Videolabs, Inc. v. Netflex, Inc.
Patentability filed 30 Oct 2024 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and closed 12 May 2026, with US7233790B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: unpatentable.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US7233790B2
- Application no.
- US10/600746
- Case no.
- 25-1131
- Verdict cause
- Patentability
- Court
- Fed. Cir.
- Court level
- Court of Appeals
- Case region
- District of Columbia
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- Appeal
- Filed – Closed
- 30 Oct 2024 – 12 May 2026
- Duration
- 559 days
- Basis of termination
- Unpatentable
- Products & marks
- Device capability based discovery, packaging and provisioning of content for wireless mobile devices
- Validity challenges
- 3 on record
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Device capability based discovery, packaging and provisioning of content for wireless mobile devices
A network server system includes a download manager that manages the publication, purchase and delivery of digital products from multiple suppliers to wireless services subscribers in multiple domains. Product suppliers can publish and manage their products on the server system via a computer network and make their products available to the subscribers for purchase or licensing. The subscribers in each domain can access the server remotely to purchase rights to download and use the products on associated wireless communication devices. Multiple different implementations of any product can be maintained, where each implementation corresponds to a different set of device capabilities. Each product can also be associated with multiple different provisioning models, each corresponding to a different set of device capabilities.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 19 Jun 2007
- Earliest priority
- 28 Jun 2002
- Est. expiry
- 11 Jul 2025
- Validity challenges
- 3 on record90015063 · EPR · filed by UNIFIED PATENTS, LLCIPR2025-00072 · Patentability · filed by Roku, Inc.IPR2023-00628 · Patentability · filed by Netflix
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- KJELLBERG, RIKARD M. · LIANG, SHENG · LUND, TOMAS G. · CHAN, WILLIAM · CHINTA, RAMAKRISHNA · CHEN, XINBI
- Classification
- H04M3/00G06F17/30G06Q20/12G06Q20/32G07F17/16H04L12/28H04L12/56H04L29/06H04L29/08H04M3/42
- Prosecution counsel
- Workman Nydegger
- Examiner
- SMITH, CREIGHTON
Parties of record
Videolabs, Inc.
- Core tech
- H04M3/00G06F17/30G06Q20/12G06Q20/32
- Counsel
- Brian C. Baran · Christine E. Lehman · Jaime F. CardenasNavia · Michael MatulewiczCrowley · Nathaniel Gustav Warner · Naveed S. Hasan · Savannah H. Carnes
- Firm
- Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP
Netflex, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Aliza George Carrano · Dane Sowers · Devon Wesley Edwards · Matthew S. Freimuth
- Firm
- Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Brian C. Baran | Videolabs, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Christine E. Lehman | Videolabs, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Jaime F. CardenasNavia | Videolabs, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Michael MatulewiczCrowley | Videolabs, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Nathaniel Gustav Warner | Videolabs, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Naveed S. Hasan | Videolabs, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Savannah H. Carnes | Videolabs, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Aliza George Carrano | Netflex, Inc. | Defendant |
| Dane Sowers | Netflex, Inc. | Defendant |
| Devon Wesley Edwards | Netflex, Inc. | Defendant |
| Matthew S. Freimuth | Netflex, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED: PER CURIAM (LOURIE, LINN, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges). AFFIRMED.”
Case 25-1131 · Fed. Cir. · closed 12 May 2026
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 25-1131?
25-1131 is a patent patentability brought by Videolabs, Inc. against Netflex, Inc., filed on 30 Oct 2024 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case closed on 12 May 2026.
Which patent was asserted in 25-1131?
US7233790B2 (“Device capability based discovery, packaging and provisioning of content for wireless mobile devices”), assigned to VIDEOLABS, INC., currently inactive. The record also lists Device capability based discovery, packaging and provisioning of content for wireless mobile devices.
How was case 25-1131 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is unpatentable. The termination text reads: “THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED: PER CURIAM (LOURIE, LINN, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges). AFFIRMED.”
How long did case 25-1131 take?
559 calendar days, from filing on 30 Oct 2024 to closure on 12 May 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 25-1131?
Brian C. Baran, Christine E. Lehman, Jaime F. CardenasNavia, Michael MatulewiczCrowley, Nathaniel Gustav Warner, Naveed S. Hasan and Savannah H. Carnes are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Videolabs. Aliza George Carrano, Dane Sowers, Devon Wesley Edwards and Matthew S. Freimuth appear for defendant Netflex.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 25-1131 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.