Untitled case

This patent infringement litigation, Hernandez v. Stingray Digital Group Inc. et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-21226-RAR, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on April 2, 2024. The plaintiffs are Edwin A. Hernandez, a serial entrepreneur and inventor, and EGLA Corp., his technology incubator and accelerator. EGLA Corp. focuses on intellectual property generation in AI, media, health technologies, and wireless communication industries. The defendants include Stingray Group Inc., a Canadian music, media, and technology company that provides digital audio services, music, and video content distribution; Stingray Music USA, Inc.; Mood Media LLC, an international in-store provider of music, digital signage, and other experiential marketing services; AT&T Enterprises, LLC, a telecommunications conglomerate; Millicom International Services, LLC, a leading provider of fixed and mobile telecommunications services in Latin America; and Blue Stream Communications, LLC. The lawsuit alleges patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation.

The accused products and services involve Stingray's UbiquiCAST OSE2 servers and related streaming platforms, which provide music services to Cable TV operators, IPTV systems, and OTT service providers. The lawsuit also points to technologies shared by Dr. Hernandez and EGLA Corp. with Mood Media under a Non-Disclosure Agreement, which Mood Media allegedly then shared illegally with Stingray. The asserted patents are U.S. Patent No. 10,123,074, U.S. Patent No. 10,524,002, and U.S. Patent No. 11,140,441. A one-line technical sketch of each patent is not explicitly detailed in the provided information, but they broadly relate to multimedia content distribution, wireless communications, and cloud computing, based on Dr. Hernandez's areas of expertise and his company's focus.

The procedural posture of the case is that the district court litigation in the Southern District of Florida is currently open and overseen by Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz II, with Magistrate Judge Lauren F. Louis handling pre-trial matters. The patent infringement claims were initially stayed pending the outcome of parallel Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings at the PTAB, which were initiated by Stingray Group Inc. to challenge the validity of Dr. Hernandez's patents. Although a motion to stay pending IPR was initially denied in February 2025, the court later granted a partial stay for the patent claims in August 2025, while allowing trade secret and breach of contract claims to proceed. The Southern District of Florida has been noted as a popular venue for patent decisions involving non-practicing entities, though historically less patent-holder favorable in terms of overall success rate and median damage awards, it has seen a recent increase in patent cases. This case is notable due to the linkage between the district court litigation and the PTAB IPRs, the allegations of trade secret misappropriation alongside patent infringement, and the involvement of several prominent media and telecommunications companies. The recent Final Written Decisions from the PTAB, which upheld claims in two of the patents, are expected to significantly strengthen Dr. Hernandez's position in the district court.

This analysis details the key legal developments and outcomes in the patent infringement litigation involving Edwin Hernandez Mondragon and Stingray Group Inc., alongside related PTAB Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

1. District Court Litigation Filing & Initial Pleadings (Hernandez v. Stingray Digital Group Inc. et al.)

• 2024-04-02: Edwin A. Hernandez and EGLA Corp. (as Plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit, Hernandez v. Stingray Digital Group Inc. et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-21226-RAR, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The complaint alleged patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation against Stingray Group Inc. (f/k/a Stingray Digital Group, Inc.), Stingray Music USA, Inc., Mood Media LLC, AT&T Enterprises, LLC, Millicom International Services, LLC, and Blue Stream Communications, LLC. The asserted patents include U.S. Patent Nos. 10,123,074 ('074), 10,524,002 ('002), and 11,140,441 ('441).

2. Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings Initiated

• 2024-12-20: Stingray Group Inc. and Stingray Music USA, Inc. (as Petitioners) filed three Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging the validity of Dr. Hernandez's patents asserted in the district court litigation. These included:
  • IPR2025-00349, challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,123,074 ('074).
  • IPR2025-00350, challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,524,002 ('002).
  • IPR2025-00351, challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,140,441 ('441).

3. Pre-Trial Motions of Substance (District Court)

• 2024-09-26: Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint.
• 2024-12-23 (approx.): The PTAB instituted review for IPR2025-00351, noting that the co-pending district court litigation was in a very early stage, and Petitioner intended to seek a stay pending the IPR outcome.
• Ongoing (as of 2025-12-05): The district court case remains active, with the patent infringement counts stayed pending the resolution of the IPRs. Motions for summary judgment regarding trade secret misappropriation were filed by Stingray Group Inc. and Stingray Music USA, Inc., with responses due by December 18, 2025. Additionally, Mood Media, LLC filed motions to strike or exclude the testimony and opinions of Dr. Edwin Hernandez and Dr. Borko Furht, with responses due by December 19, 2025.

4. PTAB IPR Institution and Outcome

• (Date not specified but after filing and before FWDs): The PTAB instituted all three IPRs (IPR2025-00349, IPR2025-00350, and IPR2025-00351) after finding that the petitions met the threshold for review.
• 2026-03-XX: An oral hearing was held for the IPR proceedings.
• 2026-05-28 to 2026-05-29: The PTAB issued Final Written Decisions (FWDs) in two of the IPRs:
  • In IPR2025-00349 (challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,123,074), the PTAB upheld all 21 challenged claims as valid.
  • In IPR2025-00351 (challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,140,441), the PTAB upheld claims 10-26 as valid.
  • A favorable decision is anticipated for IPR2025-00350 (challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,524,002).

5. Final Disposition or Present Posture

• Present Posture (as of 2026-06-15): The district court litigation, Hernandez v. Stingray Digital Group Inc. et al. (Case No. 1:24-cv-21226-RAR), remains open. The patent infringement claims were stayed pending the PTAB's resolution of the IPRs. With the issuance of the FWDs in IPR2025-00349 and IPR2025-00351 upholding claims of the '074 and '441 patents, the patents' presumption of validity in the parallel district court litigation is materially strengthened. Dr. Hernandez intends to file notice of the FWDs with the district courts to support lifting the stay on the patent claims, allowing them to proceed. The trade secret and contractual claims in the district court are currently proceeding.

Counsel representing Petitioners Stingray Group Inc. and Stingray Music USA, Inc. in IPR2025-00349 are from the firm Alavi & Anaipakos PLLC.

The following attorneys are listed as counsel of record for the Petitioners:

• Masood Anjom

  • Role: Lead Counsel (implied from being listed as counsel of record for the Petitioners).
  • Firm: Alavi & Anaipakos PLLC, Houston, Texas.
  • Experience: Mr. Anjom's firm, Alavi & Anaipakos PLLC, is noted for its involvement in patent litigation.

• Joshua S. Wyde

  • Role: Lead Counsel (implied from being listed as counsel of record for the Petitioners).
  • Firm: Alavi & Anaipakos PLLC, Houston, Texas.
  • Experience: Mr. Wyde was involved in email correspondence regarding additional briefing in the IPRs, indicating active participation in the case.

• Michael D. McBride

  • Role: Lead Counsel (implied from being listed as counsel of record for the Petitioners).
  • Firm: Alavi & Anaipakos PLLC, Houston, Texas.
  • Experience: Mr. McBride was also included in email communications related to the IPR proceedings.

In the Inter Partes Review (IPR) case IPR2025-00349, the Patent Owner, Edwin Hernandez Mondragon, is represented by counsel from RL Drolet Patent Prosecution Services and Shutts & Bowen LLP. Edwin Hernandez Mondragon's own website indicates a recent change, stating "switching counsel to Rob Drolet's Patent Prosecution & Shutts and Bowen, as new counsel" for his ongoing litigation efforts and IPRs. This transition appears to have occurred after May 2025, when previous counsel for the Patent Owner filed a motion to withdraw.

The identified counsel for Edwin Hernandez Mondragon are:

• Robert L. Drolet

  • Role: Lead Counsel (for patent prosecution/IPR strategy)
  • Firm: RL Drolet Patent Prosecution Services LLC, Fort Lauderdale, FL
  • Experience: Mr. Drolet is a Registered Patent Attorney with a background in mechanical engineering and nuclear engineering from the U.S. Navy. He provides patent prosecution services, including drafting and filing patent applications, responding to Office Actions, and offering intellectual property litigation support. He is licensed in New York and Florida.

• Woodrow “Woody” Pollack

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Shutts & Bowen LLP, Tampa, FL
  • Experience: Recommended by IAM Patent 1000 2026, Mr. Pollack is recognized as a seasoned IP litigator with extensive experience in technically complex disputes, including standards-essential patents.

• Joseph W. Bain

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Shutts & Bowen LLP, West Palm Beach, FL
  • Experience: Mr. Bain plays a central role in Shutts & Bowen's patent litigation practice and is recognized by IAM Patent 1000 2026 for the firm's broad, litigation-ready IP practice.

• Brian J. Paul

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Shutts & Bowen LLP, Tampa, FL
  • Experience: A registered patent attorney, Mr. Paul focuses on technology-related intellectual property matters, including patent prosecution, IP transactions, and litigation, with experience across diverse technology sectors such as medical devices, life sciences, software, and automotive technology.