DynaMuse LLC v. DEEZER S.A.

I'll research this case thoroughly using web search.

Case Overview & Background

Parties. DynaMuse LLC is the plaintiff. Public records identify it as a New Mexico limited liability company and a classic non-practicing entity (NPE/PAE): the Stanford NPE Litigation Database classifies DynaMuse as a "Non Practicing Entity" whose asserted patents are categorized as "Acquired patents" (i.e., patents bought on the secondary market rather than developed in-house). It is represented by Isaac Phillip Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC (Chicago), one of the highest-volume patent plaintiffs' counsel in the country, who appears on the docket as the sole attorney of record and filed the complaint, the Rule 7.1 disclosure, and the AO‑120 notice on the Nov. 6, 2025 filing date. Defendant Deezer S.A. is a French digital music streaming service (Paris-based, publicly listed on Euronext Paris) that competes with Spotify, Apple Music and YouTube Music; it is a customer-facing operating company, not a patent holder in this dispute (PACER Monitor docket 2:25-cv-01110; Stanford NPE Litigation Database – US 10,491,646; DynaMuse v. iHeartMedia complaint analysis).

Patent and accused technology. The single patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent No. 10,491,646 B2, titled "Mechanism for facilitating user-controlled features relating to media content in multiple online media communities and networks." It names inventor Bradly Freeman Rich and was originally assigned to Sonafire, Inc. (Denver, CO); it issued Nov. 26, 2019, from App. No. 14/933,983 filed Nov. 5, 2015, as a continuation of App. No. 13/779,113 (now U.S. Pat. No. 9,225,580), claiming priority to a Feb. 29, 2012 provisional. Technically, the patent claims a "playlist assistance" function: a user playing a media item invokes a UI control, the system "researches" playlists across media communities, and returns the playlists containing the selected item — with claim 1 requiring that results be "exactly matched" to the search criteria and delivered as a "final output without any recommendations or suggestions." That negative limitation is the crux of the infringement theory and the most likely battleground for claim construction (e.g., whether a modern streaming service's algorithmic/related-content results fall outside the claim) and for § 101/§ 112 defenses (Google Patents US10491646B2; Justia patent text; Ex Parte complaint analysis). Note: the Deezer complaint itself is a short, notice-style pleading that identifies "Exemplary Defendant Products" and incorporates an Exhibit 2 claim chart not available in the public RECAP collection; I could not independently read the Deezer-specific chart, so the precise accused Deezer feature (presumably its playlist/⁠"search within playlists" or track-in-playlist discovery functionality) is inferred from the parallel complaints rather than verified.

Procedural posture and venue. Filed Nov. 6, 2025 in the Marshall Division of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, the district's patent-heavy "rocket docket" judge. On Dec. 15, 2025, Judge Gilstrap entered a consolidation order consolidating the DynaMuse EDTX cases "for all pretrial issues" under lead case No. 2:25-cv-01113 (DynaMuse v. SoundCloud Global Limited & Co. KG), with all future filings to be made in the lead case; a scheduling/case-management conference was set for Jan. 22, 2026 (CourtListener docket 2:25-cv-01113). The venue choice is conventional for this filer: EDTX (and, in 2026, W.D. Tex. and N.D. Tex.) offers plaintiff-friendly local rules, fast schedules, and a deep patent bench. Important caveat on current status: the docket I could retrieve is the lead case, which shows DynaMuse filing a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on Jan. 8, 2026, followed by an order dismissing that case with prejudice on Jan. 12–13, 2026 — a pattern consistent with a settlement/license. Because consolidation directs filings into the lead docket, I could not confirm from public sources whether the Deezer action (2:25-cv-01110) was likewise dismissed or remains open; the case metadata provided to me lists it as open, and the individually docketed Deezer case should be checked on PACER for an answer, dismissal, or Rule 12 motion.

Why it matters. This is one docket in a coordinated, single-patent campaign by DynaMuse against the music-streaming sector: same-day EDTX complaints against Deezer (2:25-cv-01110), Mixcloud Ltd. (2:25-cv-01112), SoundCloud (2:25-cv-01113), and Xandrie S.A. (2:25-cv-01114) — all naming the '646 patent and all filed by Rabicoff Law — followed in 2026 by expansion to iHeartMedia (W.D. Tex. 7:26-cv-00116, filed Mar. 31, 2026) and SiriusXM (N.D. Tex. 3:26-cv-00803, filed Mar. 12, 2026) (Stanford NPE database; Justia docket – SiriusXM; Unified Patents portal – iHeartMedia). It is notable for (1) illustrating the "acquired patent + high-volume filer + multi-defendant EDTX wave" NPE playbook now increasingly aimed at consumer streaming platforms; (2) centering on a 2012–2015 priority "playlist search" concept being asserted against recommendation-engine-era products, raising obvious invalidity (prior-art playlist search, § 101 abstract-idea) and non-infringement ("exactly matched / no recommendations") questions; and (3) an interesting IPR linkage question that I could not verify — multiple public search queries for an inter partes review or other PTAB challenge to the '646 patent returned nothing, and the related iHeartMedia complaint analysis expressly notes no prior IPR or licensing history referenced, so as of my searches there is no publicly confirmed IPR on the '646 patent, but this should be re-checked on the USPTO PTAB docket and Unified Patents' Patent Victory/Discretionary Denial trackers. I was also unable to verify Deezer's litigation counsel, any Deezer answer or motion, or any settlement/license terms; none of those facts should be assumed from this summary.

I'll research this case across multiple sources. Let me start with several parallel searches.

Let me dig into the specific docket for the Deezer case and PTAB activity on the patent.

DynaMuse LLC v. Deezer S.A., No. 2:25-cv-01110 (E.D. Tex.) — Key Legal Developments

Important caveat up front: This case is a freshly filed 2025 NPE complaint that appears to have been resolved (or at least greatly narrowed) within roughly two months of filing, and the public record available to me is thin. The Deezer-specific docket I could retrieve stops at the service-of-summons stage, and the operative events after mid-December 2025 occurred under the consolidated lead case, 2:25-cv-01113 (SoundCloud). I could not independently confirm a Deezer-specific answer, counterclaim, or dismissal order. Where the record is incomplete I say so rather than infer.

---

1. The patent and the filing wave

Patent-in-suit: U.S. Patent No. 10,491,646, "Mechanism for facilitating user-controlled features relating to media content in multiple online media communities and networks."

• Earliest priority date: 2012-02-29
• Application filing date: 2015-11-05
• Issue date: 2019-11-26

The claims are directed to a "playlist assistance" function — when a user selects a media item, the system researches playlists across multiple media communities and returns a list of playlists containing that item. Independent claim 1 recites a "final output without any recommendations or suggestions" and results "exactly matched" with search criteria. That "no recommendations" language is a conspicuous limitation and an obvious eventual § 112 / claim-construction battleground (see § 3 below).

2025-11-06 — Complaint filed (Dkt. 1). DynaMuse LLC (a New Mexico entity, characterized as an NPE/PAE in the Stanford NPE Database) filed a five-page complaint for patent infringement against DEEZER S.A., a French entity. Filing fee receipt ATXEDC-11191120. Counsel of record for plaintiff: Isaac Phillip Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law LLC).

That same day, DynaMuse filed a coordinated wave of near-identical suits in the Eastern District of Texas against music-streaming / media-community defendants, all on the '646 patent:

(Source: Stanford NPE Litigation Database, patent 10,491,646; E.D. Tex. dockets.)

2025-11-06 — Ancillary filings (Dkts. 2–5). Notice of Attorney Appearance (Rabicoff) (Dkt. 2); Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(a)(1) Disclosure Statement (Dkt. 3); Notice of Filing of Patent/Trademark Form AO 120 (Dkt. 4); Summons Issued as to Deezer S.A. (Dkt. 5). Case assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap (Dkt. entry, 2025-11-06), with the standard magistrate-judge consent notice issued.

Pleading quality note. The complaints in this wave are notably conclusory. In the parallel IDAGIO pleading (2:25-cv-01111), plaintiff asserts "one or more claims" and "Exemplary Defendant Products" by cross-reference to claim charts in an Exhibit 2 that was not attached to the pleading. The theory pleaded is (a) direct infringement and (b) induced infringement via product literature/website materials. Willfulness is pleaded only post-suit, based on the filing of the complaint itself supplying actual knowledge — no pre-suit notice facts alleged. This is the classic 2025-era short-form NPE complaint and would have been vulnerable to a Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility challenge.

2. Answer / counterclaims

No Deezer answer or counterclaim is confirmed in any source I could retrieve. The publicly indexed Deezer docket ends at the 2025-11-06/11-07 summons. Deezer S.A. is a foreign defendant, and the parallel SoundCloud defendant (same wave) sought and received an extension of time to answer — suggesting the defendants were coordinating. In the lead case, SoundCloud was served 2025-11-12 and obtained an agreed answer date of 2026-01-17 (unopposed application filed 2025-12-01; granted 2025-12-02, Dkt. 8). No answer was ever filed, because the case was dismissed before that deadline (see § 4).

3. Pre-trial motions, claim construction, discovery, trial

None of substance occurred, and the case never reached Markman. I found no motion to dismiss, motion to transfer venue (§ 1404(a) would have been the most likely defense motion given the foreign/Northern California defendants), motion to stay pending IPR, or summary-judgment motion in any public source. No scheduling order beyond the case-management-conference setting was entered before dismissal. No discovery milestone, no trial, no verdict, no JMOL or fee motion.

Claim construction — not reached. The terms that would have driven a Markman hearing are apparent from the intrinsic record: "exactly matched," "final output without any recommendations or suggestions," and "a plurality of media communities" (the last being the key non-infringement hook, since a single-platform streaming service arguably cannot practice cross-community searching). Flagging these as likely battlegrounds is inference, not docket fact.

4. Consolidation and dismissal — the disposition

2025-12-15 (entered 2025-12-16) — Consolidation Order (lead case Dkt. 10). Judge Gilstrap ordered the DynaMuse wave consolidated for all pretrial issues with the LEAD CASE, No. 2:25-cv-01113 (SoundCloud), and directed that all future filings be made in the lead case. This is the event that makes the Deezer docket go quiet — from this point, Deezer-related filings, if any, would appear under 2:25-cv-01113.

2025-12-16 (entered 2025-12-17) — Order (lead case Dkt. 11). Scheduling / Case Management Conference set for 2026-01-22 at 9:30 a.m. before Judge Gilstrap.

2026-01-08 — Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed by DynaMuse (lead case Dkt. 12).
2026-01-09 — Second Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed by DynaMuse (lead case Dkt. 13).

The presence of two separate voluntary-dismissal notices on consecutive days is consistent with DynaMuse dismissing the wave in stages (e.g., SoundCloud, then the remaining consolidated members including Deezer), though the documents themselves were not retrievable to confirm which defendant(s) each notice covered.

2026-01-12 (entered 2026-01-14) — ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE (lead case Dkt. 14). Signed by Judge Gilstrap.

2026-01-13 (entered 2026-01-14) — Order resolving Dkt. 12 (lead case Dkt. 16).

2026-01-14 — AO 120 Notice of Filing filed at termination of case (lead case Dkt. 15), reporting termination of the action to the USPTO Director.

Net effect: The consolidated DynaMuse wave — including the Deezer action — was terminated with prejudice in mid-January 2026, roughly ten weeks after filing and before any defendant answered. The January 22 case-management conference never happened. There was no judgment, no verdict, no injunction, no damages award, and no appeal. A dismissal with prejudice on these facts is consistent with a quick settlement/license, but no public settlement agreement, license, or consideration is reflected in the record I could access — I cannot confirm the terms or even that a license underlay the dismissal.

5. Parallel PTAB proceedings

I did not identify any IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding on U.S. Patent 10,491,646. No PTAB petition, institution decision, or FWD involving the '646 patent surfaced in available search results, and no PTAB proceeding is referenced in any of the complaints. This is unsurprising: the suits were served in November 2025, and the statutory § 315(b) one-year IPR bar would not have run before the cases were dismissed in January 2026, leaving defendants little time or incentive to file.

Caveat: My PTAB docket search hit a tool limit before completing, so I can only state that no PTAB proceeding is publicly apparent — not that none was filed. A definitive check would require the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board End-to-End (PTAB E2E) system or Docket Navigator for the '646 patent.

6. Present posture and aftermath

Current status of 2:25-cv-01110: closed. Dismissed with prejudice as part of the consolidated lead case 2:25-cv-01113, terminated 2026-01-12/14. DynaMuse's campaign did not end, however — it simply relocated:

• DynaMuse LLC v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 3:26-cv-00803 (N.D. Tex., filed 2026-03-12), assigned to Judge Ada Brown; same '646 patent; same counsel (Rabicoff, plus James O. Crewse); jury demand.
• DynaMuse LLC v. iHeartMedia, Inc., No. 7:26-cv-00116 (W.D. Tex., filed 2026-03-30/31); same '646 patent; same counsel.

So the E.D. Tex. wave against the European streaming services was abandoned in favor of fresh suits against U.S. media companies in the Northern and Western Districts of Texas — a venue pivot worth tracking, since both are considerably less plaintiff-friendly for NPEs than Judge Gilstrap's EDTX docket has historically been, and both defendants are likely to contest venue and plead invalidity far more aggressively than the dismissed foreign defendants did.

---

Summary timeline

Sources

• PACER Monitor, DynaMuse LLC v. DEEZER S.A., 2:25-cv-01110 — https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/61025634/DynaMuse_LLC_v_DEEZER_SA
• CourtListener, DynaMuse LLC v. SoundCloud Global Limited & Co. KG, 2:25-cv-01113 — https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71884716/dynamuse-llc-v-soundcloud-global-limited-co-kg/
• PACER Monitor, DynaMuse LLC v. SoundCloud Global Limited & Co. KG, 2:25-cv-01113 — https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/61025681/DynaMuse_LLC_v_SoundCloud_Global_Limited__Co_KG
• Stanford NPE Litigation Database, U.S. Patent 10,491,646 — https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/10491646
• Justia Dockets, DynaMuse LLC v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., 3:26-cv-00803 — https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txndce/3:2026cv00803/[416637](/patent/416637)
• Ex Parte complaint analyses, 2:25-cv-01111 (IDAGIO) and 7:26-cv-00116 (iHeartMedia)
• Unified Patents litigation portal, 7:26-cv-00116

I'll research plaintiff's counsel for this case, building on the earlier summary that identified Isaac Phillip Rabicoff as the sole attorney of record.

Let me pull the Deezer-specific docket and firm/attorney profile details.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff DynaMuse LLC — 2:25-cv-01110 (Deezer)

Bottom line: there is exactly one attorney of record for the plaintiff in this case — Isaac Phillip Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC (Chicago). He is the only plaintiff-side name that appears anywhere on the retrievable Deezer docket. No local counsel, of-counsel, or in-house attorney for DynaMuse has appeared.

Plaintiff's counsel

Grounding on the docket (all plaintiff-side activity is Rabicoff-signed)

Per the PACER Monitor docket sheet for DynaMuse LLC v. DEEZER S.A., 2:25-cv-01110 (E.D. Tex.), every plaintiff filing on the Nov. 6, 2025 filing date carries "(Rabicoff, Isaac)":

• Dkt. 1 – COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT against DEEZER S.A. (filing fee receipt ATXEDC-11191120), with Exhibits and Civil Cover Sheet, filed by DynaMuse LLC (Rabicoff, Isaac)
• Dkt. 2 – NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Isaac Phillip Rabicoff on behalf of DynaMuse LLC
• Dkt. 3 – Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(a)(1) Disclosure Statement filed by DynaMuse LLC (Rabicoff, Isaac)
• Dkt. 4 – Notice of Filing of Patent/Trademark Form (AO 120) (Rabicoff, Isaac)
• Summons issued as to DEEZER S.A.; case assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

(PACER Monitor – DynaMuse LLC v. DEEZER S.A., 2:25-cv-01110)

Contact details as docketed

• Isaac Phillip Rabicoff, Rabicoff Law LLC, 4311 N Ravenswood Ave., Suite 315, Chicago, IL 60613; (773) 669-4590; isaac@rabilaw.com (contact block as listed on CourtListener for his concurrent E.D. Tex. appearances, e.g., 2:25-cv-00815; older Docketbird/Plainsite entries in the same district list a second line, (773) 669-4459, and the email isaac@rabilaw.com). Illinois bar number not verified — it does not appear in the sources I could retrieve.

Why no local counsel appears (useful context)

His firm bio lists "U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas" among his admissions alongside Illinois, the U.S. Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit, the Seventh Circuit, the N.D. Ill. Trial Bar, the W.D. Wis., and registered patent attorney status. Because he is admitted before this court in his own right, DynaMuse's EDTX complaints are filed without the out-of-state-counsel-plus-local-counsel pairing typical of, e.g., W.D. Tex. filings (Rabicoff Law bio).

Caveats and things I could not verify

1. No second chair / no local counsel. The retrievable Deezer docket shows only Rabicoff. However, PACER Monitor's public snapshot is abbreviated, and the case was consolidated on Dec. 15, 2025 into lead case 2:25-cv-01113 (DynaMuse v. SoundCloud) "for all pretrial issues," with all future filings to go into the lead case (CourtListener – 2:25-cv-01113). It is therefore possible that additional DynaMuse counsel appeared in the lead case docket rather than in 01110. In the lead case, the only appearances I could see were for the defendant (Benjamin Hershkowitz and R. Scott Roe for SoundCloud) — none for the plaintiff other than Rabicoff's own filing signature.
2. Post-November 2025 counsel status is unconfirmed. The lead case shows a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Jan. 8, 2026) by DynaMuse, Rabicoff signing, and a dismissal order in mid-January 2026. Consistent with the consolidation order, filings for 01110 would have been made in the lead docket; I could not confirm any Deezer-specific dismissal, answer, or Rule 12 motion, nor whether any substitute or additional plaintiff counsel entered an appearance, because the individually captioned Deezer docket was not fully retrievable in RECAP. The case metadata you provided still lists 2:25-cv-01110 as open, which I flag as a possible inconsistency with the lead-case dismissal — worth re-checking on PACER for 01110 directly.
3. Other Rabicoff Law attorneys. The firm's roster has historically included Kenneth Andrew Matuszewski (kenneth@rabilaw.com), who appeared with Rabicoff in older Rabicoff Law EDTX cases such as Mirror Imaging LLC v. First National Bank Texas, 2:17-cv-00509. He is not on the Deezer docket, and I found no evidence of any other Rabicoff Law attorney or outside firm appearing for DynaMuse here. I am not asserting he is or will be involved.
4. In-house counsel. None identified. DynaMuse is a New Mexico NPE with no disclosed in-house legal staff; the Stanford NPE database classifies its asserted patent as an "acquired patent" and the entity as a non-practicing entity (Stanford NPE Litigation Database – 10,491,646). Consistent with that, all pleadings are signed by outside counsel.

If you need certainty: the controlling document is the Appearance of Counsel (AO 458) and any pro hac vice motions on the 01110/01113 combined docket on PACER; the public aggregators (PACER Monitor, CourtListener/RECAP, Docketbird) I could reach are incomplete for this recently consolidated and apparently dismissed cluster.

I'll research defendant-side counsel for the Deezer action.

Counsel of Record for the Defendant — DynaMuse LLC v. DEEZER S.A., No. 2:25-cv-01110

Bottom line

No attorney has appeared on behalf of Deezer S.A. in this case in any public record I could retrieve. The docket for 2:25-cv-01110, as indexed, contains only plaintiff-side and clerk entries (five entries total: complaint, Rabicoff appearance, Rule 7.1 statement, AO 120, summons). There is no notice of appearance, no answer, no Rule 12 motion, and no corporate-parent disclosure from Deezer. This is consistent with the procedural history already summarized: the case was dismissed with prejudice in mid-January 2026, before any defendant's answer deadline, so a defense appearance may never have been required in the Deezer docket itself.

Explicit caveat: I could not access the official PACER docket sheet or the consolidated lead-case docket directly (only PACER Monitor's free public index and CourtListener's RECAP-derived docket). A Deezer appearance filed into the lead case, No. 2:25-cv-01113, after the Dec. 15, 2025 consolidation order could exist without appearing in the indexed Deezer docket. That is the specific gap a PACER/Docket Navigator pull would close. I am not going to name an attorney as Deezer's counsel without a filing to point to.

What the record does show (defense side, consolidated wave)

Deezer was consolidated for all pretrial issues under the lead case DynaMuse LLC v. SoundCloud Global Limited & Co. KG, No. 2:25-cv-01113 (Dkt. 10, entered Dec. 16, 2025). The defense-side appearances in that lead case are:

Sources: CourtListener docket, 2:25-cv-01113; CourtListener parties page.

Important inference limit: the parties page renders consolidated defendants in a single block, so the Hershkowitz/Roe entries are unambiguously of record for SoundCloud; their listing for IDAGIO comes from the same page and should be confirmed on the docket. Neither attorney is shown as counsel for Deezer. I found no evidence that Gibson Dunn (or any firm) entered an appearance for Deezer in this wave. Deezer's answer deadline was never set by an extension application in any public filing I located, unlike SoundCloud's (answer due Jan. 17, 2026).

One data point that is not this case

Deezer was previously sued in the same court and before the same judge: Post Media Systems LLC v. Deezer S.A. (and Deezer Inc.), No. 2:17-cv-00356 (E.D. Tex., Judge Gilstrap), where the Deezer entity was represented by Greenberg Traurig, LLP (Plainsite docket). That is a 2017 case with different patent counsel and a different patent; it is not evidence of who represents Deezer in 2:25-cv-01110, and no current appearance by Greenberg Traurig in this case is reflected anywhere I searched. Flagging it only as a historical lead if you need to guess at Deezer's outside patent counsel.

Contradiction to flag

The case metadata provided to me lists 2:25-cv-01110 as "Open." The lead case under which it was consolidated (2:25-cv-01113) shows an Order Dismissing Case With Prejudice signed Jan. 12, 2026 and entered Jan. 14, 2026 (Dkt. 14), and an AO 120 termination notice (Dkt. 15). If the dismissal order covered all consolidated members, the Deezer action is closed notwithstanding the metadata — but the dismissal order's text and the two voluntary-dismissal notices (Dkts. 12–13) were not retrievable, so which defendants each notice covered remains unconfirmed. That is also the most likely reason no defense counsel ever appeared for Deezer: there was no answer deadline to defend.

How I'd confirm

1. PACER for the official 2:25-cv-01110 docket sheet (check for any entry after Dkt. 5) and for the full 2:25-cv-01113 docket, including the text of Dkts. 12–14.
2. Docket Navigator party/counsel report for the '646 patent campaign, which aggregates counsel across related cases (the N.D. Tex. SiriusXM and W.D. Tex. iHeartMedia suits will generate fresh defense-side appearances worth tracking).
3. Deezer's own corporate/investor disclosures (Euronext Paris filings) — litigation contingencies are sometimes disclosed there, including outside counsel names.

Nothing in this answer should be read as identifying counsel for Deezer S.A. in 2:25-cv-01110; on the record available to me, none appeared.