Diatek Licensing v. Six Flags Entertainment: Consent Judgment After 323 Days
Diatek Licensing LLC asserted two patents covering discontinuous network data transmission and scrambled MPEG stream recording against Six Flags Entertainment Corporation in the Western District of Texas. The case resolved via consent judgment in under 11 months, with each party bearing its own attorneys' fees and costs.
Network transmission patents meet a theme-park giant in W.D. Texas
On March 31, 2022, Diatek Licensing LLC filed suit against Six Flags Entertainment Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Case No. 6:22-cv-00337), before Judge Alan D. Albright. Diatek asserted two patents: US7079752B1, directed to a method for discontinuous, sectioned transmission of data across distributed-station networks, and US8195828B2, covering a process for recording a scrambled MPEG stream. The action was brought as a patent infringement claim.
The recorded basis of termination is Consent Judgment. The docket order states that the parties submitted a joint stipulation of dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), dismissing Diatek's claims against Six Flags with prejudice, with all attorneys' fees, costs of court, and expenses borne by the party incurring same. The specific terms underlying the resolution are not disclosed in the available public record.
The case closed on February 17, 2023 — 323 days after filing — which suggests the parties reached their agreement relatively early in the litigation lifecycle, likely before substantial merits briefing or trial preparation was completed. What drove the resolution, and whether any commercial arrangement accompanied it, is not reflected in the public record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Consent Judgment in 323 days
323 days from filing to consent judgment — well under the W.D. Texas median for patent cases
US7079752B1 & US8195828B2 — Distributed data transmission and MPEG recording
Any company developing or deploying distributed network data transmission systems, venue-based media delivery infrastructure, or MPEG stream recording technology should consider an FTO analysis against both asserted patents. The consent judgment in this case did not invalidate or limit the claims of either patent, meaning the full original claim scope remains enforceable. Entertainment operators, content delivery network providers, and broadcast technology vendors are particularly exposed.
Official order — verbatim text
The joint stipulation records dismissal of Diatek's claims with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with each side bearing its own costs. The recorded basis of termination is Consent Judgment. No judicial finding on infringement, validity, or claim scope was issued, leaving both asserted patents unencumbered by any adverse ruling and available for future enforcement against third parties.
Consent judgment: what the agreed resolution means for both parties
A consent judgment is a binding, court-entered final resolution
A consent judgment is a formal judgment entered by the court on terms agreed between the parties. It is not merely a private settlement — it carries the full force of a court order and is enforceable as such. The docket order here is styled as a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, and the recorded basis of termination is Consent Judgment. The specific terms underlying the agreement are not disclosed in the available public record.
Court-entered, binding and finalDiatek's claims dismissed with prejudice — no re-filing against Six Flags
A dismissal with prejudice forecloses Diatek Licensing from reasserting the same patent infringement claims against Six Flags Entertainment on US7079752B1 and US8195828B2. The patents themselves remain in force and could potentially be asserted against other parties. Whether any commercial arrangement accompanied the consent judgment is not disclosed in the available record.
Claims extinguished as to this defendantSix Flags exits litigation — no court finding of infringement
The consent judgment does not constitute a judicial finding that Six Flags infringed — or did not infringe — either asserted patent. Six Flags bears its own attorneys' fees and costs under the agreed terms. The case ends without any admission of liability or validity ruling on the patents, as is typical for consent-judgment resolutions. The specific conditions Six Flags accepted are not disclosed in the public record.
No infringement finding; own costs borneNetwork transmission and MPEG patents remain live enforcement tools
The resolution preserves both US7079752B1 and US8195828B2 as active, enforceable patents — no invalidity ruling was issued. Entities operating distributed data networks or MPEG-based media recording systems, particularly in entertainment and venue technology sectors, should treat these patents as live enforcement risks. The relatively swift resolution may suggest the asserted claims have credible scope.
Patents remain enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Diatek Licensing, LLC | Company | Patent licensing entity — holder of US7079752B1 and US8195828B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Six Flags Entertainment Corporation | Company | Six Flags Entertainment Corporation — major U.S. theme park operatorSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Cortney Alexander | Attorney | Counsel for Diatek Licensing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Kent & Risley LLC | Law Firm | Representing Diatek Licensing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Barry K. Shelton | Attorney | Counsel for Six Flags Entertainment CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Krishnan Padmanabhan | Attorney | Counsel for Six Flags Entertainment CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Winston & Strawn, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Six Flags Entertainment CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alan D Albright | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in distributed network transmission & MPEG IP
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from Diatek's assertion of US7079752B1 and US8195828B2 — covering distributed network transmission and MPEG recording technology.
Diatek Licensing's patent acquisition and assertion activity
Diatek Licensing LLC is a licensing entity whose assertion of two technically distinct but complementary infrastructure patents suggests an active portfolio acquisition strategy in the network data transmission and digital media space. Monitoring Diatek's assignment records and newly filed suits can provide early warning of additional enforcement campaigns in adjacent technology areas.
Licensing entity watchFiling trends in distributed-station data transmission methods
The distributed-network data transmission domain — particularly methods for discontinuous, segmented delivery across subscriber stations — has seen sustained patenting activity as edge computing, IoT, and venue-based connectivity systems proliferate. Understanding the current patent density and white-space in this area is essential for R&D teams building next-generation network architectures.
Edge network IP densitySix Flags' patent posture in venue and media technology
Six Flags Entertainment operates large-scale venue networks that rely on distributed data delivery and media streaming infrastructure. Understanding Six Flags' own patent filing activity — and that of comparable entertainment venue operators — reveals how the sector is innovating in connected-venue technology and where defensive IP gaps may exist relative to licensing entity claims.
Entertainment venue IPDesign-around space near MPEG scrambled stream recording claims
US8195828B2's claims on recording scrambled MPEG streams sit adjacent to fast-evolving areas including adaptive bitrate streaming, encrypted content delivery, and cloud-based DVR. Mapping the claim boundaries against modern encoding and containerisation standards may reveal patentable white space for companies seeking to build defensible IP around next-generation media recording architectures.
MPEG recording white spaceSimilar patent infringement cases: distributed network transmission & MPEG IP
Explore comparable infringement actions asserting distributed data transmission and MPEG stream patents in the Western District of Texas and related federal venues.
What this case signals for the network transmission IP landscape
A rapid consent judgment in W.D. Texas, with no invalidity ruling, keeps Diatek's patents fully live for future assertion.
No validity ruling means both patents retain full enforcement value
Because the case ended via consent judgment without any merits adjudication, neither US7079752B1 nor US8195828B2 was found invalid or unenforceable. Any entity in the distributed-network data transmission or MPEG recording space should treat both patents as active risks and conduct FTO analysis accordingly.
W.D. Texas consent judgments under Judge Albright often resolve before claim construction
The 323-day timeline is consistent with a resolution reached before or shortly after early case management. Patent defendants in W.D. Texas facing Albright-assigned dockets should anticipate compressed schedules that can accelerate settlement leverage. Early FTO and prior art analysis remains the most effective mitigation tool.
Diatek v Six — key questions answered
The case ended via consent judgment, recorded as the basis of termination. The docket order is styled as a joint stipulation of dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), dismissing Diatek's claims against Six Flags with prejudice, with each party bearing its own attorneys' fees and costs. The specific terms of the resolution are not disclosed in the available public record.
Diatek asserted two patents: US7079752B1, covering a method for discontinuous, sectioned transmission of data across a network of distributed stations, and US8195828B2, covering a process for recording a scrambled MPEG stream. Both patents emerged from the case without any invalidity or unenforceability finding.
No. The consent judgment did not include any judicial ruling on the validity, scope, or enforceability of either asserted patent. Both patents remain in force and retain their full claim scope. Third parties cannot rely on this case as establishing any limitation on the patents.
The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Case No. 6:22-cv-00337, and was assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright — one of the busiest patent judges in the country. The case closed on February 17, 2023, approximately 323 days after filing.
A dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) means the plaintiff cannot re-file the same claims against the same defendant. In this case, Diatek cannot reassert US7079752B1 or US8195828B2 against Six Flags Entertainment for the same alleged infringement. The patents themselves remain enforceable against other parties. The recorded basis of termination is Consent Judgment.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.