Dr. Edwin A. Hernandez et al. v. Stingray Group Inc. f/k/a Stingray Digital Group, Inc. et al.

This patent infringement lawsuit was filed on April 2, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, under Case No. 1:24-cv-21226-RAR. The plaintiffs are Dr. Edwin A. Hernandez and EGLA Corp., a technology innovation company founded by Dr. Hernandez that specializes in wireless, media streaming, AI, IoT, and software, and also operates a technology incubator called EGLAVATOR. Dr. Hernandez is a serial entrepreneur, inventor with 16 issued U.S. patents, and an expert in wireless communications, AI, cloud computing, and advanced software platforms. EGLA's MEVIA platform (formerly Mediamplify) is a patented technology that integrates interactive web widgets into live TV streams and combines cloud and Cable TV systems for simplified music and video distribution.

The defendants are Stingray Group Inc. (f/k/a Stingray Digital Group, Inc.), Stingray Music USA, Inc., Mood Media LLC (f/k/a Mood Media Corporation), AT&T Enterprises, LLC, Millicom International Services, LLC, and Blue Stream Communications, LLC d/b/a Blue Stream Fiber. Stingray Group Inc. is a Canadian music, media, and advertising technology company providing digital audio services, digital signage, in-store media, and broadcast content for consumer and business-to-business markets, including internet radio, over-the-top, and music television channels. Mood Media LLC is a global experiential media company that provides in-store music, digital signage, scent marketing, and audiovisual systems to enhance customer experiences for various industries. AT&T Enterprises, LLC is part of AT&T Inc., a major U.S. telecommunications company focused on wireless and wireline connectivity, including mobile service, fiber broadband, and enterprise networking. Millicom International Services, LLC operates as a telecommunications provider in Latin America under the Tigo brand, offering mobile, fixed broadband, cable TV, and digital financial services. Blue Stream Communications, LLC d/b/a Blue Stream Fiber is a Florida-based telecommunications company that delivers fiber-optic internet, television, and voice services to residential communities.

The patent asserted in this case is U.S. Patent No. 11,140,441. While a detailed one-line technical sketch of the patent is not immediately available from the provided search results, the lawsuit generally accuses Stingray's streaming music service of patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation. Dr. Hernandez alleges that his trade secrets were used to develop a new software version for Stingray's UbiquiCAST Server. The case is currently stayed pending Inter Partes Review (IPR) of the patent claims. The procedural posture involves the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, with Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz, II, initially presiding, and Magistrate Judge Edwin A. Torres assigned for referred proceedings. The Southern District of Florida has been noted as a jurisdiction favored by patent defendants or non-patent holder declaratory judgment plaintiffs due to its historically hostile stance towards patent holders, although it has also been a popular jurisdiction for NPE litigation. It also has a reputation as a "rocket docket" with a fast time to trial, which could be a factor in venue selection. The case is notable for its linkage to IPR proceedings and the allegations of trade secret misappropriation alongside patent infringement, specifically against major media and telecommunications companies.

Here's a chronological summary of the key legal developments and outcomes in Dr. Edwin A. Hernandez et al. v. Stingray Group Inc. et al.:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings

• 2024-03-03: Dr. Edwin A. Hernandez initially filed a pro se complaint against Stingray Digital Group, Stingray Music, Millicom Inc., AT&T, and Mood Media.
• 2024-04-02: The lawsuit, Case No. 1:24-cv-21226-RAR, was officially filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division.
• 2024-07-21: Dr. Edwin A. Hernandez and EGLA Corp. filed a Second Amended Complaint, adding Blue Stream Communications, LLC as a defendant. The lawsuit alleges that Stingray unlawfully acquired and uses Dr. Hernandez's proprietary technologies for music distribution, including trade secrets and patented technology, specifically U.S. Patent No. 11,140,441.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance

• Late 2024: Defendants filed several motions, including a "Motion to Dismiss" and a "Motion to Stay" the case pending Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings.
• 2025-02-12: The court issued a Paperless Order (Document 190) denying an initial Motion to Stay. At this point, the IPRs were in a nascent stage (defendants' appeal of plaintiffs' asserted patents before the PTAB), and the court did not find sufficient grounds for a stay.
• 2025-03-04: A Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendations regarding the defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss (Document 148). The recommendation was to grant the motion in part (specifically, as to the fraud claim) and deny it in part (as to all other claims).
• 2025-04-24: The court stayed the case after Plaintiffs' counsel was terminated.
• 2025-08-06: The court issued an Order (Document 333) partially granting and partially denying Defendants' Motion to Extend the Current Stay. The court granted the motion to the extent it sought to stay the patent claims (Counts 3, 4, and 5) pending the PTAB's inter partes review, as the PTAB had by this time initiated IPRs against the asserted patents. The court denied the motion to stay the remaining state law claims (Counts 1 and 2 for trade-secret misappropriation, and Count 6 for breach of contract).

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes

• As of the current date, no Markman hearing or claim construction order has been reported, which is expected given the stay of the patent claims.

4. Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance

• While detailed discovery milestones are not publicly highlighted, the existence of a "Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum and for Protective Order" suggests that discovery activities were initiated before the stay, leading to disputes requiring court intervention.

5. Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions

• Not applicable; the patent infringement claims are currently stayed, and the case has not proceeded to trial.

6. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal

• The patent infringement claims (Counts 3, 4, and 5) in the district court case are currently stayed pending the outcome of Inter Partes Review proceedings at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

• Late 2024: Around Christmas Eve 2024, Stingray and the co-defendants filed three Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions against Dr. Hernandez's patents, including U.S. Patent No. 11,140,441.
• The specific IPRs identified include IPR2025-00349, IPR2025-00350, and IPR2025-00351, with responses due in March 2025. These IPRs challenge claims 1-14 and 16-26 of the '441 Patent.
• Before August 6, 2025: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) commenced inter partes review of all claims of the asserted patents, which was a decisive factor in the district court's decision to stay the patent claims in the litigation.

I'll search several angles to find press coverage of this case.

Let me dig into legal trade press and Canadian business media coverage.

Press & media coverage

Bottom line: independent press coverage of this litigation is thin. Repeated searches on the caption, the party names, the patent numbers ('441, '074, '002) and the IPR numbers turned up no Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, JD Supra or EFF article about Hernandez v. Stingray. What exists falls into three buckets: (1) one substantive French-language Canadian business-press article about Stingray's retaliatory suit in Quebec; (2) self-published announcements by the plaintiff; and (3) docket-analytics and aggregator pages (RPX Insight, Justia, Docket Alarm, CourtListener, ExParte) that reproduce filings but are not journalism. Law360 carries an April 2, 2024 docket entry for the case on a defence firm's attorney page, confirming the outlet tracks the case, but I found no Law360 article reporting on it.

The one genuine piece of press coverage is a report by the Montreal daily La Presse on 2026-08-21, which reported that Stingray filed a petition ("requête") in the Quebec Superior Court accusing Dr. Hernandez and EGLA of a campaign of "judicial harassment" and defamation, and seeking C$16 million — C$15 million in damages plus C$1 million punitive. La Presse reported that Stingray's pleading describes the two U.S. lawsuits as vehicles for false theft allegations that Hernandez has "repeated on various online platforms," and that Stingray attributes significant reputational harm and defence costs to them. The article also sets out, from the petition, the damages narrative Hernandez has advanced — that the alleged misappropriation of his 2012–2014 Mood Media-era technology (including source code) enabled Stingray's growth, an IPO raising $140 million, and revenue growth from roughly $81 million in 2013 to $323 million in 2023 — and Stingray's rebuttal that the 2014 Mood Media asset purchase expressly excluded Hernandez/EGLA technology and that Stingray's products predate his 2014 patent filings. La Presse noted it could not obtain comment from Hernandez.

Two caveats on that piece. First, it is coverage of a different proceeding — a Quebec defamation action — and its substantive claims come from Stingray's own pleading, so they go well beyond anything established in the Southern District of Florida record. Second, its references to "two lawsuits" in the U.S. are consistent with a separate Western District of Texas action (the complaint analytics page for EGLA Corp v. Stingray Group Inc., ExParte, No. 1:26-cv-01044, addresses the '116 patent) that is outside the case metadata supplied for this file.

Outside the mainstream press, the most detailed "coverage" is the plaintiff's own publishing operation. edwinhernandez.com and EGLA Corp posted a June 2026 account of the PTAB's final written decisions claiming a 75% claim-survival rate across the three IPRs (45 claims confirmed, 15 invalidated), all 21 claims of the '074 patent upheld, claims 10–26 of the '441 patent upheld, and claims 1–6 and 13 of the '002 patent upheld with claims 7–12 held unpatentable over Wannamaker. Those posts are advocacy rather than reporting, and they are the source of the only damages-adjacent figure in the public record — a reference to a pre-suit/post-suit demand said to have "exceed[ed] $100 million," which the posts themselves characterize as a characterization made by Stingray in its IPR papers. Notably, the aggregator ExParte records IPR2025-00350's outcome simply as "Unpatentable" and "Appealed," a label that does not capture the mixed claim-by-claim result the patent owner describes — a reminder that the aggregate docket labels circulating online are unreliable summaries.

What no outlet has reported: there is no press account of any damages figure sought or awarded in Case No. 1:24-cv-21226 itself, no verdict or settlement reporting, and no industry-analyst commentary on market impact. The widely quotable "$16 million" number in the La Presse piece is Stingray's demand against Hernandez in Quebec, not a patent damages claim in this case, and should not be conflated with one. Flagging one metadata discrepancy for the file: the case metadata lists only U.S. Patent No. 11,140,441, but the operative Second Amended Complaint asserts three patents ('074, '002 and '441) — as reflected in the magistrate's Report and Recommendation (DE 197) and in the three IPR numbers — so press or secondary sources referring to "the patents" plural are consistent with the court record, not with the metadata.

Sources

• 1:24-cv-21226 | Hernandez v. Stingray Digital Group Inc. et al | RPX Insight
• Hernandez v. Stingray Digital Group Inc. – CourtListener.com - Trial Court Document
• Hernandez v. Stingray Digital Group Inc. et al
• Patent Cases, Dockets and Filings in Florida
• IPR Success for MEVIA Patents
• IPR2025-00350 | Stingray Group Inc v. Hernandez MonDragon Edwin | Ex Parte
• UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
• Allison N. Henry, Rivero Mestre
• As to minimum contacts, Plaintiffs have argued that Stingray Canada offers relevant products and services to Florida customers (...
• November 28, 2016. On March 27, 2017, the Corporation filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the basis that the
• Stingray poursuit un entrepreneur de Floride pour atteinte à la réputation
• IPR | Edwin Hernandez, PhD

Counsel of Record for Plaintiffs Dr. Edwin A. Hernandez et al.

The plaintiffs, Dr. Edwin A. Hernandez and EGLA Corp., are represented by attorneys from two law firms: Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP and GrayRobinson, P.A..

Here is a breakdown of the identified counsel:

1. Stanley M. Gibson

• Role: Partner, Chairman of the Patent Litigation Group, and Co-Chair of the Litigation Department. He is admitted pro hac vice in this case.
• Firm: Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP, with offices in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Orange County, California.
• Experience Note: Mr. Gibson is a seasoned trial lawyer specializing in high-stakes intellectual property disputes, including patent and trade secret matters, across various technology sectors. He was a principal trial lawyer in Medtronic v. Michelson, which resulted in a $570 million jury verdict and a $1.35 billion patent portfolio acquisition, and secured a $24.8 million verdict in a complex trade secret matter in BlueRadios v. Kopin. He represents both plaintiffs and defendants in patent litigation and has been recognized as a top intellectual property lawyer.

2. Elio F. Martinez, Jr.

• Role: Counsel. He has signed court filings on behalf of the plaintiffs.
• Firm: GrayRobinson, P.A., with an office in Miami, Florida.
• Experience Note: GrayRobinson has an intellectual property practice group with experienced attorneys in patent prosecution, patent-related litigation, and enforcing intellectual property rights. While specific patent litigation cases for Mr. Martinez, Jr. were not individually highlighted in the provided snippets, his firm specializes in complex patent disputes covering various technologies.

3. Francesca Russo

• Role: Counsel. She has signed court filings on behalf of the plaintiffs.
• Firm: GrayRobinson, P.A., with an office in Miami, Florida.
• Experience Note: GrayRobinson's intellectual property lawyers guide clients through all levels of IP law, litigation, and commercialization, with experience in trademark and copyright infringement actions, as well as patent litigation. Specific patent litigation cases for Ms. Russo were not individually highlighted in the provided snippets.

The following counsel of record have been identified for the defendant(s) in Dr. Edwin A. Hernandez et al. v. Stingray Group Inc. et al. (1:24-cv-21226-RAR):

For Stingray Group Inc. and Stingray Music USA, Inc.

• Masood Anjom (Counsel)

  • Firm: Alavi & Anaipakos PLLC (Houston, Texas)
  • Experience Note: Named as counsel for Stingray Group Inc. in a related Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding concerning the patent at issue.

• Joshua S. Wyde (Counsel)

  • Firm: Alavi & Anaipakos PLLC (Houston, Texas)
  • Experience Note: Also listed as counsel for Stingray Group Inc. in the IPR proceeding.

• Michael D. McBride (Counsel)

  • Firm: Alavi & Anaipakos PLLC (Houston, Texas)
  • Experience Note: Also listed as counsel for Stingray Group Inc. in the IPR proceeding.

• (Diaz, Taylor) (Likely Lead Counsel, full names and firm to be confirmed)

  • Firm: (Not explicitly stated in search results, but associated with joint motions for Stingray entities.)
  • Experience Note: These attorneys filed a joint motion for extension of pretrial briefing deadlines on behalf of Stingray Group Inc. and Stingray Music USA, Inc. on December 4, 2025.

For Mood Media LLC

• Allen Frederick Bennett (Counsel)
  • Firm: Allen Frederick Bennett Santucci Priore & Long LLP (Fort Lauderdale, Florida)
  • Experience Note: Copies of a March 30, 2026, order denying Mood Media LLC's motion for summary judgment were served to this firm, indicating their representation of Mood Media.

For AT&T Enterprises, LLC, Millicom International Services, LLC, and Blue Stream Communications, LLC d/b/a Blue Stream Fiber

As of the available search results, specific counsel of record for AT&T Enterprises, LLC, Millicom International Services, LLC, and Blue Stream Communications, LLC d/b/a Blue Stream Fiber in this district court case have not been explicitly identified. These entities are listed as defendants, but no associated attorneys or firms were found in the context of their appearance or filings in this particular case.