Untitled case

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the docket and party details.

I have strong docket data. Now let me dig into the IPRs, the accused products, and how the case ended.

Key finding: the case was transferred to W.D. Wash. Let me verify the transfer, the '622 patent itself, and any Amazon IPRs.

Case overview: Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 6:20-cv-00553-ADA (W.D. Tex.), now Flexiworld Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-01055-DGE (W.D. Wash.)

Parties and posture. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. — assignee of the patents, with an address of record in Vancouver, Washington and named inventors William Ho Chang and Christina Ying Liu — is the plaintiff. Docket aggregators classify the patent owner as an NPE/licensing entity; the portfolio itself grew out of early-2000s wireless output concepts (the "information apparatus"/output-device family claiming priority to applications filed beginning in 2001). I could not independently verify Flexiworld's current operating versus licensing status in this research pass, so treat the NPE characterization as a docket-tag rather than a verified business fact. The defendants were Amazon.com, Inc.; Amazon.com Services, Inc.; and Amazon Web Services, Inc. The case was filed June 22, 2020 in the Waco Division and assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright — the peak of W.D. Tex.'s dominance of patent filings — under 35 U.S.C. § 271. Amazon promptly signaled it would move to transfer to the Western District of Washington and to challenge jurisdiction (Sept. 3, 2020 scheduling-conference minute entry). The W.D. Tex. docket shows the case terminated 8/2/2021, with the docket entries carried over to W.D. Wash. as "Transferred from txwd on 8/9/2021," renumbered 2:21-cv-01055-DGE. So the venue story matters twice over: Flexiworld filed in the country's most plaintiff-friendly patent venue, and Amazon succeeded in pulling the case home to Seattle, where it proceeded to claim construction (Order Regarding Claim Construction, Dkt. 161, filed 3/5/2024) and into discovery in 2024–25 (non-party Mopria deposition subpoena litigation in N.D. Cal., Dec. 2024). The final disposition is not confirmed by the sources I could reach; one docket aggregator lists the Washington case as closed, which conflicts with the late-2024 discovery activity.

Patents and accused technology. The AO 120 filed with the complaint identifies five patents asserted at the outset — 8,332,521; 8,989,064; 9,110,622; 10,133,527; 10,140,072 — with five more added by later pleading: 10,162,596; 10,387,087; 10,481,846; 10,489,096; 10,642,576 (ten total). This is consistent with Amazon's Dec. 2, 2020 motion to exceed the court's claim-term limit, which states that "Flexiworld has asserted 91 claims across 10 patents against Amazon" and describes the asserted claims as spanning printing, audio/video retrieval and transmission, digital-content manipulation, voice commands, touch controls, wireless data transmission, speaker audio, and user/device authentication. Technically, the portfolio is one sprawling continuation family covering a mobile "information apparatus" that wirelessly discovers output devices and pushes content to them. Illustrative face descriptions: the '596 patent claims a portable electronic device configured to receive voice-activated commands and to wirelessly manage or drive an output device (TV, printer, speaker, projector); the '064 patent claims a wireless controller wire-connectable to output devices such as televisions; the '521 patent claims center on "output manager software," which Amazon argued was a § 112 ¶ 6 means-plus-function term reciting seven functions; and the '527/'072/'087/'846/'096/'576 patents continue the wireless-printing and content-rendering/casting themes. I was unable to verify the face title of the '622 patent in this session — it issued Aug. 18, 2015 and sits in the same wireless-output family, but I won't guess at its exact title. The accused technology is Amazon's Echo/Alexa smart-speaker line and related products and services (contemporaneous reporting on the June 2020 filing describes the Echo as the target); by the Washington phase the case also reached Fire tablets and wireless printing via the Mopria Print Service, per the Mopria 30(b)(6) subpoena briefing, which refers to "an Accused Fire Tablet" printing wirelessly to a printer.

Why it's notable. First, it is a case study in the W.D. Tex. transfer wars: a June 2020 Waco filing against Amazon that ended up in the defendant's home district roughly 13 months later, before the Albright docket's transfer rate became a national story. Second, it is part of a broad, multi-front Flexiworld campaign in which the same or sibling patents were asserted against Roku (Nos. 6:20-cv-00819, 6:21-cv-00680, 6:21-cv-00767, 6:21-cv-00882, with a standing/ownership fight over a Samsung assignment resolved in Flexiworld's favor on June 6, 2022), Canon (6:21-cv-00143, voluntarily dismissed with prejudice Aug. 26, 2021 after an agreement in principle), Lexmark (E.D. Ky. Nos. 5:22-cv-00097/98), and Hisense (2023), plus an older communications-patent assertion (US 7,099,304 against Skype) that drew a Unified Patents crowdsourced prior-art contest with a $1,500 award (March 2025). Third, the IPR linkage runs through Roku, not Amazon as far as I could verify: Roku filed IPR2021-00713, -00714, -00715 and PGR2021-00112 against Flexiworld, litigating Fintiv discretionary-denial arguments with the Amazon case cited as a co-pending proceeding — and all of it ended in an October 21, 2022 patent license agreement that terminated the PGR and the IPRs and dismissed the Roku litigation with prejudice. I could not verify that Amazon itself filed PTAB petitions against these patents; if any exist, they did not surface in my searches, so I flag that as a gap rather than asserting it either way. Fourth, the market context is the mid-2020 smart-speaker/IoT boom and the "wirelessly connect a phone to an output device" concept space, where Flexiworld holds unusually early priority dates — which is precisely why defendants have attacked the patents on standing (assignment/ownership) and written-description grounds as much as on prior art.

I'll research this case thoroughly using web searches.

Good, I've identified the case. Let me dig deeper into the transfer, the W.D. Wash. proceedings, and PTAB challenges.

Let me research the final disposition in Washington and any IPRs on the '622 patent specifically.

Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. – Chronology & Disposition

Case I.D. Flexiworld Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.; Amazon.com Services LLC; Amazon Web Services, Inc., No. 6:20-cv-00553-ADA (W.D. Tex., Waco Div., Judge Alan D. Albright), filed 2020-06-22; transferred and docketed in W.D. Wash. as No. 2:21-cv-01055-DGE (Judge David G. Estudillo). Cause: 35 U.S.C. § 271. Jury demand by both sides.

Asserted patents (10): U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,332,521; 8,989,064; 9,110,622; 10,133,527; 10,140,072 (all listed on the original AO-120 filing, 2020-06-22), plus 10,162,596; 10,387,087; 10,481,846; 10,489,096; 10,642,576 added by amendment. So the '622 patent was one of the five originally asserted patents — this answers the open question flagged in the prior summary: yes, the '622 was asserted.

Caveat on sourcing: I was working from PACER/RECAP aggregator dockets (Docket Alarm, CourtListener/RECAP, Justia, Unified Patents, Ex Parte, PTAB CTS) and court opinions, not a full hands-on PACER docket pull. Items below are marked where I could not confirm a document. I did not find any PTAB proceeding directed at the '622 patent.

---

1. Filing & initial pleadings (2020)

• 2020-06-22 – Original Complaint for patent infringement filed in W.D. Tex. (Waco), No. 6:20-cv-00553, naming Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services (LLC/Inc.), and Amazon Web Services, Inc. The AO-120 report of filing lists the five originally asserted patents including the '622. Press coverage at filing (2020-06-30, ThePaper.cn) characterized the suit as targeting Amazon's Echo smart-speaker products and recited the same 10-patent set.
• 2020-07/08 – Amazon's deadline to answer or otherwise respond was extended (text order granting an unopposed motion) to 2020-08-17. (The exact original answer/counterclaim filing was not retrieved; on the face of the docket the defense's pleading included invalidity and non-infringement positions, but I could not verify whether counterclaims were pleaded and am not asserting that they were.)
• 2020-11-10 – Court's standing order setting a presumptive 12-claim-term limit for claim construction (triggered at five or more patents) took effect mid-negotiation, per Amazon's later motion (Dkt. 46).
• 2020-12-02 – Amazon's Opposed Motion to Exceed Presumptive Limit of Claim Terms for Construction (Dkt. 50 / Dkt. 46 in the numbered docket). Amazon noted Flexiworld had asserted 91 claims across 10 patents and sought leave to brief 16 terms, including two large § 112 ¶ 6 (means-plus-function) groupings ("output manager software" in the '521 patent and "software component stored at the memory unit of the wireless controller" in the '064 patent). Amazon argued that if there was no corresponding structure, the claims were invalid and the case could be narrowed early.
• 2021-02-23 – Text orders allowing withdrawal of Amazon's counsel Wing H. Liang and of Flexiworld's counsel Eric M. Albritton and Andrew J. Wright (counsel realignment early in the case).
• ~2021-03/06 – Amazon's Unopposed Motion for Discovery of License and Assignment Agreements granted: Flexiworld ordered to produce all license/assignment agreements covering Flexiworld patents, subject to a confidentiality designation. This was the seed of the patent-ownership/standing defense that later became dispositive in the parallel Roku litigation (see §6).

2. Pre-trial motions of substance in W.D. Tex.

• 2021-07-12 – Discovery hearing before Judge Albright (Dkt. 88). "The Court, upon discovering that there were outstanding dispositive motions, determined that this case will be stayed for a period of 3 weeks" while the Court ruled on the pending motions. (This three-week stay later mattered to the PTAB's Fintiv analysis in the Roku IPRs, where Flexiworld argued it showed the Amazon case was not materially delayed.)
• 2021-08-02 – Order granting Amazon's motion to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (ECF No. 98), transferring the case to the W.D. Wash. Docket shows "Date Terminated: 08/02/2021" in W.D. Tex. This was a notable outcome in Judge Albright's Waco docket.
• 2021-08-06 – Flexiworld's Motion for Reconsideration of the transfer order (ECF No. 99); Amazon's response (ECF No. 100); Flexiworld's reply (ECF No. 102, 2021-08-20).
• 2021-10-01 – W.D. Tex. order at Dkt. 103 resolving the reconsideration motion. The opinion first held the transferor court retained jurisdiction because the motion was filed after the transfer order but before the W.D. Wash. clerk docketed the case ("Some court must necessarily have jurisdiction over an ongoing case at all times"), and then analyzed the motion under the Rule 59(e) standard (intervening change in law / newly discovered evidence / manifest error). I could not confirm the ultimate merits disposition of the reconsideration motion from the retrieved excerpt, though Dkt. 103 is the operative ruling and the case proceeded in Washington thereafter.

3. Claim construction (Markman) – W.D. Wash.

• 2024-03-05 – Order Regarding Claims Construction, Case No. 2:21-cv-01055-DGE, Dkt. 161 (17 pages). Key rulings:
  • "Output manager software" ('521 patent, claim 15): the court treated Amazon's § 112 ¶ 6 indefiniteness challenge as the central dispute, framing the two-step Williamson analysis and the rule that a patentee must disclose adequate structure for all claimed functions or the claim is indefinite. Amazon bore the burden of showing the term is means-plus-function, and argued the claim recites eight functions with no disclosed structure for any of them. (The retrieved opinion text cuts off in the middle of the § 112 analysis; I could not confirm whether the court ultimately found the limitation indefinite.)
  • "Data generation software component" ('846 patent, claim 7): the court rejected Amazon's § 112 ¶ 6 / indefiniteness argument, following WSOU Investments LLC v. [Microsoft] (Fed. Cir. 2023): combining broadly-named structures with a description of intended accomplishment ("generate print data") conveys definite structure. Held: not subject to § 112 ¶ 6, not indefinite, no construction required. This was a win for Flexiworld on that term.
  • Amazon's opening claim-construction brief was Dkt. 142; Flexiworld's response/authorities at Dkt. 144-10, 144-14 and Dkt. 149.
  • Note: the March 2024 order addresses the '521 and '846 patents only. The '622 patent does not appear in the retrieved opinion text, which suggests the case had narrowed substantially from the original ten patents by claim construction (or that the '622 terms simply were not among the disputed terms — the two are not distinguishable on my current evidence).

4. Discovery milestones with strategic significance

• 2021-06 – Flexiworld served two third-party subpoenas on the Mopria Alliance (document subpoena and Rule 30(b)(6) deposition subpoena), directed at the "Mopria Print Service" app that Mopria developed and supplied to Amazon for inclusion in certain Fire tablets — a direct line to the accused print functionality, and a way to reach source code Amazon relied on from a third party.
• 2022-06-06 – In the parallel Roku case (No. 6:20-cv-00819-ADA, Dkt. 198), Judge Albright issued a patent-ownership / standing ruling construing a 2011 Flexiworld→Samsung Electronics assignment (U.S. Pat. 7,941,541, App. Ser. No. 13/103,958, and continuations, with "inventions described in any of the foregoing" language). Roku argued the assignment transferred the later-asserted Flexiworld patents. This ownership theory was developed off the same license/assignment-agreement discovery ordered in the Amazon case in 2021, and it remains the most dangerous structural defense in the Flexiworld campaign.
• 2024-07-01 → 2024-10-31 – Mopria produced 1,200+ pages of documents in response to Flexiworld's subpoenas.
• 2024-10-22/23 – Flexiworld's expert inspected Mopria's source code for the Mopria Print Service app at Mopria's counsel's offices; 64 pages of source code were printed and produced 2024-10-30 under the protective order.
• 2024-11-18 → 2024-12/2025 – Deposition meet-and-confer breakdown. Mopria moved to quash the Rule 30(b)(6) subpoena, contending its sole managing agent (Executive Director Kevin/Keven Schader) lacked the technical expertise to testify on the noticed topics (data formats, protocols, print-job processing, "HP's interactions with Amazon"), and that topics were overbroad and sought Amazon-party information.

5. Trial, post-trial motions, and final disposition

• No trial, verdict, JMOL, or fee motion was identified. The W.D. Wash. docket shows case flags CLOSED, JURYDEMAND, STAYED, TRANSIN, and the case was terminated 2025-07-28. I was unable to retrieve the termination document (e.g., stipulated dismissal or consent judgment), so I cannot state on the record whether the end was a settlement, voluntary dismissal, or other disposition — only that it closed without a reported trial or merits judgment. Treat the "no settlement announced" as unverified.
• 2025-03-05 → 2025-04-23 – Collateral discovery skirmish: Mopria's motion to quash was filed in N.D. Cal. (4:25-mc-80055-KAW), and Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore granted Mopria's unopposed request to transfer the motion to W.D. Wash. (2025-03-12), where it became No. 2:25-mc-00018 (Judge John H. Chun). Mopria re-filed its motion to quash (Dkt. 9) on 2025-04-08; Flexiworld responded (Dkt. 15) and filed the Ginnings declaration (Dkt. 16) on 2025-04-10. The parties then filed a Joint Stipulated Notice of Dismissal Without Prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) (Dkt. 17, 2025-04-22), and the miscellaneous case was terminated 2025-04-23. The dismissal of the Mopria subpoena ancillary case is consistent with (and may have followed from) resolution of the underlying Amazon litigation, but the two are separate dockets.

6. Parallel PTAB proceedings (and their effect)

On the '622 patent specifically: I found no IPR, PGR, or CBM challenging U.S. Pat. No. 9,110,622. That is a negative finding from my searches, not a certified PTAB docket check — treat it as "none identified."

Related Flexiworld PTAB activity (all on other patents in the same family, most filed by Roku, Inc., not Amazon):

Effect on the Amazon litigation: none of the Flexiworld PTAB proceedings ran to a final written decision against an Amazon-asserted patent in this case. The Roku IPRs largely evaporated via the October 2022 Roku–Flexiworld global settlement, which mooted the Fintiv fight Flexiworld had been waging (its briefs expressly tied the PTAB timetable to the Amazon case's schedule and to shared counsel). The one substantive PTAB merits decision in the family (IPR2022-00775) went Flexiworld's way on priority, insulating the family from the earlier-art attack.

---

Bottom line / present posture

• The '622 patent was asserted against Amazon in the original 2020-06-22 complaint — the prior summary's open question is resolved.
• The case's most consequential development was venue: Judge Albright transferred the case out of W.D. Tex. to W.D. Wash. on 2021-08-02 over Flexiworld's objection, and then ruled (2021-10-01, Dkt. 103) on the reconsideration motion that Flexiworld filed in the jurisdictional gap between the transfer order and the transferee docketing.
• The Washington case (2:21-cv-01055-DGE) reached claim construction on 2024-03-05 (Dkt. 161) — Flexiworld won the "data generation software component" § 112 ¶ 6 fight; Amazon's "output manager software" indefiniteness attack on the '521 patent was pending on the face of the retrieved text.
• No trial, verdict, or merits judgment. The case terminated 2025-07-28, with the docket flagged CLOSED/STAYED, after a late discovery war over the Mopria Print Service third-party subpoena (which itself was dismissed in April 2025).

Explicitly unverified (do not rely on these without a PACER pull): Amazon's Answer/counterclaim content; whether the March 2024 construction order ruled for or against Amazon on "output manager software"; whether the '622 patent remained live at the Markman stage; the exact document and terms of the 2025-07-28 termination; and whether any IPR on the '622 exists.

I'll research this case's docket and counsel of record. Let me start with several searches.

Found the case identity. Now let me pin down the plaintiff's counsel of record from the docket sheet.

I have the docket sheet. Let me verify the plaintiff-side attorney roster, including the original complaint signature block and later firm renames.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.

Flexiworld Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.; Amazon.com Services LLC; Amazon Web Services, Inc.
No. 6:20-cv-00553-ADA (W.D. Tex., Waco Div.), Judge Alan D. Albright — filed 6/22/2020; docket reflects termination 8/2/2021.

Bottom line

Every attorney of record for Flexiworld in this case came from a single firm — Nelson Bumgardner Albritton P.C. (now Nelson Bumgardner Conroy P.C.), which appears to have staffed the matter out of its Fort Worth, Texas and Orland Park, Illinois offices. There was no separate local-counsel firm and no in-house counsel on the appearance list. Two attorneys (Eric M. Albritton and Andrew J. Wright) withdrew in February 2021; one (Joseph P. Oldaker) was terminated in June 2021.

Sourcing note: The best primary source available for the appearance list is a PACER docket sheet for this case that was captured as Exhibit 2032 in Roku, Inc. v. Flexiworld Techs., Inc., IPR2021-00715 (PTO), dated 9/1/2021 — docketalarm PDF. That snapshot post-dates the two February 2021 withdrawals, so it reflects the roster as it stood at case close. I was not able to independently re-pull the live PACER docket, so treat titles below as of that 9/1/2021 snapshot.

Plaintiff's counsel of record

Also worth flagging (not shown as district-court counsel of record): Brent N. Bumgardner (Reg. No. 48,476), the firm's founding partner in Fort Worth, is the lead counsel for Flexiworld in the parallel Roku IPRs arising from these same patents (IPR2021-00714 Patent Owner notices), but I did not find him listed on the Amazon case's attorney roster. Because Exhibit 2032 is a partially OCR'd capture, I can't rule out that his appearance exists on the full live docket — verify on PACER before relying on his absence.

Points of caution (no fabrication intended)

• Titles: The docket only distinguishes "LEAD ATTORNEY" vs. "ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED." Only Ginnings and Grochocinski are expressly labeled lead. The others' "role" descriptions (case attorney/of counsel) are my characterization based on docket labeling and their conduct of the case, not verbatim docket designations.
• Firm name changes: The firm operated as Nelson Bumgardner Albritton P.C. during 2020–2021 and is now Nelson Bumgardner Conroy P.C. (emails migrated from @nbafirm.com to @nelbum.com). One aggregator URL also renders the firm as "Nelson Bumgardner Casto" — treat that as a data-vendor artifact, not a separate firm.
• Sealed material: The docket contains multiple sealed filings (e.g., text orders granting leave to file under seal, Dkts. 32, 36, 39, 48), but the appearances themselves were not sealed — the roster above is from the public docket sheet.
• Case posture: This matter did not end in a judgment here. The docket shows termination 8/2/2021, and the case name/number reappears in W.D. Wash. as Flexiworld Technologies Inc v. Amazon Web Services Inc et al, 2:21-cv-01055-DGE, with W.D. Tex. filings re-docketed there. Judge Albright later issued a short opinion citing the rule that a court "relinquishes all jurisdiction over a case when it is transferred to another district court," 2021 WL 12301178 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 1, 2021) (No. W-20-CV-00553-ADA). I'd confirm the transfer order and any renewed appearances in the W.D. Wash. docket before treating the above roster as current for post-transfer proceedings.
• Patents: Contrary to the prior summary's single-patent framing, the complaint asserted ten patents, including US 9,110,622, per the PTO's AO-120 filing report and the Amazon briefing (91 claims across 10 patents) — AO-120; Amazon motion, Dkt. 50.

One-line experience notes (sourced vs. unsourced)

The specific "notable past cases" for Ginnings, Grochocinski, and the firm are grounded in the Flexiworld campaign documents cited above (Lexmark, Canon, Roku, Hisense, and the Roku/Unified IPRs). I did not locate reliable, citable biographical or representative-matter pages for Rastegar, Griffin, or Oldaker in this research pass, and I have not invented any — their entries above are limited to docket facts. Similarly, I've deliberately avoided assigning case outcomes or win/loss records to any attorney without a source.

I'll research the defense-side roster for this case, starting with the W.D. Tex. docket and the W.D. Wash. transferred docket.

Strong leads: Perkins Coie in W.D. Tex., Fenwick & West in W.D. Wash. Let me verify the full rosters and the transition.

Now let me pin down the remaining names and the Perkins Coie → Fenwick transition.

Defense Counsel of Record — Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al.

Bottom line: The defense was staffed by a two-firm relay. In the W.D. Tex. phase (No. 6:20-cv-00553-ADA), Amazon was represented exclusively by Perkins Coie LLP, with a Texas-barred Austin lawyer as the in-district anchor and Palo Alto/Seattle IP litigators admitted pro hac vice. In the W.D. Wash. phase (No. 2:21-cv-01055-DGE), the defense team is Fenwick & West LLP — Seattle partners as LCR 83.1 local counsel and Mountain View/New York litigators admitted pro hac vice — led by J. David Hadden, one of Amazon's principal outside patent litigators. I found no in-house Amazon counsel on the appearance list in either district.

---

Phase 1 — W.D. Tex. (6:20-cv-00553-ADA), 2020–Aug. 2021: Perkins Coie LLP

Sourced from the PACER docket sheet captured as *Exhibit 2032 in Roku, Inc. v. Flexiworld Techs., Inc., IPR2021-00715* (docket sheet PDF) and the signature block of Amazon's Dec. 2, 2020 filing, Dkt. 50 (Dkt. 50).

Caveat: the docket-sheet text I could retrieve was partially truncated/OCR'd (the Shvodian entry is cut off mid-listing), so a small number of additional Perkins Coie appearances on the live PACER sheet cannot be excluded. All seven names above are affirmatively sourced, not inferred.

---

Phase 2 — W.D. Wash. (2:21-cv-01055-DGE), Aug. 2021 onward: Fenwick & West LLP

Sourced from the certificate of service in Mopria Alliance, Inc.'s motion to quash/transfer (N.D. Cal. Misc. No. 3:25-mc-80015, filed 3/5/2025, CourtListener PDF) — which lists Amazon's counsel block verbatim — and the Law360 docket entries for the W.D. Wash. case (Law360 Fenwick docket page).

The pro hac vice orders name the defendants as "Amazon Web Services Inc, Amazon.com Inc, Amazon.com LLC and Amazon.com Services Inc" (Law360) — note the addition of Amazon.com LLC to the caption as it appears in the Washington phase, versus the three-entity caption in the Texas AO-120. Flagging that as a docket-caption variance I could not fully reconcile, not as a new party.

---

Unresolved defense-side names (do not rely on these)

A UniCourt aggregator entry for 2:21-cv-01055 lists, among the case attorneys and without side attribution: Ruchika Verma, Christopher Kelley, and Arthur W. Harrigan, Jr. (UniCourt). I was unable to verify which party any of these three represents — the aggregator's list is a merged plaintiff/defendant roster and I exhausted my search budget before resolving them. Treat all three as unverified; the same list also contains Tyler Lawrence Farmer, who appears in the Mopria certificate of service as Tyler L. Farmer of Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, Seattle, together with Shane P. Cramer and Chelsey L. Mam — and a Patexia docket entry records "NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Chelsey Lyn Mam on behalf of Plaintiff Flexiworld Technologies Inc." That cluster therefore appears to be plaintiff-side W.D. Wash. local counsel, not defense. I flag it because it is a correction/addendum to the earlier "Plaintiff representatives" section, which stated there was no separate local-counsel firm: that statement holds for the W.D. Tex. phase, but a Bryan Cave Seattle team appears to have entered for Flexiworld after transfer to Washington. Verify on the live W.D. Wash. docket before relying on it.

Sourcing notes and open items

• The Perkins Coie → Fenwick handoff is well evidenced but the formal substitution paper is not in hand. Fenwick appears on the case from the Washington phase's outset (Aug. 2021 per Law360/Kuncheria's case history; Fenwick's firm docket page carries the case), and by the March 2025 Mopria briefing Fenwick is the only firm on Amazon's service block. I did not locate the withdrawal/substitution motion that retired Perkins Coie, so I have not asserted a date for it.
• No in-house counsel (e.g., an Amazon legal-department attorney) appears on either attorney roster. If one entered an appearance under seal or in a later filing, I could not see it.
• Sealed material: this case has multiple sealed filings (Dkts. 32, 36, 39, 48 and others in the Texas phase). Appearances themselves are public in both districts, so the tables above are not affected — but any sealed ex parte motion to substitute counsel would not surface.
• Not verified for this case: specific win/loss records for Irwin, Ware, Ranganath, Long, Lin, and McGann. Their entries above are limited to docket and service-list facts; I have not invented experience notes for them.
• Related-party note for context: Flexiworld's parallel Roku IPRs were handled by Wolf Greenfield/Roku-side and Nelson Bumgardner/Flexiworld-side counsel — those rosters are not Amazon's and should not be conflated with the tables above.