Infringement action filed 21 Aug 2025 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and closed 24 Mar 2026, with 13 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed without prejudice.
“H.264,” “MPEG-4 part 10,” or “Advanced Video Coding” (the “H.264 Standard”). The H.264 Standard development process was initiated by Video Coding Experts Group (“VCEG”) and finalized by the Joint Video Team (“JVT”), which was a collaborative effort between VCEG and the Moving Picture Experts Group (“MPEG”).
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 1:25-cv-01054, United States District Court for the District of Delaware.Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
A method of coding video frames in a telecommunication system, comprising: forming a video frame of consecutive stationary frames, storing the frame reconstruction data of at least one frame as a reference frame and the motion data of earlier coded neighboring blocks, defining by means of the motion data of one or more earlier coded neighboring blocks the motion data of the block to be coded, which neighboring block is formed by means of the stored reference frame, defining the frame reconstruction data of the frame to be coded, selecting for use the frame reconstruction data and motion data representing the block to be coded, which provide a pre-defined coding efficiency with a predefined picture quality.
A method and device for coding of digital video sequence, wherein an indication of quantization parameter (QP) is provided in the encoded bit-stream for decoding purposes. The QP related information is indicated by introducing a sequence level quantization parameter value SQP. More specifically, instead of coding the absolute values of picture/slice QPs, an indication of the difference ΔQP between the sequence level quantization parameter SQP and the picture/slice QP is provided. This eliminates the need to transmit a full QP for every picture/slice, and enables a statistically smaller difference value to be transmitted, thus providing a reduction in transmission bit-rate. The difference value is subsequently used in a corresponding decoder to reconstruct the picture/slice QP.
The docket lists 13 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 11 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.
Adam Greenfield · Ashley Finger · Blake R. Davis · Brett M. Sandford · Jacob C. Vannette · John G. Day · Matthew B. Hershkowitz · Matthew J. Moore · Rodger Dallery Smith II · William Vieth
Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket.Compare both portfolios
Outcome
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim
"THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties through their undersigned counsel that pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(l)(A)(ii) all claims between the parties in this action are hereby dismissed without prejudice"
Case 1:25-cv-01054 · D. Del. · closed 24 March 2026
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
1:25-cv-01054 is a patent infringement action brought by Nokia, Inc. against Paramount Skydance Corporation, filed on 21 Aug 2025 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The case closed on 24 March 2026.
Which patents were asserted in 1:25-cv-01054?
US8005145B2 (“Method and apparatus for transferring video frame in telecommunication system”), assigned to PEDIATRIX SCREENING, INC., currently inactive; US8175148B2 (“Method and device for indicating quantizer parameters in a video coding system”), assigned to NOKIA CORPORATION, currently inactive; US8776204B2 (“Secure dynamic authority delegation”), assigned to NOKIA TECHNOLOGIES OY; US7082450B2 (“Implementation of a transform and of a subsequent quantization”), assigned to NOKIA TECHNOLOGIES OY; US9800891B2 (“Method and associated device for filtering digital video images”), assigned to NOKIA TECHNOLOGIES OY; US6968005B2 (“Video coding”), assigned to NOKIA TECHNOLOGIES OY; US6950469B2 (“Method for sub-pixel value interpolation”), assigned to NOKIA TECHNOLOGIES OY; US7532808B2 (“Method for coding motion in a video sequence”), assigned to NOKIA TECHNOLOGIES OY; US8050321B2 (“Grouping of image frames in video coding”), assigned to NOKIA CORPORATION; US7289674B2 (“Spatial prediction based intra coding”), assigned to NOKIA TECHNOLOGIES OY; US6856701B2 (“Method and system for context-based adaptive binary arithmetic coding”), assigned to NOKIA TECHNOLOGIES OY; US8107744B2 (“Picture buffering for prediction references and display”), assigned to NOKIA TECHNOLOGIES OY; US6711211B1 (“Method for encoding and decoding video information, a motion compensated video encoder and a corresponding decoder”), assigned to NOKIA TECHNOLOGIES OY. The record also lists “H.264,” “MPEG-4 part 10,” or “Advanced Video Coding” (the “H.264 Standard”). The H.264 Standard development process was initiated by Video Coding Experts Group (“VCEG”) and finalized by the Joint Video Team (“JVT”), which was a collaborative effort between VCEG and the Moving Picture Experts Group (“MPEG”)..
How was case 1:25-cv-01054 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed without prejudice. The termination text reads: "THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties through their undersigned counsel that pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(l)(A)(ii) all claims between the parties in this action are hereby dismissed without prejudice"
What does dismissal without prejudice mean?
A dismissal without prejudice ends this action but leaves the claims alive — the plaintiff may file them again later, subject to the limitation period.
How long did case 1:25-cv-01054 take?
215 calendar days, from filing on 21 Aug 2025 to closure on 24 March 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:25-cv-01054?
Chief Judge Gregory B. Williams presided. Brian E. Farnan, Erik B Fountain, James Quigley, Joshua Budwin, Michael J. Farnan, R. Mitch Verboncoeur and Warren H. Lipschitz are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Nokia. Adam Greenfield, Ashley Finger, Blake R. Davis, Brett M. Sandford, Jacob C. Vannette, John G. Day, Matthew B. Hershkowitz, Matthew J. Moore, Rodger Dallery Smith II and William Vieth appear for defendant Paramount Skydance.
Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 1:25-cv-01054 and do not constitute legal advice.Ask your own question
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:25-cv-01054 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.
