DynaMuse LLC v. SoundCloud Global Limited & Co. KG

I'll research this case using web search to verify the details.

Case Overview: DynaMuse LLC v. SoundCloud Global Limited & Co. KG, No. 2:25-cv-01113 (E.D. Tex.)

Parties. DynaMuse LLC is the plaintiff and, by all available indicia, a non-practicing patent-assertion entity. It is identified in the complaint as a New Mexico limited liability company (per an AI-generated complaint analysis of D.E. 1 hosted on the Ex Parte litigation-analytics site), and the Stanford NPE Litigation Database classifies DynaMuse as an "acquired patents" asserter — i.e., it holds title to patents it did not develop rather than practicing the technology. (Stanford NPE Database, https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/[10491646](/patent/10491646); Stanford lists only Mixcloud and Xandrie as cases involving the '646 patent, so its coverage of this docket may be incomplete.) It is represented by Isaac Phillip Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC, a high-volume E.D. Tex. patent-plaintiff firm, who filed three substantively identical complaints on the same day: against Mixcloud Ltd. (No. 2:25-cv-01112), SoundCloud (No. 2:25-cv-01113), and Xandrie S.A. (No. 2:25-cv-01114) — all before Judge Rodney Gilstrap in the Marshall Division. The defendant, SoundCloud Global Limited & Co. KG, is the German (Berlin) parent entity of SoundCloud, the well-known artist-upload and streaming/discovery platform. SoundCloud retained Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP (Benjamin Hershkowitz and R. Scott Roe, New York office) and quickly negotiated an answer extension from service (Nov. 12, 2025) to Jan. 17, 2026 (D.E. 7–9). I found no public reporting establishing DynaMuse's ownership chain, capitalization, or the identity of its principals beyond the docket and the NPE database; those facts should be treated as not yet verified.

Asserted patent and accused technology. The sole 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." One-line sketch: a computer-implemented "playlist assistance" method in which, while a media item is playing, the user invokes a playlist-assist function and the system searches playlists across multiple online media communities and returns a set of playlists that contain the item (matched to categories such as title, artist, album, or genre), presented as a "final output without any recommendations or suggestions." The patent issued Nov. 26, 2019; it was filed Nov. 5, 2015, claiming priority to a Feb. 29, 2012 provisional; the original applicant/assignee was Sonafire, Inc. (Denver, CO), with named inventor Bradly Freeman Rich (Paradise Valley, AZ) (patent front page, https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/b2/1b/f3/ecafc7c6e84368/[US10491646](/patent/US10491646).pdf). The accused instrumentality is the SoundCloud app/platform, specifically its playlist and search/playlist-tab functionality — the complaint's Exhibit 2 claim chart maps SoundCloud's "playlist tab" presenting "a plurality of playlists having multiple sets of playlists offering multiple media items" and track collections organized "under each genre or search keyword," citing SoundCloud's own help-center documentation for the Desktop Player (See D.E. 1, Att. 2, available at https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txed.[241648](/patent/241648)/gov.uscourts.txed.241648.1.2.pdf). The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without a precise identification of asserted claims, and the chart excerpts reference dependent claims 7.6 and 7.8, with independent claim 1 discussed as representative — a common criticism of this style of complaint is that the precise claim set and accused feature boundaries are left vague (Ex Parte complaint analysis, https://ai-lab-cl-prod.azurewebsites.net/case/dct/txed/2:25-cv-01113/doc/analysis/1). Note the claim-construction pressure point: the "exactly matched" limitation and the "final output without any recommendations or suggestions" language sits awkwardly against modern recommendation-driven streaming UIs, and the subject matter invites § 101 scrutiny — though neither issue was ever litigated here.

Procedural posture, venue, and significance. Filed Nov. 6, 2025 in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap; the theory of venue is expressly that SoundCloud, as a foreign corporation, may be sued "in any judicial district" under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c) — which is why a Berlin entity with no meaningful Texas presence was pulled into EDTX Marshall (D.E. 1, venue allegations). On Dec. 15, 2025, Judge Gilstrap signed a consolidation order making 2:25-cv-01113 the lead case for all pretrial issues across the three SoundCloud/Mixcloud/Xandrie complaints (D.E. 10), and set a scheduling/case-management conference for Jan. 22, 2026 (D.E. 11). Before that conference occurred, DynaMuse filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on Jan. 8, 2026 (D.E. 12), with a second notice filed Jan. 9, 2026 (D.E. 13). Judge Gilstrap then entered an order dismissing the case with prejudice signed Jan. 12, 2026 (D.E. 14) and an order on the voluntary-dismissal notice signed Jan. 13, 2026 (D.E. 16). Full docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71884716/dynamuse-llc-v-soundcloud-global-limited-co-kg/. Two clarifications relative to the case summary: the operative dismissal order (D.E. 14) was with prejudice, not a no-consequence Rule 41(a) dismissal — an unusual and significant detail — and the formal termination orders were entered Jan. 12–14, 2026, even though the termination is often dated to the Jan. 9 notice. The case is notable for several reasons: (1) it is a textbook acquired-patent NPE campaign targeting the music-streaming sector, with the same '646 patent aimed at SoundCloud, Mixcloud, and Xandrie in one day and later at SiriusXM (N.D. Tex. No. 3:26-cv-00803) and iHeartMedia (W.D. Tex. No. 7:26-cv-00116, filed ~Mar. 31, 2026), suggesting a deliberately sequenced licensing program; (2) the roughly two-month lifespan and with-prejudice dismissal strongly suggest a settlement/license or other global resolution rather than litigation on the merits, though no public settlement document exists and I could not confirm the reason — this is inference, not sourced fact; (3) it illustrates the continuing EDTX consolidation-and-foreign-defendant venue playbook under § 1391(c); and (4) I found no PTAB IPR/PGR petition against the '646 patent in my searches, so there is no IPR linkage to report — that is an absence of evidence, not proof that no petition exists (the quick dismissal likely mooted any defensive PTAB strategy). I also could not verify the disposition of the consolidated Mixcloud and Xandrie cases; only the lead case is confirmed terminated here.

I'll research this case across multiple sources, starting broadly and then drilling into docket, PTAB, and patent-level detail.

Good — the docket is real and I now have the core timeline. Let me pull the PTAB/IPR angle, the parallel consolidated cases, and the patent's provenance.

Now let me dig into the PTAB side, the patent's provenance, and DynaMuse's broader campaign.

Overview

DynaMuse LLC v. SoundCloud Global Limited & Co. KG, No. 2:25-cv-01113 (E.D. Tex.) was a short-lived, single-patent NPE suit that never got past the pleadings. Filed 2025-11-06 and terminated 2026-01-09, the case lived roughly two months and ended by plaintiff's own voluntary dismissal before SoundCloud ever answered. There was no answer, no counterclaims, no motion practice, no Markman, no discovery, no trial, and no PTAB proceeding on the asserted patent.

Case metadata note: the docket records below are drawn from PACER-derived aggregators (CourtListener/RECAP and PACER Monitor), which lag PACER slightly and may not reflect every text-only entry. Docket-entry numbers for entries 7–9 are inferred from ordering and are flagged as such.

---

Chronological Timeline

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings (2025-11-06 → 2025-12-03)

The patent and theory of infringement. U.S. 10,491,646, "Mechanism for facilitating user-controlled features relating to media content in multiple online media communities and networks," issued 2019-11-26 from an application filed 2015-11-05, claiming priority to 2012-02-29. Representative independent claim 1 is a computer-implemented method for a "playlist assistance function" that locates and displays playlists containing a selected media item, with results "exactly matched" to the search criteria and returned as a "final output without any recommendations or suggestions." DynaMuse accused the SoundCloud online audio platform and its apps of practicing the claimed technology, alleging direct infringement plus induced infringement (via product literature and website materials instructing end users) and laying a post-suit willfulness predicate by alleging actual knowledge upon service (Compl. ¶¶ 13–14). Per the complaint analysis, the detailed claim charts were in Exhibit 2, which was not part of the RECAP-captured filing, and the body of the complaint pleaded infringement only conclusorily — a defect that would have been a likely early motion-to-dismiss target.

Venue. DynaMuse pleaded venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c) on the theory that SoundCloud, as a foreign corporation, may be sued in any judicial district — an approach designed to insulate the case from the TC Heartland venue challenge that would otherwise apply. No motion to dismiss or transfer was ever filed, so that question was never tested.

2. Consolidation — the case becomes the lead (2025-12-15/16)

• 2025-12-15 (entered 2025-12-16), Dkt. 10 — Consolidation Order by Judge Gilstrap: the related cases were consolidated for all pretrial issues with Case No. 2:25-cv-1113 designated as the LEAD CASE, and all future filings ordered into the lead case.
• 2025-12-16 (entered 2025-12-17), Dkt. 11 — Order setting a Scheduling/Case Management Conference for 2026-01-22 at 9:30 a.m. before Judge Gilstrap.

Context on the consolidation. The companion E.D. Tex. filings on the same '646 patent, all filed 2025-11-06, are:

• DynaMuse LLC v. Mixcloud Ltd., 2:25-cv-01112 (E.D. Tex.) — same complaint form, same counsel (Rabicoff), same day, $405 fee, receipt ATXEDC-11191206.
• DynaMuse LLC v. Xandrie S.A., 2:25-cv-01114 (E.D. Tex.).

The Stanford NPE Litigation Database classifies DynaMuse as an "Acquired patents" asserter (Category 1) — i.e., a non-practicing entity litigating purchased patent rights, not an operating company. This is a classic Rabicoff-law small-NPE filing cluster: three complaints against three music-streaming targets in one day in Judge Gilstrap's district.

3. Pre-trial motions of substance — none

There were no motions to dismiss (Rule 12(b)), no § 1404(a)/§ 1406(a) transfer motions, no motion to stay pending IPR, and no summary judgment motions. The case did not survive long enough for any of these. Notably, SoundCloud had already retained outside counsel and obtained an extension to 2026-01-17, and the Case Management Conference was set for 2026-01-22 — but the case ended before either milestone.

4. Claim construction (Markman) — did not occur

No claim construction order, no Markman hearing, no joint claim construction statement. In this district that stage would typically have been 12–18 months out (roughly mid-2027 on a normal schedule), so the dismissal was well before any construction of the key terms — "playlist assistance function," "exactly matched," and "without any recommendations or suggestions." That last negative limitation would have been the central scope battleground, since modern streaming services are built on algorithmic recommendation, which the claim language facially excludes — an obvious non-infringement and possibly § 101 vulnerability for the patentee.

5. Discovery milestones — none

No scheduling order issued, no discovery opened, no infringement contentions, no invalidity contentions, no ESI order, no protective order. The only case-management artifact was the 2025-12-16 order setting a 2026-01-22 CMC — five days after the dismissal notices were filed.

6. Trial events, verdict, post-trial motions — none

No trial, no verdict, no JMOL, no new-trial motion, no fee motion, and no judgment on the merits.

7. Final disposition

• 2026-01-08 — Dkt. 12: Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed by DynaMuse (with a proposed order attached) (Rabicoff).
• 2026-01-09 — Dkt. 13: Notice of Voluntary Dismissal entered; this is the date the case is reported as terminated.
• 2026-01-12 (entered 2026-01-14) — Dkt. 14: ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE, signed by Judge Gilstrap.
• 2026-01-13 (entered 2026-01-14) — Dkt. 16: Order re Dkt. 12 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, signed by Judge Gilstrap.
• 2026-01-14 — Dkt. 15: AO 120 filed at termination, notice emailed to the USPTO Director.

The "with prejudice" wrinkle — flag as the most notable legal development. The docket reflects two dismissal filings (Dkt. 12 on Jan. 8 and Dkt. 13 on Jan. 9) followed by the court's order dismissing with prejudice on Jan. 12. That is atypical: a plaintiff's unilateral Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice of voluntary dismissal filed before the defendant serves an answer is ordinarily without prejudice as of right. A dismissal order expressly reciting "WITH PREJUDICE" within days of an NPE's voluntary dismissal strongly suggests either (a) a settlement/license or standstill agreement with SoundCloud was reached and the parties jointly requested a prejudice dismissal, or (b) the dismissal notice itself was filed with prejudice. I could not retrieve the text of Dkt. 12/13 or the underlying settlement terms from available sources — so the reason for the prejudice term is unsourced and should be treated as unconfirmed. Whatever the cause, the practical effect is that DynaMuse is barred from re-asserting U.S. 10,491,646 against SoundCloud, while remaining free to assert it against other targets.

Caveat on scope of the dismissal. Because Dkt. 10 consolidated the DynaMuse cases for pretrial issues under lead case 2:25-cv-01113, the precise effect of the with-prejudice dismissal on the Mixcloud (2:25-cv-01112) and Xandrie (2:25-cv-01114) members is unclear from the sources retrieved — the order may have dismissed only the SoundCloud action, or the consolidated action. This should be verified against PACER.

8. Parallel PTAB proceedings — none identified

I found no IPR, PGR, or CBM petition against U.S. 10,491,646. Consistent with that:

• The complaint (and the parallel complaints) did not reference any prior or pending PTAB proceeding on the patent.
• The Stanford NPE database entry for patent 10,491,646 lists only district court cases (the Mixcloud and Xandrie suits), no administrative challenges.
• My PTAB-focused searches returned only unrelated patents sharing a trailing "'646" designation (e.g., Campbell Soup v. Gamon Plus design patents; a DNA Genotek patent invalidated in IPR) — not U.S. 10,491,646.

Because there was no IPR and no stay motion, PTAB activity had zero effect on this litigation. If a petition was filed after the dismissal (e.g., by another target or a defensive aggregator), it would not appear in the sources I could reach; that is a verification gap, not a confirmed negative.

---

Present Posture (as of 2026-09-13)

The SoundCloud action is closed — dismissed with prejudice on the docket, with no appeal taken (no Federal Circuit docket for this case was identified). There is no live litigation between DynaMuse and SoundCloud.

DynaMuse, however, remained an active campaign plaintiff against other streaming/audio targets on the same '646 patent:

• DynaMuse LLC v. Mixcloud Ltd., 2:25-cv-01112 (E.D. Tex.) — 2025-11-06
• DynaMuse LLC v. Xandrie S.A., 2:25-cv-01114 (E.D. Tex.) — 2025-11-06
• DynaMuse LLC v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., 3:26-cv-00803 (N.D. Tex.) — 2026
• DynaMuse LLC v. iHeartMedia, Inc., 7:26-cv-00116 (W.D. Tex.) — 2026-03-31

The shift to the Western and Northern Districts of Texas in the 2026 filings is strategically meaningful: after Judge Gilstrap's December 2025 consolidation and the quick SoundCloud exit, DynaMuse expanded into W.D. Tex. (Judge Albright's district, with its own fast patent schedule and § 101 practice) and N.D. Tex. Whether those follow-on cases were also resolved, and on what terms, is beyond what I could confirm here.

---

Key Takeaways

1. 64-day lifecycle. Filed 2025-11-06, dismissed 2026-01-09 (order entered 2026-01-14) — an unusually fast NPE exit, achieved without any merits ruling.
2. Never engaged the merits. No answer, no counterclaims (so no invalidity/non-infringement counterclaim ever on file), no Rule 12 motion, no transfer motion, no IPR stay motion.
3. No Markman and no discovery — the case never reached the stage where the pivotal limitation ("final output without any recommendations or suggestions") would have been construed.
4. With-prejudice dismissal is the substantive outcome: a durable bar as to SoundCloud, likely tied to a settlement or license, though the terms are not public in the sources retrieved.
5. Consolidated as the lead case for pretrial purposes with the parallel Mixcloud and Xandrie '646 suits — the one procedural development of note.
6. No PTAB exposure. No IPR/PGR on the '646 patent was identified, so no administrative invalidation risk materialized (or was ever created).

Verification Gaps

• I could not read the text of Dkt. 12, 13, 14, or 16, so the with-prejudice basis and the exact member cases dismissed are inferred.
• Exact docket numbers for the Dec. 1–3 SoundCloud appearances/extension entries (7–9) are inferred from ordering.
• Exhibit 2 (the infringement claim charts) is not in RECAP.
• I did not obtain a live PACER/PTAB API query for post-January 2026 filings; a petition against the '646 patent filed later in 2026 would not have surfaced in these searches.

Primary sources: CourtListener docket 71884716 — https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71884716/dynamuse-llc-v-soundcloud-global-limited-co-kg/ ; CourtListener docket feed — https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71884716/feed/ ; PACER Monitor case 61025681 — https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/61025681/DynaMuse_LLC_v_SoundCloud_Global_Limited__Co_KG ; PACER Monitor case 61025635 (Mixcloud) — https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/61025635/DynaMuse_LLC_v_Mixcloud_Ltd ; Stanford NPE Litigation Database, patent 10,491,646 — https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/10491646

I'll research the counsel of record for DynaMuse LLC in this case.

Let me dig deeper into the docket for any additional plaintiff counsel and verify Rabicoff's role and background.

Let me verify whether any additional or local counsel appeared and check the firm's roster and related DynaMuse cases.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff DynaMuse LLC

Bottom line: The docket reflects exactly one attorney appearing for DynaMuse LLC in this case — Isaac Phillip Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC (Chicago, IL). No separate local counsel, no co-counsel, and no in-house counsel ever appeared for the plaintiff. DynaMuse is a non-practicing entity (acquired-patent asserter, per Stanford NPE Database) with no in-house legal staff on the docket.

Plaintiff's counsel

Isaac Phillip Rabicoff — Lead Counsel (sole counsel of record)

• Firm / office: Rabicoff Law LLC, 4311 N Ravenswood Ave, Suite 315, Chicago, IL 60613 (the firm has also used 73 W. Monroe St. and 100 N. LaSalle St. addresses in USPTO filings). Direct line on the docket: (773) 669-4590.
• Docket basis: Notice of Attorney Appearance filed Nov. 6, 2025 (Dkt. 2) — same day as the complaint (Dkt. 1); he also signed the Rule 7.1(a)(1) disclosure statement (Dkt. 3), the AO 120 patent form (Dkt. 4), and the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Dkt. 12). CourtListener's "Parties" page lists him as the sole attorney for the plaintiff.
• Admissions / experience: USPTO Reg. No. 74,147; admitted in Illinois, the U.S. Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit, the Seventh Circuit, the E.D. Tex., the N.D. Ill. (Trial Bar), and the W.D. Wis. His firm bio states Rabicoff Law was among Lex Machina's top 3 most active patent litigation firms in 2017; he has run licensing campaigns against Amazon, Microsoft, Sony, Apple, LG, Huawei, Samsung, and Google, and, as lead counsel, has defeated institution of numerous IPR/CBM petitions (including a CBM petition filed by Mastercard). He has argued before the Federal Circuit and authored an amicus brief on representative-claim issues in § 101 analysis, and co-presented an IPLAC CLE on venue post-TC Heartland. He is also the recurring counsel for prolific filer Sportbrain Holdings LLC (e.g., Sportbrain Holdings LLC v. GN Netcom, N.D. Ill. 1:17-cv-03778) and represented patent owner William Grecia in PTAB proceedings.
• Role characterization: Functionally lead counsel and the only counsel of record. He is himself admitted to practice in the Eastern District of Texas, which is why no separate Texas local counsel appeared. Whether there was informal behind-the-scenes assistance (e.g., an unappeared associate) is not reflected on the docket.

Related DynaMuse filings (same counsel)

The DynaMuse campaign in E.D. Tex. was filed as a coordinated batch, all by Rabicoff:

• DynaMuse LLC v. Mixcloud Ltd., 2:25-cv-01112 (complaint and appearance by Rabicoff)
• DynaMuse LLC v. Xandrie S.A., 2:25-cv-01114 (complaint and appearance by Rabicoff)

This '113 case was designated the lead case in a consolidation order signed by Judge Rodney Gilstrap on Dec. 15, 2025 (Dkt. 10). The consolidation included an IDAGIO GmbH defendant (docketed as a "Consol Defendant"), though which member case IDAGIO came from is not confirmed in the sources I could retrieve.

Important caveats

• No plaintiff-side pro hac vice motions, additional appearances, or substitutions appear in the RECAP/CourtListener docket for 2:25-cv-01113. Because RECAP data can lag PACER, a late-filed motion (e.g., a motion to withdraw after the dismissal, or an appearance in a consolidated member case) could exist without being reflected here. I found no such filing.
• The defendant's counsel — Benjamin Hershkowitz and R. Scott Roe of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP (New York) — appeared for SoundCloud/IDAGIO. They are not plaintiff's counsel and should not be listed as such.
• For completeness: the docket shows the case was dismissed with prejudice by order signed Jan. 12, 2026 (Dkt. 14), with a follow-up order on the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal signed Jan. 13, 2026 (Dkt. 16) — i.e., the dismissal carried prejudice, consistent with a settlement/license resolving the dispute before SoundCloud's extended Jan. 17, 2026 answer deadline.

Sources: CourtListener/RECAP docket and Parties page for 2:25-cv-01113 (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71884716/dynamuse-llc-v-soundcloud-global-limited-co-kg/); PACER Monitor docket snapshot (https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/61025681/); Rabicoff Law firm bio (http://www.rabilaw.com/rabicoff.html); USPTO PTAB powers of attorney listing Rabicoff, Reg. No. 74,147; Stanford NPE Database party page for DynaMuse LLC.

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

Let me dig deeper on the specific attorneys and the consolidated docket.

Let me check the consolidated cases and whether local counsel appeared.

Counsel of Record — Defendant SoundCloud Global Limited & Co. KG

SoundCloud's defense team was drawn entirely from Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP's New York office. Two attorneys entered appearances on the docket; no local E.D. Tex. counsel, no in-house counsel, and no other firm appeared before the case was voluntarily dismissed on January 9, 2026. Because the case ended before SoundCloud answered (the answer deadline had been extended to Jan. 17, 2026), defense counsel's docket footprint is limited to two appearance notices and one extension application — there is no answer, motion practice, or substantive filing to source.

Appeared attorneys

Benjamin Hershkowitz — Lead counsel

• Firm/office: Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, 200 Park Ave., New York, NY 10166-0193 (212-351-2410).
• Docket basis: Notice of Attorney Appearance filed Dec. 1, 2025, "on behalf of SoundCloud Global Limited & Co. KG" (Dkt. 6); he also signed the Unopposed Application for Extension of Time to Answer filed the same day, which recited service on 11/12/2025 and an agreed answer date of 1/17/2026. CourtListener's party/attorney view tags him as LEAD ATTORNEY.
• Experience note: Partner in Gibson Dunn's IP and Technology Transactions practices; a Chambers USA Band 2 (New York) patent litigator and longtime IAM Patent 1000 honoree who has served as lead trial counsel in district courts, the ITC, and arbitrations across software, networking, semiconductor, and consumer-electronics technologies. (Firm bio: gibsondunn.com/lawyer/hershkowitz-benjamin/.)

R. Scott Roe — Appeared for SoundCloud; docket-tagged pro hac vice

• Firm/office: Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York (200 Park Ave.; direct 212-351-2618), with a Los Angeles listing on some directories.
• Docket basis: Notice of Attorney Appearance filed Dec. 3, 2025, "on behalf of SoundCloud Global Limited & Co. KG" (Dkt. 8). CourtListener's party view labels him PRO HAC VICE.
• Experience note: Of counsel in Gibson Dunn's IP Practice Group specializing in patent litigation in the mechanical/electrical/computer arts; registered patent attorney (B.S. mechanical engineering, Bucknell) whose client list has included AT&T Mobility, Cablevision, Shazam, Sharp, Ricoh/Pentax, and Sanofi-Aventis. His firm bio states he is admitted in the Eastern District of Texas (contrasting somewhat with the docket's pro hac vice tag). (Firm bio: gibsondunn.com/lawyer/roe-r-scott/.)

Caveats and sourcing notes

• Party attribution caveat. CourtListener's consolidated "Parties" page for 2:25-cv-01113 lists Hershkowitz (lead attorney) and Roe (pro hac vice) under IDAGIO GmbH, a consolidated defendant — not under SoundCloud. The underlying docket entry text, however, is unambiguous that both appearances were filed "on behalf of SoundCloud Global Limited & Co. KG." The likely explanation is that the same Gibson Dunn team represented multiple DynaMuse defendants across the consolidated cases (IDAGIO, Mixcloud, Xandrie/SoundCloud) and CourtListener's automated party-mapping collapsed them. I was unable to retrieve the IDAGIO docket to confirm a separate appearance there.
• No local counsel. Unlike typical E.D. Tex. practice, no Texas-based or local counsel (e.g., a Dallas/ Marshall firm) entered an appearance for SoundCloud on this docket. Gibson Dunn does maintain a Dallas office, but no Dallas attorney appeared.
• No in-house counsel appeared of record.
• No answer or substantive filing was made, so no additional Gibson Dunn attorneys (e.g., associates) are reflected. It is possible additional attorneys worked behind the scenes without entering an appearance — that would not be visible on PACER.
• Client relationship corroboration: Gibson Dunn's Legal 500 "Patents: litigation" profile expressly names SoundCloud among the firm's clients in patent infringement matters, corroborating the representation.
• Sources: CourtListener docket and parties pages for 2:25-cv-01113 (courtlistener.com/docket/71884716/); PACER Monitor case page (cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/61025681/); firm bios at gibsondunn.com. Docket items are cited as Dkt. 6 (Hershkowitz appearance), Dkt. 8 (Roe appearance), and the Dec. 1, 2025 extension application; the CASE is lead case under the Dec. 15, 2025 consolidation order.

If you need the fully verified list — including any Gibson Dunn associates listed only on a proposed protective order or pro hac vice motion that never got filed — that would require a direct PACER pull of Dkts. 1–14, since RECAP's coverage of this short-lived case is incomplete.