Untitled case

I'll research this case and the patent at issue.

I found the key facts. Let me verify and expand on the parties, the patent, and the IPR linkage.

Case Overview — Semisilicon Technology Corp. v. inMusic, LLC et al., No. 0:26-cv-61380 (S.D. Fla.)

Parties. The plaintiff is Semisilicon Technology Corp., a Taiwanese maker of LED driver ICs and control circuitry for decorative/addressable LED lighting (the same company that owns the '988 family and has been enforcing related LED-control patents). It is best characterized as an operating company that also runs an active licensing/enforcement program — a point defendants have pressed in parallel litigation, where a court noted "Semisilicon's business model—licensing its patents" in denying a preliminary injunction (N.D. Ill. opinion, Semisilicon v. Chanzhou Jutai, 1:25-cv-07388, Dkt. 53). Notably, it is not a classic shell NPE: it sells real LED IC products but litigates broadly. The defendants are inMusic, LLC; inMusic, Inc.; inMusic Brands, Inc.; and ION Audio, LLC — i.e., the privately held, Rhode Island–headquartered inMusic Brands consumer-audio group (owner of ION Audio, Numark, Alesis, Akai Professional, M-Audio, Rane, Denon DJ and others), described in the complaint analytics as Florida-registered entities with their registered agent in the district (complaint analysis, 1:26-cv-23238).

The patent and accused products. The single asserted patent is U.S. Patent No. 8,124,988 B2, "Light emitting diode lamp package structure and assembly thereof" (filed May 28, 2008; issued Feb. 28, 2012; inventor Jacky Peng) (IPR2024-00157 petition, Docket Alarm). In one line: it claims an integrated, individually addressable LED lamp package — multiple LEDs sharing a common electrode, a control IC inside the same package with power-in, data-in and data-out electrodes, and exactly four conductors/pads (V+, data-in, data-out, V−) with everything encapsulated in a package body and the pads exposed. That is the architectural backbone of daisy-chained "smart" LEDs (the WS2812/NeoPixel-style approach to addressable strips, matrices and animated lighting). Asserted claim 1 only ("one or more claims"); the accused instrumentality is the ION Audio "Uber Boom Ultra" water-resistant Bluetooth boombox with beat-synced multi-color LEDs, plus a list of 80+ other LED-equipped speaker/audio products sold under ION Audio and other inMusic brands. The complaint maps each claim element to annotated teardown photos of the SMD LED package (RGB dies, control IC, V+/DI/DO/V− pads) and to oscilloscope waveforms showing 8-bit-per-color control data, and pleads direct, induced, contributory, pre- and post-suit willful infringement, with notice allegedly dating to August 2024 (full complaint analysis).

Procedural posture and why the venue shift matters. Filed May 7, 2026 in the Southern District of Florida under 15 U.S.C. § 1126 (foreign plaintiff) / 35 U.S.C. § 271, the case appears as both an unassigned-division number (0:26-cv-61380) and a Miami Division number (1:26-cv-23238), and one aggregator lists the latter as "terminated May 8, 2026," which is most likely a renumbering artifact rather than a dismissal — I could not confirm a judge, an answer, or any motion practice on PACER, and no opinion has issued. The Florida filing is a direct re-filing after a Delaware action: Semisilicon originally sued the same defendant, Semisilicon v. inMusic, No. 1:25-cv-01566 (D. Del.) (filed Dec. 29, 2025 before Judge Gregory B. Williams), and voluntarily dismissed it on May 6, 2026 — the day before the Florida complaint (D. Del. docket). Venue in Florida is predicated on the inMusic entities' Florida registration and district-based registered agent, i.e., a straightforward § 1400(b) hook that avoids the personal-jurisdiction fights that have bogged down Semisilicon's suits against Chinese Amazon sellers (it already had one N.D. Cal. case dismissed for failure to serve and then refiled in Illinois, where the court found the record on jurisdiction thin).

Why it's notable. (1) The '988 patent has survived two validity attacks: IPR2024-00157 (Xu Peicheng (Hong Kong) Optoelectronic Technology Co. v. Semisilicon), filed Nov. 8, 2023, challenging claims 1–17, 20 and 21 on seven grounds, was denied institution on May 20, 2024 (the Board found petitioner conceded a "pins vs. pads" structural difference over the Lai reference and failed to bridge it), and rehearing was denied Sept. 16, 2024 (rehearing decision); in parallel, ex parte reexam 90/015,328 (ordered Feb. 15, 2024 on the same Lai art) closed with a reexamination certificate on Dec. 13, 2024 confirming the claims. A patent that has beaten both an IPR and a reexam is a materially stronger assertion vehicle, and petitioner's counsel (Rimon P.C.) argued the Board abused its discretion in not following the reexam. (2) The target escalates the campaign: Semisilicon has mostly sued small Chinese lighting sellers (N.D. Ill. 1:25-cv-07388; N.D. Cal. 4:25-cv-02665) and an Amazon-seller cohort; suing inMusic Brands — a major U.S. consumer-audio company — over 80+ mainstream retail products (Best Buy distribution) moves the dispute onto a well-funded defendant and, because the accused goods are consumer speakers rather than holiday light strings, expands the addressable-LED theory from decorative lighting into mass-market consumer electronics (portable speakers, DJ gear, party lighting), with potential downstream exposure for any product sourcing the same class of integrated LED packages. (3) Forum dynamics: the Delaware-to-Florida pivot, the dual docket numbers, and the absence of any published ruling mean the case is still at the pleadings stage; expect early fights over claim construction of "control integrated circuit" and "package body" (whether white/transparent glue encapsulation qualifies) and likely an invalidity counterattack given that the prior IPR/re-exam art was already tested — though any new IPR would face § 315(b)/§ 325(d) and estoppel issues.

Sourcing caveats: party names, case numbers, filing date, patent, accused-product identification, the D. Del. dismissal, and the IPR/re-exam history are all corroborated by docket and PTAB documents linked above. Details I could not independently verify: the assigned S.D. Fla. judge, whether the Florida case is a same-day re-filing of a closed case or a renumbering of 1:26-cv-23238, plaintiff's Florida counsel (Akerman LLP appears only in third-party complaint analytics), and any scheduling, motion, or settlement activity since May 7, 2026. Treat those as unconfirmed rather than settled.

I'll research this case systematically. Let me start with the patent and case number.

I found references to a Semisilicon v. inMusic case involving this patent. Let me dig into the specific case number and patent details.

I've identified the case. Now let me get the docket details and PTAB proceedings.

Case: Semisilicon Technology Corp. v. inMusic, LLC et al., No. 0:26-cv-61380 (S.D. Fla.)

Bottom line up front: This is a very recently filed, still-open patent case. The docket is only ~4.5 months old (filed 2026-05-07; today is 2026-09-22), so it has not reached Markman, summary judgment, discovery cutoff, or trial. What is documentable is (a) a substantial pre-suit notice/negotiation history, (b) a false start in the District of Delaware that was voluntarily dismissed the day before this Florida suit was filed, (c) a clerk-level renumbering of this case from the Miami to the Fort Lauderdale division, and (d) a parallel PTAB/re-exam track on the same patent. I flag clearly below where I could not verify a fact.

---

1. The patent and the parties

Technology/asserted claim 1 (per the complaint analysis): a plurality of LEDs sharing a common electrode end; a control IC with data-in, data-out, positive power-in and negative power-in electrodes that receives external control data to control each LED's illumination; four conductors (Vdd pad, data-in pad, data-out pad, Vss pad) with specified connections; and a package body encapsulating the LEDs, IC and conductors with portions of the four conductors exposed. The infringement theory rests on annotated teardown photographs/oscilloscope captures of the accused LED package. (complaint analysis, 0:26-cv-61380)

---

2. Chronology

Pre-suit

• 2008-05-28 — '988 application filed. 2012-02-28 — patent issues.
• 2023-11-08 — Third-party IPR petition filed: Xu Peicheng (Hong Kong) Optoelectronic Technology Co., Limited v. Semisilicon Technology Corp., IPR2024-00157, challenging claims 1–17 of the '988 patent on obviousness grounds (Grounds 1–7, relying on Lai, Stoyan, Morgan, Allsop and Yan). (petition) Note: I could not verify the institution decision or the final written decision in this IPR from the sources reachable; treat the PTAB outcome as unconfirmed.
• 2024-08-28 — Alleged actual notice of infringement given to defendants.
• 2024-12-13 — Ex parte reexamination certificate issues for the '988 patent, confirming patentability of the asserted claim. This matters: it blunts anticipation/obviousness attacks on claim 1 in the litigation.
• 2025-05-15 — Semisilicon's formal infringement notice/claim letter.
• 2025-10-02 — Defendants supply limited sales information for some accused models during negotiations.
• 2025-10-30 — Semisilicon demands complete sales data for all accused models; negotiations stall.

First suit — District of Delaware (dismissed)

• 2025-12-29 — Semisilicon Technology Corp. v. inMusic, LLC, No. 1:25-cv-01566 (D. Del.) filed against inMusic, LLC only, asserting the '988 patent; assigned to Judge Gregory B. Williams; jury demand; Rule 7.1 disclosure (no parent/affiliate) filed. D.I. 3 = Patent/Trademark Report (8,124,988).
• 2026-01-21 / 01-30 — Waiver of service sent; answer due 2026-03-23.
• 2026-03-20 — Notices of appearance by Jeffrey L. Moyer (Richards, Layton & Finger) and defense counsel from McCarter & English (Daniel M. Silver; Alexandra M. Joyce); 2026-03-23 — stipulated extension of response deadline to 2026-04-22 (so ordered).
• 2026-04-21/22 — Second stipulated extension, response deadline to 2026-05-06 (so ordered).
• 2026-05-06 — Notice of Voluntary Dismissal by Semisilicon as to inMusic, LLC; 2026-05-07 — Judge Williams so-orders it and terminates the case. (PacerMonitor D. Del. docket)

This case — S.D. Fla.

• 2026-05-07 — Complaint for patent infringement filed against all four inMusic/ION entities, with jury demand and five exhibits; filed in the Miami Division as 1:26-cv-23238. (PacerMonitor S.D. Fla. docket)
• 2026-05-08 — Clerk's Notice of Docket Correction: "Case administratively closed — Wrong Venue selected by Filer. CASE HAS BEEN RENUMBERED, the new case number is 26cv61380." That renumbering is what produced the 0:26-cv-61380 Fort Lauderdale-division case number in your metadata. The case remains Open.
• Post-2026-05-08 — No further docket events for defendants' responses, motions, or scheduling were retrievable. In particular, I found no confirmed record of an answer, counterclaims, motion to dismiss, motion to transfer, motion to stay pending IPR, or case-management/Markman order in 0:26-cv-61380 as of today.

---

3. Item-by-item response to your checklist

• Filing & initial pleadings. Complaint filed 2026-05-07 (S.D. Fla., all four inMusic/ION defendants). Answer/counterclaims: no public record found.
• Motions to dismiss / transfer / stay pending IPR. None confirmed. Given the Delaware filing was dismissed one day before the Florida filing, a defense motion to transfer (inMusic Brands is a Rhode Island-based company) or a § 1406/§ 1404 venue fight would be a natural next step, but I have no source for such a filing — do not treat it as fact.
• Claim construction (Markman). Not reached; case is ~4.5 months old.
• Discovery milestones of strategic significance. No scheduling order, infringement contentions, or discovery events confirmed. The only discovery-adjacent facts are pre-suit: defendants' partial sales-information production (2025-10-02) and Semisilicon's demand for complete sales data (2025-10-30) — relevant to a future damages case and to willfulness/notice.
• Trial, verdict, JMOL/new trial, fees. None — case is in its earliest stage.
• Final disposition / present posture. Active. But note the procedural oddity: the earlier-filed parallel case (D. Del.) was terminated by voluntary dismissal, and this Florida action was administratively closed and renumbered on filing — so the "final disposition" to date is limited to the Delaware dismissal.
• Parallel PTAB proceedings and their effect.
  • IPR2024-00157 (Xu Peicheng (Hong Kong) Optoelectronic Technology Co. v. Semisilicon), petition filed 2023-11-08, challenging claims 1–17. Petitioner is a third party, not inMusic, so any estoppel under § 315(e) would not bind inMusic. I could not verify institution or FWD status/outcome.
  • Ex parte reexamination, with a certificate issuing 2024-12-13 that confirmed the patentability of the asserted claim — a favorable event for Semisilicon that it pleaded affirmatively in the complaint, likely to preempt § 112/§ 102/§ 103 attacks.
  • Effect on the litigation: Because the Florida case is so new, no stay motion or Fintiv-type dispute has surfaced. The timing is at least suggestive: the Delaware dismissal (2026-05-06) and Florida refiling (2026-05-07) coincide with roughly when a PTAB final written decision in IPR2024-00157 would have been due had the IPR been instituted in mid-2024 — but I have no source confirming that, and I would not report it as a cause.

---

4. Sourcing caveats

• Party names, case number, patent number and the filing date are confirmed across PacerMonitor, Patexia's litigation table, and the Ex Parte complaint analysis; the S.D. Fla. docket confirms the 1:26-cv-23238 → 0:26-cv-61380 renumbering.
• Facts drawn from the "complaint analysis" pages are secondary summaries of the complaint (Compl. ¶¶ cited therein); I did not obtain the complaint PDF itself, so paragraph-level citations should be verified against ECF No. 1.
• The entire post-filing record of 0:26-cv-61380 (answers, motions, scheduling, Markman) is unverified — my searches did not return those docket entries, so the safest statement is that the case remains open and no substantive pretrial ruling has been publicly identified.
• The PTAB outcome in IPR2024-00157 is likewise unverified; the only PTAB fact I can ground is the petition itself (IPR2024-00157, filed 2023-11-08, claims 1–17, obviousness).

I'll research this case. Let me start with several searches.

Case identified: Semisilicon Technology Corp. v. inMusic, LLC, S.D. Fla., filed 05/07/2026. Now let me find plaintiff's counsel.

Found key link: 0:26-cv-61380 is the renumbered version of 1:26-cv-23238. Let me pin down who represents plaintiff.

Case identification (corrected/expanded)

Before answering on counsel, it's worth setting the record straight on the case itself, because it clears up the "unidentified case" problem in the existing summary:

• 0:26-cv-61380 (S.D. Fla.) is the renumbered docket of 1:26-cv-23238. The case was filed on May 7, 2026 in the Miami Division as SEMISILICON TECHNOLOGY CORP. v. Inmusic, LLC et al., No. 1:26-cv-23238. On May 8, 2026, the clerk entered a "Clerk's Notice of Docket Correction – ELECTRONIC CASE," stating the case was "administratively closed – Wrong Venue selected by Filer. CASE HAS BEEN RENUMBERED, the new case number is 26cv61380." That renumbered docket is the 0:26-cv-61380 case shown on the Google Patents litigation panel. (Docket Alarm mirror, 1:26-cv-23238; PacerMonitor, 1:26-cv-23238)
• Plaintiff: Semisilicon Technology Corp. (Taiwan-based LED/LED-driver licensor). Defendants: inMusic, LLC; inMusic, Inc.; inMusic Brands, Inc.; and ION Audio, LLC (collectively, the ION Audio consumer-audio companies).
• Patent-in-suit: U.S. Pat. No. 8,124,988, "Light emitting diode lamp package structure and assembly thereof." The accused products are ION Audio Bluetooth speakers/boomboxes (exemplary: the "Uber Boom Ultra") and 80+ other LED-equipped audio products.

Counsel of record for the plaintiff

Confirmed by the docket:

Source for the above: Docket entry 1 in 1:26-cv-23238 — "COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT against All Defendants. Filing fees $405.00 receipt number AFLSDC-19518481, filed by SEMISILICON TECHNOLOGY CORP..(Carver, Christopher)," with attachments (Civil Cover Sheet; Exhibits A–E; summonses to inMusic, LLC, inMusic, Inc., inMusic Brands, Inc., and ION Audio, LLC). See Docket Alarm mirror and PacerMonitor.

Additional name appearing in the party-counsel listing — side not verified:

The PacerMonitor party block for the case lists both "Christopher Stephen Carver — Akerman LLP" and "Tazio Ali Alpino Heller — Black Srebnick, P.A." under a "Represented By" heading, but the mirror page does not preserve party/adverse ordering reliably (the same page format interleaves plaintiff and defense counsel — e.g., in the parallel Delaware case it lists defense counsel Jeffrey L. Moyer of Richards, Layton & Finger next to plaintiff counsel Alexandra M. Joyce of McCarter & English). The only fact that is anchored in the docket text itself is that Carver filed the complaint for Semisilicon.

What I could not verify (stated explicitly, not guessed)

• No PACER docket sheet for 0:26-cv-61380 itself was retrievable. All of the above derives from Docket Alarm / PacerMonitor mirrors of the predecessor docket 1:26-cv-23238. There is no sign that a Notice of Appearance, pro hac vice motion, or corporate disclosure has yet been entered by plaintiff's counsel on the renumbered docket, and the case is only ~4 months old.
• No sealed filings are indicated in any source I reviewed; the absence of counsel detail is a limited-data problem, not a sealing problem.
• No in-house counsel for Semisilicon has been identified in any filing.
• No confirmed pro hac vice admission of out-of-state patent counsel. In particular, I found no filing naming Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner in this case.

Related matters that bear on who Semisilicon uses as counsel (useful context, not proof of appearance here)

Semisilicon is a serial enforcer of the '988 patent family, and its counsel has varied by forum:

• S.D. Fla. predecessor, 1:26-cv-23238 / 0:26-cv-61380 — Christopher S. Carver, Akerman LLP (complaint filer), as above.
• D. Del. 1:25-cv-01566, Semisilicon Technology Corp. v. inMusic, LLC (Judge Gregory B. Williams) — plaintiff's counsel of record was Alexandra M. Joyce and Daniel M. Silver, McCarter & English LLP (Joyce filed the §505 waiver of service, Dkt. 6, and the Rule 7.1 disclosure, Dkt. 4); defendant inMusic was represented by Jeffrey L. Moyer, Richards, Layton & Finger. Notably, Semisilicon voluntarily dismissed that Delaware action on May 7, 2026 — the same day the Florida complaint was filed. (PacerMonitor D. Del.)
• *PTAB, IPR2024-00157, Xu Peicheng (Hong Kong) Optoelectronic Technology Co. v. Semisilicon Technology Corp., U.S. Pat. No. 8,124,988* — Semisilicon's Patent Owner counsel: Ming-Tao Yang (lead, Reg. No. 62,019, Finnegan, Palo Alto), Joshua L. Goldberg (backup, Reg. No. 59,369, Finnegan, Washington, DC), and Kai Rajan (backup, Reg. No. 70,110, Finnegan, Washington, DC). These are PTAB counsel only — they have not been confirmed as appearing in the Florida district court case, so they are not counsel of record here on the current record. (They are the same Finnegan team that handled the ex parte reexamination of the '988 patent, which resulted in a reexamination certificate on Dec. 13, 2024.)
• N.D. Ill. 1:25-cv-07388 — a separate Semisilicon campaign against Amazon-seller defendants (patents including the '117 and '935 patents), where the court denied Semisilicon's preliminary injunction motion in a July 2026 opinion.

Bottom line

On the record currently available, the only attorney confirmed as counsel of record representing the plaintiff in 0:26-cv-61380 (formerly 1:26-cv-23238) is Christopher S. Carver of Akerman LLP (Miami), who signed and filed the complaint on behalf of Semisilicon Technology Corp. on May 7, 2026. Tazio Ali Alpino Heller (Black Srebnick, P.A.) also appears in the case's counsel listing, but I could not confirm which side he represents. I did not find any other attorney, any in-house counsel, or any pro hac vice appearance for the plaintiff on this docket — and I am deliberately not supplying names beyond those sourced above.

I'll research this case. Let me start by identifying the patent and then the docket.

Now I have the case identified: Semisilicon Technology Corp. v. inMusic LLC, et al., No. 0:26-cv-61380 (S.D. Fla., filed May 7, 2026). Let me research the docket and counsel.

Let me dig into the docket sheet and counsel appearances for this SD FL case.

Bottom line up front

I was able to confirm the case identity, but not the counsel of record. I did not locate a docket sheet, PACER attorney-appearance entries, or firm press release naming any attorney appearing for the defendants in S.D. Fla. No. 0:26-cv-61380. Below I give you (1) what is verified about the case, (2) the specific gap and why, and (3) the leads I found that are consistent with defendant-side representation but that I could not verify — flagged as such so you don't rely on them.

I hit my research-tool limit before I could pull the docket sheet itself, so treat this as an interim, explicitly incomplete answer rather than a finished counsel list.

---

1. What is verified

Docket procedural wrinkle worth noting: the Miami-numbered version (1:26-cv-23238) shows as filed May 7, 2026 and terminated May 8, 2026 — i.e., it was closed almost immediately, and the case appears in the Fort Lauderdale "0:" series as 0:26-cv-61380. That is the ordinary signature of an erroneous-division filing being refiled (or transferred) to Fort Lauderdale. It also means the answer to "who has appeared for defendants" may differ between the two docket numbers, and early filings may sit on the closed Miami docket.

---

2. The specific gap: no confirmed defendant counsel

I could not retrieve any of the following, and I will not guess at them:

• an attorney appearance (S.D. Fla. L.R. 11.1 / D.E. form "Notice of Attorney Appearance") filed on behalf of any inMusic entity in 0:26-cv-61380;
• a CM/ECF "Attorneys" panel listing for the defendants;
• a corporate disclosure statement or motion for pro hac vice identifying defense firm(s);
• a firm press release, Law360, or Reuters Legal item naming defense counsel in this matter.

Because the complaint was filed in May 2026 and the case number is still resolving between two divisions, it is entirely plausible that no defense appearance had yet been docketed in the 0:26-cv-61380 docket at the time of my search — or that any appearance sits on the closed subsidiary docket. If filings are under seal or counsel simply hasn't entered an appearance, that is the reason, and I am stating that explicitly rather than filling the gap.

Searches run that returned nothing usable on this point: SD Fla. docket-sheet lookups for 0:26-cv-61380 and 1:26-cv-23238; CourtListener docket name search; firm-and-party combination searches for inMusic defense counsel in the S.D. Fla. matter.

---

3. Unverified leads (do not rely on without checking the docket)

These are the only names tied to this patent family on the defense side, but in a different case — the parallel Delaware action Semisilicon Technology Corp. v. inMusic, LLC, No. 1:25-cv-01566 (D. Del., filed Dec. 29, 2025; closed). A PacerMonitor case page for the Delaware matter lists the following under "Represented By":

• Jeffrey L. Moyer — Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A. (Wilmington, Del.)
• Daniel M. Silver — McCarter & English, LLP
• Alexandra M. Joyce — McCarter & English, LLP

Caveats I want to be blunt about:

• The PacerMonitor snippet did not confirm which party those attorneys represented — plaintiff or defendant. Richards Layton & Finger is a Delaware local-counsel shop that most often appears for defendants in D. Del. patent cases, and McCarter & English (Newark/Philadelphia/Wilmington) has a substantial patent-defense practice, but that is inference, not fact.
• Nothing links these attorneys to 0:26-cv-61380.
• If they do represent inMusic, the natural structure would be McCarter & English as lead/merits counsel with a Florida local counsel firm added for the S.D. Fla. action — but I cannot name that Florida firm without inventing it, so I won't.

Nothing on the record supports identifying any in-house counsel for inMusic/InMusic Brands in this matter.

---

4. Adjacent representation (useful context, but not defendant's counsel here)

To avoid confusion, these are attorneys appearing for Semisilicon (the plaintiff) — i.e., not the answer to your question:

• PTAB IPR2024-00157 (patent owner Semisilicon, on the '988 patent): Ming-Tao Yang (Lead, Reg. No. 62,019), Joshua L. Goldberg (Back-up), and Kai Rajan (Back-up) — all of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP (Palo Alto, CA and Washington, D.C.). Source: Patent Owner's Updated Mandatory Notices, Feb. 21, 2024.
• N.D. Cal. No. 3:25-cv-02665 (Semisilicon v. Changzhou Jutai et al.): Ming-Tao Yang and Jeffrey D. Smyth, Finnegan (Palo Alto) — attorneys for plaintiff.
• Petitioner-side in IPR2024-00157 (Xu Peicheng (Hong Kong) Optoelectronic): John Handy and Jason Xu, Rimon Law. Again, plaintiff's adversary in a PTAB case, not a defendant here.

---

5. Recommended next step

The single highest-value action is a direct PACER docket pull for both number variants:

1. 0:26-cv-61380 (Fort Lauderdale) — check the "Attorneys" tab and any D.E. 7–15 documents (appearances typically follow within 21 days of service).
2. 1:26-cv-23238 (Miami, closed 5/8/26) — to catch any appearances filed before the refiling.
3. Cross-check the D. Del. 1:25-cv-01566 docket to confirm whether Moyer/Silver/Joyce in fact appeared for the inMusic defendants, which would then make them the leading candidates to re-appear (or to be the behind-the-scenes counsel) in Florida.

If you can supply the docket sheets or the Rule 7.1/disclosure filings, I can turn this into a verified counsel table with roles, firm offices, and experience notes.