In summary, several events took place these past weeks all related to our litigation efforts and switching counsel to Rob Drolet’s Patent Prosecution & Shutts and Bowen, as new counsel.
- Me as a Patent Owner filed IPR Replies to the “Instituted Review ” by the PTAB for the portfolio of patents in the S.D of Florida litigation
- MOOD MEDIA’s Motion for Summary Judgement showed strong arguments by Judge Torres that create a high bar for MOOD MEDIA to overcome.
- MOOD MEDIA’s Motion for Bond denied with strong arguments by Judge Torres
- Stingray Council misrepresented at a hearing several facts that are not true, hence they must be backed down by council.
- Patent claims are stayed, simplifying trial complexity and at this moment trial date is set for: March 2026, Breach of Contract, Trade Secrets Counts.
- Admissions at hearings and discovery disputes with defendants, specially Trello tickets EGLA-TRELLO-00001-00519.pdf and EGLA-TRELLO-000520-000654.pdf that are in the complaint.
IPR Replies File to PTAB Board
Stingray filed IPRs against the Patents I created specifically related to US Patents: 10,123,074, 10,524,002 and 11,140,441, using three references, and more than 25 combinations, that include Durante, Whisler, Povlavskaia, and many more.
Avellan, Faber, and Wanamaker showed many deficiency in arguments as presented in the reply report and POR. This case has been ongoing with 3 IPRs filed against my patent, under IPR2025-00349, IPR2025-00350, and IPR2025-0351.
- As simple as, Avellan relies on a “Web to HD Video Protocol” that does not exist.
- Farber points to a music source with an XML Tag that says “CD Value” not a music file
- Wannamaker relies on an MMS module that uses Motorola’s IC1000 that does not support generating a multicast, plus it is an analog system that uses QAM Multiplexers
Petitioner Expert Witness Testified that Did not Analyze all the Claims
As shown by, Mr. Lipoff deposition, he expressed that, “I’m adopting the citations –excuse me, adopting the citations that are in the petition.” Adopting the citations from a petition in an IPR is heavily questioned by PTAB judges and needs to be viewed under:
5 I do have some specific detail in my — in my
6 declaration on Element 1D, but for the other elements, I
7 indicate that I’m adopting the citations — excuse me,
8 adopting the citations that are in the petition.Lipoff Declaration at IPR – PTAB EX2053 117:5-9, See also EX2054
See for example the precedential case of February 10th, 2023:
Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper No. 9 (Aug 24, 2022) (designated precedential Feb. 10, 2023)
In our case against Stingray and Mood Media, we received an opinion and recommendation by Judge Torres as follows:
MOOD MEDIA’s Motion for Summary Judgement was Denied by Judge Torres
Judge Torres, made a through analysis in the Motion to Summary Judgment Recommendations, as those are being handled by him as follows:
DE350. Report and Recommendation Def MSJ
MOOD MEDIA’s Motion for Bond was Denied by Judge Torres
Mood Media filed a Motion for Bond, such that EGLA CORP and Myself had to post a bond for their attorneys fees and their trial, among other statements that did not have any substantive weight in this case.
Next, the movants argue that they are likely to win attorneys’ fees and costs. But this puts the cart before the horse. Again, Plaintiffs’ claims have survived both a motion to dismiss and, pending the Undersigned’s report and recommendation, a motion for summary judgment. This does not mean the claims will necessarily succeed at trial. But it does prevent us from expressing certainty that Mood Media not only will prevail on all claims, but will satisfy the “bad faith” attorneys fees standard.
See:
ORDER denying [285] Mood Media’s Motion for Pre-Judgment Bond
Signed by Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres on 9/19/2025. See attached document for full details. (MJS)