. The court granted all five PHV motions by text order on August 9, 2021 (ECF Nos. 5–9). The resulting counsel of record for WAG:

Texas / local counsel

• Brandon Rhodes Oates — Local counsel (lead filing attorney in W.D. Tex.)
  • Firm: Haley & Olson, P.C., Waco, TX (P.O. Box 21147, Waco, TX 76702; boates@haleyolson.com)
  • Role: Filed the complaint and disclosure statement (ECF Nos. 1–3), and sponsored all five PHV motions (ECF Nos. 5–9). In the parallel WAG/Google case, Bloomberg Law's docket lists him as "Lead Attorney" (Haley & Olson), with his appearance terminated 1/4/2023 after transfer.
  • Note: A Waco-based attorney who regularly serves as local counsel for out-of-district patent plaintiffs in Judge Albright's court; no notable substantive patent-trial history of his own identified.

Pro hac vice counsel (all admitted 8/9/2021 on WAG's motions)

These five attorneys are WAG's long-running litigation team. At the time of filing, the group's firm address (Chrysler Building, 405 Lexington Ave., New York) corresponds to Liston Abramson LLP, which is how the attorneys are identified in later IPR filings (e.g., IPR2024-01362 power of attorney) and in the Federal Circuit's March 2026 Rule 36 judgments in the related appeals (e.g., No. 24-1627, WAG Acquisition v. Disney: "RONALD ABRAMSON, Liston Abramson LLP, New York, NY, argued for appellant. Also represented by ARI JASON JAFFESS"). An earlier PTAB filing (IPR2016-01656) shows the same four attorneys at the predecessor Lewis Baach PLLC (later Liston Abramson), confirming continuity of the WAG engagement.

• Ronald Abramson — Lead PHV counsel

  • Firm: Liston Abramson LLP, New York, NY (405 Lexington Ave., 46th Floor; Reg. No. 34,762)
  • Note: WAG's principal advocate for nearly two decades (campaign dating to 2007); argued WAG's Federal Circuit appeals (Nos. 24-1627/24-1630) and has served as patent-owner counsel in WAG IPRs.

• Ari Jason Jaffess — PHV counsel

  • Firm: Liston Abramson LLP, New York, NY (Reg. No. 74,558)
  • Note: Appears alongside Abramson throughout the WAG campaign — in district-court PHV entries (including earlier WAG v. Vubeology suits), as WAG's lead patent-owner counsel before the PTAB, and on the Federal Circuit briefs/judgments for WAG in 2024–2026.

• David G. Liston — PHV counsel (firm name partner)

  • Firm: Liston Abramson LLP, New York, NY
  • Note: Name partner and co-founder of the firm (formerly Lewis Baach); long-time WAG counsel in district court and PTAB matters (e.g., WAG v. Vubeology, N.D. Cal.). The firm also handles high-profile commercial litigation (e.g., representation of Better Home & Finance Holding Co. in S.D.N.Y.).

• M. Michael Lewis (docketed as "Mord Michael Lewis") — PHV counsel

  • Firm: Liston Abramson LLP, New York, NY (Reg. No. 50,478)
  • Note: Part of the WAG team across IPRs and district-court PHV appearances; typically listed as back-up IPR counsel for the WAG patent family.

• Alex G. Patchen — PHV counsel

  • Firm: Listed in the PHV motion packet with the same out-of-state group; presumed Liston Abramson LLP, New York (not independently verified — public records of Patchen's firm affiliation at the time of filing are sparse, and I found no separate appearance or biography for him in this case's later filings).

Caveats

• The W.D. Tex. docket labels counsel only through the PHV/notice structure; it does not designate a single "lead trial counsel." Based on the related appeals and IPRs, Abramson (with Jaffess) functioned as substantive lead for WAG, while Oates was the Texas attorney of record/lead filer.
• After transfer to W.D. Wash. (Oct. 6, 2022) and the ensuing stay, the same WAG team continued (the Liston Abramson attorneys appeared in the related IPRs and Federal Circuit appeals through 2026); I did not independently verify the post-transfer appearance docket in 2:22-cv-01424.
• No in-house counsel for WAG (a litigation-holding NPE in Flanders, NJ) appeared of record. No filings are sealed that would obscure these appearances — ECF Nos. 4–9 and the August 9, 2021 text orders are publicly documented on Justia, Unified Patents, and UniCourt.

Defense Counsel of Record — WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al.

Because this case traveled from Judge Albright's Waco docket (6:21-cv-00815-ADA) to the W.D. Wash. (2:22-cv-01424-JLR, Judge James L. Robart) and spawned parallel PTAB IPRs and a consolidated Federal Circuit appeal (WAG Acquisition v. Disney, No. 24-1627, et al., which Amazon defended as an appellee), "counsel of record" spans three phases. Amazon's representation throughout was led by Fenwick & West LLP, with Texas local counsel in Waco and Seattle-based Fenwick lawyers anchoring the post-transfer case. No in-house Amazon attorneys appear in the retrieved docket/opinion sources.

Lead / out-of-state counsel — Fenwick & West LLP

• J. David Hadden — lead counsel (litigation and IPR). Partner, Fenwick & West LLP, Mountain View, CA. Filed the W.D. Tex. notice of appearance for all three Amazon entities (docket entry ~Nov. 1, 2021, W.D. Tex.); was lead counsel for Amazon in IPR2022-01430/-01433 (e.g., IPR2022-01433 filings signed by Hadden as "Attorney for Petitioner," Reg. No. 40,629, Fenwick, 801 California St., Mountain View); and argued the consolidated Federal Circuit appeal for Amazon — the March 9, 2026 Rule 36 affirmance identifies "J. DAVID HADDEN, Fenwick & West LLP, Mountain View, CA, argued for appellees Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Web Services, Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC." Experience: Fenwick's go-to Amazon patent litigator — argued the § 101 affirmance in Broadband iTV v. Amazon (Prime Video patents), led the 2023 Freshub v. Amazon Waco jury win, and won Affinity Labs v. Amazon (streaming-media § 101) at the Federal Circuit.
• Saina S. Shamilov — partner/backup IPR and appellate counsel. Fenwick & West, Mountain View, CA. Appeared for Amazon in W.D. Tex.; backup counsel on the Amazon IPR petitions; listed as appellate counsel for Amazon in the Fed. Cir. disposition (also represented by … SAINA S. SHAMILOV). Core member of Fenwick's Amazon trial teams (Freshub; Broadband iTV).
• Ravi Ranganath — partner. Fenwick & West, Mountain View, CA. Filed notice of appearance for all three Amazon defendants in W.D. Tex.; also on Fenwick's Amazon trial teams (Freshub).
• Other Fenwick lawyers appearing on the Amazon filings: Johnathan Chai and Johnson Kuncheria (IPR and Fed. Cir. counsel, Mountain View); Brian Michael Hoffman (San Francisco — IPR/federal appellate work); Kevin X. McGann (New York — IPR petitions); and Jonathan G. Tamimi (Fenwick Seattle office — signed the Amazon Federal Circuit appellee brief; listed as appellate counsel). Per the Fed. Cir. opinion and IPR papers, the Amazon IPR team's lead/backup signatures were Hadden, Shamilov, Hoffman, Chai, Kuncheria, and McGann.

Texas local counsel (W.D. Tex. phase)

• Deron R. Dacus — local counsel. Filed a notice of appearance for all three Amazon defendants on Sept. 17, 2021 (W.D. Tex. docket). Dacus (of The Dacus Firm, P.C., Tyler, TX) is a veteran East Texas/W.D. Tex. patent litigator routinely retained as Texas local counsel in Waco cases; his firm and office location are drawn from general knowledge of his practice, not from documents retrieved in this search, so treat the firm detail as high-confidence but unverified here.
• Barry K. Shelton — local counsel. Filed the first defense notice of appearance on Aug. 23, 2021 for all three Amazon entities (W.D. Tex. docket entry 14). Texas-based; his specific firm affiliation was not confirmed in the sources retrieved, so I will not name one.

Washington counsel / post-transfer appearances (W.D. Wash., 2:22-cv-01424)

• Jeffrey Ware — local/Seattle counsel. Filed the defendants' corporate disclosure statement and the technology tutorial in the W.D. Wash. case (Nov.–Dec. 2022 docket entries; listed as a Fenwick associate on the firm's Amazon trial teams). Treat firm/office as Fenwick (Seattle) with moderate confidence.
• Dargaye H. Churnet — admitted pro hac vice for all three Amazon defendants in W.D. Wash. (order on application, Oct. 2022). Firm not confirmed in retrieved sources.
• Christopher S. Lavin — admitted pro hac vice for all three Amazon defendants in W.D. Wash. (order re application, ~2023, docket #102/#75). Firm not confirmed in retrieved sources.
• Donna Long — appearing attorney (Ex Parte attorney-activity listing ties her to case 2:22-cv-01424, dated 10/05/22); profile lists her at Fenwick & West. Her precise role in the case was not substantiated beyond the appearance record.

Caveats

• No Amazon in-house counsel appeared by name in any retrieved docket entry or opinion; I did not locate any pro hac vice or appearance entry for an Amazon house lawyer, so none is listed.
• The Fenwick & West affiliation of Churnet, Lavin, Ware, and Long is inferred from docket linkage (they appear only in the Amazon defendants' entries in a case whose defense team is otherwise wholly Fenwick) but was not independently confirmed for each name in this round of searches.
• If filings were sealed or the W.D. Wash. case was ultimately terminated by stipulation/order after the 2026 Federal Circuit affirmance, the final dismissal docket entry and any associated counsel signature block were not retrieved, so the list above reflects counsel of record through the active litigation and appellate phases rather than a verified terminal filing.