Razdog Holdings LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc.

This patent infringement litigation, Razdog Holdings LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc., centers on allegations of infringement related to interactive video technology. The plaintiff, Razdog Holdings LLC, appears to operate as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) or Patent Assertion Entity (PAE), a common characteristic given its history of asserting patents against various companies, including a prior case against Twitch Interactive, Inc., which also involved the patent at issue here. The defendant, T-Mobile US, Inc., is a major operating company in the telecommunications industry, providing wireless services and related technologies. While specific details of the accused T-Mobile product or service in this particular case are not explicitly detailed in publicly available summaries, given the nature of the asserted patent and Razdog's prior litigation history, it is likely that T-Mobile's web-based video streaming, content delivery, or related interactive media services are the subject of the infringement claims.

The sole patent asserted in this lawsuit is US Patent 10,334,068, which generally relates to systems and methods for providing users with interactive elements on a video player webpage. The case is being heard in the California Northern District Court, with Hon. Joseph C. Spero presiding. This venue is notable in patent litigation for several reasons: the Northern District of California (NDCA) is often considered a favorable forum for patent defendants. Its judges are known for their experience in complex litigation, a willingness to entertain early dispositive motions (such as Alice motions challenging patent eligibility), and a tendency to grant stays pending inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the USPTO. The NDCA's local patent rules also mandate early and detailed disclosures of infringement, invalidity, and damages contentions, which can streamline discovery and facilitate early case assessment.

The case is notable due to Razdog Holdings LLC's apparent NPE assertion model and the ongoing challenges to the '068 patent. Unified Patents filed an ex parte reexamination proceeding against the '068 patent in February 2025. Additionally, Twitch Interactive, Inc. (another defendant sued by Razdog on this patent) initiated an inter partes review (IPR2025-00308) against the '068 patent. In that IPR, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied Razdog's request for discretionary denial, noting that the parallel district court proceeding lacked an early trial date and that the district court was likely to grant a stay pending the IPR's outcome. This suggests that the validity of the '068 patent is actively being contested in multiple forums, which could influence the trajectory of the litigation against T-Mobile.

The litigation between Razdog Holdings LLC and T-Mobile US, Inc. (3:24-cv-03638) is currently ongoing. Key developments have been shaped by parallel challenges to the asserted patent, US Patent 10,334,068.

Filing & Initial Pleadings

• Complaint Filed: Razdog Holdings LLC initiated the lawsuit against T-Mobile US, Inc. on 2024-05-30 in the California Northern District Court, alleging infringement of US Patent 10,334,068.

Pre-trial Motions and Stays

• As of the current date (2026-07-28), specific pre-trial motions from the T-Mobile case (e.g., motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay) are not readily available through general web searches without direct PACER access. However, given the parallel PTAB proceedings, a motion to stay pending IPR is highly probable, especially considering the court's inclination to grant such stays in the Northern District of California.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

The validity of US Patent 10,334,068 is actively being contested in separate proceedings, which directly impacts the T-Mobile litigation:

• IPR2025-00308 (Twitch Interactive, Inc. v. Razdog Holdings LLC): Twitch Interactive, Inc., another defendant sued by Razdog on the '068 patent, filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition (IPR2025-00308) against US Patent 10,334,068. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied Razdog's request for discretionary denial in this IPR. The PTAB noted the absence of an early trial date in the parallel district court proceeding (presumably referring to the Twitch case, 5:24-cv-03638) and the likelihood of the district court granting a stay pending the IPR's outcome. This IPR was filed in October 2025.
• Ex Parte Reexamination: Unified Patents filed an ex parte reexamination proceeding against US Patent 10,334,068 in February 2025. This indicates an ongoing challenge to the patent's validity outside of the IPR process. The landscape of patent challenges has seen a significant shift, with ex parte reexaminations increasingly favored over IPRs in the first half of 2026 due to procedural changes at the USPTO and a lower IPR institution grant rate.

Current Posture

The case is ongoing. The parallel PTAB proceedings, particularly IPR2025-00308, are likely to influence the pace and trajectory of the Razdog v. T-Mobile litigation. The Northern District of California's tendency to grant stays pending IPR suggests that the T-Mobile case may be stayed while the validity of the '068 patent is determined by the PTAB.

I'll search multiple angles to find press coverage of this case.

Press and analyst coverage

I could not find any published article — in Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, Ars Technica, The Verge, or any trade outlet — that reports specifically on Razdog Holdings LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 3:24-cv-03638). The T-Mobile action appears to have drawn no independent press attention to date. Notably, Unified Patents — the most consistent tracker of RazDog's activity on the '068 patent — described the patent on 2025-02-26 as "currently asserted against Twitch" and noted past assertions against "Cook Brothers, Continental Salvage, and Cooling Equipment Services," without mentioning T-Mobile at all. That silence suggests either that the T-Mobile suit was filed around the same period without press pickup, or that Unified's tracking focused only on the docketed co-pending defendant. Where the press has covered RazDog, it has covered Twitch.

The only substantive news reporting I located on the '068 patent concerns the parallel Twitch litigation. Bloomberg Law reported on 2024-06-18, under the headline "Amazon's Twitch Faces Patent Infringement Suit Over 'Slide Tool'," that Twitch was accused of infringing both US Patent No. 9,729,658 ("System For Managing Web-Based Content Data and Applications") and US Patent No. 10,334,068 ("System For Managing Web-Based Swipe Module Tool And Software For Scrolling And Paging Through Content Data And Applications") — the '068 patent being the sole patent asserted in the T-Mobile case. Newsinterpretation similarly reported that RazDog's complaint targets Twitch's "live video carousels" and "remote tool box" features, that RazDog brands the technology "CloudMotion and CloudSource," and that the suit seeks royalties plus pre- and post-judgment interest in an amount to be determined at trial. That outlet went beyond the pleadings to speculate on market impact, observing that a RazDog win "might be required to alter or remove some of its features, potentially impacting user experience," and that Twitch "could face substantial financial penalties." No damages figure, settlement term, or verdict has been reported in any outlet for either case.

On the validity side, the most detailed publicly available coverage is Unified Patents, which reported on 2025-02-26 that it had filed an ex parte reexamination against the '068 patent the previous day (control no. 90/019,860), describing the patent as relating "to providing users with interactive elements on a video player webpage." Unified Patents followed up on 2025-05-16 reporting that on 2025-05-14 the Central Reexamination Unit granted the request, finding substantial new questions of patentability on the challenged claims. Both posts name Unified's counsel — Nick Apel, Eric Buresh, and Caroline McCord of Erise IP, plus in-house counsel Michelle Aspen and Kelly Hughes — but neither mentions T-Mobile. On the IPR side, RPX Empower records IPR2025-00308 (Twitch v. RazDog, '068 patent) as filed 2024-12-23 and instituted 2025-07-28. The Acting Director's discretionary-denial decision itself — a primary document rather than press coverage — is hosted at IPWatchdog and denied RazDog's request, reasoning that "there is no currently scheduled trial date in the co-pending district court litigation" after a reassignment order vacated all hearing and trial dates, that trial would likely begin around February 2027 (after the projected 2026-07-30 final written decision), and that Petitioner had shown good reason to believe a stay would issue (76% of post-institution stay motions granted in the district over twelve years; Judge Gilliam granting all such motions since 2016).

Contradictions to flag against the earlier sections of this case summary. First, the earlier summary places the Twitch IPR filing in "October 2025," but RPX Empower records IPR2025-00308 as filed 2024-12-23 with institution on 2025-07-28 — the earlier date is inconsistent both with the RPX record and with the procedural posture in the Director's decision. Second, the Twitch case number is reported inconsistently across sources: Docket/Justia search results surface "Razdog Holdings LLC v. Twitch Interactive, Inc." as 3:2024cv03638, an AI docket aggregator identifies the Twitch complaint as 4:24-cv-03638, and the prior case summary said 5:24-cv-03638. Since 3:24-cv-03638 is the number the case metadata assigns to Razdog v. T-Mobile, that overlap needs docket-level verification (PACER) before it is treated as settled — the metadata remains authoritative here, but the coincidence is worth confirming. Third, the earlier summary's inference that the parallel-litigation discussion in the Director decision referred to the Twitch case is correct on the face of the document, but note that the decision identifies Judge Gilliam, not Hon. Joseph C. Spero, as the presiding judge in that parallel matter; the Spero assignment in the metadata therefore pertains to the T-Mobile case only and I found no press confirmation of it. Finally, no outlet reported any motion to stay, transfer, or dismissal in the T-Mobile action, so the earlier section's statement that a stay motion is "highly probable" remains an inference from the Twitch IPR record, not a reported fact.

Sources

• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• Alicia Ginsberg | Perkins Coie LLP | Ex Parte
• News & Views
• Ex. 1004 | IPR2025-00308 | Twitch Interactive Inc v. RazDog Holdings LLC | Ex Parte
• Complaint analysis | 4:24-cv-03638 | Razdog Holdings LLC v. Twitch Interactive Inc | Ex Parte
• Amazon’s Twitch Faces Patent Infringement Suit Over ‘Slide Tool’
• Method of sizing an embedded media player page - US20080270903A1 (en) * | 2006-08-09 | 2008-10-30 | Razdog
• IPR2025-00307 | Twitch Interactive Inc v. RazDog Holdings LLC | Ex Parte

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Razdog Holdings LLC (Likely)

Based on available public information, particularly regarding Razdog Holdings LLC's other patent litigation in the Northern District of California (e.g., Razdog Holdings LLC v. Twitch Interactive, Inc., Case No. 5:24-cv-03638), Villegas & Cefo, LLP is the likely counsel of record for Razdog Holdings LLC in Razdog Holdings LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-03638. While direct confirmation of their appearance in the T-Mobile specific case (3:24-cv-03638) could not be definitively found through web searches without direct PACER access, their representation of Razdog in a closely related N.D. Cal. patent infringement action suggests their involvement.

The key attorneys at Villegas & Cefo, LLP, specializing in patent litigation, include:

• Francisco A. Villegas (Partner)

  • Firm: Villegas & Cefo, LLP (San Jose, CA office is indicated as providing a full spectrum of legal services, though the firm's main contact page lists San Francisco and Tiburon locations for a related firm, "The Villegas Law Firm, APC," while "Villegas & Cefo, LLP" presents as a boutique focused on intellectual property and complex litigation without a specific listed office address in the search results; however, San Jose is a key location for N.D. Cal. patent cases).
  • Experience: Represents domestic and international companies in IP litigation and transactional matters, with extensive experience across various technologies including media streaming, aerospace, artificial intelligence, online gaming, and telecom. He has secured jury verdicts of invalidity and achieved favorable settlements for patent clients.

• Damir Cefo (Partner)

  • Firm: Villegas & Cefo, LLP (San Jose, CA office is indicated as providing a full spectrum of legal services, though the firm's main contact page lists San Francisco and Tiburon locations for a related firm, "The Villegas Law Firm, APC," while "Villegas & Cefo, LLP" presents as a boutique focused on intellectual property and complex litigation without a specific listed office address in the search results; however, San Jose is a key location for N.D. Cal. patent cases).
  • Experience: Focuses on patent litigation, patent portfolio evaluation, and management in areas such as computer hardware and software, electronic devices, and MPEG video compression. He also has experience with post-grant patent proceedings and frequently assists clients with due diligence, licensing, and trademark/copyright prosecution.

• Stephen McBride (Counsel)

  • Firm: Villegas & Cefo, LLP (The firm emphasizes a remote work environment and federal practice).
  • Experience: Possesses two decades of experience in patent litigation, covering all steps from pre-trial investigations to trial and appeal, across U.S. district courts, the ITC, the USPTO, and the Federal Circuit, with a focus on high-tech fields like telecommunications and software. He is recognized for representing patent owners at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Despite extensive web searches for PACER dockets, firm websites, and legal news sources, the specific counsel of record representing T-Mobile US, Inc. in Razdog Holdings LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. (Case number: 3:24-cv-03638) could not be definitively identified.

Information regarding specific attorney appearances in ongoing federal court cases is primarily found on the official PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) docket for the case. Without direct access to this specific docket, identifying the exact attorneys who have entered an appearance for T-Mobile is not possible through the available general web searches.

It is possible that counsel has not yet formally appeared on the public docket, or that initial filings related to counsel appearances are sealed. T-Mobile is known to work with prominent firms for patent litigation, such as Alston & Bird and McKool Smith, as seen in other patent infringement cases. Mark Nelson serves as the Chief Legal Officer and General Counsel for T-Mobile, overseeing legal and government affairs. However, these are general affiliations and do not confirm the specific attorneys for this particular case.