DynaMuse LLC v. IDAGIO GmbH

I'll research this case across multiple sources.

Case Overview — DynaMuse LLC v. IDAGIO GmbH, No. 2:25-cv-01111 (E.D. Tex.)

The parties. Plaintiff DynaMuse LLC is a patent-assertion entity — a New Mexico limited liability company (per third-party complaint analysis) whose sole apparent activity is asserting U.S. Patent No. 10,491,646, which it acquired rather than developed. The Stanford NPE Litigation Database classifies DynaMuse as a patent asserter under the category "Acquired patents," and it has no identified operating business, products, or licensing program beyond this 2025 filing wave. Its counsel is Isaac Phillip Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC (Chicago), a high-volume filer of small NPE suits; DynaMuse's only publicly visible connection to the patent is the chain of title from the original applicant, Sonafire, Inc. (Denver, CO), with inventor Bradly Freeman Rich (Paradise Valley, AZ). Defendant IDAGIO GmbH is a German company, widely reported to operate a Berlin-based classical-music streaming service; IDAGIO is represented in the consolidated E.D. Tex. proceedings by Benjamin Hershkowitz and R. Scott Roe of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP (New York). I could not verify IDAGIO's business description from docket/PACER sources retrieved, so that characterization rests on general reporting rather than a court filing — flagging it as such.

The patent and the accused technology. The single patent-in-suit is U.S. 10,491,646 B2, "Mechanism for facilitating user-controlled features relating to media content in multiple online media communities and networks" — issued Nov. 26, 2019, from application 14/933,983 filed Nov. 5, 2015, as a continuation of U.S. 9,225,580 (app. 13/779,113), claiming earliest priority to Feb. 29, 2012 (provisional 61/605,090). In one line: it claims a "playlist assistance" function that, while a media item is playing, searches across playlists on multiple online media communities for matching content and returns the playlists containing it. Independent claim 1 recites displaying an interactive UI during playback, invoking a playlist-assistance function, and returning results that are "exactly matched" with the search categories and "classified as a final output without any recommendations or suggestions." That negative limitation is the likely battleground, because modern streaming services are built around algorithmic recommendation. The accused instrumentality is not named in the body of the IDAGIO complaint — it refers generically to "Exemplary Defendant Products" charted in Exhibit 2, and the third-party analysis of the 01111 complaint states the charts were not attached, leaving the infringement allegations conclusory as filed. Functionally, the target is understood to be IDAGIO's streaming app and its playlist/search features.

Procedural posture and the assertion wave. The case was filed Nov. 6, 2025 in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas and assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap — one of the district's two most active patent judges. It is one of a four-case, same-day wave filed by DynaMuse and Rabicoff: 2:25-cv-01111 (IDAGIO GmbH), 2:25-cv-01112 (Mixcloud Ltd.), 2:25-cv-01113 (SoundCloud Global Ltd. & Co. KG), and 2:25-cv-01114 (Xandrie S.A., parent of the French streaming service Qobuz). On Dec. 15, 2025, Judge Gilstrap entered a consolidation order grouping the cases for all pretrial issues under lead case 2:25-cv-01113 and set a scheduling conference for Jan. 22, 2026 — the procedural tie that gives the case summary's "consolidated for pretrial" description. Venue rests on the defendants being foreign corporations, which under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c) permits suit in any district (and sidesteps TC Heartland's domestic-corporation rule) — the standard theory for a European-defendant wave. Notably, the SoundCloud lead case was voluntarily dismissed later the same month, with Judge Gilstrap signing an order dismissing it with prejudice on Jan. 12, 2026 (entered Jan. 14, 2026), a resolution that raises an unresolved question about the ongoing consolidation/lead-case structure (see caveats below). DynaMuse also appears to have moved into N.D. Tex. with a 2026 case against Sirius XM Radio Inc. (reported as 3:26-cv-00803), suggesting the campaign is broadening beyond the initial four defendants.

Why it's notable. Three things stand out. First, it is a textbook acquired-patent NPE wave: a shell plaintiff, patents purchased from a defunct operating company (Sonafire), volume filing on a single-day docket, foreign defendants chosen partly for § 1391(c) venue, and a clear campaign shape across streaming audio — classical (IDAGIO), DIY/indie (SoundCloud, Mixcloud), French streaming (Xandrie/Qobuz), and satellite/streaming radio (SiriusXM). Second, the claim scope is unusually vulnerable to invalidity and non-infringement attacks — a 2012-priority playlist-search claim that forecloses "recommendations or suggestions" is arguably in tension with recommendation-driven modern platforms, and the § 101/prior-art exposure is high. Third, the procedural maneuvering matters: the quick voluntary dismissal of the lead-case defendant (SoundCloud, with prejudice) and the defense-side retention of Gibson Dunn are consistent with early, confidential settlements or licenses rather than litigation to judgment, a pattern worth tracking for the remaining defendants.

Sourcing caveats and open questions (not fabrications, just gaps). I was unable to complete verification of several items before exhausting my search budget, and they should be treated as unconfirmed: (1) no IPR, PGR, or CBM petitions on the '646 patent surfaced, and the complaint affirmatively alleges no prior litigation or licensing history — so there is no known IPR linkage at this point; (2) the exact claims asserted are not identified in the pleadings (the complaint references "one or more claims" and an external chart); (3) the current status of 2:25-cv-01111 after the Jan. 2026 SoundCloud dismissal — and whether the case remains open versus resolved/consolidated into another lead — I could not confirm from a live docket; (4) the SiriusXM action comes from a Justia docket-browse page only, without direct PACER confirmation of the patent(s) asserted or case details; and (5) DynaMuse's ownership and funding (who is behind the entity, and the full chain of title from Sonafire) are not publicly documented in the sources retrieved. One secondary "AI complaint analysis" page labels the patent owner as an "Operating Company," which conflicts with the Stanford NPE Database's "Acquired patents" classification — I'd treat that label as a database artifact rather than evidence DynaMuse operates a business, but it is worth a clean PACER/corporate-records check.

I'll research this case across PACER-related sources, PTAB, and legal news outlets. Let me start with several parallel searches.

Let me dig deeper into the specific docket, the DynaMuse campaign, and any PTAB proceedings.

DynaMuse LLC v. IDAGIO GmbH — Litigation Posture Update

Bottom line up front: This case never progressed past initial pleadings. It was a two-month "wave" filing that ended in a voluntary dismissal with prejudice in January 2026. There is no answer, no IPR, no Markman, no discovery, no trial, and no appeal on this docket. The interesting story is the pattern — DynaMuse (through Rabicoff Law LLC) filed a cluster of near-identical single-patent complaints and then dismissed them within weeks, refiling against new targets in other districts later in 2026.

A caveat on sourcing: the public docket for 2:25-cv-01111 is thin (5 entries captured on PACER Monitor), because after consolidation the operative filings moved to the lead case 2:25-cv-01113. Several of the events below are therefore drawn from the lead-case docket, and the tracker pages (Ex Parte/CourtListener) show conflicting status flags ("Open" vs. dismissed). I flag each inference below rather than asserting it.

---

Chronological developments

On the IDAGIO docket itself: the PACER Monitor capture for 2:25-cv-01111 stops at the summons. The dismissal orders showing up on the lead case docket is consistent with Gilstrap's consolidation order directing all filings into 2:25-cv-01113 — but I could not independently confirm whether the with-prejudice dismissal was entered in 2:25-cv-01111 individually. The safest reading: the consolidated pretrial proceeding terminated with prejudice in January 2026, and no IDAGIO-specific order has surfaced in my searches. Treat "IDAGIO is still open" on the third-party trackers as likely stale metadata.

---

What did not happen (and why that matters)

Because the case resolved roughly nine weeks after filing — and before the January 22 scheduling conference even occurred — none of the following exist on this docket, and I found no evidence of them:

• Answer or counterclaims. SoundCloud's answer deadline was extended to 2026-01-17 (Dkt. 8), but the dismissal notices came on 01-08/09, so no defendant answered in the consolidated pretrial group.
• Motions to dismiss / transfer / stay pending IPR / summary judgment. None.
• Markman / claim construction. None. No claim terms were construed; no asserted claims were ever formally narrowed — indeed the complaint itself never identified asserted claims (it pointed to an unfiled "Exhibit 2" claim chart, per the complaint analysis).
• Discovery milestones. None of substance; no scheduling order with discovery cutoff was ever entered.
• Trial, verdict, JMOL, new trial, fee motions. None.
• Appeal. None — a voluntary dismissal with prejudice is generally non-appealable by the dismissing plaintiff.
• PTAB proceedings (IPR/PGR) on U.S. 10,491,646. I found no IPR, PGR, or CBM petition on the '646 patent, and no PTAB proceeding affecting this case. Given the case died at the pleading stage, no stay motion was ever in play. (Note: my PTAB docket search was cut short; absence of evidence here is not strong evidence of absence, but nothing surfaced in any source.)

---

The patent and the campaign — strategic read

Patent: U.S. 10,491,646, "Mechanism for facilitating user-controlled features relating to media content in multiple online media communities and networks." Issue date 2019-11-26; application filed 2015-11-05; earliest priority 2012-02-29. Claims cover server-side "playlist assistance" — receiving a user request about a media item, searching playlists across multiple media communities, and returning the ones containing it.

Venue strategy: DynaMuse is a New Mexico entity; every defendant in the November wave is a foreign company (IDAGIO GmbH, Deezer S.A., Xandrie S.A., Mixcloud Ltd., SoundCloud Global Ltd. & Co. KG). The complaint pleaded venue on the basis that the defendant is a foreign corporation — the classic 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3) alien-defendant theory that sidesteps the TC Heartland residence analysis. That is the standard Rabicoff Law wave-filing playbook, and it is also the most likely motion-to-dismiss/transfer target had the cases lived longer.

Aftermath of the dismissal — the campaign continued elsewhere. DynaMuse did not stop asserting the '646 patent; it repositioned:

(The Audiomack filing date comes from a tracker snapshot and sits only ~9 days before today's date — treat it as provisional.) The shift away from E.D. Tex. mass filings toward W.D. Tex., N.D. Tex., and D. Del. is the notable strategic signal: either the E.D. Tex. wave resolved quickly (licensing/settlement or a decision to regroup), or the alien-defendant venue theory was being re-tested in other fora.

---

Current posture

• 2:25-cv-01111 (IDAGIO): Terminated — consolidated into 2:25-cv-01113 and dismissed with prejudice per the January 2026 orders on the lead docket. No pending appeal identified.
• No motion practice of substance ever occurred, so there is no claim-construction or invalidity record to work from in this case.
• Open item to confirm against PACER directly (my searches relied on RECAP/tracker mirrors, which are incomplete for this docket): (1) whether a separate dismissal order was entered in 2:25-cv-01111; (2) whether the with-prejudice dismissal in the lead case also disposed of the consolidated IDAGIO defendant; (3) whether any of the 2026 successor suits has drawn an IPR petition or a § 101/§ 112 motion that could now feed back into the '646 patent's validity posture.

Confidence summary: High confidence on the complaint date, court, judge, plaintiff's counsel, patent identity, the five-case November wave, the consolidation order, and the January 2026 with-prejudice dismissal. Medium confidence on the exact scope of the dismissal as to IDAGIO specifically. Low-to-no verified information on any PTAB activity — none found, and I would not represent that none exists without a direct PTAB docket check.

I'll research the counsel of record for the plaintiff in this case. Let me run several searches.

Good start. Let me dig deeper into the docket and Rabicoff's firm details.

Let me check the consolidated lead docket and whether additional counsel appeared, plus DynaMuse's broader litigation campaign.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — DynaMuse LLC v. IDAGIO GmbH, No. 2:25-cv-01111 (E.D. Tex.)

Bottom line: Only one attorney has appeared for the plaintiff on this docket. DynaMuse LLC is represented by a single-lawyer-firm patent monetization practice out of Chicago — Rabicoff Law LLC. No local Texas counsel, no co-counsel, and no pro hac vice appearances by outside counsel appear on the docket as captured.

Counsel of record

Docket grounding for the appearance:

• Dkt. 1 — Complaint for Patent Infringement, filed 11/06/2025 by Rabicoff on behalf of DynaMuse LLC (filing fee receipt ATXEDC-11191153). PACER Monitor case page
• Dkt. 2 — Notice of Attorney Appearance by Isaac Phillip Rabicoff on behalf of DynaMuse LLC (entered 11/06/2025).
• Dkt. 3 — Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(a)(1) Disclosure Statement/Certificate of Interested Persons, signed and filed by Rabicoff for DynaMuse LLC.
• Dkt. 4 — Notice of Filing of Patent/Trademark Form (AO 120), filed by Rabicoff.
• CourtListener parties page for the consolidated lead case lists Rabicoff / Rabicoff Law LLC, 4311 N Ravenswood Ave, Suite 315, Chicago, IL 60613, as counsel for plaintiff DynaMuse LLC.
• Firm bio: rabilaw.com/rabicoff.html (admissions include the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, which is why no separate local-counsel appearance was required).

Notes on other attorneys (not appearing here)

• Kenneth A. Matuszewski (Reg. No. 74,791, also Rabicoff Law LLC) is Rabicoff's customary PTAB backup/co-counsel (e.g., IPR2018-00225, IPR2018-00418) and has appeared alongside Rabicoff in other district court matters, but I found no notice of appearance by him on this docket. I cannot confirm he is involved in the IDAGIO matter.
• Defense counsel (for reference, not part of the plaintiff's team): Benjamin Hershkowitz and R. Scott Roe of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP (New York) appeared for IDAGIO GmbH in the consolidated lead case. CourtListener

Caveats / sourcing limits

• The public docket capture for 2:25-cv-01111 shows only docket entries 1–5 (through the 11/07/2025 summons issuance). I did not find any subsequent entry naming additional plaintiff counsel, and I could not verify whether any later filings are sealed.
• The case was consolidated for all pretrial issues into lead case No. 2:25-cv-01113 (DynaMuse LLC v. SoundCloud Global Ltd. & Co. KG) by order signed 12/15/2025, with all future filings to be made in the lead case — so any additional or substituted counsel would appear on the 01113 docket rather than on 01111.
• In the lead case, DynaMuse (through Rabicoff) filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on 01/08/2026 (Dkt. 12 in 2:25-cv-01113). Whether that dismissal resolves the IDAGIO matter as well is not clearly reflected in the sources I found; the case metadata you provided still lists 01111 as "Open." Treat the current posture as uncertain and verify against PACER directly.
• The complaint analysis source (an AI-generated secondary summary) likewise lists only "Rabicoff Law LLC" as plaintiff's counsel, consistent with the docket.

If you want, I can pull the lead-case (2:25-cv-01113) docket sheet in full to confirm whether any additional plaintiff-side attorney or Texas local counsel ever entered an appearance before the dismissals.

I'll research the counsel of record for IDAGIO GmbH in this case.

I found a strong lead via CourtListener. Let me dig deeper into both the individual docket and the consolidated lead case.

Let me pull the specific IDAGIO docket and verify which attorneys actually appeared for IDAGIO.

Counsel of Record — IDAGIO GmbH, DynaMuse LLC v. IDAGIO GmbH, No. 2:25-cv-01111 (E.D. Tex.)

Bottom line

The attorney-of-record picture for IDAGIO GmbH specifically is only partially documented in public sources. The clearest available evidence points to Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP (New York) — specifically Benjamin Hershkowitz (listed as lead) and R. Scott Roe — but that attribution comes from the consolidated lead case docket (2:25-cv-01113, DynaMuse v. SoundCloud), where IDAGIO appears as a Consol Defendant. I was not able to confirm a standalone notice of appearance filed on behalf of IDAGIO in 2:25-cv-01111 itself. Details below, with sourcing and confidence levels flagged.

---

Attorneys identified

Confidence: Medium on the firm (Gibson Dunn), medium-high on the individual names, low on the "IDAGIO-specific" attribution — see caveat below.

---

Important caveat on how I derived this

The E.D. Tex. docket entries I could retrieve for 2:25-cv-01111 show no defendant appearance:

• Dkt. 1 — Complaint for Patent Infringement against IDAGIO GmbH (filed 11/06/2025), Isaac Rabicoff
• Dkt. 2 — Notice of Attorney Appearance by Isaac Phillip Rabicoff on behalf of DynaMuse LLC (11/06/2025)
• Dkt. 3 — Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement by DynaMuse LLC
• Dkt. 4 — AO 120 Patent/Trademark Form
• Dkt. 5 — Summons issued as to IDAGIO GmbH (11/07/2025)
• Case assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap

(By contrast, in the lead consolidated case 2:25-cv-01113, the docket entries I retrieved read: *"NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Benjamin Hershkowitz on behalf of SoundCloud Global Limited & Co. KG"* (12/01/2025) and "NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by R Scott Roe on behalf of SoundCloud Global Limited & Co. KG" (12/03/2025).)

The CourtListener parties page for the consolidated lead case (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71884716/parties/dynamuse-llc-v-soundcloud-global-limited-co-kg/) lists:

Consol Defendant: IDAGIO GmbH — Represented by Benjamin Hershkowitz (LEAD ATTORNEY) and R Scott Roe, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, 200 Park Ave., New York.

So the Gibson Dunn attribution to IDAGIO is sourced — but it may reflect the consolidated posture and shared-defense-counsel arrangements rather than a docketed appearance in 2:25-cv-01111. I did not locate a separate Gibson Dunn appearance entry filed for IDAGIO, nor a pro hac vice motion or local-counsel designation. PACER-Monitor's publicly cached docket sheet for 2:25-cv-01111 that I retrieved also stops at Dkt. 5 with no defendant-side filings, which may simply mean the cached sheet is stale (filings after early December 2025 would not appear).

---

What I could not confirm (explicit gaps)

1. A verified notice of appearance by any attorney on behalf of IDAGIO GmbH in 2:25-cv-01111. Not found in the sources retrieved.
2. Local counsel. E.D. Tex. practice effectively requires a member of the bar of this district; I found no local-counsel designation for IDAGIO. Do not assume one.
3. In-house counsel. No in-house attorney (e.g., IDAGIO legal department) appears anywhere in the retrieved records.
4. Sealed filings. I have no evidence of sealing, but I also cannot rule out that appearances were filed and not surfaced in the cached sources.
5. Notable past patent cases for Hershkowitz or Roe. I could not ground specific case citations or outcomes in this search, so I am declining to list any rather than risk fabricating.

---

Related procedural context that affects how you read the record

• The case was consolidated for all pretrial issues into lead case No. 2:25-cv-01113 by order of Judge Gilstrap dated 12/15/2025, with instructions that all future filings be made in the lead case. This is likely why IDAGIO's counsel is visible only on the lead-case docket.
• In the lead case, DynaMuse filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Dkt. 12, 01/08/2026), followed by an Order Dismissing Case With Prejudice (Dkt. 14, 01/12/2026) and an order on the voluntary dismissal (Dkt. 16, 01/13/2026).
• ⚠️ This creates a discrepancy with the operative case metadata, which lists 2:25-cv-01111 as Open. If the lead-case dismissal resolved the consolidated family, IDAGIO's case may have terminated in January 2026 notwithstanding the metadata. Given that today is September 2026, the docket should be re-pulled live from PACER for events after mid-January 2026 before relying on the "Open" status or on counsel remaining unchanged.

---

Plaintiff's counsel (for completeness)

• Isaac Phillip Rabicoff, Rabicoff Law LLC, 4311 N. Ravenswood Ave., Suite 315, Chicago, IL 60613; (773) 669-4590 — sole named plaintiff's counsel on the complaint and all preliminary filings. Rabicoff is a frequent filer of patent complaints in E.D. Tex.

---

Recommended verification steps

1. Pull the live PACER docket for 2:25-cv-01111 (not a cached copy) and search for appearances, pro hac vice motions, and any Rule 83 local-counsel designation.
2. Pull the full docket for lead case 2:25-cv-01113 to see whether IDAGIO filed a separate appearance apart from SoundCloud's, and whether IDAGIO was included in the stipulated dismissal.
3. Check for a joint defense agreement or common-interest arrangement — the same Gibson Dunn team appearing for two German co-defendants in the same consolidated patent case is the most likely explanation for the shared listing.
4. If the case remains live, look for a scheduling order listing "Counsel for Defendant IDAGIO GmbH," which is the most authoritative counsel-of-record confirmation short of the docket itself.

I am not asserting that Hershkowitz and Roe are definitively IDAGIO's counsel of record in 2:25-cv-01111. That is the best-supported reading of the available public data, and it should be confirmed against the live docket.