Mychoice LLC v. Taiv Inc. — Video Curation Patent Case Withdrawn After 777 Days
Mychoice LLC filed a patent infringement action against Taiv Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting US10708658B2, which covers video viewing experience enhancement through custom curation. The case closed after 777 days when counsel withdrew and the matter was terminated without a merits ruling.
Video curation patent dispute ends without a merits ruling in E.D. Texas
On November 2, 2023, Mychoice LLC filed an infringement action against Taiv Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:23-cv-00507), asserting US10708658B2 — a patent directed at enhancing video viewing experiences through custom content curation. Taiv Inc. is a technology company operating in the connected-TV and out-of-home video advertising space, making it a commercially meaningful target for a patent of this scope.
The case closed on December 18, 2025, recorded as ‘Case Withdrawn.’ The docket reflects a late-stage counsel transition: in January 2025, Mychoice replaced Michael C. Gilleran with Marvin Craig Tyler of Perkins Coie LLP, suggesting active litigation strategy management deep into the proceedings. The basis of termination — withdrawal — does not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice, leaving the public record silent on whether Mychoice retains the right to refile.
At 777 days, this case ran considerably longer than many patent matters that settle early, suggesting substantive litigation activity before termination. The late counsel switch to a larger firm (Perkins Coie) and the eventual withdrawal may reflect a negotiated resolution, a licensing agreement, or a strategic decision not to proceed to trial — none of which can be confirmed from the public record. The absence of a merits ruling means no claim construction or validity determinations are on record.
Filing to Case Withdrawn in 777 days
777 days — longer than the median E.D. Texas patent case before termination
Case withdrawn: what the termination means for both parties
What ‘Case Withdrawn’ means at district court level
A withdrawal or voluntary dismissal ends active proceedings without the court adjudicating the merits. In federal practice, the legal consequences depend critically on whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice — but the public docket in this case does not specify. Under FRCP Rule 41, a dismissal without prejudice typically preserves the plaintiff’s right to refile; one with prejudice bars future claims on the same patent against the same defendant.
No merits ruling issuedWith or without prejudice? The public record is silent
The basis of termination is recorded as ‘Case Withdrawn’ without specifying prejudice terms. This distinction is material: without prejudice means Mychoice could theoretically refile against Taiv on US10708658B2; with prejudice would extinguish that right. Neither outcome can be confirmed from the available public record. Parties and practitioners should treat this termination as legally ambiguous until further filings clarify the terms.
Prejudice terms unconfirmedTaiv exits without an invalidity finding — but without full certainty
Taiv Inc. avoided a potentially adverse merits ruling, but the absence of a with-prejudice dismissal means it cannot rely on this termination as a complete shield against future infringement claims on US10708658B2. If the case was resolved by a licensing arrangement, ongoing royalty obligations may apply. Taiv should confirm the prejudice status and any agreed terms before treating this matter as fully closed.
No invalidity determinationUS10708658B2 remains a live enforcement asset
Because no court issued a claim construction, validity ruling, or infringement finding, US10708658B2 retains its full presumption of validity. Competitors and adjacent players in the connected-TV and video curation space should treat this patent as an active enforcement risk. The late engagement of Perkins Coie — a firm with significant patent litigation depth — suggests Mychoice is not abandoning its IP strategy.
Patent presumptively validFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Mychoice, LLC | Company | Video technology patent holder — asserting US10708658B2 covering custom video curationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Taiv, Inc. | Company | Taiv Inc. — connected-TV and out-of-home video content technology companySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrew Kalamarides | Attorney | Counsel for Mychoice, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Chris Perque | Attorney | Counsel for Mychoice, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Helena E.D. Burns | Attorney | Counsel for Mychoice, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James Travis Underwood | Attorney | Counsel for Mychoice, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Marvin Craig Tyler | Attorney | Counsel for Mychoice, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Matthew Lutz | Attorney | Counsel for Mychoice, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | McKellar L Karr | Attorney | Counsel for Mychoice, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael C. Gilleran | Attorney | Counsel for Mychoice, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Riley Weston Zoch | Attorney | Counsel for Mychoice, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | FisherBroyles LLP | Law Firm | Representing Mychoice, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Gillam & Smith LLP | Law Firm | Representing Mychoice, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Perkins Coie LLP | Law Firm | Representing Mychoice, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Carolyn C. Chang | Attorney | Counsel for Taiv, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Deron R. Dacus | Attorney | Counsel for Taiv, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Hector Ribera | Attorney | Counsel for Taiv, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Phillip John Haack | Attorney | Counsel for Taiv, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ryan Jared Marton | Attorney | Counsel for Taiv, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Marton Ribera Schumann & Chang LLP | Law Firm | Representing Taiv, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | The Dacus Firm PC | Law Firm | Representing Taiv, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The docket’s operative entry is a granted motion to withdraw counsel — not a substantive verdict. The court’s order is purely procedural, permitting Michael C. Gilleran to withdraw after confirming Perkins Coie had already entered an appearance. No merits findings, claim constructions, or damages assessments were made. For both parties, the legal significance of this termination turns entirely on prejudice terms not captured in the public record.
US10708658B2 — Video Viewing Experience Enhancement Through Custom Curation
US10708658B2, filed under application number US16/013999, is directed at enhancing video viewing experiences through custom curation methodologies. The patent sits at the intersection of content personalization, video delivery, and user experience optimization — a technically active domain encompassing streaming platforms, digital out-of-home advertising, and connected-TV systems. Its grant reflects USPTO allowance of claims covering the curation layer that selects and sequences video content for end-user delivery.
Strategically, US10708658B2 is positioned to reach any platform that curates video content dynamically — including ad-tech companies like Taiv that insert or customize video streams in commercial settings. The patent’s commercial relevance is heightened by the rapid expansion of programmatic OOH TV advertising. With no invalidity ruling on record and Mychoice having engaged a major litigation firm before withdrawal, this patent should be treated as a credible enforcement asset by any player in the custom video delivery stack.
Should your product team run an FTO against US10708658B2?
Any company building or deploying technology that curates, sequences, or personalizes video content for viewers — whether in streaming, connected TV, DOOH advertising, or enterprise video — should assess its exposure to US10708658B2. The Eastern District of Texas is a well-established plaintiff-friendly venue, and Mychoice’s demonstrated willingness to litigate for over two years signals a credible enforcement posture. Product teams integrating custom content recommendation or playlist generation logic are particularly at risk.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product architecture against the claim language of US10708658B2, surface prior art that could support an invalidity position, and identify any continuation or family patents that may extend the enforcement perimeter. Given the absence of court-issued claim constructions from this case, a bottom-up claim analysis is essential before launching or expanding any video curation feature set.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10708658B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases in video curation and connected-TV technology
Explore comparable infringement actions involving video personalization and content curation patents litigated in the Eastern District of Texas and related federal venues.
What this case signals for the connected-TV and video curation IP landscape
A 777-day dispute ending in withdrawal — with a late firm upgrade — suggests a sector where licensing leverage is actively being tested.
US10708658B2 carries no litigation estoppel — enforcement risk persists
No claim construction or invalidity ruling was entered. Any company operating in video content curation, personalization, or out-of-home TV advertising should conduct a fresh FTO assessment against US10708658B2 — this case does not provide prior art ammunition or prosecution history disclaimer that competitors can rely upon.
Counsel transition signals a shift in litigation posture, not retreat
Mychoice’s move from FisherBroyles to Perkins Coie mid-litigation, followed by case withdrawal, is consistent with a strategic pivot — potentially toward licensing negotiation or portfolio consolidation. R&D leaders in the connected-TV space should monitor Mychoice LLC’s patent portfolio for continuation filings or new enforcement actions.
Mychoice v Taiv — key questions answered
The case was withdrawn and closed on December 18, 2025, after 777 days of litigation. No merits ruling, claim construction, or invalidity determination was issued. The public record does not specify whether the withdrawal was with or without prejudice.
Mychoice LLC asserted US10708658B2, filed under application number US16/013999, covering video viewing experience enhancement through custom curation. The patent targets the content selection and sequencing layer in video delivery systems.
In January 2025, Mychoice transitioned from Michael C. Gilleran (FisherBroyles LLP) to Marvin Craig Tyler of Perkins Coie LLP. The court granted an unopposed motion for Gilleran to withdraw. The reason for the transition is not disclosed in the public record, but it suggests an active reassessment of litigation strategy at an advanced stage of the case.
No. Because the case was withdrawn before any merits adjudication, US10708658B2 retains its full statutory presumption of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 282. No claim construction, prior art findings, or invalidity determinations were entered that could limit the patent’s enforceability.
Taiv Inc. operates in the connected-TV and out-of-home video advertising space, deploying technology that customizes video content shown on commercial screens. This product profile is consistent with the subject matter of US10708658B2, which covers video experience enhancement through custom curation — making Taiv a commercially logical enforcement target for Mychoice.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.