WAG Acquisition, LLC v. Google LLC / Amazon.com, Inc. et al.

Overview and parties. The user-provided caption lists 24-1627 as WAG Acquisition, LLC v. Google LLC / [Amazon.com, Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Amazon.com%2C%20Inc.) et al., but as actually docketed in the Federal Circuit, No. 24-1627 is the lead appeal in a family captioned WAG Acquisition, LLC v. [The Walt Disney Company](/litigations/by-plaintiff/The%20Walt%20Disney%20Company) et al., with Disney Streaming Services, Hulu, Netflix, Google LLC, and three Amazon entities (Amazon.com, AWS, Amazon.com Services LLC) as appellees; the March 9, 2026 judgment resolves appeal Nos. 24-1627, -1628, -1631, -1632, -1633, and -1634 together (C.A.F.C. Rule 36 Judgment, WAG Acquisition, LLC v. Walt Disney Co., No. 24-1627, Doc. 70 (Mar. 9, 2026), https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-1627.RULE_36_JUDGMENT.3-9-2026_2658147.pdf). The appellant, WAG Acquisition, L.L.C., is a New Jersey LLC that is effectively a patent-assertion vehicle for a streaming-media patent family claiming priority to September 12, 2000, funded in its litigation by litigation-finance firm Woodsford Litigation Funding Ltd.; press and RPX coverage describe a campaign running since at least 2007, with more than 20 earlier suits against smaller (including adult-streaming) targets before WAG escalated to major streaming platforms in 2021 (IPWatchdog, "Litigation Funding WAGs the Dog" (Aug. 11, 2021); RPX Insight, "WAG Acquisition Extends Scattered Streaming Campaign" (Aug. 8, 2021), https://litigation.rpxcorp.com/news/67471-...; WAG Acquisition v. Multi Media LLC, No. 14-2340 (D.N.J. 2019) (standing upheld despite Woodsford funding agreement)). The appellees are operating companies whose streaming ecosystems WAG accused of infringement: YouTube/Google, Amazon's CloudFront CDN and AWS Elemental MediaConvert/MediaStore/MediaPackage pipeline, and the Disney+/Hulu/Netflix platforms (RPX News, Oct. 22, 2021; complaint analysis in WAG Acquisition v. Google LLC, No. 3:22-cv-05772-JD (N.D. Cal.)). Underlying infringement suits were filed in 2021–22 in the Western District of Texas and elsewhere, then transferred/stayed: WAG Acquisition v. Amazon.com, No. 2:22-cv-01424-JLR (W.D. Wash., Judge James L. Robart, who stayed the case pending IPRs in 2023); WAG Acquisition v. Google LLC, No. 3:22-cv-05772-JD and Netflix, No. 3:22-cv-05003-JD (N.D. Cal., Judge James Donato); Disney, No. 2:21-cv-08230-JAK and Hulu, No. 2:21-cv-08242-JAK (C.D. Cal., Judge John A. Kronstadt).

Patents, accused technology, and IPR posture. The appeal at issue here is not a district-court infringement appeal; it is WAG's appeal from Patent Trial and Appeal Board final written decisions in six inter partes reviews — IPR2022-01227, -01228 (Disney group), IPR2022-01412, -01413 (Google group), and IPR2022-01430, -01433 (Amazon group) — that invalidated claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 (the "live media" patent in suit) and its sibling 9,742,824 (the "pre-recorded media" patent), both titled "Streaming media delivery system" (see CAFC judgment, listing the six IPRs; DocketAlarm, Amazon.com, Inc. v. WAG Acquisition, IPR2022-01430, FWD determining all challenged claims unpatentable (Feb. 15, 2024), panel of Lorin, Hudalla, and Amundson). Technically, the '636 claims cover a client-pull method of streaming live audio/video: a server receives a live program, assigns serial identifiers to successive media data elements as they are stored in a server-side data structure/buffer, and sends each element only in response to client requests specifying that element's serial identifier — transmitting faster than the playback rate and without the server tracking per-user pointers — a design aimed at near-instant start-up and dropout-free playback (see '636/'824 claim 1 recitations and the pull-embodiment disclosure at col. 14:48–15:25; exemplary claim text in Amazon appellee brief, No. 24-1627 Doc. 22). WAG accused the defendants' HTTP-chunked video delivery of live and VOD programming (e.g., YouTube live "sq" segment identifiers, Amazon CloudFront/AWS Elemental services, Disney+/Hulu/Netflix streaming). The Board found the challenged claims obvious over a single reference, "Carmel" (a real-time multimedia broadcasting system disclosing serially indexed "slices" transferred over HTTP), and alternatively obvious over Carmel combined with "Feig," and WAG appealed, arguing among other things that Carmel taught only a "push," not a client-request "pull," system (Amazon appellee brief, Doc. 22 at 30–56, https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68554165/22/; Hoarty decl., Ex. 2007, IPR2022-01430/-01433).

Procedural outcome and significance. The Federal Circuit heard argument on January 5, 2026 (panel of Lourie, Wallach, and Chen) and, on March 9, 2026, issued a nonprecedential per curiam judgment summarily AFFIRMING the PTAB under Fed. Cir. R. 36 — i.e., without opinion — in the six consolidated appeals (Doc. 70; companion Rule 36 judgment in No. 24-1630, WAG Acquisition v. Google LLC). The case is notable for several reasons. First, it caps a decade-plus, third-party-litigation-funded NPE campaign that targeted essentially the entire U.S. subscription- and ad-supported streaming industry with a 2000-vintage patent family reading on the HTTP chunk-request ("pull") architecture underlying modern streaming, showing how coordinated, multi-petitioner IPRs (Disney, Google, and Amazon filed nine petitions across the family, prompting district-court stays) function as the primary defense. Second, the summary affirmance leaves undisturbed the Board's core finding that a skilled artisan would have understood the Carmel reference's HTTP slice-download embodiment as an obvious client-pull system — a substantial-evidence holding that forecloses WAG's infringement theories against chunked streaming. Third, the underlying campaign also generated notable satellite law on litigation-funding standing (WAG Acquisition v. Multi Media LLC, D.N.J. 2019, holding Woodsford's funding agreement did not divest WAG of standing) and attempts to probe the funder's real-party-in-interest role in IPRs (see I.M.L. SLU's discovery letter in IPR2016-01656/-01658). One caveat: because the affirmance is a Rule 36 judgment, the Federal Circuit issued no merits opinion, so the appellate court's own reasoning is not on the public record; this overview of the Board-level holdings relies on the appellees' briefs and IPR exhibits rather than a published CAFC opinion.

I'll research this case thoroughly, starting with the Federal Circuit appeal and then tracing the underlying district court and PTAB proceedings.

The Federal Circuit matter (24-1627) is actually an IPR appeal consolidated with related appeals. I need to trace the underlying district court litigations and PTAB proceedings. Let me dig deeper.

I'm getting a clearer picture. Now let me trace the specific district court dockets, IPR mappings, and key orders/dates.

WAG Acquisition, LLC v. Google LLC / Amazon.com, Inc. et al. — Key Legal Developments & Outcome

Important scope note (what "24-1627" actually is)

Case No. 24-1627 is not a district-court infringement docket. It is one of WAG Acquisition's consolidated Federal Circuit appeals from PTAB inter partes review (IPR) final written decisions invalidating WAG's streaming-media patents. The CAFC judgment caption is WAG Acquisition, LLC v. The Walt Disney Company, Disney Streaming Services LLC, Hulu, LLC, Netflix, Inc., Google LLC, Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Web Services, Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC, Nos. 2024-1627, 2024-1628, 2024-1631, 2024-1632, 2024-1633, 2024-1634 — appeals from IPR2022-01227, IPR2022-01228, IPR2022-01412, IPR2022-01413, IPR2022-01430, IPR2022-01433 (U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, PTAB). See CAFC Rule 36 Judgment, Case 24-1627, Doc. 70 (2026-03-09) (https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-1627.RULE_36_JUDGMENT.3-9-2026_2658147.pdf).

The "litigation" you are asking about is therefore best understood as WAG's broader infringement campaign against Google, Amazon, Disney, Hulu, and Netflix over U.S. Patent Nos. 9,762,636 (the '636 patent at issue here, "Streaming media delivery system"), plus related patents 9,742,824 and 9,729,594 — a campaign that was stayed in district court and ultimately killed by the PTAB IPRs, which the Federal Circuit affirmed. Below is the chronology, flagged where the underlying facts are verified versus inferred from docket fragments.

---

1. Filing & initial pleadings (district court)

• 2021-08-06 — WAG Acquisition, LLC (a litigation vehicle funded by Woodsford Litigation Funding Ltd., per IPWatchdog, 2021-08-11) filed its first wave of infringement complaints in the W.D. Tex. Waco Division (Judge Albright) against Google LLC/YouTube and Amazon.com, Inc., asserting the '636, '824, and '594 patents covering fast-start streaming delivery. IPWatchdog, "Patent Filings Roundup: Litigation Funding WAGs the Dog" (2021-08-11) (https://ipwatchdog.com/2021/08/11/patent-filings-roundup-litigation-funding-wags-dog-funded-western-district-semiconductor-campaign-sees-iprs-filed/); DocketAlarm patent search for 9762636 (https://www.docketalarm.com/search/?q=patent:(9762636)).
  • Google case: 6:21-cv-00816-ADA (W.D. Tex.), complaint filed 2021-08-06; Google's answer deadline initially set to 2021-11-01 (Unified Patents/Portal docket listing for 6:21-cv-00816).
  • Amazon case: originally filed in W.D. Tex. on 2021-08-06 and later transferred to the W.D. Wash., where it became 2:22-cv-01424-JLR (Judge James L. Robart) (transfer entered 2022-10-06; see docket notes in UniCourt, 2:22-cv-01424).
• 2021-2022 — WAG filed companion suits against Disney/Disney Streaming (2:21-cv-08230-JAK, C.D. Cal.), Hulu (2:21-cv-08242-JAK, C.D. Cal.), Netflix (3:22-cv-05003-JD, N.D. Cal.), and Google (3:22-cv-05772-JD, N.D. Cal.), all asserted in the parties' Federal Circuit Rule 47.4 related-case disclosures (Amazon/Disney appellee briefs, Fed. Cir. 24-1627, Docs. 22 & related; CourtListener docket 68554165).
• Answers/counterclaims: I could not verify from accessible sources whether defendants filed declaratory-judgment counterclaims; dockets show answers were due (e.g., Google answer due 2021-11-01 in W.D. Tex.), with standard invalidity/non-infringement defenses. This detail is not well-sourced and should be verified on PACER if needed.

2. Pre-trial motions of substance (district court)

• Transfer: Amazon moved to transfer the W.D. Tex. case out of Waco. Judge Albright's court denied WAG's waiver argument and allowed the motion; the case was transferred to the Western District of Washington (order and transfer consummated 2022-10-06). See Casetext, WAG Acquisition, LLC v. Amazon.com (W.D. Wash.), discussing the transfer motion practice under Judge Albright's standing orders (http://g.casetext.com/case/wag-acquisition-llc-v-amazoncom-1); UniCourt docket for 2:22-cv-01424 (transfer entry 2022-10-06).
• Scheduling / Markman setting (Amazon case): The W.D. Wash. case was set on an aggressive track: joint claim chart due 2022-12-02, Markman hearing 2023-02-27, expert disclosures Oct.–Nov. 2023, dispositive motions due 2024-01-02, jury trial set 2024-05-06 (UniCourt docket summary, 2:22-cv-01424).
• Stay pending IPR (the pivotal motion): In 2022, Amazon, Disney, and Google filed nine IPR petitions collectively challenging all asserted claims of the three patents. On WAG's opposition and Amazon's motion, Judge Robart stayed the W.D. Wash. Amazon case pending final resolution of the IPRs and vacated all deadlines, reasoning that the PTAB's "expert" review would likely simplify or resolve the case, that the case was still early-stage, and that monetary damages could cure prejudice to WAG. See WAG Acquisition LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., No. 2:22-cv-01424 (W.D. Wash. 2023), CourtListener opinion 10241389; case summary at Studicata ("WAG Acquisition LLC v. Amazon.com" (2023)). The companion C.D. Cal. and N.D. Cal. actions (Disney/Hulu/Netflix/Google) were similarly stayed or effectively frozen pending the IPRs — I did not find the individual stay orders, so treat that as reasonably inferred from the outcome.
• Because of the stays, the district court cases never reached a Markman ruling, discovery completion, trial, verdict, or JMOL — the infringement litigation was in effect superseded by the PTAB track.

3. Parallel PTAB IPR proceedings (decisive track)

Defendants petitioned for IPR on the asserted claims. The appeals docketed as 24-1627 et seq. arose from these six IPRs:

Sources: CAFC Rule 36 Judgment (listing the six IPR numbers); Patexia, Google LLC et al. v. WAG Acquisition, L.L.C., IPR2022-01413 (petition 2022-08-12; institution decision 2023-03-23; decision date 2024-03-20; APJ panel Lorin/Hudalla/Amundson) (https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/shorturl-id-[180104](/patent/180104)); DocketAlarm (IPR2022-01413 Doc. 34 = Final Written Decision "Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable").

• Substance of the PTAB decisions: The Board found the challenged claims obvious, principally over the Carmel reference (alone for some claims, and combined with Feig for others) in the Google IPR on the '636 patent. The appellee briefs recite that the Board "determined that Carmel alone renders the challenged claims obvious" and that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Carmel and Feig; WAG's contrary arguments (including reliance on its expert Dr. Jeffay's testimony in ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1265) failed. See Appellees' Corrected Response Brief, Fed. Cir. 24-1627, Doc. 22 (2024-11-04) (CourtListener; archive.org PDF of gov.uscourts.cafc.21452.22.0).
• Prior history context: The '636/'824 patent family had already been litigated before the PTAB in WebPower v. WAG Acquisition, IPR2016-01238 (FWD 2017-12-26; FWD on remand 2020-07-16), cited by the parties in the 2022-2023 IPRs.

4. Federal Circuit appeal and final disposition

• 2024 — WAG appealed the six PTAB FWDs; appeals docketed at the Federal Circuit as 24-1627, 24-1628, 24-1631, 24-1632, 24-1633, 24-1634 (related Google '594 IPR2022-01411 appeal was 24-1630, argued alongside).
• 2024-11-04 — Appellees' response briefs filed: Amazon entities (Fenwick & West, J. David Hadden) and Disney/Hulu/Netflix/Google (DLA Piper, Stanley Panikowski; Cooley, Eamonn Gardner). Fed. Cir. 24-1627 docket entries (CourtListener docket 68554165).
• 2025-01-24 — WAG's single reply brief filed (Liston Abramson LLP, Ronald Abramson); corrected appendix followed 2025-02-04. Id.
• 2026-01-05 — Oral argument before a panel of Lourie, Wallach, and Chen (CAFC January 2026 argument calendar; oral-argument audio posted).
• 2026-03-09 — The Federal Circuit entered judgment AFFIRMING under Fed. Cir. R. 36 (summary affirmance, nonprecedential) — no written opinion. CAFC Rule 36 Judgment, 24-1627 (Doc. 70) (https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-1627.RULE_36_JUDGMENT.3-9-2026_2658147.pdf); CourtListener opinion 10805629.

5. Effect on the infringement litigation / bottom line

• The PTAB FWDs invalidated the asserted claims — including claims of the '636 patent — so the stayed district court infringement actions (W.D. Wash. Amazon case, C.D. Cal. Disney/Hulu cases, N.D. Cal. Netflix/Google cases) lost their asserted patent claims. No district court trial ever occurred; the substantive merits of WAG's infringement contentions were never reached.
• The 2026-03-09 Rule 36 affirmance makes the PTAB invalidation final as to the appealed claims, effectively ending WAG's infringement campaign against Google, Amazon, Disney, Hulu, and Netflix over the '636/'824/'594 streaming patents. Non-legal press summaries reached the same conclusion ("Federal Circuit Upholds Google and Amazon's Wins in Streaming IP Case," iipla.org (2026-03-09); "Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB's Invalidation of WAG Streaming Media Patents," scalejuris.com).
• There is no indication of any settlement; the case was resolved adversarially through the PTAB + Rule 36 affirmance.

Cautions on sourcing

Verified directly from primary sources: the CAFC Rule 36 judgment (panel, IPR numbers, date, affirmance), the CAFC docket/briefing timeline (CourtListener PACER/RECAP), IPR2022-01413 filing/institution/FWD dates (Patexia/DocketAlarm), the W.D. Tex. filing date and W.D. Wash. transfer, and the W.D. Wash. stay decision. Not independently verified: the existence/content of defendants' counterclaims, the individual stay orders in C.D. Cal. and N.D. Cal., and the precise claim-by-claim mapping of each of the six IPRs to specific patents — those should be confirmed on PACER or the PTAB's PTACTS system if you need table-level precision.

Threshold clarification on posture

Before listing names, one important framing point: Case No. 24-1627 is not a district-court patent infringement case. It is a consolidated Federal Circuit appeal (lead case 24-1627, with member cases 24-1628, 24-1631, 24-1632, 24-1633, 24-1634) by WAG Acquisition, LLC ("WAG") from six PTAB inter partes review final written decisions (IPR2022-01227, -01228, -01412, -01413, -01430, -01433). WAG was the patent owner and Appellant; Google, Amazon, Disney, Hulu, Netflix, etc. were Appellees. The panel (Lourie, Wallach, Chen) affirmed by Rule 36 judgment on March 9, 2026 (24-1627 RULE_36_JUDGMENT, CAFC opinion/order PDF; CourtListener opinion 10805629).

The related district-court infringement suits in which WAG was the plaintiff (e.g., asserting U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636) — including WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. v. Google LLC et al., No. 6:21-cv-00816 (W.D. Tex.), transferred to No. 3:22-cv-05772-JD (N.D. Cal., Judge Donato, administratively closed/stayed March 22, 2023 pending the IPRs) — are the "infringement case" backdrop. Counsel is identified below for both the CAFC appeal and the underlying plaintiff-side representation.

Counsel of record for WAG (plaintiff/appellant side) in the Federal Circuit appeal

The CAFC judgment and docket identify two attorneys of record for WAG, both from Liston Abramson LLP:

1. Ronald Abramson — Lead / Arguing Counsel (Appellant)

• Firm/office: Liston Abramson LLP, 405 Lexington Avenue, 46th Floor, New York, NY 10174.
• Role: Argued the consolidated appeal for appellant WAG on January 5, 2026, and signed the principal filings (opening/reply briefs, motions, entries of appearance) in 24-1627 and all member appeals. (See CAFC Rule 36 Judgment, entered March 9, 2026: "RONALD ABRAMSON, Liston Abramson LLP, New York, NY, argued for appellant."; docket entry "Entry of Appearance for Ronald Abramson; Ari J. Jaffess as counsel for Appellant WAG Acquisition, LLC," filed Apr. 15, 2024.)
• Experience: Longtime IP litigator (NY/NJ bars; registered patent attorney; admitted to the Federal Circuit); tried numerous patent cases and argued many appeals; firm bio expressly lists his representation of "SurferNETWORK/WAG Acquisition, LLC (patent litigation—streaming media)" among representative matters, and notes extensive IPR/reexamination experience on both sides. Super Lawyers–rated IP litigator in New York; Fellow, Litigation Counsel of America.

2. Ari Jason Jaffess — Counsel of Record (Appellant)

• Firm/office: Liston Abramson LLP, New York, NY (same address).
• Role: Co-counsel of record for WAG on the consolidated appeal; listed in the "also represented by" line of the CAFC judgment and in the April 15, 2024 entries of appearance for WAG in the member appeals. He has served as lead PTAB counsel for WAG-related patent-owner matters.
• Experience: Patent litigator at Liston Abramson with active IPR practice (e.g., designated lead counsel for patent owners in PTAB proceedings; USPTO Reg. No. 74,558); worked alongside Abramson on the WAG streaming-media portfolio and in the underlying W.D. Tex./N.D. Cal. litigation against Google/YouTube.

No local counsel is required or customarily entered at the Federal Circuit, and no in-house counsel for WAG appeared on the docket — WAG is a litigation-funding vehicle (backed by Woodsford Litigation Funding Ltd.) rather than an operating company with in-house IP litigation staff.

Plaintiff-side counsel in the underlying '636 infringement action (for context)

If your reference to "this patent infringement case" means the stayed district-court suit in which U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 was asserted (WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. v. Google LLC et al., No. 3:22-cv-05772-JD, N.D. Cal., transferred from W.D. Tex. 6:21-cv-00816), the docket (Bloomberg Law/Justia/UniCourt entries) shows the same Liston Abramson team plus local/pro hac counsel for plaintiff WAG:

• Ronald Abramson, David G. Liston, Ari J. Jaffess, Alex G. Patchen, Gina K. Kim, and Mord Michael Lewis — all Liston Abramson LLP, New York, NY (entered pro hac vice in the W.D. Tex. case; continued to appear after transfer to N.D. Cal.).
• Brandon Rhodes Oates — Haley & Olson, P.C., Waco, TX — lead local counsel in the original W.D. Tex. filing (later terminated Jan. 4, 2023, after the transfer).
• Daniel A. Corren and Robert J. Muller — Cypress LLP, Los Angeles, CA — California local counsel.
• Rustin K. Mangum — Mangum Ririe LLP, Ladera Ranch, CA; and Spencer W. Ririe — Armond Wilson LLP, Newport Beach, CA — additional California-based counsel appearing on the N.D. Cal. docket.

That district case was stayed and administratively closed on March 22, 2023 pending the IPR proceedings (per Judge Donato's order), and the IPR appeals were then resolved against WAG by the Federal Circuit Rule 36 affirmance on March 9, 2026.

Caveats

• No filings in 24-1627 were sealed with respect to WAG's counsel of record; the two-attorney CAFC roster is confirmed by the judgment and appearance entries. I did not locate any separate CAFC local counsel or a pro hac vice motion because the Federal Circuit does not use those designations.
• Counsel listed for the underlying district-court matter come from docket aggregator entries (Bloomberg Law, Justia, UniCourt); if you need the precise N.D. Cal. docket numbers for each appearance, PACER (Case No. 3:22-cv-05772-JD) would be the authoritative source.

Threshold framing point (important)

Before listing names, one precision note: No. 24-1627 is not a district-court patent infringement case. It is WAG Acquisition's Federal Circuit appeal from PTAB/IPR final written decisions (six consolidated appeals — 24-1627, -1628, -1631, -1632, -1633, -1634 — arising from IPR2022-01227, -01228, -01412, -01413, -01430, -01433; origin "PTO"). The docketed caption is WAG Acquisition, LLC v. The Walt Disney Company, Disney Streaming Services LLC, Hulu, LLC, Netflix, Inc., Google LLC, Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Web Services, Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC, and the Federal Circuit affirmed by Rule 36 judgment on March 9, 2026 (per curiam: Lourie, Wallach, Chen). The "defendants" your metadata refers to are therefore the appellees — the tech/media companies who were WAG's infringement defendants below and IPR petitioners before the Board (the '636 patent was challenged in IPRs such as IPR2022-01433, one of the six consolidated IPRs).

The definitive source for counsel of record is the Federal Circuit judgment, Doc. 70 (entered Mar. 9, 2026) (available at cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-1627.RULE_36_JUDGMENT.3-9-2026_2658147.pdf), supplemented by entries of appearance on the docket.

---

Counsel of record for the defendant-appellees

1. Google LLC — Cooley LLP

• Eamonn Gardner — Lead/principal counsel (argued the companion appeal 24-1630 for all appellees; designated "Principal Counsel" for Google on the Cooley entry of appearance, admitted to the Fed. Cir. 12/21/2009). Cooley LLP, 1144 15th Street, Suite 2300, Denver, CO (email per docket: egardner@cooley.com).
  • Note: Experienced Cooley IP partner who has repeatedly represented Google before the Federal Circuit and PTAB in patent validity appeals.
• Heidi Lyn Keefe — Counsel of record (additional/other counsel on the Cooley appearance). Cooley LLP, 3175 Hanover Street, Palo Alto, CA.
  • Note: Longtime Cooley patent-litigation partner (Fed. Cir. admission 1998) known for representing Google and other tech clients in high-stakes patent cases.
• Orion Armon — Counsel of record for Google (listed in the judgment; Cooley, Denver/Broomfield, CO practice; docket phone 720-566-4000).
  • Note: Cooley IP/technology partner; part of the Google defense team across the WAG streaming-patent IPR appeals.

2. Amazon entities (Amazon.com, Inc.; Amazon Web Services, Inc.; Amazon.com Services LLC) — Fenwick & West LLP

• J. David Hadden — Lead counsel (argued for the Amazon appellees in 24-1627). Fenwick & West LLP, Silicon Valley Center, 801 California Street, Mountain View, CA.
  • Note: One of the country's most decorated defendant-side patent trial lawyers (Fenwick bio states he has "won all of his Federal Circuit appeals for clients including Amazon, Intel, Under Armour, Twitter and Zillow," including the PersonalWeb Kessler-preclusion victory for Amazon); longtime lead of Amazon's patent defense docket.
• Saina S. Shamilov — Counsel of record on the Amazon brief. Fenwick & West LLP, Mountain View, CA (per multiple Amazon filings, e.g., the PersonalWeb MDL and IPR2014-01134 records).
  • Note: Fenwick litigation partner; frequent co-counsel with Hadden on Amazon patent matters (also led Fenwick's $30.5M Lashify trial win).
• Johnathan Chai — Counsel of record on the Amazon brief (Fenwick & West; office not stated in the judgment).
  • Note: Member of the Fenwick team defending Amazon in the IPR appeals and related streaming litigation.
• Johnson Kuncheria — Counsel of record on the Amazon brief (Fenwick & West; office not stated in the judgment).
  • Note: Member of Fenwick's Amazon patent-defense team.
• Brian Michael Hoffman — Counsel of record on the Amazon brief. Fenwick & West LLP, San Francisco, CA (per judgment).
• Kevin McGann — Counsel of record on the Amazon brief. Fenwick & West LLP, New York, NY (per judgment).
• Jonathan G. Tamimi — Counsel of record on the Amazon brief. Fenwick & West LLP, Seattle, WA (per judgment).
  • Note: Seattle-based Fenwick litigator who has worked with the Hadden/Shamilov team on Amazon and technology patent cases.

3. The Walt Disney Company, Disney Streaming Services LLC, Hulu, LLC, Netflix, Inc. — DLA Piper LLP (US)

• Stanley Joseph Panikowski III — Lead counsel (argued for the Disney/Hulu/Netflix appellees in 24-1627). DLA Piper LLP (US), San Diego, CA.
  • Note: DLA Piper partner who has argued numerous Federal Circuit patent appeals; represented this same media-appellee group throughout the WAG IPR appeals (24-1627 through 24-1634).
• Larissa S. Bifano — Counsel of record on the appellees' briefs. DLA Piper LLP (US), Boston, MA.
  • Note: Boston-based DLA Piper IP litigator appearing with Panikowski for Disney/Netflix/Hulu in these appeals.

---

Appellant's counsel (for context, not requested but on the same judgment)

• Ronald Abramson (argued) and Ari Jason Jaffess — Liston Abramson LLP, New York, NY, for WAG Acquisition, LLC.

---

Caveats

• No separate in-house counsel, local counsel, or pro hac vice counsel is identified in the Federal Circuit judgment for the appellee groups; the docketed entries of appearance in this appeal list the outside appellate counsel above. If your question contemplates the underlying district court infringement suits (e.g., WAG Acquisition LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-01424-JLR (W.D. Wash.); WAG Acquisition LLC v. Google LLC, No. 3:22-cv-05772-JD (N.D. Cal.)), those cases were stayed pending the IPRs, and the appellate record indicates Fenwick (Amazon) and Cooley (Google) were also the district-court defense firms — but I could not verify the complete district-court appearance lists from the sources available in this session.
• Office locations for Fenwick counsel Johnathan Chai and Johnson Kuncheria are not given in the judgment and were not independently confirmed; all other office locations above are sourced to the judgment or firm/docket filings.
• Nothing in the record indicates filings are sealed or that any defendant-appellee is unrepresented; all appellees appeared through the counsel above.