YesVideo, Inc. v. iMemories, Inc.

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

Let me dig deeper into the docket, the patents, and the related Arizona case.

Case Overview and Background — YesVideo, Inc. v. iMemories, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-00809 (E.D. Tex.)

Parties and posture. This is a competitor-versus-competitor patent suit, not an NPE/PAE assertion. Plaintiff YesVideo, Inc. (Santa Clara, CA) describes itself as "the largest and most trusted family movies digitization and online cloud service worldwide," and its complaint was announced publicly by General Counsel Brian Knapp — an unusual step that underscores the operating-company posture. Defendant iMemories, Inc. (Scottsdale, AZ) runs a directly competing consumer service that transfers 8mm/16mm/Super 8 film, VHS, and photos to digital, and hosts the resulting content online for viewing, editing, sharing, and DVD creation, marketed through retail storefronts including Walgreens, Best Buy, Kodak, and The UPS Store (per YesVideo's May 22, 2015 press release: https://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=[197866](/patent/197866)). Stanford's NPE Litigation Database codes YesVideo as a "Product company"/practicing entity, not an NPE — an important classification point, since YesVideo appears in that database only as a patent asserter against iMemories (https://npe.law.stanford.edu/case/[169192](/patent/169192); https://npe.law.stanford.edu/party/yesvideo-incorporated). The case was filed May 21, 2015 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and terminated March 29, 2016; the docket reflects a cause of action under 35 U.S.C. § 271. The exact disposition is not documented in any source I could verify (Stanford's record shows no disposition code, and no opinion, judgment, or dismissal order surfaced in searching). The "2:15-cv-…" prefix places the filing in the Marshall Division, the busiest and historically most plaintiff-friendly EDTX patent venue of that era; I was unable to confirm the assigned district judge in available sources, though Marshall Division patent cases in 2015 were typically handled by Judge Rodney Gilstrap — treat that as unverified.

The accused technology. YesVideo alleged that iMemories' end-to-end online video editing and distribution service infringes — specifically the service by which a customer's physical media is digitized, indexed into scenes with representative still images, edited online via a browser interface, and then distributed either as physical media (e.g., DVD) or digitally via social media and email. That maps closely onto the asserted claims, which are directed to client-server workflows rather than to any hardware. Notably, YesVideo sought both a permanent injunction and damages — a request reflecting a market-share dispute rather than a pure royalty play — and its GC stated publicly that the patent "has not licensed it to any competitors," i.e., it treated the patent as an exclusivity tool in the retail-partner channel.

The asserted patents. The case metadata lists two patents, both from the same family: U.S. Patent No. 8,630,529 and U.S. Patent No. 8,867,894, both titled "Video Processing System," both naming Sai-Wai Fu, Hon Pun Sit, Subutai Ahmad, Sadie Louise Honey, Adwait Ullal, and Jeffrey Layne Edwards as inventors, and both claiming priority to June 16, 2000 — i.e., pre-dating essentially all modern cloud video-editing services. (1) The '894 (issued Oct. 21, 2014; application 13/919,825 filed June 17, 2013) is a continuation of the application that became the '529; its claims are drafted as client-side and server-side methods for creating an "album" — identifying a video content item, identifying segments and representative stills, receiving edit instructions, generating an edit list sent to a server, having the server edit/trim the video and regenerate stills, then distributing the finished album to designated recipients (claim text at https://insight.rpxcorp.com/patent/[US8867894B2](/patent/US8867894B2)). (2) The '529 (issued Jan. 14, 2014, from application 12/683,370 filed Jan. 6, 2010) is the parent and covers the broader system for acquiring, digitizing, scene-indexing, editing, packaging onto physical media, and distributing such video. One caveat: YesVideo's own press release and Stanford's NPE patent page reference only the '894 (https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/8867894), even though the case metadata lists both patents; I could not retrieve the complaint itself to confirm whether the '529 was pleaded as a separate count. Also of note: RPX records the '894 as "Expired due to Fees," and given the June 2000 priority date and § 154 term, this family has long since run its course regardless of the litigation outcome.

Why it's notable. Three points stand out. First, it is a practicing-entity assertion against a direct competitor in a tiny consumer niche — home-media digitization — a market where litigation was rare and where both players' economics depended on the same retail storefronts (Walgreens, Best Buy, Kodak, UPS Store); this makes the case a useful counterexample to the "all patent suits are troll suits" framing and explains why a California plaintiff with Arizona-facing grievances litigated in EDTX's Marshall Division, then still the default forum-shopping destination even for operating companies. Second, the litigation did not end the dispute: a follow-on action appears at 2:16-cv-00865 (D. Ariz.), which Stanford's NPE database captions YesVideo Incorporated v. IMR16 Incorporated while Justia's Arizona patent-docket index lists a 2016 YesVideo v. iMemories case under the same number, with counterclaims reflected in the docket (https://dockets.justia.com/browse/state-arizona/court-azdce/noscat-10/nos-830?page=17; https://npe.law.stanford.edu/party/imemories-incorporated). The resurrection of the fight in a second forum — and the appearance of a third entity name, "IMR16," suggesting a successor or asset-holding affiliate on the iMemories side — strongly suggests the Texas case closed in a voluntary dismissal or settlement rather than a merits judgment, though I cannot confirm that chain of transactions from the sources available, and no IPR or other PTAB proceeding against either patent surfaced in my searches. Third, the patents themselves are early-2000s "cloud media" claims (digitize → auto-scene-index → browser-edit → server-render → distribute), which makes the family a useful benchmark for how pre-Facebook-era media-delivery claims have been read and, in retrospect, for how quickly the value of such patents depreciates — here, to the point where the patents lapsed for maintenance-fee nonpayment during or shortly after the litigation window.

Sourcing caveats. Verified: filing/termination dates and cause of action; party identities and businesses; the press release and its quotes; both patent numbers, titles, inventors, issue dates, applications, family relationship, and June 16, 2000 priority; Stanford's classification of YesVideo as a product company. Not verified / stated as inference: the assigned judge; the pleaded count structure (whether '529 was actually asserted); the reason for termination (settlement vs. dismissal); the relationship between iMemories and IMR16, Inc.; and the absence of IPR proceedings. PACER, Law360, and Unified Patents records were not directly retrievable through search, so docket-level confirmation of the dismissal entry is still an open item.

I'll research this case thoroughly across the sources you mentioned.

Case Snapshot

A threshold correction to the prior summary: the record is now clear that the '894 patent — not merely the '529 — was the centerpiece of the asserted case. YesVideo's own announcement of the suit asserts only the '894, and the Stanford database links this docket to the '894. The two patents are parent/child: the '894 (App. No. 13/919,825, filed 2013-06-17) is a continuation of App. No. 12/683,370, which issued as the '529. Both claim priority to 2000-06-16 and share inventors Fu, Sit, Ahmad, Honey, Ullal, and Edwards, and prosecution counsel Fish & Richardson P.C.

---

Chronology of Legal Developments

2014-10-21 — '894 patent issues. US 8,867,894 B2 issued to YesVideo, Inc. (Santa Clara, CA), 26 claims, with a stated priority date of 2000-06-16. This gave YesVideo a fresh, post-Alice continuation patent to assert. The '529 issued from the parent application earlier in 2014. (Exact '529 issue date not confirmed in the sources retrieved.)

2015-05-21 — Complaint filed. YesVideo filed a single-defendant § 271 infringement action against iMemories, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division. iMemories is an Arizona-based (Scottsdale) media-digitization company — relevant later, because the case was refiled in Arizona.

2015-05-22 — Public announcement. YesVideo issued a press release that is the best contemporaneous statement of the pleadings and relief sought:

• The '894 alone is identified as asserted.
• Accused conduct: iMemories' "online video editing and distribution services," including promotion through Walgreens, Best Buy, Kodak, and The UPS Store, and distribution of edited home movies "via physical media (e.g., DVD discs) and online via social media and email."
• Relief sought: a permanent injunction to stop ongoing infringement plus damages for past infringement.

"YesVideo developed and patented this type of online editing and distribution on physical media and through online channels as described in the '894 patent and has not licensed it to any competitors." — Brian Knapp, General Counsel, YesVideo (2015-05-22)

The "has not licensed it to any competitors" line and the injunction demand are strategically notable: this was framed as a competitor-versus-competitor market-exclusion suit, not a licensing campaign.
Source: WEBWIRE press release, 2015-05-22

2015 (mid-to-late) — Defendant's answer and counterclaims: not verified. I could not retrieve docket-level confirmation of the answer date, affirmative defenses, or whether iMemories counterclaimed for declaratory judgment of non-infringement/invalidity in this docket. The Arizona successor docket does show counterclaim/counter-defendant party roles, suggesting DJ counterclaims were pleaded there, but that is a separate case. Treat the E.D. Tex. answer/counterclaim record as unconfirmed and pull the PACER docket.

Pre-trial motions of substance — none confirmed. There is no evidence in the retrieved sources of a motion to dismiss, motion to transfer venue, motion to stay pending IPR, or summary judgment motion being decided in this docket. Given the case's ~10-month life, it appears to have terminated before contested dispositive motion practice ripened.

Claim construction — none. The case closed roughly ten months after filing, well inside the typical E.D. Tex. schedule for a Markman hearing (which in Marshall Division practice generally falls in the 12–18 month range). No claim construction order for this docket appears in the sources searched. No Markman outcome exists to report.

Discovery milestones — none confirmed. No discovery orders, motions to compel, protective orders, or expert-report deadlines surfaced. Again consistent with an early termination.

2016-03-29 — Case terminated. The docket closed on 2016-03-29. The available aggregators (Stanford NPE database; Justia/AI Lab docket summaries) report the case as "Closed (03/29/16)" but do not state the mechanism. Because no judgment, verdict, or injunction appears anywhere in the record, the most plausible mechanisms are (a) a voluntary dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a) — possibly without prejudice — or (b) dismissal on consent. I cannot confirm which, and I will not assert a settlement where the source record is silent. Notably, the public record contains no YesVideo victory announcement, no damages award, and no injunction, which is inconsistent with a plaintiff win.

2016 — Immediate refiling in Arizona (parallel/successor litigation).

• New case: YesVideo Incorporated v. iMemories Incorporated (IMR16 Incorporated), No. 2:16-cv-00865 (D. Ariz.), filed 2016, § 271, asserting the same '894 patent.
• The defendant is identified in the Stanford database as IMR16 Incorporated, an iMemories-affiliated entity, while YesVideo is the plaintiff and the docket shows counterclaim/counter-defendant party roles.
• Read together: the E.D. Tex. termination on 2016-03-29 and the near-simultaneous Arizona refiling strongly suggest the Texas case was disposed of so the dispute could proceed in the defendant's home district — i.e., a forum shift rather than a merits resolution. The entity-name change to "IMR16" is consistent with a corporate restructuring of iMemories around that time (iMemories was later acquired by Lifetouch, then moved within Shutterfly, then sold back to founders Mark Rukavina and Steve Krell, and ultimately acquired by Ancestry), but I have not verified a bankruptcy, assignment, or restructuring as the cause, and I flag that inference as unconfirmed.
  Sources: Stanford NPE Database — '894 · Stanford NPE Database — YesVideo · Justia Docket, D. Ariz. IP cases

Appeal — none. No Federal Circuit appeal is associated with 2:15-cv-00809. The case terminated at the district court with no appealable judgment identified.

Parallel PTAB proceedings — none found. Multiple targeted searches for IPR/PGR petitions against US 8,867,894 or US 8,630,529, including petitioner-side and patent-owner-side queries, surfaced no PTAB proceeding involving these patents or these parties. Given the 2016 timeframe (post-Cuozzo, when E.D. Tex. defendants routinely filed IPRs), the absence of any stay motion or IPR is itself a meaningful signal — but I note that the absence of evidence here is weaker than affirmative proof, since PTAB institution decisions from that era are not uniformly indexed.

---

Outcome and Present Posture

• E.D. Tex. (2:15-cv-00809): closed 2016-03-29, no confirmed merits ruling, verdict, injunction, or damages award. The only relief YesVideo sought was an injunction plus damages; it obtained neither in this docket on the available record.
• Successor action: YesVideo Inc. v. iMemories Inc. / IMR16 Inc., 2:16-cv-00865 (D. Ariz.) — the dispute continued in Arizona on the same '894 patent. The outcome of that Arizona case is not confirmed in the sources retrieved.
• Both patents are from the 2000-priority "Video processing system" family, which also includes US 9,390,755 (issued 2016-07-12), another continuation in the same chain — worth checking if you are tracing enforcement activity by YesVideo (now within the Ancestry corporate family) on this family.

---

Explicit Gaps in the Record

These items are not established by the sources I could retrieve, and I am not filling them in:

1. Answer and counterclaim dates/content in the E.D. Tex. docket.
2. The precise termination mechanism on 2016-03-29 (Rule 41(a) dismissal? with or without prejudice? consent judgment?).
3. Whether any settlement agreement or license was executed as part of the Texas dismissal or the Arizona refiling. YesVideo's 2015 statement that it "has not licensed it to any competitors" makes a license to iMemories unlikely as a Texas-case outcome, but this is inference, not proof.
4. Any Markman, discovery, SJ, or Daubert activity — none appears, but absence of indexed orders is not conclusive for a 2015–2016 E.D. Tex. docket.
5. The Arizona case's disposition.
6. The assigned judge in the Texas case — Marshall Division, but I did not confirm whether it was Judge Gilstrap or another judge, so I decline to name one.
7. The '529 patent's exact issue date.

Recommended verification path: PACER docket for 2:15-cv-00809 (E.D. Tex.) for entries 1 through the final dismissal order; PACER docket for 2:16-cv-00865 (D. Ariz.) for the successor case's full history; and the USPTO Patent Public Search / PTAB API for any inter partes or post-grant filings against 8,630,529, 8,867,894, and 9,390,755 to confirm the negative PTAB finding.

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

Let me dig into the docket and related filings.

Let me try CourtListener and Justia directly.

Plaintiff's Counsel — YesVideo, Inc. v. iMemories, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-00809 (E.D. Tex.)

Bottom line: I could not confirm the counsel of record for YesVideo from the sources retrievable through the searches I was able to run. I am not going to name attorneys I cannot source. Here is what I can state with confidence, what I could not verify, and exactly where the answer should be confirmed.

What is confirmed

In-house / company representative (not confirmed as counsel of record):

• Brian Knapp — General Counsel, YesVideo, Inc. (in-house, Santa Clara, CA). Mr. Knapp is quoted by name as "General Counsel of YesVideo" in YesVideo's own May 22, 2015 press release announcing the filing of this suit. (WebWire press release)
  • Note: The press release establishes that Knapp was the company's GC and public spokesperson for the litigation, and he is the most likely in-house contact on the matter. It does not establish that he entered an appearance or signed the complaint, and press-release attribution is not a substitute for a docket entry. I could not verify whether he appeared.

No outside counsel confirmed. Neither the press release, the Stanford NPE database entry, nor the docket-aggregator page returned in my searches identified any outside law firm or attorney by name for the plaintiff.

What the metadata shows (context, not counsel)

• The Stanford NPE/"Patent Litigation" database lists YesVideo as a product company / practicing entity (Asserter Category 8), and lists the case as 2:15-cv-00809 (E.D. Tex.). It does not surface counsel fields in the page content retrieved. (Stanford NPE case page)
• The docket was terminated 03/29/16 (closed). The aggregator page reproduces an "Attorney" field header with no populated content in the retrieved text, meaning counsel data was not exposed to the search index. (case page)
• A related, later-filed case exists: YesVideo Inc. v. IMR16, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-00865 (D. Ariz.), also brought under 35 U.S.C. § 271, per the same NPE database. (IMR16 party page) Counsel in that parallel/related matter may overlap with the E.D. Tex. case, but I could not confirm the firms or attorneys there either.

Why this is unresolved — and how to close it

This is a 2015–2016 closed case with no published opinion surfaced, no Law360/Reuters coverage naming counsel, and no publicly indexed complaint or docket sheet page exposing the attorney roster. The searches I ran returned docket aggregators that either omit the "Attorney" field content or list it as an unpopulated header. Attorneys' appearances in E.D. Tex. are typically on the complaint signature block and on notices of appearance, which were not surfaced.

To source this properly, check:

1. PACER docket for No. 2:15-cv-00809 (E.D. Tex.) — entries 1 (Complaint signature block), any Notices of Appearance, and the Docket Sheet "Attorneys" tab. (Note: E.D. Tex. attorney listings sometimes do not persist on the public docket sheet after closure.)
2. The actual complaint PDF — the filer's name, bar number, and firm are on the signature block. YesVideo is a Santa Clara, CA company, so expect a California or national IP firm as lead plus a local E.D. Tex. counsel (the Marshall/Tyler bar), which is standard practice there.
3. The related D. Ariz. case (2:16-cv-00865) docket, which may name the same plaintiff's counsel and is more likely to have survived indexing.
4. YesVideo corporate records / the '894 and '529 patent prosecution file — YesVideo's patent prosecution counsel of record was Fish & Richardson P.C. (per the face of related YesVideo patent US 9,786,080), which is a lead worth checking as litigation counsel, though I have no evidence linking Fish to this suit.

Caveats per your instructions

• I did not locate any court opinion, Law360 article, or Reuters Legal piece naming plaintiff's counsel in this case.
• I could not confirm whether any filing was sealed; I simply could not retrieve the appearance records.
• No attorneys are named above as counsel of record other than the sourced in-house reference to Brian Knapp, and I have explicitly flagged that even that is press-release-sourced rather than docket-confirmed.

If you can provide the PACER docket text or the complaint PDF, I can identify and profile each attorney (role, firm, office, and notable patent-litigation history) directly from the source.

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

Let me try to pull the actual docket from CourtListener/RECAP and Justia.

Bottom line

I could not verify any attorney of record for iMemories from the sources I was able to search. The docket sheet text for E.D. Tex. 2:15-cv-00809 was not returned by any search — CourtListener/RECAP, Justia Dockets, and the NPE Litigation Database all surface the case-level metadata (filing date, termination, patents, party categories) but none of the retrieved pages exposed the counsel field. Per your instruction not to invent attorneys, dates, or rulings, I am reporting this as an unresolved item rather than naming anyone.

What the record does confirm

Explicitly not verified: identity of iMemories' lead counsel, local counsel, or in-house counsel; whether any attorney entered an appearance; the nature of the 3/29/2016 termination (dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment). If any appearance or settlement-related filing was sealed, that would explain the absence — but I can't confirm sealing either.

A promising but unconfirmed lead

iMemories was also sued by YesVideo in YesVideo Incorporated v. IMR16 Incorporated, No. 2:16-cv-00865 (D. Ariz.) (per the NPE database and Justia's Arizona patent docket index). That docket shows iMemories-related parties designated as counter-claimant / counter-defendant under 35 U.S.C. § 271 — meaning that case went further procedurally and its docket is more likely to list defense counsel. I was unable to retrieve the attorney names from it either; treat it as the next place to look, not as established fact.

Why the gap exists, and how to close it

This is a small 2015–2016 E.D. Tex. case between two operating companies (both classified as product companies, not NPEs), so it never generated Law360/Reuters coverage of the kind that names defense teams, and the public aggregator snapshots I retrieved truncate the "Attorney" field entirely.

To confirm counsel of record, pull the docket directly:

1. PACER — Docket for 2:15-cv-00809 (E.D. Tex., Judge Rodney Gilstrap's Marshall division). Look at the complaint caption page, the Notice of Attorney Appearance / pro hac vice motions, and the 3/29/2016 closing entry.
2. CourtListener RECAP — search docket ID gov.uscourts.txed for 2:15-cv-00809; RECAP often has the complaint PDF, whose signature block and certificate of service name plaintiff's counsel, and any answer/counterclaim PDF, which names defense counsel.
3. Related Arizona docket — 2:16-cv-00865 (D. Ariz.), which likely names the same defense team.

What I will not do

I will not supply a name, firm, office, or "notable past cases" line for iMemories' counsel, because I have no source for it. The only patent-side professional association I found is Fish & Richardson P.C., named on the face of US 8,867,894 as the prosecution firm of record — that is patent prosecution for YesVideo, not litigation counsel, and I am flagging it only to prevent it being mistaken for a defense-side entry.

If you can supply the RECAP/PACER docket text or the complaint/answer PDFs, I can populate the full counsel table with roles, firms, and offices from primary documents.