Razdog Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC et al.

Razdog Holdings LLC has initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against telecommunications giants AT&T Mobility LLC and AT&T Inc. Razdog Holdings LLC appears to operate as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) or Patent Assertion Entity (PAE), as evidenced by its history of asserting patent 10,334,068 against multiple companies, including Twitch, Cook Brothers, Continental Salvage, and Cooling Equipment Services. AT&T Mobility LLC and AT&T Inc. are operating companies providing a wide array of telecommunications and media services. The core of the dispute revolves around U.S. Patent No. 10,334,068, which generally relates to providing users with interactive elements on a video player webpage. While the specific accused products or services offered by AT&T are not detailed in the available search results, given the patent's subject matter and AT&T's business, the allegations likely concern AT&T's video streaming platforms or services incorporating interactive web video features.

The litigation is currently ongoing in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, under Case No. 5:24-cv-03638, presided over by Hon. Beth Labson Freeman. The Northern District of California is a prominent venue for patent litigation, especially in the technology sector, and is known for its willingness to rule on dispositive motions before trial, including a high grant rate for motions to dismiss.

This case is particularly notable due to the plaintiff's apparent status as an NPE and the parallel administrative challenges to the asserted patent. U.S. Patent 10,334,068 is currently undergoing an ex parte reexamination proceeding, initiated by Unified Patents in February 2025. Furthermore, the patent has been the subject of Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings (IPR2025-00307, IPR2025-00308) filed by Twitch Interactive, Inc., where the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied Razdog's request for discretionary denial, noting the district court's lack of a firm trial date far removed from the PTAB's projected decision. The increasing use of ex parte reexaminations as an alternative to IPRs also highlights a broader trend in patent challenge strategies.

Razdog Holdings LLC initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against AT&T Mobility LLC and AT&T Inc. in the California Northern District Court, asserting U.S. Patent No. 10,334,068. The case, numbered 5:24-cv-03638, was filed on May 30, 2024, and is assigned to Hon. Beth Labson Freeman. As of the current date (July 28, 2026), specific detailed docket developments for this particular district court case beyond its filing are not widely available in public search results.

However, there have been significant parallel administrative proceedings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) concerning the asserted patent, U.S. Patent No. 10,334,068, which could materially impact the ongoing litigation.

Key Legal Developments:

• Case Filing:

  • 2024-05-30: Razdog Holdings LLC filed a patent infringement complaint against AT&T Mobility LLC and AT&T Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (5:24-cv-03638), asserting U.S. Patent No. 10,334,068.

• Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings:

  • Prior to May 16, 2025: Twitch Interactive, Inc. filed two Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions, IPR2025-00307 and IPR2025-00308, challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,334,068 (and another patent) owned by Razdog Holdings LLC.
  • 2025-05-16: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied Razdog Holdings LLC's request for discretionary denial in IPR2025-00307 and IPR2025-00308. The PTAB noted that the parallel district court proceeding (involving Twitch, though ambiguously referenced in one source with the AT&T case number) lacked a scheduled trial date, and its projected date was well beyond the PTAB's deadline for a final written decision. These IPRs directly challenge the validity of the patent at issue in the AT&T litigation, albeit initiated by a different petitioner.

• Parallel Ex Parte Reexamination Proceeding:

  • 2025-02-25: Unified Patents filed an ex parte reexamination proceeding (Control No. 90/015,316) against U.S. Patent No. 10,334,068.
  • 2026-04-01 (and later confirmations): The USPTO introduced a new "pre-order" procedure for ex parte reexaminations, allowing patent owners to submit arguments to persuade the Office against initiating reexamination before a "substantial new question of patentability" (SNQ) is formally determined. This policy change reflects an increased scrutiny of reexamination requests and provides patent owners an earlier opportunity to respond. The status of the reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 10,334,068 under these new procedures is ongoing.

Outcome and Current Posture:

As of July 28, 2026, the district court litigation, Razdog Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC et al., remains ongoing. Publicly available information does not detail the filing of AT&T's answer or any counterclaims, substantive pre-trial motions (such as motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay pending the IPRs or reexamination), claim construction outcomes (Markman), discovery milestones, or any trial events or final disposition in this specific case. It is common for patent infringement cases, especially with parallel validity challenges at the USPTO, to be stayed or move slowly while the administrative proceedings unfold.

The existence of active IPR proceedings (initiated by Twitch) and an ex parte reexamination (initiated by Unified Patents) against U.S. Patent No. 10,334,068 at the USPTO are significant developments. The outcomes of these administrative challenges could directly impact the patent's validity and, consequently, the course and potential outcome of the district court litigation against AT&T.

Despite a comprehensive search across major legal and tech news outlets, there is little to no direct press coverage specifically detailing the patent infringement lawsuit Razdog Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC et al., case number 5:24-cv-03638. The available news items discuss other legal proceedings involving the patent at issue, US patent 10,334,068, and separate litigations concerning AT&T Mobility LLC.

However, the patent asserted in this case, US patent 10,334,068, has been the subject of other significant legal challenges. Unified Patents filed an ex parte reexamination proceeding against patent 10,334,068 on February 25, 2025. This patent, owned and asserted by Razdog Holdings LLC, pertains to providing users with interactive elements on a video player webpage. Furthermore, Razdog Holdings LLC is involved in Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings concerning this patent, specifically IPR2025-00308, where Twitch Interactive, Inc. is the petitioner. On May 16, 2025, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied Razdog's request for discretionary denial in that IPR, noting that the parallel district court proceeding (which could potentially refer to the AT&T case or another Razdog lawsuit) lacked a scheduled trial date far enough in the future relative to the PTAB's projected final written decision. The reporting from Unified Patents also indicates that the '068 patent is currently asserted against Twitch and has been asserted against other entities in the past.

While there is extensive reporting on other patent disputes involving AT&T Mobility LLC, including a Federal Circuit decision in Finesse Wireless LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC that vacated a $166 million damages award in September 2025 due to faulty expert testimony, and a settlement in a 5G technology patent suit with Pegasus Wireless Innovation in October 2025, these do not specifically address the Razdog Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC et al. case. Without direct coverage, details on damages sought, specific claims about the case's significance, or expert takes on this particular litigation remain unreported in the public press at this time.

Sources

• unifiedpatents.com
• ipwatchdog.com
• uspto.gov
• ipupdate.com
• westlaw.com
• uspatent.com
• patentlyo.com
• legalnewsline.com

Razdog Holdings LLC is represented by attorneys from different firms.

Here is the counsel of record for Razdog Holdings LLC:

• Joseph A. Balice - Lead Counsel

  • Firm: Haynes and Boone, LLP, Orange County office (though his profile also mentions a past affiliation with Brutzkus Gubner in Los Angeles).
  • Note: Joseph Balice is counsel in the Litigation Practice Group and a member of the firm's Insurance Recovery Group, primarily representing policyholders in insurance coverage disputes. His experience also includes commercial civil litigation. While his primary listed experience is in insurance recovery, he is noted as a member of a "commercial civil litigation team."

• Jeffrey D. Solomon - Counsel

  • Firm: Law Office of Jeffrey Solomon, Davie, Florida. (Note: There appear to be multiple attorneys named Jeffrey Solomon; this entry aligns with a solo practice in Florida focused on bankruptcy, real estate, and business law).
  • Note: This Jeffrey Solomon's practice areas primarily include bankruptcy, real estate law, and business law, with a strong background in representing individuals and families in personal injury cases. There is no readily available information linking this specific Jeffrey D. Solomon to significant patent litigation experience.

The available search results do not explicitly identify the counsel of record for AT&T Mobility LLC and AT&T Inc. in Razdog Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC et al. (5:24-cv-03638). This may be due to the case being relatively new (filed in May 2024), and initial appearances by counsel might not be immediately available through all public search channels, or filings could be sealed.

However, based on AT&T's past patent litigation, some firms and in-house counsel have been noted:

Past External Counsel for AT&T Mobility LLC in Patent Litigation:

• Susman Godfrey LLP: This firm has represented AT&T Mobility LLC in past patent litigation. For example, Susman Godfrey partners Joe Grinstein, Meng Xi, Shawn Blackburn, and associate Meg Griffith, along with Of Counsel Bryce Barcelo, represented AT&T Mobility in Finesse Wireless LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC (Eastern District of Texas), though they were on the opposing side of a jury verdict in that specific case. The Federal Circuit later reversed a $166 million jury verdict against AT&T Mobility and Nokia in that case due to faulty expert testimony. Kalpana Srinivasan, Joseph Samuel Grinstein, and Bryce Thomas Barcelo of Susman Godfrey have also been listed as counsel for AT&T Mobility in Sol IP, LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC (Eastern District of Texas).
• Capshaw DeRieux LLP: Sidney Calvin Capshaw, III and Elizabeth L. DeRieux of Capshaw DeRieux LLP assisted Susman Godfrey pretrial in the Finesse Wireless case.
• Ward Smith & Hill PLLC: Johnny Ward and Andrea Fair of Ward Smith & Hill PLLC assisted Susman Godfrey at trial in the Finesse Wireless case.
• McGuireWoods LLP: David E. Finkelson and Andriana Shultz Daly of McGuireWoods LLP were listed as counsel for AT&T Mobility in Sol IP, LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC.
• Smith Weber LLP: Robert William Weber of Smith Weber LLP was also listed as counsel for AT&T Mobility in Sol IP, LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC.
• Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati: While not directly tied to patent litigation for AT&T, this firm has been involved in intellectual property cases for other large tech companies like Huawei.
• Clark Hill: Clark Hill is an international law firm with a multidisciplinary team of legal advisors who help clients navigate legal and business issues.

AT&T In-house Intellectual Property Counsel:

• Nikhil Marathe: Director of Intellectual Property at AT&T, responsible for developing and implementing patent business strategies.
• Thomas A. Restaino: Former Chief IP Counsel for AT&T for 15 years, where he managed a team of 14 lawyers and was responsible for all IP legal matters for AT&T's business units, laboratories, and global supply chain. He is now Of Counsel at Tong, Rea, Bentley & Panagos.
• Samuel H. Dworetsky: Former patent attorney, patent litigation attorney, and managing patent attorney in the IP-Law group at AT&T. He is now Of Counsel at Tong, Rea, Bentley & Panagos.
• Charles Warren: Has over 20 years of experience as an intellectual property attorney, including leadership roles as patent counsel for Motorola, Inc. and AT&T/Lucent Technologies, where he managed an IP law center.

Without access to the specific docket for 5:24-cv-03638, identifying the exact counsel of record for AT&T in this ongoing case is not possible through public web searches alone. The information above reflects firms and individuals who have represented AT&T in patent and intellectual property matters previously.