EGLA Stingray Lawsuit

My Trade Secrets and Patent Infringement Story

In April 2024, I filed a trade secret lawsuit against Stingray Group, and others including AT&T, Millicom, and MOOD MEDIA.  The details of that lawsuit are described here.  

First, I filed this matter pro-se, meaning no attorneys only myself.  In a matter of weeks, I realized that I was going against armies of lawyers that were really aggressive, and  I  was clearly in disadvantage.  For example, a pro-se litigant needs to file all paperwork via mail, hence you have to print it, and send it via FEDEX to the court, while attorneys file electronically.  

There is no way a complex matter with patent & trade secrets can be managed by mail.  Hence, I had to hire my attorneys that later filed an amended complaint  that added “Blue Stream Fiber,” a Florida corporation that offers Stingray Music channels. 

This lawsuit accuses defendants of  9 counts such as:  Breach of Contract, Fraud, Unjust Enrichment, Trade secret misappropriation, and 3 counts on patent Infringement.   The evidence cited in the lawsuit  was a set of documents publicly disclosed at trellol.com regarding Stingray’s servers called “Ubiquicast OSE2.” now called  the EGLA-TRELLO DOCUMENTS (Trello.com 1 and 2)

Defendants filed many motions including a Motion to Stay the case. A motion to stay was going to put all on hold and nothing was going to move forward,. However,  this motion was denied, by the judge on Feb 12th, 2025 (See below).

Before that, Stingray and all defendants also  filed a “Motion to Dismiss,” so they can dismiss the case. The motion held many arguments against EGLA (my company) and personally to myself.  In litigation, a “MTD” or “Motion to Dismiss” is filed to terminate a case, as a result the court determines if the plaintiff has no case, and will be either denied with prejudice (can’t file) or without prejudice, maybe need to file it again.   Granting a MTD is basically a win for defendants, denial is a win to plaintiff. 

Additionally, Stingray and their attorneys, right on Christmas eve, Stingray filed 3 IPRs against me and my patents,.  The IPRs are filed to invalidate a patent, and cost a ton of money to defend it.

 

 

As of March 4th, 2025,  most of the Motion to Dismiss was denied to defendants, except for the “fraud” claim, all other 8 claims are standing. . See the report from the Magistrate judge for the judge to rule  here:

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re [148] Joint MOTION TO DISMISS [82] Amended Complaint/Amended Notice of Removal,, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Stingray Music USA, Inc., Blue Stream Communications, LLC d/b/a Blue Stream Fiber, Millicom International Services, LLC, Stingray Group Inc.:

Recommending Motion be GRANTED in part (as to fraud claim) and DENIED in part (as to all other claims); Objections to R&R (if any) expedited for good cause and due by 3/12/2025; Response due by 3/19/2025.

Signed by Ch. Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres on 3/4/2025. See attached document for full details. (EGT)

What is the lawsuit about? Executive Summary (by Adobe AI modified)

 

 

More Docs

Dr. Edwin Hernandez and EGLA CORP second amended complaint against Stingray Group, Stingray Music, MOOD Media,  AT&T,  Millicom, and Blue Stream Inc. Complaint Case: 1-24-cv-21226-RAR) is here:

Document 82 - Second Amended Complaint

Some of the Trello.com evidence here (No longer available online):

Exhibit 11 - C- EGLA-TRELLO-00520-00654 Exhibit 10 - EGLA-TRELLO-00001-00519

There is an admission then by Stingray Group, of proprietary nature of the contents and trouble tickets that were initially attached to the complaint, and now also available in the “Second Amended Complaint” and in the  Dr. Hernandez’ declaration that is part of the preliminary injunction.

The IPRs and “Merry Christmas” from Stingray and Defendants

Stringray proceed to file IPRs on the patents and submitted: 

• IPR2025-00349  – Responses due  March, 2025
• IPR2025-00350 – Responses due March, 2025
• IPR2025-00351 – Responses due  March, 2025

MOTION TO STAY THE CASE – DENIED

Wednesday, February 12, 2025

190

order Order on Motion to Stay Wed 02/12 10:52 AM PAPERLESS ORDER denying 184 Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review (“Motion”). Defendants argue that this case should be stayed pending Defendants’ appeal of Plaintiffs’ three asserted patents before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). See 184 at 4. Defendants contend that a stay would conserve resources and preserve judicial economy. Plaintiffs disagree, stating that six of the nine claims against Defendants do not depend on the validity of Plaintiffs’ patents, and further noting that a stay would frustrate judicial economy and unduly burden Plaintiffs in the pursuit of their claims. See 185 at 2. Upon careful review, the Court DENIES the Motion. Defendants bear the burden of showing why a stay is warranted, and a court evaluates a motion for a stay holistically. See DataQuill Ltd. v. BLU Prods., Inc. , No. 20-20760 [ECF No. 21], at 3 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 10, 2020); see also Advanced Bodycare Sols., LLC v. Thione Int’l, Inc. , 524 F.3d 1235, 1241 (11th Cir. 2008) (noting that district courts possess inherent, discretionary authority to issue stays in many circumstances). In evaluating a motion to stay pending inter partes review, the Court considers whether (1) the stay would unduly prejudice Plaintiffs; (2) whether the stay would simplify issues in question and trial of the case; and (3) whether discovery is complete and a trial date has been set. See Targus Int’l LLC v. Grp. III Int’l, Inc. , No. 20-21435 2021 WL 542675, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 8, 2021). Here, a stay would unduly prejudice Plaintiffs given that the PTAB will only resolve three of the nine claims that Plaintiffs have brought against Defendants. None of the six remaining claims depend on the validity of the patents that the PTAB will review. See InVue Sec. Prods. Inc. v. Vanguard Prods. Grp., Inc. , No. 18-2548 2019 WL 3958272, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 22, 2019) (“[A] party may be prejudiced when it has other claims pending that do not depend on the validity of the patent involved in the inter partes review and would nevertheless be put on hold during the stay.”). The timing of the Motion also weighs against granting a stay, given that Defendants have petitioned for inter partes review three years after receiving notice of potentially infringing activity and nine months after Plaintiffs filed their suit. See MiMedx Grp., Inc. v. Liventa Bioscience, Inc. , No. 14-1178 2015 WL 13907479, at *4-5 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 6, 2015) (finding that a nine-month period between filing a complaint and a petition for inter partes review would weigh against granting a stay). And in any event, granting a stay would prejudice Plaintiffs–and the Court’s judicial efficiency–because Defendants have only submitted a petition for inter partes review without the PTAB ruling on a post-grant review petition. See VirtualAgility Inc. v. Salesforce.com, Inc. , 759 F.3d 1307, 1315-16 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“While a motion to stay could be granted even before the PTAB rules on a post-grant review petition, no doubt the case for a stay is stronger after post-grant review has been instituted.”). Staying the case, and precluding Plaintiffs from litigating their claims based on the possible expectation that the PTAB will grant review, is no sensible way for the parties to fairly litigate their case or for the Court to efficiently adjudicate this matter. As mentioned, two-thirds of Plaintiffs’ claims are unrelated to the patent claims the PTAB would resolve. Simplifying Defendants’ defenses as to one-third of Plaintiffs’ claims would not resolve most of the causes of action asserted in the Complaint; even if inter partes proceedings began, the Court would still have to resolve the remainder of Plaintiffs’ claims. The weight of authority does not support the suggestion that courts should grant stays pending inter partes review where there are non-patent claims unaffected by that proceeding. See, e.g. , MiMedx Grp. , 2015 WL 13907479, at *4 (finding that that IPR would not streamline issues because plaintiff brought patent infringement, trademark, and unfair competition claims against defendant); DataQuill Ltd. , [ECF No. 21], at 4 (“Courts generally deny a stay when not all the patents-at-issue have been challenged and the unchallenged patents would ‘languish.'”) (citation omitted); Payrange, Inc. v. Kiosoft Techs., LLC , No. 20-20970 2020 WL 9158402, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 23, 2020) (denying motion to stay because “[r]eview will only resolve issues relating to the ‘296 Patent” and “claims relating to the ‘996 Patent will still have to be litigated”). A trial date has already been set, and staying the case would hinder an efficacious resolution of this matter. If the Court grants a stay of the whole case in order for the PTAB to adjudicate three of Plaintiffs’ nine claims, it risks delaying the current trial date of October 2025 to an indeterminate date, given that, if the PTAB hears the case, it will have until July 2026 to issue a final decision on the validity of the at-issue patents. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c). And if the PTAB extends its own deadline, a final decision may not arise until December 2026. See id. . Given that the parties have begun filing claim-construction briefs, see 188 , 189 , and given that the existing trial date is set for October 2025, it makes little sense to delay litigation through a stay for a limited set of issues that may take months to resolve. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendants’ 184 Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review. Signed by Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz, II on 2/12/2025. (nn00)

Dr. Hernandez and EGLA CORP Attorneys

EGLA CORP and Dr. Hernandez are represented by Gray Robinson and Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP