WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. v. The Walt Disney Company et al.

Parties, technology, and patents. WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. — a New Jersey LLC and classic non-practicing/patent-assertion entity — sued The Walt Disney Company, Disney Streaming Services LLC, and (via consolidation of the companion Hulu action, No. 2:21-cv-08242) Hulu, LLC, later adding Disney affiliates BAMTech LLC, Disney Platform Distribution Inc., Disney Streaming Technology LLC, and ESPN, Inc. through the First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 81, filed 8/11/2022). WAG is the assignee of a streaming-media patent family developed by SurferNETWORK and invented by Harold Price, with a claimed priority date of September 12, 2000; RPX identifies WAG as running a decade-plus, third-party-litigation-funded campaign (financed in part by Woodsford Litigation Funding) against major streaming platforms since roughly 2007. The accused technology is the defendants' over-the-top streaming infrastructure behind Disney+ and Hulu — "pre-recorded and live programming, delivered to desktop, tablet, smartphone, smart TV, streaming stick, and other streaming device and media player platforms" (RPX, 10/22/2021). The three asserted patents — U.S. Patent Nos. 9,742,824 ("'824"), 9,729,594 ("'594"), and 9,762,636 ("'636"), all titled/related to a "Streaming Media Delivery System" and issued Aug.–Sept. 2017 — are directed to pull-based Internet streaming: a server stores a program as serially identified media data elements ("chunks"), the client requests chunks by serial identifier, and the server transmits each requested chunk at a rate faster than playback so the client can buffer ahead, yielding fast startup and uninterrupted playback (the complaint's "instant on" goal; see FAC ¶¶ 18–20). The '824 and '636 patents share a common specification (12 claims each), with the '636 claims emphasizing the live-source, server-side pull model, while the '594 has 17 claims and was asserted in overlapping sets across WAG's campaign (Fed. Cir. appellee briefs in Nos. 24-1627 et al.; Google IPR2022-01411 challenged claims 1–17 of the '594).

Procedural posture and venue. Filed October 18, 2021, in the Central District of California and docketed as No. 2:21-cv-08230-JAK-E, the case was initially assigned per docket text to Judge Percy Anderson with Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick, but it proceeded before District Judge John A. Kronstadt (Magistrate Judge Eick), who entered the scheduling, Markman, and stay orders (e.g., Dkts. 76, 104). C.D. Cal. was a natural venue: Hulu's principal place of business is in Santa Monica within the district (FAC ¶ 13) and Disney's streaming operations are California-based, making venue proper under § 1400(b). The parties exchanged infringement/validity contentions and completed Markman briefing, with a September 2022 claim-construction hearing scheduled, when the posture changed: Disney (IPR2022-01227 and IPR2022-01228, filed July 13, 2022, covering the '636/'824), Google (IPR2022-01411/-01412, filed Aug. 12, 2022), and Amazon separately petitioned for inter partes review of all asserted claims. Judge Kronstadt granted the defendants' motion to stay pending IPR on November 9, 2022 (Dkt. 104), and a later Disney petition on the '594 (IPR2023-00813) was instituted in early 2023. The PTAB issued final written decisions in January–March 2024 finding all challenged claims of all three patents unpatentable (e.g., Disney IPR2022-01227, FWD Jan. 31, 2024; Google IPR2022-01411 on the '594, FWD Feb. 27, 2024; Google IPR2022-01412, FWD Mar. 20, 2024). WAG appealed the FWDs to the Federal Circuit, which affirmed in consolidated, nonprecedential Rule 36 judgments entered March 9, 2026 (App. Nos. 2024-1627, -1628, -1631 through -1634, and 2024-1630). The district court action remained stayed and was ultimately resolved in defendants' favor; I did not locate the specific terminating district-court entry (e.g., stipulated dismissal or judgment) in these searches, so the exact closing instrument should be confirmed on PACER.

Why the case is notable. This suit is a representative front of WAG's coordinated, multi-forum assertion campaign against the largest subscription-video-on-demand providers — parallel suits targeted Disney Streaming Services, Hulu, Netflix (W.D. Tex. No. 6:21-cv-01083 and N.D. Cal.), Amazon (W.D. Wash. No. 2:22-cv-01424), and Google/YouTube (N.D. Cal.) — a pattern characteristic of litigant-financed PAE campaigns against platform-scale streaming, and one that had previously reached the ITC (Inv. No. 337-TA-1265). Its significance lies in the outcome: a coordinated IPR counteroffensive by Disney, Google, and Amazon resulted in every challenged claim of the asserted 2000-era SurferNETWORK patents being invalidated, the district court case stayed and disposed in defendants' favor, and the Federal Circuit summarily affirming the PTAB in 2026 — a clean illustration of how IPRs can neutralize a multi-defendant streaming-patent campaign before trial. It also highlights the litigation-finance/PAE dynamic: patents originating with a defunct 2000s streaming venture (SurferNETWORK) were monetized years later by a litigation-funding-backed NPE against modern streaming giants, only to founder on obviousness over prior-art systems such as "Carmel" and "Feig" that the Board found to disclose client-pull streaming.

Based on my searches, here is the chronology I can reconstruct for WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. v. The Walt Disney Co. et al., No. 2:21-cv-08230-JAK-E (C.D. Cal.) (filed 2021-10-18; Judge John A. Kronstadt; Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick). I flag where the record is thin and where specific docket entries could not be independently confirmed.

1. Filing and initial pleadings

• 2021-10-18 — Complaint filed (Dkt. 1) by WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. (a New Jersey LLC, funded in part by Woodsford Litigation Funding per RPX) against The Walt Disney Company and Disney Streaming Services LLC, asserting infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,742,824 ("'824"), 9,729,594 ("'594"), and 9,762,636 ("'636") — all titled "Streaming Media Delivery System" and targeting Disney+ (RPX Insight; UniCourt; Unified Patents initial docket). Initial notice of assignment listed Judge Percy Anderson and Magistrate Judge Eick; the case ultimately proceeded as 2:21-cv-08230-JAK-E before Judge Kronstadt.
• WAG simultaneously ran parallel cases: Hulu, LLC v. WAG-type suit, No. 2:21-cv-08242 (C.D. Cal.), Netflix in W.D. Tex. (6:21-cv-01083), and later Amazon (W.D. Wash. 2:22-cv-01424) and Google (N.D. Cal. 3:22-cv-05772) (RPX News, 2021-10-22; CAFC brief, 2024-11-04).
• The complaint named Disney entities; a First Amended Complaint later added BAMTech LLC, Disney Platform Distribution Inc., Disney Streaming Technology LLC, and ESPN, Inc. (Dkt. 81 is an answer to the FAC; FAC itself was likely filed mid-2022). Hulu LLC appears on the caption as "Consol Defendant," indicating consolidation of or joinder with the separate Hulu case.
• 2022-06-22 (Dkt. 74) — Disney Streaming Services LLC, Hulu LLC, and The Walt Disney Company filed Disney's First Amended Answer after an unopposed motion for leave (Dkts. 71–73, June 2022). I found no evidence of counterclaims beyond the standard invalidity/non-infringement defenses; the answers I could verify do not clearly plead affirmative counterclaims — treat that point as unconfirmed.
• 2022-10-11 (Dkt. 98) — BAMTech LLC, Disney Platform Distribution Inc., Disney Streaming Technology LLC, and ESPN, Inc. answered the First Amended Complaint.

2. Claim construction (Markman)

• 2022-07-19 (Dkt. 76) — Order on joint stipulation set simultaneous opening Markman briefs for 2022-08-12, responses for 2022-08-26, and continued the Markman hearing from 2022-09-12 to 2022-09-19 (UniCourt).
• The parties had thus reached the brink of claim construction, but no claim-construction order appears in the accessible record: the stay motion was filed shortly after (September 2022) and the case was stayed before any published Markman ruling. I could not confirm whether the 2022-09-19 hearing actually occurred or produced an order — most likely the stay mooted it.

3. Discovery milestones

• 2022-10-28 (Dkt. 100) — Joint report on status of settlement (mediation was underway).
• 2022-10-29 (Dkt. 101) — Joint stipulation extending the discovery cutoff to 2023-05-23.
• 2022-11-04 (Dkt. 103) — Post-mediation status conference taken off calendar.

4. Stay pending IPR (the pivotal pretrial ruling)

• Disney petitions for inter partes review were filed in July 2022 against two of the three asserted patents: IPR2022-01228 (challenging the '824 patent, filed 2022-07-08) and IPR2022-01227 (challenging the '636 patent, filed 2022-07-13) (DocketAlarm patent searches; Patexia IPR docket).
• September 2022 — Defendants moved to stay the case pending final resolution of the IPR petitions (Dkt. 94; reply at Dkt. 97, 2022-09-22).
• 2022-11-09 / entered 2022-11-14 (Dkt. 104) — Judge Kronstadt granted the motion to stay pending IPR (hearing taken off calendar and submitted on the papers, Dkts. 102–103).
• 2023-03-24 (Dkt. 105) / 2023-03-31 — Joint status report; the Court continued the stay pending the final written decisions in each instituted IPR and directed a joint report within ten days of the last FWD (text-only order, Patexia docket).

5. PTAB IPR proceedings and effect on the litigation

• Institution: PTAB instituted review of all twelve claims of the '824 and '636 patents in the Disney IPRs (institution decisions 2023-02-03 for IPR2022-01227 per Patexia).
• 2024-01-31 — Final Written Decisions in the Disney IPRs: the PTAB (panel: Amundson, Lorin, Hudalla) found the challenged claims unpatentable (Patexia: IPR2022-01227 "Final Written Decision – Appeal").
• The same patent family was simultaneously invalidated in parallel IPRs brought by Amazon (IPR2022-01430, -01433, and related), Google (IPR2022-01411, IPR2023-00813), and Netflix (IPR2022-01412, -01413 and related) — all six Disney/Netflix IPRs listed in the CAFC judgment are IPR2022-01227, -01228, -01412, -01413, -01430, -01433 (CAFC Rule 36 judgment).
• 2024 — WAG appealed the PTAB FWDs to the Federal Circuit (No. 24-1627, consolidated with Nos. 24-1628, 24-1631 through 24-1634, involving Disney/Netflix; No. 24-1630 for Google). As of the November 2024 appellee brief, the C.D. Cal. district case remained stayed and pending, directly affected by the IPR appeals (Fenwick & West brief, Fed. Cir. 24-1627).

6. Final disposition / outcome

• No trial, verdict, or summary-judgment decision occurred. The case never proceeded past the stayed pretrial phase (Markman unresolved), and there is no evidence of a settlement or fee motion in the accessible record.
• The litigation was resolved in defendants' favor as a function of the PTAB's invalidation of all asserted claims, which stripped WAG of its infringement theories on the '824 and '636 patents (and related claims across the family in the parallel IPRs). The '594 patent's asserted claims met the same fate in the related Netflix/Amazon/Google IPRs.
• 2026-03-09 — The Federal Circuit affirmed under Rule 36 (per curiam: Lourie, Wallach, Chen) in WAG Acquisition, LLC v. The Walt Disney Co. et al., Nos. 2024-1627, 2024-1628, 2024-1631–2024-1634, affirming the PTAB's invalidation of the challenged claims (CAFC Rule 36 judgment; CourtListener).
• The case's status is described as stayed → resolved in defendants' favor; the specific final district-court entry (e.g., stipulated dismissal or judgment after the CAFC mandate) does not appear in the public sources I retrieved, so I cannot give you the exact dismissal docket number or date. The practical end-state, however, is confirmed: the asserted patents' claims were cancelled, the CAFC affirmed, and WAG recovered nothing from Disney/Hulu.

Key caveats

• I could not verify the exact date/content of the original answer or the FAC, nor whether counterclaims were pled.
• The precise final district-court dismissal/judgment entry (post-CAFC mandate) is not visible in the free sources I searched (PACER paywall); if you need it, pull Dkts. 106+ on PACER for 2:21-cv-08230.
• No motion to dismiss, transfer, or summary judgment of substance appears in the docket excerpts — the substantive pretrial battleground was the stay motion and the IPRs.

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

Let me search for press and analyst coverage from more specific outlets.

Let me search for specific articles in Law360, IPWatchdog, and other outlets.

I was able to search several angles, but the honest headline is that this case generated very thin press coverage. It was a docket-driven NPE campaign that resolved through PTAB final written decisions and a Rule 36 summary affirmance — the kind of outcome that rarely produces mainstream or even trade-press articles. Below is what I actually found, with clear flags on what is press reporting versus docket/aggregator data.

What the press reported

The most substantive coverage came from RPX Insight, whose 2021-10-22 litigation-finance news item, "Disney, Hulu, and Netflix Added to WAG Acquisition's Streaming Campaign," framed the Disney/Hulu filings as an expansion of WAG's "over decade-long litigation campaign." RPX reported that WAG filed against Disney Streaming Services (2:21-cv-08230) and Hulu (2:21-cv-08242) separately in the Central District of California and against Netflix (6:21-cv-01083) in the Western District of Texas; that the three patents-in-suit were "asserted in overlapping sets" and "broadly directed to media streaming"; and that WAG called out the Disney+, Hulu, and Netflix platforms as targeting "pre-recorded and live programming, delivered to desktop, tablet, smartphone, smart TV, streaming stick, and other streaming device and media player platforms." Notably, RPX is the outlet that supplied the case's litigation-funding angle, reporting that the patent family (then "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." That funding attribution is the principal reporting detail on this case that goes beyond the four corners of the pleadings.

The other confirmed piece of trade coverage is IPWatchdog's "Patent Filings Roundup" of 2024-03-07, which noted that the PTAB "issued nine final written decisions this week," including "decisions in two IPRs filed by major streaming companies (Disney, Netflix, Google, and Hulu) invalidating claims in one Wag Acquisition LLC patent." That is a passing mention inside an industry roundup rather than a case study, but it is contemporaneous press confirmation that the Board invalidated WAG claims in the streaming-defendant IPRs — consistent with (and independently corroborating) the docket record of the January–March 2024 FWDs.

Broadly, the case was otherwise covered only at the docket-tracking level. Law360 maintains a case page for WAG's parallel Netflix action (dated October 19, 2021) summarizing the campaign: "Streaming giants Netflix, Hulu and Disney are being sued in Texas and California federal court over allegations that their respective services infringe WAG Acquisition LLC's patented technology aimed at improving video streaming technology." Beyond these three, I did not find dedicated articles in Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Ars Technica, The Verge, Patently-O, EFF Deeplinks, or JD Supra about this specific case.

Differences in emphasis and gaps in reporting

The accounts differ mainly in what they treat as the story. RPX frames it as a litigation-finance/PAE-campaign story — the funded, decade-long assertion program and the platform-scale defendants — and does not report on the merits. IPWatchdog frames it purely as PTAB outcome data (one line in a weekly roundup), with no discussion of Disney/Hulu specifically. Neither reports any damages figure, settlement amount, or market impact, and I found no reporting of a monetary demand or recovery anywhere — which is consistent with the court record (WAG's prayer sought infringement damages plus fees/costs under §§ 284–285, but the case was stayed and never reached a damages phase, and the PTAB cancelled the claims). I also found no executive statements, industry-reaction quotes, or analyst commentary about the case in the press, and no mainstream coverage of the March 2026 Federal Circuit Rule 36 affirmance — the affirmance appears to have been reported only through the court's own judgment and docket aggregators (CourtListener, Justia), not through news outlets. In short, the coverage that exists is narrow and descriptive; the "why it matters" framing (the coordinated IPR counteroffensive defeating a multi-defendant streaming campaign) is an analytical take drawn from the docket and PTAB record, not something I found asserted by any press outlet.

Sources

• NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential
• NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential
• Wag Acquisition, LLC v. Walt Disney Company – CourtListener.com - 🚀 Limited-time offer
• #23 in WAG Acquisition, LLC v. Google LLC (Fed. Cir., 24-1630) – CourtListener.com - WAG Acquisition, LLC v. Google LLC
• United States Court of Appeals For the Federal Circuit
• #22 in WAG Acquisition, LLC v. Walt Disney Company (Fed. Cir., 24-1627) – CourtListener.com - WAG Acquisition, LLC v. Walt Disney Company
• Cases
• UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
• Case, 2:21- cv- 08230- JAK- E Document 81 Filed 08/11/22 Page 1 of 20 Page ID #:591
• - WAG Acquisition, L
• Patent Filings Roundup: Sitnet LLC Patents Challenged; Touchmusic Launches First Campaign; NPE Activity in UPC Ramps Up - Patent Filings Roundup: Sitnet LLC Patents Challenged; Touchmusic Launches First Campaign; NPE Activity in UPC Ramps Up
• #22 in WAG Acquisition, LLC v. Walt Disney Company (Fed. Cir., 24-1627) – CourtListener.com - 912 F.3d 1368 (Fed

Based on the available docket-derived records, here is the plaintiff-side counsel of record for WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. v. The Walt Disney Co. et al., No. 2:21-cv-08230-JAK (Ex) (C.D. Cal.). The case was handled by the boutique IP firm Liston Abramson LLP (New York), which the plaintiff itself identified as an interested party in its Notice of Interested Parties (dkt. 1), with Los Angeles local counsel for filing.

Plaintiff's counsel of record

1. Ronald Abramson — Lead Counsel

• Firm: Liston Abramson LLP, New York, NY (Chrysler Building, 405 Lexington Ave., 46th Fl., NY 10174).
• Role: Lead counsel for WAG Acquisition. Listed as plaintiff's attorney in the district-court docket (UniCourt party record); argued the related Federal Circuit appeals for WAG (Nos. 24-1627 et al.) and is identified there as lead ("argued for appellant," also of record in the underlying district litigation).
• Note: Longstanding counsel for the WAG/SurferNETWORK streaming-patent portfolio; argued the consolidated IPR appeals against Disney, Amazon, Google, and Netflix (affirmed by the Federal Circuit per curiam on March 9, 2026).

2. Ari Jason Jaffess — Counsel

• Firm: Liston Abramson LLP, New York, NY (same address).
• Role: Counsel for WAG on the district-court docket (UniCourt plaintiff-attorney list) and of record on the Federal Circuit appeals ("Also represented by ARI JASON JAFFESS").
• Note: Patent litigator at Liston Abramson who worked the WAG streaming-patent cases across district court and PTAB/Federal Circuit stages.

3. David G. Liston — Counsel / Name Partner

• Firm: Liston Abramson LLP, New York, NY.
• Role: Listed as a plaintiff attorney in the district-court case (UniCourt party record); name partner of the firm.
• Note: Co-founder of Liston Abramson; historically represented SurferNETWORK entities in streaming-media patent enforcement; not an active signatory on the public C.D. Cal. filings I could verify, so his day-to-day role in this case may have been supervisory/strategic.

4. Alex G. Patchen — Counsel (motion/briefing practice)

• Firm: Liston Abramson LLP, New York, NY (firm-level inference — his signature appears on the case's substantive briefs).
• Role: Listed as a plaintiff attorney; signed Plaintiff's Responsive Claim Construction Brief (dkt. 93, filed 8/26/2022), so he was the active briefing attorney on the Markman phase.
• Note: Handled the claim-construction briefing in this case before it was stayed pending IPR.

5. William A. White — Local Counsel

• Firm: Hill, Farrer & Burrill LLP, Los Angeles, CA (300 S. Grand Ave., One California Plaza) — identification is inferred from bar-admission/location match; the docket does not state his firm.
• Role: The CM/ECF filing attorney who entered the appearance and filed the original complaint, civil cover sheet, and summons requests for WAG (dkt. 1, 10/18/2021) — typical local-counsel function.
• Note: General commercial trial/antitrust litigator (USC Law 1985; admitted C.D. Cal. 1985), not a patent specialist; his role appears to have been C.D. Cal. local counsel/efiling counsel. Caveat: "William A. White" is a common name in LA; the Hill Farrer partner is the best match by bar status and vintage, but I could not confirm firm affiliation from a PACER-filed appearance itself.

What the record shows / caveats

• Sources: UniCourt case page (pc-db5) listing plaintiff attorneys; the C.D. Cal. docket via Unified Patents' portal (dkt. 1 entries showing "Attorney William A White added"); Patexia docket log (dkt. 93 signed by Patchen); Federal Circuit judgments in Nos. 24-1627/24-1630 (Ronald Abramson argued, Ari Jaffess of record); CourtListener Fed. Cir. party pages.
• In-house counsel: None identified. WAG Acquisition LLC appears to have relied entirely on outside counsel; no in-house attorney appears in the public docket.
• No gaps from sealing: No plaintiff filings or appearances appear sealed that would hide additional counsel; the case was stayed pending IPR (dkt. 104, 11/9/2022), administratively closed, and later terminated (dkt. 111), and WAG's substantive positions were ultimately resolved against it through the IPR final written decisions and the Federal Circuit's Rule 36 affirmance.
• Verification limit: I did not access PACER directly (paywalled). Attorney names and roles are corroborated by multiple secondary docket services, but firm/office details for Patchen and White are partly inferred, and I flag those where applicable.

I'll research the defense counsel of record for this case using web searches across docket databases, firm announcements, and court records.

I found a UniCourt listing of defendant attorneys. Let me verify their firms and roles via additional searches.

Let me confirm the firms of the district-court defense attorneys, particularly Michael Jay, Anand Mohan, Jennifer Nall, and Erin Greenfield Mehta.

I have enough verified information to answer, though I hit my search limit before confirming every name. Here is the defense-counsel picture, with sourcing and caveats clearly flagged.

Summary

DLA Piper LLP (US) served as defense counsel for the Disney entities and Hulu across all three phases of this matter — district court (2:21-cv-08230), the PTAB IPRs, and the Federal Circuit appeals (Nos. 24-1627/24-1628/24-1631–24-1634). The district-court team was led out of DLA Piper's Los Angeles (Century City) office, with San Diego and Boston colleagues handling the appellate phase. No separate local-counsel firm appears in the record because DLA Piper maintains the Los Angeles office in the C.D. Cal. forum. No in-house Disney or Hulu attorney appears on the public docket.

District-court counsel of record (defendants)

1. Michael D. Jay — Lead counsel for Disney/Hulu (district court)

• Firm/office: DLA Piper LLP (US), Los Angeles (Century City) — 2000 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 400, Los Angeles, CA 90067 (Cal. Bar No. 223827).
• Role: Lead district-court counsel for The Walt Disney Company, Disney Streaming Services LLC, Hulu LLC, and the later-added Disney entities. Signed the key defense filings: Disney's First Amended Answer (Dkt. 74, 6/22/2022), Defendants' Responsive Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. 91, 8/26/2022), the reply in support of the stay motion (Dkt. 97), and joint status reports (e.g., Dkt. 105). Entered appearances for BAMTech LLC, Disney Platform Distribution Inc., Disney Streaming Technology LLC, and ESPN, Inc. when they were added (9/1/2022 docket text).
• Experience: DLA Piper IP partner; named to the Daily Journal's 2023 Top IP Lawyers list, which specifically noted that Jay "serves as lead counsel for Disney and Hulu in a lawsuit over patents on streaming content online" — i.e., this case. Prior notable work includes co-leading the Motorola ITC investigation and related district-court action; Patexia-recognized top-100 patent litigator (2026).

2. Nandan R. Padmanabhan — Associate/partner-track counsel

• Firm/office: DLA Piper LLP (US), Los Angeles (Century City).
• Role: Defense counsel of record on the docket; filed the Joint Stipulation to Amend the Markman Schedule (Dkt. 75, 7/14/2022) and submitted the supporting declaration (Dkt. 75-2).
• Experience: Computer-engineering background (B.S.E., Michigan); patent/trade-secret trial lawyer with district-court, ITC, PTAB, and Federal Circuit experience, including defense of a large consumer-electronics company (per DLA Piper profile).

3. John C. Williams — Initial counsel of record (withdrew)

• Firm/office: DLA Piper LLP (US) (listed in docket-derived sources; office location not confirmed).
• Role: Appeared for Disney Streaming Services LLC and The Walt Disney Company at the outset (Ex Parte attorney database links him to this case from 10/18/21). He withdrew as counsel of record on June 9, 2022, per the G-123 notice (Dkt. 70, which states "John Williams is no longer counsel of record"), with Michael Jay picking up the docket entries.
• Note: His early involvement reflects DLA Piper's engagement from the complaint stage; I could not confirm which DLA Piper office he was in.

Appellate / IPR-phase counsel (Disney, Disney Streaming, Hulu — appellees)

These DLA Piper attorneys appear in the Federal Circuit Rule 36 judgments (3/9/2026) and the CAFC dockets. They were the public face of the defense after the district case was stayed and the IPR FWDs were appealed:

4. Stanley Joseph Panikowski III — Appellate lead counsel (argued)

• Firm/office: DLA Piper LLP (US), San Diego, CA (4365 Executive Drive, Suite 1100, 92121).
• Role: Argued for appellees The Walt Disney Company, Disney Streaming Services LLC, Hulu LLC, and Netflix, Inc. in both consolidated CAFC appeals (Nos. 24-1627 et al. and 24-1630); per curiam Rule 36 affirmance entered 3/9/2026.
• Experience: Senior DLA Piper patent appellate/IPR litigator.

5. Larissa S. Bifano — Appellate co-counsel

• Firm/office: DLA Piper LLP (US), Boston, MA (33 Arch St., 02110).
• Role: Also of record for the Disney appellees and Netflix on the CAFC appeals (judgment list: "Also represented by LARISSA S. BIFANO, Boston, MA"); likewise appears on the Federal Circuit docket for appeal No. 24-1628 (Justia).
• Experience: DLA Piper IP partner with substantial PTAB/Federal Circuit practice.

Names on the docket I could not fully verify

UniCourt's attorney list for this case adds three further defendant-side names — Anand Mohan, Jennifer L. Nall, and Erin Greenfield Mehta — whom I could not independently confirm by firm or role before hitting my search limit. Given that (a) the entire confirmed defense team is DLA Piper, (b) Michael Jay's DLA Piper LA office is the hub, and (c) these names are grouped with Padmanabhan/Jay on the same UniCourt party page, they are most plausibly DLA Piper colleagues on the Disney/Hulu team — but I flag their firm affiliations as unconfirmed; pull the PACER appearance/G-123 entries for 2:21-cv-08230 if firm-verified designations are needed.

Key caveats

• Sources used: UniCourt case pages (pc-db5, listing defendant attorneys and docket entries 70–105); Patexia docket log (signed defense filings by Jay); DLA Piper attorney bios and news (Daily Journal 2023 Top IP Lawyers announcement confirming Jay as Disney/Hulu lead in the streaming-patent suit); Federal Circuit Rule 36 judgments in Nos. 24-1627 and 24-1630 (naming Panikowski and Bifano); CourtListener/Justia CAFC dockets; Ex Parte attorney database (linking Williams to 2:21-cv-08230).
• Not verified directly on PACER: the formal G-123 appearance forms for each DLA Piper attorney, and the firm affiliations of Mohan, Nall, and Mehta. The docket is not sealed (the case was stayed at Dkt. 104, 11/9/2022, and administratively terminated at Dkt. 111 on 4/8/2025), so no counsel are hidden by sealing.
• In-house counsel: None identified in the public record; Disney/Hulu appear to have relied on DLA Piper throughout, consistent with the coordinated IPR strategy that produced the invalidation of all three asserted patents.