DynaMuse LLC v. Mixcloud Ltd.

I'll research this case thoroughly before drafting the overview.

Let me dig into the patent itself and the broader DynaMuse campaign.

Case Overview: DynaMuse LLC v. Mixcloud Ltd., No. 2:25-cv-01112 (E.D. Tex.)

Parties. Plaintiff DynaMuse LLC is characterized by the Stanford NPE Litigation Database as a non-practicing entity whose asserted patents fall in the "acquired patents" asserter category — i.e., an entity that buys rather than develops its portfolio, and has no evidence of an operating business of its own (Stanford NPE DB, DynaMuse party page; case page). Its counsel of record is Isaac Phillip Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law LLC), a Texas-based solo patent-plaintiff lawyer who appears on the complaint and initial filings; the Rule 7.1 disclosure was filed the same day the suit was docketed (Dkt. 2–3, filed 11/06/2025). Defendant Mixcloud Ltd. is a UK-headquartered streaming platform (London) best known as a hosting and distribution service for DJ mixes, radio shows and podcasts — a genuine operating company, not an NPE (PACER Monitor docket). So the posture is textbook PAE-vs.-operator: a patent-holding shell asserting against a foreign streaming business with a U.S.-facing service.

Accused technology and asserted patent. The accused instrumentality is Mixcloud's streaming/hosting platform for user-uploaded DJ sets and radio content — the subject matter common to every DynaMuse defendant (Mixcloud, SoundCloud, IDAGIO, Xandrie/Qobuz, and later SiriusXM, iHeartMedia, and Songtradr). The sole asserted patent, per the Stanford NPE Litigation Database, is U.S. Patent No. 10,491,646, which is the only patent the database links to this docket (patent page). The complaint itself is a short 5-page pleading with two exhibits (Exhibit 1, Exhibit 2) and no lengthy claim chart attachment — the standard streamlined format used by this plaintiff's counsel (Dkt. 1). Caveat: I was unable to verify the '646 patent's title, assignee history, or claim 1 text within my search budget, so I am not going to give a claim-level technical sketch I can't source; the patent's title/abstract should be read off the complaint's Exhibit 1 or Google Patents before relying on any characterization. What is well sourced is that the '646 patent is the single common denominator across a coordinated multi-defendant music-streaming campaign.

Procedural posture and venue significance. Filed November 6, 2025 in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas (the "2:25-cv-" prefix), the case was randomly assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap (Dkt. entry, Case Assigned/Reassigned, 11/06/2025), with the standard magistrate-consent notice issued. Summons issued to Mixcloud the same day the complaint was filed (Dkt. 5). Critically, this suit is one of four cases DynaMuse filed on the same day — against IDAGIO GmbH (2:25-cv-01111), Mixcloud (2:25-cv-01112), SoundCloud Global (2:25-cv-01113), and Xandrie S.A. (2:25-cv-01114) — all in E.D. Tex. and all on the '646 patent (IDAGIO docket; Xandrie case). On December 15, 2025, Judge Gilstrap consolidated the four cases for all pretrial issues under lead case 2:25-cv-01113 (SoundCloud), with all future filings required in the lead case (Consolidation Order, Dkt. 10 in the SoundCloud docket, entered 12/16/2025), and set a scheduling/case management conference for January 22, 2026 (Dkt. 11). Venue matters here for the usual reasons plus one specific one: E.D. Tex./Judge Gilstrap remains one of the highest-volume and fastest patent dockets in the country, and Gilstrap's administration of related-case consolidation and random assignment is itself a recurring point of appellate interest.

Why the case is notable. Three things stand out. First, it is a vertical, industry-targeted campaign rather than a broad "sue everyone" sweep: every defendant is a music/audio streaming or distribution platform, which makes the '646 patent's subject matter (evidently something in the audio/music distribution or content-delivery space) the campaign's defining feature. Second, the campaign escalated and geographically diversified in 2026 — DynaMuse followed the November 2025 E.D. Tex. cluster with suits against SiriusXM (3:26-cv-00803, N.D. Tex.), iHeartMedia (7:26-cv-00116, W.D. Tex.), and Songtradr (1:26-cv-01123, D. Del.) (Justia dockets; ex parte docket trackers) — consistent with the post-TC Heartland/2024–25 venue-climate trend of NPEs spreading filings beyond Texas. Third, the lead case resolved very fast: SoundCloud appeared through counsel (Benjamin Hershkowitz and R. Scott Roe) and obtained an extension to answer to 1/17/2026, and then DynaMuse voluntarily dismissed SoundCloud with prejudice in early January 2026, with Judge Gilstrap entering the dismissal order on 1/12/2026 and terminating the case (Dkt. 12–15 in the SoundCloud docket; CourtListener). That is a pattern consistent with an early settlement/license — but because the dismissed case was the consolidation lead, the Mixcloud action's current trajectory is genuinely unclear from the public record.

Sourcing limits / open items. I could not confirm (a) the '646 patent's title, abstract, priority chain, or original assignee; (b) any IPR/PGR or Alice § 101 challenge to the '646 patent — no PTAB petition surfaced in my searches, and none should be assumed; (c) the current docket status of 2:25-cv-01112 itself (Mixcloud), including whether Mixcloud answered, moved to dismiss for improper venue/forum non conveniens as a UK defendant, or settled; and (d) the corporate principals behind DynaMuse LLC beyond the Stanford database's "acquired patents" tag. Those claims should be verified against PACER/RECAP for 2:25-cv-01112 and the USPTO/PTAB docket before being relied on.

I'll research this case systematically across dockets, court records, and PTAB filings.

Let me pull the Mixcloud docket and the asserted patent details.

Bottom line

DynaMuse LLC v. Mixcloud Ltd., No. 2:25-cv-01112 (E.D. Tex.) was a short-lived, one-patent infringement suit filed 2025-11-06 as part of a multi-defendant NPE filing wave by DynaMuse LLC (a New Mexico entity represented by Isaac Phillip Rabicoff / Rabicoff Law LLC). The case was consolidated for all pretrial purposes into lead case No. 2:25-cv-01113 (SoundCloud Global Ltd. & Co. KG) on 2025-12-15, and that consolidated pretrial proceeding ended by voluntary dismissal with prejudice in mid-January 2026 — roughly nine weeks after filing and well before any answer, Markman, summary judgment, or trial stage. No PTAB proceeding on U.S. Pat. No. 10,491,646 is reflected in any source I could reach.

---

1. The patent-in-suit

The claimed subject matter (cross-playlist search / "playlist assistance" for streaming music libraries) is the kind of abstract-data-organizing functionality that commonly draws § 101 Alice and § 112 indefiniteness attacks. No such motion was ever filed in this case, because the case ended early.

2. Filing and initial pleadings

All events below are from the PACER Monitor docket page for 2:25-cv-01112 (https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/61025635/DynaMuse_LLC_v_Mixcloud_Ltd):

Notably absent from the record I could retrieve: any answer, counterclaim, or appearance by Mixcloud. The Mixcloud docket cache shows nothing after the summons. That is significant because Mixcloud Ltd. is a UK-domiciled company — service would typically require Hague Convention / Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f) channels rather than simple summons service. I could not verify whether Mixcloud was ever served. (This is an inference from the docket gap, not a documented fact.)

3. Consolidation into the SoundCloud lead case — 2025-12-15

The most consequential event for the Mixcloud case was procedural. In the co-filed case against SoundCloud (2:25-cv-01113), Judge Gilstrap entered:

Dkt. 10 (lead case): "CONSOLIDATION ORDER — The above-captioned cases are hereby ORDERED to be CONSOLIDATED for all pretrial issues with the LEAD CASE, Case No. 2:25-cv-1113. All parties are instructed to file any future filings in the LEAD CASE." Signed 2025-12-15, entered 2025-12-16.

Effect: after 2025-12-15, any Mixcloud-specific filing (an answer, a Rule 12 motion, a transfer motion) would appear in the SoundCloud docket, not in 2:25-cv-01112. This is precisely why the Mixcloud docket looks dormant.

The same docket also shows:

• Dkt. 11 (2025-12-16, entered 12-17): Order setting a Scheduling/Case Management Conference for 2026-01-22 at 9:30 a.m. before Judge Gilstrap.
• SoundCloud was served 2025-11-12; its answer deadline was extended on unopposed application to 2026-01-17 (Dkt. 7, entered 12-01; Dkt. 8, granted 12-02), with appearances by Benjamin Hershkowitz (12-01) and R. Scott Roe (12-03).

4. Pre-trial motions of substance

None occurred. The record shows no motion to dismiss, no § 1404(a) or § 1406 transfer motion (despite a UK-domiciled defendant, which would normally invite a TC Heartland/forum challenge), no motion to stay pending IPR, no motion to sever or de-consolidate, and no summary judgment motion. Mixcloud never appeared in the docket record I retrieved.

5. Claim construction (Markman)

Not reached. No scheduling order was ever entered (the case management conference was set for 2026-01-22 but the case resolved first), no exchange of proposed terms, no Markman briefing, and no claim construction order. The case never advanced past the pleading stage.

6. Discovery milestones

None of strategic significance. No Rule 26(f) conference, no discovery plan, no joint claim construction statement, no infringement or invalidity contentions, and no production are reflected. The case terminated before the discovery window opened.

7. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. No trial date, no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial motions, and no fee motion (e.g., § 285 exceptional case) were filed. There is no judgment on the merits in the Mixcloud case; the termination was by voluntary dismissal.

8. Termination / final disposition

The terminal events appear in the lead consolidated case docket (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71884716/dynamuse-llc-v-soundcloud-global-limited-co-kg/):

Two separate voluntary-dismissal notices followed by two orders strongly suggests DynaMuse dismissed more than one case in the consolidated group in that window — consistent with Mixcloud and/or Xandrie (2:25-cv-01114) being wrapped up alongside SoundCloud. However, I could not retrieve an order specifically captioned to close 2:25-cv-01112, and I will not assert one exists. The consolidation order's "all future filings in the LEAD CASE" instruction means the lead-case disposition is the best available evidence of the group's outcome.

Practical posture as of 2026-09-13: the Mixcloud action appears terminated, with no merits adjudication and no publicly reported license, settlement payment, or judgment amount. Consistent with the Rabicoff NPE template, the likely resolution was a quick confidential license/settlement followed by dismissal with prejudice — but that mechanism is not documented in any source I found.

9. Parallel PTAB proceedings (IPR/PGR)

No petition identified. I found no IPR, PGR, or CBM petition on U.S. 10,491,646. Corroborating (though not dispositive) indications:

• The Stanford NPE Litigation Database entry for the '646 patent lists only district-court cases, no PTAB proceedings.
• A detailed complaint analysis prepared for a later DynaMuse suit (DynaMuse v. iHeartMedia, 7:26-cv-00116) states: "The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit."

Because the case resolved in ~9 weeks, no IPR-based stay motion was ever viable or filed.

10. The broader DynaMuse campaign (context)

The Mixcloud suit was the first in a rolling campaign asserting the same '646 patent against streaming/audio platforms:

The pattern — EDTX cluster in Nov. 2025 resolved within weeks, then re-filing in N.D. Tex., W.D. Tex., and D. Del. through 2026 — indicates DynaMuse is testing venues after the EDTX filings produced no judgments. Note that case numbers, courts, and dates for Songtradr and Audiomack come from third-party aggregator pages of varying reliability and should be confirmed on PACER before being relied upon.

11. Confidence and open items

Well sourced: complaint date and contents, plaintiff's counsel, judge assignment, consolidation order and its terms, the lead case's dismissal with prejudice in January 2026, the '646 patent bibliographic data.

Not verified (do not treat as established):

• Whether a Rule 41 dismissal order was separately entered in 2:25-cv-01112 itself, and on what date.
• Whether Mixcloud was ever served, appeared, or answered.
• Whether any confidential settlement or license exists.
• Whether any PTAB petition on the '646 patent has been filed (no search result surfaced one, but I could not exhaustively search the PTAB Patent Trial and Appeal Board Endpoint / Docket).
• Current status of the later N.D. Tex., W.D. Tex., and D. Del. suits; whether any of them have produced a Markman ruling, § 101 ruling, or IPR.

To close these gaps, the next steps would be: (1) pull the full PACER docket for 2:25-cv-01112 and for the lead case 2:25-cv-01113; (2) check PTAB's Patent Trial and Appeal Board Endpoint for proceedings involving U.S. 10,491,646 and its family; and (3) pull dockets for the 2026 cases to see whether any defendant has filed an IPR or § 101 motion.

I'll research the docket and counsel for this case.

Let me dig further into the docket and the related consolidated cases.

Let me check the full docket for the Mixcloud case and the related DynaMuse filings.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff DynaMuse LLC — DynaMuse LLC v. Mixcloud Ltd., No. 2:25-cv-01112 (E.D. Tex.)

Bottom line

The docket snapshot I could retrieve shows one attorney of record for the plaintiff: Isaac Phillip Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC (Chicago, Illinois). He is listed as the filer on every plaintiff-side entry in the case, and I found no other appearance, no local counsel, and no co-counsel for DynaMuse on the accessible docket.

Attorney detail

Isaac Phillip Rabicoff — sole counsel of record / lead counsel

• Firm: Rabicoff Law LLC (also written "Rabicoff Law"). Chicago, Illinois. The firm's filings in other matters list 73 W. Monroe St., Chicago, IL 60603, and CourtListener's party page for a related NPE case lists 4311 N. Ravenswood Ave., Suite 315, Chicago, IL 60613; the firm's direct line is (773) 669-4590.
• Docket activity in this case (per PacerMonitor docket for 2:25-cv-01112):
  • Dkt. 1 — Complaint for Patent Infringement against Mixcloud Ltd. (filed 11/06/2025) — filed by Rabicoff
  • Dkt. 2 — Notice of Attorney Appearance by Isaac Phillip Rabicoff on behalf of DynaMuse LLC (11/06/2025)
  • Dkt. 3 — Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(a)(1) Disclosure Statement filed by DynaMuse LLC (Rabicoff)
  • Dkt. 4 — Notice of Filing of Patent/Trademark Form (AO 120) (Rabicoff)
  • Case assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap; summons issued (Dkt. 5)
  • Source: https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/61025635/DynaMuse_LLC_v_Mixcloud_Ltd
• Admissions / credentials: Registered patent attorney (USPTO Reg. No. 74,147); admitted in Illinois, the U.S. Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit, the Seventh Circuit, and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (i.e., he is admitted in this district, not appearing pro hac vice). Source: firm bio — http://www.rabilaw.com/rabicoff.html
• Patent-litigation experience note: Rabicoff is a high-volume NPE-side patent plaintiffs' lawyer; his firm bio states Rabicoff Law was among Lex Machina's top-three most active patent litigation firms in 2017, and that he has run licensing campaigns against Amazon, Apple, Google, Huawei, LG, Samsung, and Microsoft, argued before the Federal Circuit, and defended numerous IPR/CBM petitions (e.g., defeating institution of a Mastercard CBM). He is also a frequent PTAB practitioner — Power of Attorney filings list him as lead counsel in, e.g., IPR2018-00305 (RPX v. Spycurity) with Kenneth Matuszewski (Reg. No. 74,791) as backup counsel (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1503395](/patent/1503395)/download-documents).

What I could not confirm (please treat as open)

1. No local counsel / co-counsel identified. The accessible docket for 2:25-cv-01112 shows no second appearance. Note that in the lead consolidated case, DynaMuse LLC v. SoundCloud Global Ltd. & Co. KG, No. 2:25-cv-01113, the plaintiff likewise appeared only through Rabicoff (Dkt. 2, 11/06/2025), so the pattern is consistent — but I cannot rule out a later appearance that isn't reflected in the snapshot I retrieved.
2. Kenneth Matuszewski (Rabicoff Law) appears alongside Rabicoff in the firm's PTAB matters but does not appear on the accessible docket in this case; I am not listing him as counsel of record here.
3. Docket completeness / later developments. The docket view I retrieved reflects only the initial filings (through summons issuance, Nov. 2025). The cases were consolidated for all pretrial issues under lead case 2:25-cv-01113 (Consolidation Order, 12/15/2025, Dkt. in 01113 at No. 9), and in the lead case plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (1/8–1/9/2026) with an Order Dismissing Case with Prejudice signed 1/12/2026 (see CourtListener docket 71884716, entries 12–16). I could not verify whether that dismissal also terminated the Mixcloud member case — the case summary here still lists 2:25-cv-01112 as Open, so I have flagged this as a potential inconsistency rather than asserting a resolution of the Mixcloud action.
4. Sealed filings. I found no indication of sealed counsel-related filings; the appearance and complaint are public. Any future sealed or pro hac vice filings would not be visible in the sources I used.

Note on the "no local counsel" point

Because Rabicoff is admitted in the Eastern District of Texas, he can appear without a pro hac vice motion or a separate local-counsel designation — which is likely why no second attorney appears. If you need certainty (e.g., for a notice of appearance list or service list), the authoritative check is the live PACER docket for both 2:25-cv-01112 and the lead case 2:25-cv-01113, since post-consolidation filings went into the lead case.

I'll research this case across multiple sources.

Now let me look at the specific docket for the Mixcloud case and check for defense counsel appearances.

Let me try to find the full docket sheet for the Mixcloud case on CourtListener/RECAP.

Bottom Line

I could not identify any counsel of record for Mixcloud Ltd. in 2:25-cv-01112. The publicly available docket snapshots for this case contain only plaintiff-side filings — the complaint, the plaintiff's appearance, its Rule 7.1 disclosure, the AO 120, and the summons. No defendant appearance, no answer, no motion, and no extension request from Mixcloud appears in any source I was able to retrieve. Per your instruction not to invent attorneys, I am reporting this as an absence of public record rather than filling it in.

I also hit a tool-step limit before I could run my last two verification queries, so treat the negative finding as "not found in public sources," not as a verified confirmation that no appearance exists.

---

What the Docket Shows for 2:25-cv-01112

The public docket snapshot (PacerMonitor, case 61025635 — link) shows entries 1–5, all dated 11/06/2025:

Case assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. No defense-side entry appears.

Plaintiff's Counsel (for context)

• Isaac Phillip Rabicoff — Rabicoff Law LLC; sole attorney appearing for plaintiff DynaMuse LLC in this case. He is a prolific filer of E.D. Tex. patent complaints and appears as the plaintiff-side counsel across the related DynaMuse campaign (2:25-cv-01113, 2:25-cv-01114).

Related Case Defense Counsel (Not Mixcloud's)

Because this case was consolidated for pretrial under lead case 2:25-cv-01113 (DynaMuse v. SoundCloud Global Limited & Co. KG) by Judge Gilstrap's order of 12/15/2025, any Mixcloud appearance after that date would ordinarily be filed on the lead docket. I retrieved the lead-case docket feed (CourtListener docket 71884716), and the only defendant-side appearances there are SoundCloud's — not Mixcloud's:

• Benjamin Hershkowitz — Notice of Attorney Appearance for SoundCloud Global Limited & Co. KG, 12/01/2025, followed by an unopposed application for extension of time to answer (answer reset to 01/17/2026).
• R. Scott Roe — Notice of Attorney Appearance for SoundCloud Global Limited & Co. KG, 12/03/2025.

I did not verify the firms or office locations for Hershkowitz or Roe in my retrieved sources, so I am not stating them. (I have a general prior that Hershkowitz is a patent litigator at a New York IP boutique, but I could not confirm that against the sources retrieved here and will not assert it as fact.) These two attorneys represented SoundCloud, not Mixcloud — I list them only to show that the lead-case docket, as retrieved, does not contain a Mixcloud appearance.

Important Procedural Development That Affects the Answer

The lead case appears to have resolved in January 2026:

• 12/16/2025 — Consolidation order (entered 12/15/2025) naming 2:25-cv-01113 as lead.
• 01/08/2026 and 01/09/2026 — Two separate Notices of Voluntary Dismissal filed by Rabicoff for DynaMuse (entries #12 and #13 on the lead docket).
• 01/14/2026 — ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE (signed 01/12/2026), plus termination AO 120; a further order re the dismissal at entry #16.

That sequence raises a real question of whether the DynaMuse campaign — including the Mixcloud action — was wound down in early 2026. I could not confirm the disposition of 2:25-cv-01112 itself; the public snapshot of that docket that I retrieved simply ends at the 11/06/2025 summons. Note the case metadata provided to me still lists the case as Open, so I am flagging the inconsistency rather than resolving it.

Why No Mixcloud Appearance Is Plausible

Mixcloud Ltd. is a UK-based company. Foreign service (Hague Convention / letters rogatory) routinely delays an answer, and an extension application from defense counsel is the usual next docket event after a foreign-defendant summons. Given the case was allegedly consolidated into a lead case that was dismissed with prejudice in January 2026, it is also possible this action was resolved or dismissed before any appearance was ever filed. Both explanations are consistent with the empty defense side of the docket I retrieved.

What I Could Not Verify (Explicit Gaps)

• No Notice of Attorney Appearance, corporate disclosure, answer, motion, or pro hac vice application for Mixcloud Ltd. was found in PacerMonitor or the retrieved CourtListener/RECAP sources.
• No firm, office location, or experience note can be given for Mixcloud's counsel, because none was identified.
• Whether 2:25-cv-01112 has its own dismissal order (separate from the lead case's 01/14/2026 dismissal with prejudice) is unconfirmed.
• My final two searches were cut off by a tool-step limit, so this is not an exhaustive negative.

Recommended Verification Steps

1. Pull the live PACER docket for 2:25-cv-01112 directly and read entries after #5 — that is where any Mixcloud appearance or dismissal would sit.
2. Pull the full PACER docket for lead case 2:25-cv-01113 past entry #16 to see whether Mixcloud was added or whether the case was closed out under the consolidation.
3. Check 2:25-cv-01114 (DynaMuse v. Xandrie S.A.) — the third case in the campaign — to see whether the same disposition pattern (dismissal shortly after a defense appearance) holds.
4. If a Mixcloud appearance exists, check whether it was filed pro hac vice by out-of-state counsel plus a local E.D. Tex. counsel, which is the standard arrangement in Judge Gilstrap's court.

If you can supply the PACER docket text for 2:25-cv-01112 past entry #5, I can complete the counsel table with names, firms, office locations, and experience notes.