DynaMuse LLC v. Xandrie S.A.
Infringement action filed 6 Nov 2025 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and closed 15 May 2026, with US10491646B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed with prejudice.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US10491646B2
- Application no.
- US14/933983
- Case no.
- 2:25-cv-01114
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- E.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- Rodney Gilstrap
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 6 Nov 2025 – 15 May 2026
- Duration
- 190 days
- Basis of termination
- Dismissed with Prejudice
- Products & marks
- Mechanism for facilitating user-controlled features relating to media content in multiple online media communities and networks
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Mechanism for facilitating user-controlled features relating to media content in multiple online media communities and networks
In accordance with embodiments, there are provided mechanisms and methods for facilitating playlist assistance and sharing of media content over multiple media communities according to one embodiment. In one embodiment and by way of example, a method includes receiving, at a first computing device, a request relating to media content. The request may be placed by a user at a second computing device. The method may further include researching a plurality of media playlists at a plurality of media communities for the media content, selecting one or more of the plurality of media playlists at one or more of the media communities having the media content, and transmitting, from the first computing to the second computing device, the one or more media playlists having the media content.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 26 Nov 2019
- Earliest priority
- 29 Feb 2012
- Est. expiry
- 27 Feb 2033
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- RICH, BRADLY FREEMAN
- Classification
- H04L29/06H04L12/58H04N21/262H04N21/4722H04N21/4788G06F16/40H04L29/08G06Q50/00
- Prosecution counsel
- Sonafire/JWHM
- Examiner
- DONABED, NINOS
Parties of record
DynaMuse LLC
- Core tech
- H04L29/06H04L12/58H04N21/262H04N21/4722
- Counsel
- Brandi Jo McKay · Casey N. Miller · Isaac Phillip Rabicoff · Morgan Mechelle Buller
- Firm
- Brown Fox PLLC, Rabicoff Law LLC
Xandrie S.A.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Daniel N. Yannuzzi · Eric Hugh Findlay · Robert Lawrence Green III · Roger Brian Craft
- Firm
- Findlay Craft PC, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP – San Diego, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Brandi Jo McKay | DynaMuse LLC | Plaintiff |
| Casey N. Miller | DynaMuse LLC | Plaintiff |
| Isaac Phillip Rabicoff | DynaMuse LLC | Plaintiff |
| Morgan Mechelle Buller | DynaMuse LLC | Plaintiff |
| Daniel N. Yannuzzi | Xandrie S.A. | Defendant |
| Eric Hugh Findlay | Xandrie S.A. | Defendant |
| Robert Lawrence Green III | Xandrie S.A. | Defendant |
| Roger Brian Craft | Xandrie S.A. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Before the Court is the Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice (the “Stipulation”) jointly filed by Plaintiff DynaMuse LLC and Defendant Xandrie S.A. (the “Parties”). (Dkt. No. 23). In the Stipulation, the Parties “stipulate to dismiss this action with prejudice.” (Id. at 1). Having considered the Stipulation, the Court ACKNOWLEDGES AND ACCEPTS that all claims and counterclaims in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
Case 2:25-cv-01114 · E.D. Tex. · closed 15 May 2026
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 2:25-cv-01114?
2:25-cv-01114 is a patent infringement action brought by DynaMuse LLC against Xandrie S.A., filed on 6 Nov 2025 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed on 15 May 2026.
Which patent was asserted in 2:25-cv-01114?
US10491646B2 (“Mechanism for facilitating user-controlled features relating to media content in multiple online media communities and networks”), assigned to DYNAMUSE LLC, currently active. The record also lists Mechanism for facilitating user-controlled features relating to media content in multiple online media communities and networks.
How was case 2:25-cv-01114 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed with prejudice. The termination text reads: “Before the Court is the Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice (the “Stipulation”) jointly filed by Plaintiff DynaMuse LLC and Defendant Xandrie S.A. (the “Parties”). (Dkt. No. 23). In the Stipulation, the Parties “stipulate to dismiss this action with prejudice.” (Id. at 1). Having considered the Stipulation, the Court ACKNOWLEDGES AND ACCEPTS that all claims and counterclaims in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
What does dismissal with prejudice mean?
A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.
How long did case 2:25-cv-01114 take?
190 calendar days, from filing on 6 Nov 2025 to closure on 15 May 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:25-cv-01114?
Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap presided. Brandi Jo McKay, Casey N. Miller, Isaac Phillip Rabicoff and Morgan Mechelle Buller are recorded as counsel for plaintiff DynaMuse. Daniel N. Yannuzzi, Eric Hugh Findlay, Robert Lawrence Green III and Roger Brian Craft appear for defendant Xandrie S.A..
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:25-cv-01114 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.