Egla Corp v. Mood Media LLC et al.

Case Overview and Background

Egla Corp. v. Mood Media LLC et al.
Case No. 1:26-cv-01044, W.D. Texas

This patent infringement lawsuit, filed on April 22, 2026, pits EGLA Corp., a technology entity founded by inventor and frequent expert witness Dr. Edwin Hernandez, against major in-store media and music providers Mood Media and Stingray. EGLA Corp. alleges that the defendants' flagship commercial music and media distribution platforms infringe its U.S. Patent No. 12,075,116. This case is notable not only for targeting key players in the business music industry but also because it follows contentious prior litigation between the parties involving claims of trade secret theft and infringement of other patents in a different federal court. The choice of the Western District of Texas, a prominent venue for patent disputes, further adds to the case's significance, although the specific judge assignment remains pending.

The plaintiff, EGLA Corp., appears to be the corporate vehicle for Dr. Hernandez's inventions and licensing activities. Dr. Hernandez is a prolific inventor with numerous U.S. and European patents and has an extensive history as a testifying expert in high-stakes patent litigation, including cases resulting in large jury awards. This background suggests EGLA is a sophisticated and well-resourced non-practicing entity (NPE). The defendants are established operating companies: Austin-based Mood Media is a global provider of in-store media solutions, including music, digital signage, and scent marketing, for businesses. Canadian firm Stingray Group and its U.S. subsidiary provide multi-platform music services, business media solutions, and broadcasting. The lawsuit accuses Mood Media’s “Mood Harmony Platform”—a system of media players and cloud services for commercial subscribers—and Stingray’s “UbiquiCAST” platform, which distributes media to television and streaming providers, of infringement. The patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 12,075,116, is part of Dr. Hernandez's "MEVIA" portfolio and relates to systems and methods for delivering multimedia content from a cloud platform to cable and IPTV systems, aiming to replace legacy satellite delivery methods.

Filed in the Austin division of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, the case enters a forum that became the nation's top patent venue under Judge Alan Albright. However, following a 2022 order to randomly assign patent cases and Judge Albright's recent announcement that he will step down in August 2026, the dynamics of the court are in flux. The case docket does not yet indicate which judge has been assigned. This litigation is particularly noteworthy due to its connection to a prior lawsuit filed by EGLA and Dr. Hernandez against the same defendants in the Southern District of Florida, which included allegations that Mood Media and Stingray misappropriated trade secrets and infringed different patents following a 2014 asset sale between the two companies. That earlier case involved motions to dismiss and a stay of the patent claims pending inter partes review (IPR) petitions filed by Stingray at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The current lawsuit, asserting a more recently issued patent, represents a new front in this escalating intellectual property battle between the inventor and the established media companies.

Key Legal Developments and Case Posture

As of May 1, 2026, the patent infringement litigation Egla Corp v. Mood Media LLC et al. is in its earliest stages, with no substantive legal developments having occurred since the case was filed. The current posture of the case remains active but nascent.

Chronological Developments:

• 2026-04-22: Complaint Filed

  • EGLA Corp. filed its complaint for patent infringement against Mood Media LLC, Stingray Group Inc., and Stingray Music USA Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The complaint alleges that the defendants' respective commercial music and media distribution platforms—Mood Media’s “Harmony Platform” and Stingray’s “UbiquiCAST” platform—infringe U.S. Patent No. 12,075,116.
  • The filing also included a Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement identifying the affiliates of EGLA Corp.
  • The case was designated Case No. 1:26-cv-01044.

• Initial Pleadings and Motions:

  • As of May 1, 2026, the docket does not yet reflect that the defendants have been formally served with the summons and complaint. Consequently, no answers, counterclaims, or motions to dismiss or transfer have been filed. The deadline for defendants to respond will be triggered by the date of service.

• Parallel PTAB Proceedings:

  • A search of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) records indicates that no inter partes review (IPR) or post-grant review (PGR) petitions have been filed against the asserted U.S. Patent No. 12,075,116 at this time.
  • However, the defendants have a history of utilizing PTAB proceedings. In prior litigation between the parties in the Southern District of Florida involving different patents from the same family, Stingray filed IPR petitions against three of Dr. Hernandez's patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 10,123,074; 10,524,002; and 11,140,441). Those patent claims in the district court were subsequently stayed pending the outcome of the IPRs. This history suggests it is likely that the defendants will challenge the validity of the '116 patent at the PTAB, which could lead to a motion to stay this case pending the PTAB's review.

• Current Status:

  • The case is open and pending in the Austin division of the Western District of Texas. A judge has not yet been assigned to the case. The next steps will involve the plaintiff effecting service of process on the defendants, followed by the defendants' responses to the complaint, which could include answers or pre-trial motions.

Plaintiff Counsel of Record for Egla Corp.

Based on a review of the initial complaint (Dkt. 1) filed on April 22, 2026, the following attorneys have appeared on behalf of the plaintiff, Egla Corp.

Name	Role	Firm	Location	Notable Experience
Jean-Marc Zimmerman	Lead Counsel	The Zimmerman Firm	Westfield, NJ	Specializes in patent litigation and licensing, having litigated complex patent cases for over 30 years and secured tens of millions in licensing revenue.
Wesley Hill	Local Counsel	Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC	Longview, TX	Veteran East Texas trial lawyer known for extensive experience in patent infringement litigation in Texas federal courts for both plaintiffs and defendants.
T. John Ward	Of Counsel	Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC	Longview, TX	A former U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas, he presided over hundreds of patent cases and now focuses on patent litigation and mediation.
Johnny Ward	Of Counsel	Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC	Longview, TX	Has secured major verdicts in patent cases against companies like Apple, Samsung, and Verizon, with a national reputation for high-stakes IP trials.

Counsel Background:

Plaintiff Egla Corp. is represented by a combination of out-of-state lead counsel specializing in patent monetization and highly experienced Texas-based trial attorneys.

• The Zimmerman Firm: Lead counsel Jean-Marc Zimmerman's firm is a boutique practice focused on patent litigation and licensing for patent owners. His biography notes decades of experience litigating patent cases involving software against major technology and financial companies.

• Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC: This Longview, Texas-based firm serves as local counsel and is renowned for its extensive and successful track record in high-stakes patent trials, particularly in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas. The firm and its partners, including Wesley Hill and Johnny Ward, are frequently recognized for their patent litigation prowess. The inclusion of former federal judge T. John Ward adds significant depth and experience with the practices and procedures of Texas patent courts.

Defendant Counsel of Record for Mood Media and Stingray

As of May 1, 2026, no attorneys have filed a notice of appearance on behalf of defendants Mood Media LLC, Stingray Group Inc., or Stingray Music USA Inc. in the Western District of Texas case (1:26-cv-01044). The defendants have not yet been served with the complaint, and therefore their formal response and selection of counsel are not yet reflected on the court's docket.

However, given the extensive prior litigation between the parties in the Southern District of Florida, it is highly probable that the defendants will retain the same or similar legal teams. The counsel who represented Mood Media and Stingray in the related Florida case (EGLA Corp. et al. v. Stingray Digital Group USA Inc. et al.) are detailed below.

Likely Counsel for Defendants (Based on Prior Representation):

For Stingray Group Inc. and Stingray Music USA Inc.

Name	Likely Role	Firm	Location	Notable Experience
Fabio E. Marino	Lead Counsel	Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP	Silicon Valley, CA	An experienced IP trial lawyer who chairs his firm's patent litigation group and has litigated high-stakes patent, trade secret, and copyright cases across the U.S.
Allan A. Kassenoff	Lead Counsel	Greenberg Traurig, LLP	New York, NY	A shareholder with extensive experience in patent litigation who has represented Stingray in other patent disputes and PTAB proceedings.

For Mood Media LLC

Name	Likely Role	Firm	Location	Notable Experience
John R. Lane	Lead Counsel	Fish & Richardson P.C.	Houston, TX	Managing principal of his firm's Houston office, specializing in plaintiff and defendant patent litigation across diverse technologies, including oil & gas and consumer electronics.

Counsel Background & Strategy:

• Stingray's Counsel: Stingray has historically been represented by prominent national firms with deep expertise in intellectual property litigation. Fabio Marino, now at Womble Bond Dickinson, is a veteran IP litigator who previously chaired the IP litigation practice at Polsinelli. Allan Kassenoff of Greenberg Traurig has also represented Stingray in prior patent matters, including district court litigation and related inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The engagement of such counsel in past disputes signals that Stingray is prepared to defend the case aggressively, both in district court and potentially at the PTAB.

• Mood Media's Counsel: In other recent patent litigation in the Western District of Texas, Mood Media has been represented by counsel from different firms, including Baker Botts and Fish & Richardson. John R. Lane of Fish & Richardson is an experienced patent trial lawyer based in Texas. This history suggests Mood Media will likely engage seasoned Texas patent litigators, possibly from one of these firms, to handle the new lawsuit in the Austin division.

It is standard for defendants to officially name counsel after being served with the complaint. Notices of appearance for these or other attorneys are expected to be filed on the docket in the coming weeks.