DynaMuse LLC v. iHeartMedia, Inc.

I'll research this case across dockets, legal press, and patent records.

Good initial data. Let me dig into the patent's provenance, the broader DynaMuse campaign, and the PTAB/venue angles.

Case Overview: DynaMuse LLC v. iHeartMedia, Inc., No. 7:26-cv-00116 (W.D. Tex.)

The parties. DynaMuse LLC is a New Mexico limited liability company and, by the classification of both the Stanford NPE Litigation Database and Unified Patents' litigation portal, a non-practicing entity / patent assertion entity — Stanford tags its asserter category as "Acquired patents," i.e., an entity monetizing patents it purchased rather than developed (Stanford NPE DB, patent 10491646; Unified Patents portal, 7:26-cv-00116). One third-party tracker (Ex Parte) anomalously labels the plaintiff an "operating company" and lists the case as "Closed," which conflicts with the docket and with more authoritative aggregators; the metadata and docket activity both indicate the case remains open (Ex Parte case page). DynaMuse is represented by Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC, a prolific, well-known solo filer of patent complaints (co-counsel James O. Crewse also appears in the related Sirius XM case). The defendant, iHeartMedia, Inc. (Delaware), is the largest U.S. radio broadcaster and operator of the iHeartRadio streaming app and podcast network — a significant operating-company target rather than a typical NPE defendant.

The patent and accused technology. The sole patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent No. 10,491,646, titled "Mechanism for facilitating user-controlled features relating to media content in multiple online media communities and networks." Per the complaint and patent summary, it claims a priority date of Feb. 29, 2012, was filed Nov. 5, 2015, and issued Nov. 26, 2019 (Ex Parte complaint analysis). In one line: it covers a "playlist assistance" function — when a user selects a song, artist, or genre, the system searches across multiple playlists and returns a list of playlists containing that item, rather than making the user check each playlist manually. Independent claim 1 is directed to a computer-implemented method for displaying a UI while a media item plays, invoking a playlist-assistance function, and returning "exactly matched" results that are a "final output without any recommendations or suggestions." That last limitation is notable: it appears designed to distinguish over recommendation-engine prior art, and could cut against infringement theories aimed at iHeartRadio's algorithmic recommendation features. The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying claim numbers and identifies "exemplary defendant products" — the available summary does not name the exact accused iHeart service, though the playlist/search functionality at issue maps naturally onto iHeartRadio's playlist and song-search features (I could not verify the precise product designation in the complaint text from the sources retrieved).

Procedural posture, venue, and why it matters. Filed March 31, 2026 in the Midland Division of the Western District of Texas as a Nature-of-Suit 830 patent case under 35 U.S.C. § 271, with a plaintiff jury demand (Docket Alarm docket). The docket shows the complaint (Dkt. 1), appearance and Rule 7.1 disclosure (Dkts. 2–3), AO 120 notice to the USPTO (Dkt. 5), summons issued April 1, an order referring the case to a magistrate judge on April 2, 2026 (Dkt. 7), and summons returned executed April 20, 2026 (Dkt. 8); no answer or motion practice appears in the retrieved docket, and I could not confirm the assigned district judge from available sources. Venue matters because W.D. Tex. remains the nation's most plaintiff-friendly patent forum — and the choice of the Midland Division rather than the Waco Division is consistent with the broader post-2023 shift of NPE filings away from Judge Albright's docket as the district randomized case assignments; iHeartMedia's substantial Texas radio-station footprint supplies the venue hook. The case is notable as one piece of a coordinated, sector-wide DynaMuse campaign asserting the same '646 patent against digital-music platforms: earlier suits in E.D. Tex. against SoundCloud (2:25-cv-01113, before Judge Gilstrap and consolidated as lead case, then voluntarily dismissed by DynaMuse on Jan. 8, 2026), Mixcloud (2:25-cv-01112), and Xandrie S.A. (2:25-cv-01114); an N.D. Tex. suit against Sirius XM (3:26-cv-00803, Judge Ada Brown, filed Mar. 12, 2026); and a later D. Del. suit against Audiomack (1:26-cv-01125, filed Sept. 4, 2026) (CourtListener/SoundCloud; Justia/Sirius XM). Notably, the complaint references no prior litigation, licensing history, or IPR, and my searches surfaced no PTAB proceeding on the '646 patent — meaning the patent's validity is essentially untested, and iHeartMedia (having been served in April 2026) would face a § 315(b) one-year IPR deadline around April 2027 if it chooses to challenge validity at the Board rather than in court. The rapid-fire filings across four districts and the early SoundCloud dismissal suggest a licensing/settlement-driven assertion model rather than a bid for judgment on the merits.

Sourcing caveats: Party names, case number, court, filing date, and patent number are taken from the case metadata and corroborated by PACER-derived aggregators. Details of claim 1's elements and the "exemplary defendant products" characterization come from a third-party AI complaint analysis (Ex Parte) rather than my direct review of the complaint or patent, and I was unable to verify the patent's original assignee/inventor history, the exact accused iHeart product name, the name of the assigned district judge, or whether iHeartMedia is a member of any defensive patent aggregator (e.g., RPX or Unified Patents) — those points should be confirmed against the complaint and PACER.

I'll research the docket and any developments since the March 2026 filing.

Let me pull the most recent docket activity and check for any motion practice.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome — DynaMuse LLC v. iHeartMedia, Inc., No. 7:26-cv-00116 (W.D. Tex.)

Bottom line first: As of the most recent docket data I was able to retrieve, this case is a very early-stage, active infringement action with no merits rulings of any kind. There is no answer, no counterclaim, no venue or dismissal motion, no Markman proceeding, no scheduling order, no discovery, no trial, no judgment, and no appeal. There is also no PTAB proceeding on the asserted patent. My search budget was exhausted before I could fully paginate PACER/RECAP, so the negative findings below reflect what the retrieved sources show rather than proof that nothing has been filed since — the docket aggregator I relied on expressly labels itself "incomplete," and several search results appear to be cached snapshots. This is flagged again under "Confidence and verification."

1. Filing and Initial Pleadings

2026-03-31 — Complaint filed (Dkt. 1). DynaMuse LLC filed its Complaint for Patent Infringement against iHeartMedia, Inc. in the Midland Division of the W.D. Tex., Nature of Suit 830, cause 35 U.S.C. § 271, with a plaintiff jury demand. Filing fee $405 (receipt ATXWDC-21673054). The complaint carried Exhibit 1, Exhibit 2, and a civil cover sheet (docket snapshot).

2026-03-31 — Same-day ancillary filings. Notice of Attorney Appearance by Isaac Rabicoff for DynaMuse (Dkt. 2); Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement by DynaMuse (Dkt. 3); Request for Issuance of Summons (Dkt. 4); Notice of Filing of Patent/Trademark Form AO 120, forwarded to the USPTO Director (Dkt. 5).

2026-04-01 — Summons issued (Dkt. 6); case assigned/reassigned. (The docket text does not identify the presiding district judge in the snapshot I retrieved; the April 2 referral to a magistrate judge suggests a district judge was assigned.)

2026-04-02 — Order Referring Case to Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 7). Standard W.D. Tex. referral; no substantive rulings flowed from it in the retrieved record.

2026-04-20 — Summons Returned Executed (Dkt. 8). This is the last entry I could retrieve. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A), iHeartMedia's responsive pleading would ordinarily have been due roughly three weeks after effective service, i.e., in May 2026 — but no answer, Rule 12 motion, or counterclaim appears on the retrieved docket. Given the retrieval gap, I treat that as unconfirmed rather than as a fact that iHeartMedia defaulted or failed to respond.

No counterclaims against DynaMuse (e.g., declaratory judgment of non-infringement or invalidity) appear in any source retrieved.

2. Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

None found. Specifically, I found no:

• motion to dismiss for improper venue or failure to state a claim (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3)/(6));
• motion to transfer — this is the development I would most expect next and consider most consequential. iHeartMedia is headquartered in San Antonio (W.D. Tex.), which cuts both ways: it defeats a § 1406 convenience argument, but San Antonio sits in the San Antonio Division, and post-In re Volkswagen / post-2022 W.D. Tex. practice often supports intra-district transfer motions. None is on the retrieved docket;
• motion to stay pending IPR (none could be ripe — no IPR exists);
• motion for summary judgment.

3. Claim Construction (Markman)

Not reached. The case is approximately five and a half months old and has not generated a scheduling order in the retrieved record, let alone a Markman order. No Markman briefing, hearing transcript, or claim construction opinion exists for this case.

One forward-looking note tying to the prior section: independent claim 1's "exactly matched … final output without any recommendations or suggestions" limitation is the pivot point for any future construction fight, and, as noted previously, it reads as a deliberate carve-out from recommendation-engine prior art, which may bear on both infringement and § 112 indefiniteness positions.

4. Discovery Milestones

None. No Rule 26(f) conference, joint discovery/case management plan, scheduling order, initial disclosures, infringement or invalidity contentions, or discovery motions appear in the retrieved sources.

5. Trial, Verdict, Post-Trial Motions

None. No trial date, no verdict, no JMOL, new-trial, or fee motion. Realistically, on a 2026 filing in W.D. Tex., trial would not be expected before late 2027 at the earliest.

6. Disposition / Present Posture

Present posture: open and pending. The case metadata ("Status: Open") and the Unified Patents litigation portal (7:26-cv-00116, "Current Status: Open," "Termination Date: N/A") agree. There is no settlement, voluntary dismissal, consent judgment, default, or appeal in the retrieved record.

⚠️ Contradiction to flag: the Ex Parte case page still lists the case as "Closed" and the plaintiff as an "Operating Company." That conflicts with the case metadata, Unified Patents, and the live docket. As the prior section concluded, the Ex Parte status field appears erroneous; I again treat Open as authoritative. There is also a one-day filing-date discrepancy: Unified Patents says 2026-03-30, while the metadata and the docket say 2026-03-31. I follow the metadata (2026-03-31).

7. Parallel PTAB Proceedings on the Asserted Patent

None. No IPR, PGR, or CBM petition has been filed on U.S. Patent No. 10,491,646 in any source I retrieved, consistent with the earlier finding. The practical consequence:

• iHeartMedia was served in April 2026. If it elects to petition for IPR, the § 315(b) one-year bar date falls around April 2027 (calculated from service, which should be confirmed against the executed summons rather than from the April 20 return date alone).
• Because the patent has no PTAB history and no prior litigation adjudication, its validity remains untested, and a well-funded operating-company defendant like iHeartMedia is a plausible candidate to be the first challenger.
• In the meantime, no IPR exists, so no stay motion is legally available and no estoppel under § 315(e) has attached.

8. Related-Campaign Activity Bearing on This Case (for context)

• SoundCloud, E.D. Tex. 2:25-cv-01113 — consolidated as lead case 2025-12-15; DynaMuse voluntarily dismissed, and Judge Gilstrap entered an order dismissing the case with prejudice on 2026-01-12 (entered 2026-01-14) (CourtListener docket). The dismissal-with-prejudice posture is the single most probative data point in the campaign: it is the classic signature of a settlement/license resolved before motion practice.
• Mixcloud (2:25-cv-01112) and Xandrie S.A. (2:25-cv-01114), E.D. Tex. — consolidated into the same lead case; the Stanford NPE database lists all three E.D. Tex. suits against the '646 patent (Stanford NPE DB).
• Sirius XM, N.D. Tex. 3:26-cv-00803 — filed 2026-03-12, roughly three weeks before the iHeartMedia complaint; co-counsel James O. Crewse appears.
• Audiomack, D. Del. — the prior section listed a 2026-09-04 filing; I could not verify this in my searches and it should be treated as unconfirmed.

The pattern — near-simultaneous complaints against similarly situated streaming/radio platforms, one early dismissal with prejudice, and no claim construction anywhere — supports the earlier assessment of a licensing-driven assertion model rather than a merits campaign. That framing, not any ruling in this case, is the best available predictor of how DynaMuse v. iHeartMedia is likely to end: a negotiated dismissal, with the § 315(b) window closing around April 2027 as the principal source of leverage.

Confidence and Verification

• High confidence: complaint filing date (2026-03-31), case metadata, docket entries Dkts. 1–8 through 2026-04-20, absence of any merits ruling, absence of any PTAB proceeding, and the SoundCloud dismissal-with-prejudice.
• Gap to close: I could not retrieve docket entries after Dkt. 8 (2026-04-20); the aggregator labels its docket "incomplete," and search results appeared cached. An answer, Rule 12 motion, or venue/transfer motion could exist without appearing in what I retrieved. Verify directly against PACER for No. 7:26-cv-00116 (W.D. Tex.) or the RECAP/CourtListener docket, focusing on: (a) whether iHeartMedia has appeared and through which firm; (b) any Rule 12(b)(3) venue motion or § 1404(a) intra-district transfer motion; (c) any scheduling order or Markman date; and (d) the assigned district judge, which no retrieved source identified.
• Not verified by me: the exact accused iHeart product name, the specific claim numbers asserted, the identity of iHeartMedia's counsel, and whether iHeartMedia participates in a defensive aggregator (RPX/Unified) that might drive an IPR filing. I did not fabricate any of these, and they should not be relied upon without direct docket and complaint review.

I'll research plaintiff's counsel of record across the docket and related filings.

I'll research defense counsel across dockets, firm press releases, and legal press.

Defense Counsel of Record — Research Result

Bottom line: I could not identify any attorney who has entered an appearance for iHeartMedia, Inc. in this case. The docket evidence available to me shows no defense-side appearance, answer, or motion practice, and no source I retrieved names defense counsel. I will not fabricate a name to fill that gap. Below is exactly what the record shows, what it implies, and the specific steps/leads to close the gap.

What the docket shows

The most complete docket sheet I retrieved (Docket Alarm's W.D. Tex. mirror) lists only plaintiff-side activity and stops at Dkt. 8:

Source: Docket Alarm / W.D. Tex. 7:26-cv-00116. Critically, that page itself is flagged "The docket is incomplete," so it may simply be a stale snapshot rather than proof that nothing was filed.

The third-party aggregator Ex Parte shows an "Attorney" field for the case, but the retrieved content populates it only with plaintiff's counsel (Rabicoff Law LLC) — no defendant counsel is listed (Ex Parte case page; complaint analysis). Unified Patents' portal likewise shows no defense-counsel field (Unified Patents portal). None of my searches surfaced a firm press release, Law360/Reuters item, or court opinion naming iHeartMedia's counsel here.

Timing flag / contradiction to note: Service was effected April 20, 2026 (Dkt. 8), which would ordinarily put iHeartMedia's answer due about May 11, 2026 (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)). Today is September 13, 2026 — roughly four months later. For no defense appearance to exist by now would be anomalous, so the most likely explanations are (a) the aggregator docket is stale/incomplete and an appearance+answer (or an extension of time) exists on PACER but was not captured, or (b) the case has been held in abeyance / voluntarily dismissed / settled quietly, consistent with the campaign's early-dismissal pattern in the SoundCloud case. This should be resolved against PACER directly before relying on any "no counsel" conclusion.

Identified leads (NOT counsel of record — unverified for this case)

I will label these clearly as potential contacts rather than counsel, because none is documented as having appeared:

1. Duncan L. Williams — Corporate Counsel, Intellectual Property, iHeartMedia (in-house). The only iHeartMedia IP attorney I could verify by name. Registered patent attorney; manages all aspects of iHeartMedia's IP including budget; background in electrical/computer, software, telecom, and wireless; prior D.C.-firm IP litigation/prosecution experience (IPWatchdog profile). Caveat: his bio does not state that he appears as litigation counsel of record, and in-house IP managers frequently supervise rather than sign appearances. Treat as a likely in-house point of contact, not confirmed counsel of record.

2. Kenneth L. Steinthal — King & Spalding (San Francisco). A verified iHeartMedia relationship lawyer, but in copyright / music-licensing / rate-setting and DMCA matters, not patent litigation — his bio lists iHeartMedia among a consortium of content distributors in DOJ ASCAP/BMI consent-decree work, alongside Peloton, Pandora, ESPN, etc. (King & Spalding profile; Legal 500). Caveat: there is no evidence he is involved in a § 271 patent case; I include him only because he is a confirmed iHeartMedia outside counsel in adjacent media/IP work. Do not represent him as this case's counsel.

No other name — outside or in-house — was substantiated for this litigation.

Why the search came up empty, and what I could not confirm

• My searches did not return the case docket on CourtListener or Justia beyond a stub entry (Justia party search), so I have no fresh PACER-derived view of filings after Dkt. 8.
• I could not confirm whether the case is under a stay, an extension of time, a Rule 12 motion, or has been dismissed — all of which would affect whether counsel has appeared.
• I could not verify whether iHeartMedia has retained a Texas-local firm (typical in W.D. Tex. Midland Division practice) or is using national patent-defense counsel. No source established either.
• I attempted but was cut off before finishing searches on defense counsel in the three sibling DynaMuse suits (SoundCloud 2:25-cv-01113, Mixcloud 2:25-cv-01112, Sirius XM 3:26-cv-00803). Those dockets are the fastest route to the answer: NPE campaigns this small frequently use the same defense-side firms across defendants, so the SoundCloud/Mixcloud/Sirius XM appearances are a strong proxy for who will appear for iHeartMedia.

Recommended next steps to definitively identify counsel

1. Pull the live PACER docket for 7:26-cv-00116 — look for a Notice of Attorney Appearance, an Answer/affirmative defenses, an Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time, or a Notice of Settlement. This resolves the staleness question directly.
2. Check the sibling DynaMuse dockets (E.D. Tex. 2:25-cv-01112/01113/01114; N.D. Tex. 3:26-cv-00803; D. Del. 1:26-cv-01125) for defendant-counsel appearances — likely to reveal the standby firms.
3. Search the W.D. Tex. Midland Division's assigned-district-judge and magistrate docket and Docket Alarm's case page again for post-April 2026 entries.
4. If a Rule 12 motion or answer exists, the signature block is the authoritative statement of lead counsel, local counsel, and any of counsel.

Confidence: High that no defense counsel is documented in the sources retrieved; low that this reflects the true current state of the case, given the acknowledged incompleteness of the docket sheet. I am explicitly declining to name any attorney as "counsel of record" for iHeartMedia because the record does not support it.