The case is Velos Media, LLC v. ByteDance Ltd., No. 2:26-cv-11095 (C.D. Cal.). It began in the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, as No. 1:25-cv-00967, where the complaint was filed June 24, 2025 against ByteDance Ltd., ByteDance Pte. Ltd., ByteDance Inc., ByteDance Technology Ltd., TikTok Ltd., TikTok Pte. Ltd., and TikTok Inc. Velos describes itself as the owner and licensor of a portfolio of more than 450 assets, many of them essential to video decoding standards.

Patents and the accused instrumentalities

The complaint asserts U.S. Patents 11,627,338 (Significance Map Encoding and Decoding Using Partition Selection, issued April 11, 2023), 9,008,184 (Multiple Sign Bit Hiding Within a Transform Unit, April 14, 2015), 12,186,395 (Multiple Sign Bit Hiding Within a Transform Unit, January 7, 2025), 8,964,849 (Multi-Level Significance Maps for Encoding and Decoding, February 24, 2015), 12,088,843 (Method for Deriving a Motion Vector, September 10, 2024), and 12,341,962 (Multi-Level Significance Maps for Encoding and Decoding, June 24, 2025). It alleges that Velos owns all six by assignment.

The accused instrumentalities are decoders in the TikTok app and on TikTok servers that decode video under the H.265 (HEVC) standard and the encoders used to encode and transcode uploaded video. The complaint applies claim 1 of the '338, '184, '849, '843, and '962 patents and claim 5 of the '395 patent in claim charts, and it alleges direct and induced infringement and asks for a finding of willful infringement.

The licensing claims

The complaint alleges that Velos tried to open licensing talks, that the parties could not agree on a non-disclosure agreement, and, on information and belief, that TikTok received a RAND offer but remains unlicensed. Counts VII and VIII ask for a declaration that Velos negotiated in good faith and met its standards-body commitments, and allege that TikTok breached an obligation to negotiate in good faith. Velos seeks damages, enhanced damages, attorneys' fees, and a declaration that TikTok has forfeited any right to claim third-party beneficiary status under Velos's ITU patent declarations, to the extent they apply.

Transfer

The docket lists Velos as a counter-defendant and shows, in August 2026, motions by both sides for the issuance of letters rogatory. On September 22, 2026 Judge Andrew B. Davis granted in part a sealed motion (ECF No. 51) and directed the clerk to transfer the case to the Central District of California (ECF No. 99); he sealed the order until October 1 (ECF No. 100). The Central District received the case on October 14 and assigned it to Judge Christina A. Snyder, who recused the same day; the case was reassigned to Judge Hernan D. Vera (ECF No. 107), who issued his civil standing order on October 19. A notice of related cases was filed October 28 (ECF No. 115).

What to watch next

Watch for a scheduling conference and order in the Central District. The case can end at any time, including by settlement or voluntary dismissal.