Velos H.265 video codec patent challenged

On July 20, 2026, Unified Patents filed an ex parte reexamination proceeding against U.S. Patent 12,088,843, owned by Velos Media, an NPE. The '843 patent is generally directed to selecting the best motion vector to encode or decode a current block of a video frame. It has been asserted against H.265 compliant devices from Bytedance and Disney.

View district court litigations by Velos. Unified is represented by Jon Bowser and Dagim Tilahun of Haynes and Boone, and by in-house counsel, Jessica L.A. Marks and David Seastrunk, in this proceeding.

Fortress Investment entity DivX video playback patent challenged

On July 20, 2026, Unified Patents filed an ex parte reexamination proceeding against U.S. Patent 10,574,716, owned and asserted by DivX LLC, an NPE and entity of Fortress Investment Group LLC. The ‘716 patent is generally directed to progressive video playback systems where a client application on a device retrieves portions of a media file from a remote server and plays the media as it is being downloaded. The ‘716 patent has not been asserted in litigation, however, it is related to U.S. Patent 10,412,141 which was asserted against Realtek, TCL, Samsung, Hulu, and Amazon.

View district court litigations by DivX. Unified is represented by Jonathan Bowser and Adam Erickson at Haynes Boone, and by in-house counsel, Jessica L.A. Marks and Jenn Bisk, in this proceeding.

Two Chinese ETRI video codec patents held invalid after appeals

After the China National IP Administration (CNIPA) invalidated the patents in administrative proceedings, and the Beijing IP Court upheld that invalidation, Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) filed a second appeal to China's Supreme People's Court. On April 30, 2026, Unified Patents received two judgements where China’s Supreme People's Court upheld the original invalidations on CN103384333B and CN104219523B.

CN'333 and CN‘523 were generally directed to applying the same prediction mode to a unidirectional series of blocks and are related to patents that are designated essential to the Access Advance (formerly known as HEVC Advance) patent pool, as well as, SISVEL’s AV1 and VP9 patent pools.

Unified was represented by Tao Chen, Yu Yan, and Peter Zhang at Wei Chixue Law Firm, and the case was managed by in-house counsel, Jessica L.A. Marks and Roshan Mansinghani.

ETRI video codec patent revocation remains in place

On October 13, 2025, the Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) withdrew their appeal of the EPO decision to revoke EP 3767952, canceling the hearing scheduled for November 11, 2025. Thus, the EP '952 stands revoked in its entirety. The EP ‘952 patent relates to an apparatus for encoding image data and an apparatus for decoding image data, where the encoding/decoding makes use of motion vector coding for image compression, particularly an inter prediction method. It is related to patents that have been designated essential to the Access Advance patent pool and has also been identified as potentially essential to the Versatile Video Coding (VVC) standard.

Unified was represented by Owain Summers, Andrew McGettrick, and Susan Keston at HGF Law and by in-house counsel, Jessica L.A. Marks and Roshan Mansinghani.

Fortress Investment entity, DivX, video streaming patent challenged

On September 19, 2025, Unified Patents filed an ex parte reexamination proceeding against U.S. Patent 11,611,785, owned and asserted by DivX LLC, an NPE and entity of Fortress Investment Group LLC. The ‘785 patent is generally directed to encoding video at different bit rates and evaluating the quality to provide the lowest bitrate at which the highest quality video can be achieved for a given resolution and frame rate. It has been asserted against Amazon.com and Amazon Web Services for their provision of streaming content. The ‘785 patent is relevant to MPEG-DASH and streaming providers generally.

View district court litigations by DivX. Unified is represented by Jonathan Bowser and Adam Erickson at Haynes Boone, and by in-house counsel, Jessica L.A. Marks and Michelle Aspen, in this proceeding.