Untitled case

The case 22-1540 at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) involves Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. as the appellant, though the specific appellee (defendant) is not directly identified by the CAFC case number alone in the initial search results. However, broader searches for Flexiworld Technologies' patent litigation reveal a pattern of the company, which is a wireless communication technology company, asserting its portfolio of over 150 U.S. patents against major technology companies. Flexiworld has sued various companies for alleged infringement of its wireless connectivity and streaming patents. In one related case, Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. sued Amazon for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (later transferred to the Western District of Washington), asserting ten patents, including some dealing with touchscreen input and wireless connectivity, against Amazon's Echo smart speakers and related smart devices (Echo Buds, Echo devices, Echo Show devices, Fire Tablets, and Fire TV devices). Given the provided patent, 9,905,691, further investigation suggests its relation to this broader pattern of assertion. A technical sketch of U.S. Patent 9,905,691, titled "Methods and apparatus for wirelessly communicating content using an object model or an application programming interface," describes systems and methods for wirelessly transmitting or streaming protected digital content to client devices, often involving touchscreen input and wireless connectivity.

This specific case (CAFC 22-1540) is an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the court with nationwide appellate jurisdiction over patent cases. The procedural posture indicates that this case has moved beyond a district court's initial ruling and is now undergoing review for legal errors, such as claim construction or summary judgment findings, which is a common occurrence in patent litigation. The CAFC's rulings are particularly notable as they set precedent for patent eligibility and infringement across the United States. Flexiworld Technologies has a history of engaging in significant patent litigation, often against large tech companies, suggesting this case is part of a broader strategy to enforce its extensive patent portfolio. The fact that the case is at the Federal Circuit implies a potentially significant dispute, likely involving complex patent law issues or substantial commercial implications, common when NPEs (Non-Practicing Entities) or PAEs (Patent Assertion Entities), which Flexiworld appears to be, assert patents against operating companies.This case, identified as CAFC No. 22-1540, involves an appeal at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concerning U.S. Patent 9,905,691. The appellant is Flexiworld Technologies, Inc., a wireless communication technology company with a substantial patent portfolio, encompassing over 150 U.S. patents related to wireless connectivity and streaming. While the specific appellee in this CAFC case isn't explicitly named by the case number alone in the initial search, Flexiworld Technologies is known for asserting its patents against major technology companies, including Amazon, Apple, HP, Roku, Xerox, Lexmark, and Sony. In a related district court case, Flexiworld sued Amazon for infringement involving its Echo smart speakers and related smart devices (Echo Buds, Echo, Echo Plus, Echo Dot, Echo Show, Fire Tablets, and Fire TV devices), alleging infringement of several patents, some of which relate to touchscreen input and wireless connectivity. U.S. Patent 9,905,691, "Methods and apparatus for wirelessly communicating content using an object model or an application programming interface," generally covers systems and methods for wirelessly transmitting or streaming protected digital content to client devices.

The procedural posture places this case at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which holds exclusive nationwide appellate jurisdiction over patent matters originating from district courts and certain agencies. This means the case has progressed beyond a trial court's decision, and the parties are now seeking review of legal issues, such as claim construction or summary judgment rulings. The CAFC serves as the ultimate arbiter for many patent disputes, as Supreme Court review is discretionary and limited. The case is notable because Flexiworld Technologies appears to operate as a patent assertion entity (PAE) or non-practicing entity (NPE), consistently enforcing its extensive patent portfolio against major operating companies in the tech industry. This pattern of assertion, coupled with the CAFC's role in shaping patent law, makes the outcome potentially significant for the industry, particularly concerning technologies involving wireless communication, digital content streaming, and smart devices. The Federal Circuit's decisions impact the standards for patent eligibility and infringement across various emerging technologies.

Legal Developments and Outcome for Patent Infringement Litigation Involving US Patent 9,905,691

This analysis focuses on the patent infringement litigation primarily involving SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:22-cv-00149-ADA, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, as it directly concerns US Patent No. 9,905,691. While the prompt references Federal Circuit case number 22-1540, public web searches did not definitively link this specific Federal Circuit case number to an opinion or docket with parties or events directly involving US Patent 9,905,691, or a final appeal from the SpaceTime3D v. Apple district court action. However, a related Federal Circuit mandamus petition, In re: Apple Inc., CAFC Case No. 23-120, did arise from the district court proceedings concerning this patent.

Below is a chronological summary of key legal developments in the SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. Apple Inc. litigation and related Federal Circuit activity concerning US Patent No. 9,905,691.

District Court Litigation: SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. Apple Inc. (W.D. Tex. Case No. 6:22-cv-00149-ADA)

• Filing & Initial Pleadings (2022-02-10): SpaceTime3D, Inc. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Apple Inc. in the Western District of Texas, Waco Division. The complaint alleged that Apple's products, including iPhones, iPod touches, iPads, and Apple Watches, infringed US Patent No. 8,881,048 (the '048 patent) and US Patent No. 9,905,691 (the '691 patent), both entitled "System and Method for Providing Three-Dimensional Graphical User Interface." SpaceTime3D asserted that Apple's accused products exploit its patented technology, specifically the graphical user interface, and that the infringement was willful and deliberate.

• Pre-Trial Motions of Substance (2022-07-00 to 2023-01-30):

  • Motion to Transfer (July 2022): Apple moved to transfer the case from Waco to Austin, within the Western District of Texas. This motion was fully briefed by the parties.
  • Motion to Stay Pending Transfer (November 2022): The day before a scheduled claim construction hearing, Apple moved to stay that hearing and all other proceedings until the district court decided its pending motion to transfer.
  • District Court Denies Stay Motion (2023-01-30): The district court denied Apple's motion to stay proceedings. The court reasoned that a Markman hearing and discovery are fundamental components of any patent case, regardless of venue, and that Apple had failed to show good cause for a stay, noting Apple waited until hours before the scheduled Markman hearing to file the motion.

• Discovery Milestones (2022-11-14): Fact discovery was opened.

• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes (2022-11-17, deferred): A claim construction hearing was scheduled for November 17, 2022, but was deferred by the trial court due to Apple's motion to stay pending transfer. No Markman order has been publicly reported as issued by the district court based on available information.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

A search for Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings related to US Patent No. 9,905,691 did not yield any direct results at the USPTO PTAB. However, a PTAB document discussing IPR2023-00343 and IPR2023-00579, involving Apple Inc. and Google LLC as petitioners against SpaceTime3D, Inc., mentioned US Patent No. 9,304,654 B2, which appears to be a different patent number from the one specified in the prompt (9,905,691). While SpaceTime3D is a patent owner in that IPR, and the document references the SpaceTime3D v. Apple district court case, it does not confirm IPRs specifically for patent 9,905,691.

Federal Circuit Involvement

• Petition for Writ of Mandamus (CAFC 23-120, 2023-03-06): Following the district court's denial of its stay motion, Apple Inc. filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Case No. 23-120). Apple sought to compel the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas to promptly rule on its motion to transfer and to stay other proceedings until the transfer issue was resolved. The Federal Circuit, consisting of Judges Dyk, Reyna, and Chen, issued a nonprecedential order regarding this petition.

Outcome and Present Posture

As of the latest available public information, the district court case SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. Apple Inc. (6:22-cv-00149-ADA) in the Western District of Texas appears to be active, with the underlying transfer motion and claim construction still being processed after the Federal Circuit's ruling on the mandamus petition. There is no public record of a final judgment, verdict, or settlement for this case based on the available search results. The specific Federal Circuit case 22-1540 could not be directly linked to these proceedings or patent 9,905,691.

Unfortunately, a comprehensive web search across public legal databases, news outlets, and court information sources (including specific searches for "Federal Circuit 22-1540," "patent 9905691 litigation," and related terms) has not yielded the specific counsel of record representing the plaintiff(s) in this patent infringement case. Without direct access to the PACER docket for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit case 22-1540, or a publicly available opinion that explicitly names the parties and their counsel for a case involving patent 9905691, the requested information cannot be provided.

Filings and counsel details for specific cases, especially appellate dockets, are typically accessible through PACER. Without this direct access, identifying the plaintiff(s) and their specific attorneys, including their roles, firms, office locations, and relevant experience, remains unavailable.

Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. (CAFC Case No. 22-1540) is an appeal from a patent infringement case originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Case No. 6:20-cv-00553-ADA) and subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (Case No. 2:21-cv-01055-DGE). Amazon.com Inc., Amazon.com Services Inc., and Amazon Web Services Inc. are the defendants/appellees in this matter.

While a comprehensive list of counsel of record for Amazon in this specific CAFC appeal (22-1540) is not readily available through public web searches, information from the underlying district court cases provides insight into the legal teams that have represented Amazon. Patent infringement cases, particularly those involving large technology companies like Amazon, often involve extensive legal teams.

Based on related district court proceedings where Flexiworld Technologies sued Amazon for patent infringement, the following firms and individuals are likely to be involved in representing Amazon:

• Attorneys from large intellectual property litigation firms: Amazon is a frequent defendant in patent litigation and often engages prominent law firms specializing in intellectual property. While specific names for CAFC 22-1540 are not available without direct PACER access, firms that commonly represent Amazon in patent matters include, but are not limited to, those with strong patent litigation practices.
• In-house counsel from Amazon.com, Inc.: Large corporations like Amazon maintain robust in-house legal departments that often play a significant role in managing and overseeing litigation, working in conjunction with external counsel.

Due to the nature of appellate cases and the limitations of publicly accessible information without direct PACER access for CAFC 22-1540, specific individual attorneys and their roles (lead counsel, of counsel, etc.) for Amazon in this particular appeal cannot be definitively identified at this time through web search. Accessing the full docket for CAFC 22-1540 via PACER would provide the most accurate and up-to-date list of counsel of record for Amazon.