Infringement action filed 22 Jul 2024 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and closed 1 Oct 2025, with 3 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case transferred.
All Macs running macOS Big Sur or later (e.g., iMac (24- inch, 2023) · Apple TV+ " · Apple TVs running tvOS 14 or later · Apple software and services · MacBook Air (13-inch, M3, 2024) · MacBook Air (15-inch, M3, 2024) · MacBook Pro (14-inch, Nov 2023) · MacBook Pro (16-inch, Nov 2023) · QuickTime · Safari · iPad Pro (11-inch, M4, 2024) · iPad Pro (13-inch, M4, 2024)) · iPhone 15 · iPhone Pro
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 2:24-cv-00572, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.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 residual picture is produced and encoded that is a residual picture that is a residual signal between a picture to be coded that is an input moving-picture video signal to be subjected to coding and a predictive picture produced from a reference picture that is a local decoded video signal for each of a plurality of rectangular zones, each composed of a specific number of pixels, into which a video area of the moving-picture video signal is divided. A boundary condition of each of a plurality of borders is obtained between the rectangular zones and another plurality of rectangular zones adjacent to the rectangular zones, and a border, of the reference picture, having a boundary condition that matches the boundary condition, is found by motion-vector search in the reference picture, and border motion-vector data is generated that is data on a motion vector from a border of the rectangular zone in the picture to be coded to the border of the reference picture thus found. A boundary condition of a border that corresponds to the border motion vector data is defined from the reference picture based on the border motion-vector data, and an estimated video signal is generated in each rectangular zone in the picture to be coded, that satisfies Poisson's Equation, thus producing a first predictive picture. The residual picture is then produced with the first predictive picture as the predictive picture and encodes the residual picture.
3 on recordIPR2025-00991 · Patentability · filed by Apple, Inc.IPR2024-00374 · Patentability · filed by Samsung Electronics Co LtdIPR2025-00998 · Patentability · filed by Google LLC
A transmission rate acquisition unit acquires the transmission rate of a network. A predictive transmission structure setting unit sets a transmission structure including a basic hierarchy and a supplementary hierarchy. A first transmission unit transmits basic video image coding data of the basic hierarchy. A memory unit stores supplementary video image coding data of the supplementary hierarchy. A second transmission unit transmits the supplementary video image coding data stored in the memory unit. A transmission control unit controls the second transmission unit according to the transmission rate.
3 on recordIPR2025-00999 · Patentability · filed by Google LLCIPR2024-00327 · Patentability · filed by Samsung Electronics Co LtdIPR2025-00983 · Patentability · filed by Apple, Inc.
The docket lists 3 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining asserted patent are one query away in Eureka.
Alfred Ross Fabricant · Jennifer Leigh Truelove · Joseph Michael Mercadante · Julian Glenn Pymento · Justin Kurt Truelove · Peter Lambrianakos · Vincent J. Rubino III
Firm
Fabricant LLP, Fabricant LLP (NY), McKool Smith PC (Marshall), Truelove Law Firm
Alexander Ernest Middleton · Andrew J. Danford · James R. Batchelder · James Travis Underwood · Kathryn C. Thornton · Kevin John Post · Lance W. Shapiro · Mark D. Selwyn · Melissa Richards Smith · Ryan C. Brunner · Shong Yin · Steven Pepe
Firm
Gillam & Smith LLP, Ropes & Gray LLP, Ropes & Gray LLP (East Palo Alto), Ropes & Gray LLP (NY), Ropes & Gray LLP (New York), Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP - Boston, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP(Palo Alto)
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
"Before the Court is Defendant Apple Inc.’s (“Apple”) Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue or Alternatively to Transfer to the Northern District of California. (Dkt. No. 37). Apple moves to dismiss this case for improper venue under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) (“Motion to Dismiss”). (Id. at 1). Alternatively, Apple moves to transfer the case to the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (“Motion to Transfer”). (Id.). Plaintiff Advanced Coding Technologies LLC (“ACT”) opposes the motions. (Dkt. No. 48). The Court heard oral arguments on the motions on August 28, 2025. (Dkt. No. 37). Under these unique facts, the Court finds that the Apple Shop locations in Best Buy stores are physical places in the district that are regular and established places of business. In re Cray Inc., 871 F.3d 1355, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017). However, under these unique facts, the Apple Shop locations have not been adequately shown to be places of Apple. Id. Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss should be GRANTED AS MODIFIED. The Court determines that, in the interest of justice, Lead Case No. 2:24-cv-00572 and Member Case No. 2:24-cv-00687 are hereby TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The Clerk is shall transfer them forthwith."
Case 2:24-cv-00572 · E.D. Tex. · closed 1 October 2025
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.
2:24-cv-00572 is a patent infringement action brought by Advanced Coding Technologies LLC against Apple, Inc., filed on 22 Jul 2024 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed on 1 October 2025.
Which patents were asserted in 2:24-cv-00572?
US8090025B2 (“Moving-picture coding apparatus, method and program, and moving-picture decoding apparatus, method and program”), assigned to ADVANCED CODING TECHNOLOGIES LLC, currently active; US9986303B2 (“Video image coding data transmitter, video image coding data transmission method, video image coding data receiver, and video image coding data transmission and reception system”), assigned to ADVANCED CODING TECHNOLOGIES LLC, currently active; US10218995B2 (“Moving picture encoding system, moving picture encoding method, moving picture encoding program, moving picture decoding system, moving picture decoding method, moving picture decoding program, moving picture reencoding system, moving picture reencoding method, moving picture reencoding program”), assigned to ADVANCED CODING TECHNOLOGIES LLC. The record also lists All Macs running macOS Big Sur or later (e.g., iMac (24- inch, 2023), Apple TV+ ", Apple TVs running tvOS 14 or later, Apple software and services, MacBook Air (13-inch, M3, 2024), MacBook Air (15-inch, M3, 2024), MacBook Pro (14-inch, Nov 2023), MacBook Pro (16-inch, Nov 2023), QuickTime, Safari, iPad Pro (11-inch, M4, 2024), iPad Pro (13-inch, M4, 2024)), iPhone 15 and iPhone Pro.
How was case 2:24-cv-00572 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case transferred. The termination text reads: "Before the Court is Defendant Apple Inc.’s (“Apple”) Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue or Alternatively to Transfer to the Northern District of California. (Dkt. No. 37). Apple moves to dismiss this case for improper venue under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) (“Motion to Dismiss”). (Id. at 1). Alternatively, Apple moves to transfer the case to the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (“Motion to Transfer”). (Id.). Plaintiff Advanced Coding Technologies LLC (“ACT”) opposes the motions. (Dkt. No. 48). The Court heard oral arguments on the motions on August 28,
What does transfer mean?
A transfer moves the case to another district rather than deciding it. The action continues there under a new case number.
How long did case 2:24-cv-00572 take?
436 calendar days, from filing on 22 Jul 2024 to closure on 1 October 2025.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:24-cv-00572?
Judge Rodney Gilstrap presided. Alfred Ross Fabricant, Jennifer Leigh Truelove, Joseph Michael Mercadante, Julian Glenn Pymento, Justin Kurt Truelove, Peter Lambrianakos and Vincent J. Rubino III are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Advanced Coding Technologies. Alexander Ernest Middleton, Andrew J. Danford, James R. Batchelder, James Travis Underwood, Kathryn C. Thornton, Kevin John Post, Lance W. Shapiro, Mark D. Selwyn, Melissa Richards Smith, Ryan C. Brunner, Shong Yin and Steven Pepe appear for defendant Apple.
Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 2:24-cv-00572 and do not constitute legal advice.Ask your own question
General information only. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:24-cv-00572 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. It does not create an attorney-client relationship.
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. The filing of a claim is not a court finding, and a docket marked “closed” does not by itself establish infringement, validity, settlement or a decision on the merits.
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.
Third-party names and marks. Party, attorney, judge and company names appear for identification only. Company names may be trademarks of their owners; their appearance does not, by itself, imply affiliation with or endorsement by Patsnap.
Patent figures. Any patent drawings shown are reproduced from the identified patent publications to illustrate the cited documents, and do not establish the scope, validity or enforceability of any patent.
Corrections and privacy requests. To report an inaccurate record or attribution, use the “Report an incorrect record” link on this page. For requests concerning your personal information — including, where applicable, the rights to access, rectify, erase, restrict or object to processing — use the “Privacy request” link. We assess requests under applicable law. See our Privacy Policy for details of this processing.
Report an incorrect record
Tell us what is wrong on this page. The page address is included automatically.
Privacy request
For requests about your personal information on this page. The page address is included automatically.
Patsnap Eureka
Eureka AI Agent
Help us improve
Something wrong, out of date, or missing on this page? Tell us and it goes straight to the team that maintains it.
