Onstream Media v. Webcast Plus: 9-Patent Webcasting Dispute Ends in Stipulated Dismissal
Onstream Media Corporation filed suit against Webcast Plus, LLC in the Western District of Texas asserting nine patents covering remotely accessed virtual recording room and webcasting technology. After 696 days of litigation, the parties jointly stipulated to dismiss all claims with prejudice — each side bearing its own costs.
Nine webcasting patents, one joint stipulation, zero fee award
On May 19, 2023, Onstream Media Corporation filed an infringement action in the Western District of Texas against Webcast Plus, LLC, asserting nine US patents directed to remotely accessed virtual recording room and webcasting technology. The asserted portfolio spans applications filed across multiple generations — from US10/808894 (the earliest application) through US17/069006 — reflecting a layered IP strategy covering the core technology and successive refinements.
The case closed on April 14, 2025, via a joint stipulation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Onstream’s infringement claims were dismissed with prejudice, foreclosing any future refiling of those specific claims against Webcast Plus. Webcast Plus’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, preserving the company’s ability to reassert them in a future proceeding. Both parties agreed to absorb their own litigation costs, suggesting a negotiated resolution rather than a clear-cut winner.
The 696-day duration — nearly two years — suggests the parties engaged substantively before reaching resolution, potentially including claim construction briefing or early merits exchanges. The asymmetric dismissal terms (plaintiff claims with prejudice, defendant counterclaims without prejudice) are commercially significant and atypical of a straightforward settlement, though the public record does not disclose whether any licensing arrangement or financial consideration accompanied the stipulation.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 696 days
696 days — above the W.D. Texas median for patent cases resolved short of trial
Asymmetric stipulated dismissal: what the split terms signal for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) joint stipulation — not a court decision on the merits
A dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) is a voluntary, jointly signed stipulation — the court makes no finding of infringement, validity, or invalidity. Because both parties signed, no court approval was required. The dismissal terminates the action without adjudication of any substantive issue, though the ‘with prejudice’ designation on Onstream’s claims carries res judicata effect as to those specific claims.
No merits adjudicationOnstream’s claims dismissed with prejudice — no second bite at Webcast Plus
Onstream Media’s decision to accept a with-prejudice dismissal of all its infringement claims means it cannot refile the same claims against Webcast Plus on these nine patents. This is a significant concession. Whether it reflects a licensing deal, a decision that continued litigation costs outweighed expected recovery, or a commercial relationship, the public record does not say — but the with-prejudice bar is permanent.
Claims barred — cannot refileWebcast Plus counterclaims survive — without-prejudice exit preserves future options
Webcast Plus secured a without-prejudice dismissal of its counterclaims, which typically include invalidity and unenforceability defenses asserted offensively. This means Webcast Plus retains the theoretical ability to reassert those counterclaims in a future proceeding. Combined with no fee award to either party, the outcome is arguably more favorable structurally for Webcast Plus than for Onstream.
Counterclaims preservedNine-patent portfolio still active — exposure risk persists for other webcasting vendors
The dismissal resolves only the dispute between these two parties. Onstream’s nine-patent portfolio covering virtual recording room and webcasting technology remains fully enforceable against third parties. Competitors and webcasting platform operators should treat this case as a signal that Onstream is willing to litigate aggressively — and that the portfolio has sufficient perceived strength to reach 696-day contested proceedings before resolution.
Portfolio remains liveFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Onstream Media, Corp. | Company | Webcasting and streaming technology company — holder of US10848707B2 and 8 further patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Webcast Plus, LLC | Company | Webcast Plus, LLC — provider of remotely accessed virtual recording room and webcasting servicesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Chandran B. Iyer | Attorney | Counsel for Onstream Media, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Oded Burger | Attorney | Counsel for Onstream Media, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ronald M. Daignault | Attorney | Counsel for Onstream Media, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Shailendra Maheshwari | Attorney | Counsel for Onstream Media, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Zachary H. Ellis | Attorney | Counsel for Onstream Media, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Daignault Iyer LLP | Law Firm | Representing Onstream Media, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David Brandon Conrad | Attorney | Counsel for Webcast Plus, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael A. Vincent | Attorney | Counsel for Webcast Plus, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Neil J. McNabnay | Attorney | Counsel for Webcast Plus, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Sarika Patel | Attorney | Counsel for Webcast Plus, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson LLP | Law Firm | Representing Webcast Plus, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge David Alan Ezra | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation’s asymmetric structure is analytically significant: Onstream’s affirmative claims are extinguished with prejudice under res judicata principles, while Webcast Plus’s counterclaims — likely including invalidity and non-infringement — are preserved without prejudice. The mutual cost-bearing clause suggests neither party extracted a financial concession sufficient to offset the other’s fees. No court made any finding on the merits of infringement or patent validity, meaning the nine asserted patents carry no judicial estoppel or collateral estoppel implications from this proceeding.
US10848707B2 and 8 further patents — remotely accessed virtual recording room technology
The nine asserted patents collectively cover remotely accessed virtual recording room technology and webcasting platform infrastructure. The portfolio spans multiple continuation families, with the earliest application (US10/808894, issuing as US9161068B2) anchoring foundational claims and later continuations — through US17/069006, issuing as US11128833B2 — extending coverage to subsequent system and method implementations. This layered prosecution approach is consistent with a strategy of maintaining broad claim coverage across successive product generations in the streaming media space.
Webcasting and virtual recording room technology sits at the intersection of enterprise communications, media production, and cloud infrastructure — a sector that expanded dramatically through 2020–2023. A portfolio asserting nine patents across this domain, filed across more than a decade of prosecution history, represents material exposure for any company operating a webcasting platform, virtual event service, or remotely accessed broadcast infrastructure. The fact that Onstream pursued litigation in W.D. Texas — a plaintiff-favorable venue — signals confidence in the portfolio’s enforceability.
Should you run an FTO against US10848707B2 and the Onstream webcasting portfolio?
Any company operating a remotely accessed virtual recording room, webcasting platform, virtual event service, or streaming media infrastructure should treat this nine-patent portfolio as a live enforcement risk. Onstream demonstrated willingness to litigate in W.D. Texas for nearly two years, and the with-prejudice dismissal of claims against Webcast Plus does not limit enforceability against other operators. Product teams building cloud-based broadcast, encoding pipeline, or remote recording features should prioritize FTO clearance before launch.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and IP teams to map product features against all nine Onstream patents simultaneously — identifying claim elements that overlap with virtual recording room architectures, session management systems, and webcasting delivery methods. Eureka surfaces prosecution history, continuation relationships, and prior art relevant to each patent, helping counsel assess invalidity arguments and design-around options before committing to a product roadmap.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10848707B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar webcasting and streaming patent infringement cases in W.D. Texas
Cases involving webcasting, virtual recording room, and streaming media patents litigated in the Western District of Texas — relevant for portfolio benchmarking and defense strategy.
What this case signals for the webcasting and streaming IP landscape
A nine-patent assertion in W.D. Texas with an asymmetric dismissal suggests a calculated portfolio enforcement strategy — not a one-off dispute.
With-prejudice exit by plaintiff is a red flag for portfolio health monitoring
When a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses its own claims with prejudice after nearly two years of litigation, it typically signals either a negotiated resolution or a reassessment of litigation economics. Neither interpretation is reassuring for third parties who may face similar claims — the patents were not adjudicated invalid and remain fully enforceable.
Nine-patent stacking across application generations is a deliberate prosecution strategy
Onstream’s asserted portfolio spans application numbers from US10/808894 through US17/069006, suggesting a continuation strategy designed to extend coverage and create overlapping claim sets. Webcasting platform operators should map their products against all nine patents, not just the most recent grants — earlier patents may cover foundational technology.
Onstream v Webcast — key questions answered
Onstream Media asserted nine US patents: US10848707B2, US9467728B2, US10038930B2, US10951855B2, US11128833B2, US10200648B2, US10674109B2, US10694142B2, and US9161068B2. All relate to remotely accessed virtual recording room and webcasting technology across multiple continuation families.
The case was resolved via a joint stipulation of dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Onstream’s infringement claims were dismissed with prejudice, barring refiling. Webcast Plus’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice. Each party agreed to bear its own costs and fees. No court ruling on the merits was issued.
A with-prejudice dismissal carries res judicata effect — Onstream cannot refile the same infringement claims against Webcast Plus on these nine patents in any future proceeding. It does not, however, affect Onstream’s ability to assert the same patents against different defendants, nor does it constitute a finding of invalidity or non-infringement.
The asymmetric dismissal terms were negotiated by the parties and reflect the relative leverage each side held at the time of resolution. Webcast Plus — represented by Fish & Richardson — secured preservation of its counterclaims (likely invalidity and non-infringement defenses) while Onstream accepted a permanent bar on its affirmative claims. The public record does not disclose the underlying commercial terms, if any.
No. The stipulated dismissal resolves only the dispute between Onstream and Webcast Plus. All nine asserted patents remain granted and enforceable against third parties. No invalidity finding was made. Companies operating webcasting platforms, virtual recording room services, or remotely accessed broadcast infrastructure should conduct independent FTO analysis against the full Onstream portfolio.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.