Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Brothers Industries (U.S.A.), Inc.

Case Overview & Background

Parties and accused technology. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. is a Washington-based patent-licensing company (widely characterized as a non-practicing entity) founded by inventor William Ho Chang, who, with co-inventor Christina Ying Liu, built a portfolio of roughly 150 U.S. patents on early-2000s wireless and mobile-printing technology (RPX Insight tags Flexiworld as "NPE DC"; the Stanford NPE Litigation Database classifies its asserter category as "Failed startup"). Flexiworld does not practice the patents; its complaints expressly plead that it "has not made, offered for sale, sold, or imported a product that practices any of the Patents-in-Suit," so no marking under § 287 was required (see the parallel Lexmark order, Flexiworld v. Lexmark, 5:22-cv-00097-KKC, E.D. Ky., D.E. 44). The defendant, Brothers Industries (U.S.A.), Inc. — the U.S. sales/subsidiary arm of Japan's Brother Industries, Ltd. (the related docket captions also refer to Brother International Corporation) — is a printer OEM. The accused products are Brother's wireless-enabled printers and multifunction devices (e.g., MFC-J805DW and HL-series models) that support Apple AirPrint, Mopria Print, Brother iPrint&Scan, Brother Web Connect, and Brother Cloud Apps — i.e., "driverless" and cloud-based printing over Wi-Fi networks (RPX lists nine accused products and four patents per related case; complaint excerpts cite Brother's own AirPrint/Mopria/iPrint&Scan and Web Connect/Cloud Apps sell sheets).

Patents, posture, and venue. Four patents were asserted, all from Flexiworld's November 1, 2000-priority wireless-printing family (application numbers spanning 10/053,651 to 15/726,899): U.S. 7,609,402 (issued Oct. 2009; wireless "printing over air"/network printing apparatus and software); U.S. 10,140,073 (issued Nov. 2018; driverless network printing where a client device need not load a printer-specific driver); U.S. 10,481,846 (issued Nov. 2019; "software applications and information apparatus for printing over air or for printing over a network"); and U.S. 10,761,791 (issued Sept. 2020; "wireless printing devices that provide printing services over a network without a need for a client device … to use a printer specific printer driver"). The case was filed April 15, 2022 in the Western District of Tennessee, Memphis Division, before Senior Judge Jon Phipps McCalla with Chief Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham (case no. 2:22-cv-02237-JPM-tmp), as one of four coordinated Brother actions (2:22-cv-02236, 02237, 02250, 02251) alleging direct, induced, contributory, and willful infringement. Venue was deliberately laid in Memphis: Brother maintains a manufacturing/distribution facility at 7777 North Brother Boulevard in Bartlett, Tennessee (a Memphis suburb), and Flexiworld's complaint detailed that Brother sells, ships, and provides customer support for the accused printers from that facility, satisfying 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). After amended complaints (joint stipulation so-ordered June 14, 2022; second amended complaints later), Brother moved on September 2, 2022 to dismiss claims for method-claim direct infringement, infringement dependent on third-party products, and contributory infringement for failure to state a claim. The parties settled before the court ruled: a joint motion to dismiss with prejudice was filed March 10, 2023 (each party bearing its own costs), and the case was terminated by consent judgment on March 13, 2023, with terms not public.

Why it matters. The case is a textbook example of serial NPE enforcement of early-2000s wireless-printing patents against the entire printer OEM supply chain: Flexiworld ran near-simultaneous campaigns against Brother (W.D. Tenn.) and Lexmark (E.D. Ky., before Judge Karen K. Caldwell), after earlier suits against Canon and Epson, and later against Hisense, Sony, Xerox, and HP — the '402 patent alone reappeared in Flexiworld v. Sony (2:23-cv-00616, E.D. Tex.) and Flexiworld v. Hisense (1:22-cv-04338, N.D. Ga.). The coordinated Brother/Lexmark filings show a deliberate strategy of splitting patents across multiple cases per defendant and anchoring venue in districts where each OEM has physical facilities (Lexmark's Lexington, Kentucky HQ for E.D. Ky.; Brother's Bartlett, Tennessee distribution center for W.D. Tenn.). The Brother matter also tested the post-Twombly/Iqbal sufficiency of NPE pleading — Brother's pending motion challenged method-claim and third-party-dependent infringement theories, and the parallel Lexmark motion was denied in a reasoned March 2023 opinion — but the case resolved by confidential consent judgment in roughly 11 months without claim construction or a merits ruling, consistent with a license-and-release outcome. One caution on sourcing: the exact patent titles for the '402 and '073 patents are not fully confirmed in the sources I retrieved (titles for '846 and '791 are documented on Google Patents), and the settlement's financial terms are not publicly disclosed.

Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Brothers Industries (U.S.A.), Inc. — Key Legal Developments and Outcome

Case No. 2:22-cv-02237-JPM-tmp (W.D. Tenn., Memphis Div.), Judge Jon Phipps McCalla presiding, Chief Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham referred. Filed 2022-04-15; terminated 2023-03-13. The case was one of four coordinated Flexiworld-vs.-Brother actions before the same judge (Nos. 2:22-cv-02236, 02237, 02250, 02251), which were litigated in lockstep and resolved in a single dismissal order. Note a caption inconsistency across the record: the case metadata styles the defendant "Brothers Industries (U.S.A.), Inc.," while the substantive filings (e.g., the motion-to-dismiss briefs and the joint dismissal motion) name "Brother International Corporation." Both entities are listed as defendants in the coordinated dockets.

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings

• 2022-04-15 — Complaint filed. Flexiworld sued Brother in the W.D. Tenn. (Memphis Div.), asserting patent infringement with a jury demand. This action (02237) was filed the same day as 02236; two further actions (02250, 02251) followed on 2022-04-21. The asserted patents in this case are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,609,402 ("'402"), 10,140,073, 10,481,846, and 10,761,791, covering wireless/driverless printing, universal data output, and proximity-triggered mobile output. (Docket entries via UniCourt/RPX; RPX lists cause of action as willful patent infringement, consumer electronics/PCs sector.)
• 2022-05-02/05-03 — Service effected/returned. Affidavit of service on Brother dated 2022-05-02, filed 2022-05-03 (Dkt. #10/#11).
• 2022-04-22 to 2022-05-09 — Pro hac vice admissions. Orders granting Flexiworld counsel (Timothy Grochocinski, Charles Austin Ginnings, William E. Routt III; Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC / Watson Burns PLLC) admission (Dkt. ##8-9, 11-12).
• 2022-05-20/23 — Brother's local counsel appearances. Mark Vorder-Bruegge Jr. and Matthew Lubozynski (Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs, Memphis) appeared (Dkt. ##13, 16), later joined by Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft (John T. Moehringer, Danielle Tully, Michael Powell, John Augelli, pro hac vice).
• 2022-05-21 — Extension to answer. Brother filed an unopposed motion to enlarge time to respond (Dkt. #15); granted 2022-05-31 (Dkt. #17).
• 2022-06-14 — First amended pleading cycle. The parties filed a joint stipulation regarding the amended complaint, which Judge McCalla so-ordered (Dkt. ##18-19 in the coordinated dockets). Flexiworld's First Amended Complaints followed.
• 2022-06-16/06-23 — Scheduling. Joint planning report and proposed schedule filed 2022-06-16; a video patent scheduling conference was held 2022-06-23 before Judge McCalla.
• Answer/counterclaims. Brother ultimately answered and asserted counterclaims — the final joint dismissal motion expressly dismisses "all claims by Brother against Flexiworld" — but I could not confirm the precise answer/counterclaim filing date from the public record; it post-dated the SACs (below) and is not well-sourced from the available docket excerpts.

2. Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

• August 2022 — Second Amended Complaints (SACs). After Brother moved against the amended complaints, Flexiworld filed SACs in all four actions (the action-intell tracker: "Brother Moves to Dismiss Flexiworld's Lawsuits, Flexiworld Amends Complaints"). The SACs added allegations of a joint enterprise with third-party servicers and attached detailed claim charts.
• 2022-09-02 — Motion to dismiss (Rule 12(b)(6)). Brother International Corporation moved to dismiss, in all four coordinated cases, Flexiworld's claims for (i) direct infringement of method claims, (ii) infringement dependent on third-party products (divided infringement — e.g., end users' phones, Wi-Fi chips, laptops, Android devices, Apple AirPrint/Bonjour referenced in the claim charts), and (iii) contributory infringement of certain patents, arguing the SACs failed to plead direction/control, joint enterprise beyond service providers, or induced/contributory infringement elements (Akamai, Centillion, Ericsson, Sapphire Crossing, Lone Star, Lyda cited in the supporting memorandum). (Full briefs are publicly available via action-intell.com — motion dated 2022-09-02 and supporting memorandum.)
• Fall 2022 — Opposition and reply. Flexiworld opposed; Brother (and Lexmark, in the parallel E.D. Ky. cases) filed reply briefs in support of dismissal (per action-intell: "Flexiworld Fights Brother's and Lexmark's Motions to Dismiss"; "Brother and Lexmark File Briefs Arguing for Dismissal…").
• No transfer motion, no stay pending IPR, no summary judgment. I found no evidence in the public record of a venue/transfer motion, a stay motion, or a summary-judgment motion in this case. The case settled before SJ or claim construction. (No stay motion — contrast with the related Flexiworld v. Lexmark litigation in E.D. Ky., where Lexmark's stay motion was denied 2022-09-01.)

3. Claim Construction (Markman)

• None reached. The case was resolved by consent judgment before any Markman briefing, claim-construction hearing, or order. Public records do not show any claim-construction activity in 02237.

4. Discovery Milestones

• The 2022-06-23 scheduling conference and 2022-06-16 joint planning report set the pretrial track (case flagged LR16.2 TR4 and PATENT). Standard patent discovery (infringement and invalidity contentions, fact and expert discovery) was presumably underway through late 2022–early 2023, but no significant discovery disputes, sanctions motions, or strategic discovery rulings appear in the public record. The docket entries I can verify are mostly administrative (appearances, extensions, scheduling). The case terminated ~332 days after filing, before the discovery-heavy phases culminated.

5. Trial Events and Post-Trial Motions

• No trial. No verdict, no JMOL, no new-trial motion, no fee motion. The action never reached trial; the merits were never adjudicated.

6. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment — Final Disposition

• Early March 2023 — Settlement reached. Action-intell reported "Brother to Settle with Flexiworld Technologies" (a couple of months after its prior update), indicating the parties had resolved the four coordinated suits.
• 2023-03-10 — Joint motion to dismiss with prejudice. The parties filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice in all four cases, stating they "have settled their claims for relief asserted in the above-captioned actions" and moving to dismiss "all pending claims and counterclaims, including all claims by Flexiworld against Brother, and all claims by Brother against Flexiworld," with "each party to bear its own costs and fees." (Full text available via action-intell PDF.)
• 2023-03-13 — Consent judgment entered; case terminated. Judge McCalla dismissed all claims with prejudice across the four coordinated actions. DocketAlarm and RPX record the termination date as 2023-03-13 and the basis as consent judgment/dismissal with prejudice. Terms (any license, payment, or product conditions) are not public.
• No appeal. Neither side appealed; the disposition is final.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

• No Brother-filed IPR on these patents during or after the litigation is identified in the public record. I could not verify any IPR/PGR by Brother against the '402, '073, '846, or '791 patents.
• Related third-party IPR on an asserted patent (post-settlement): Lexmark International, Inc. v. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc., IPR2023-00845, filed 2023-04-21 (about five weeks after this case closed), challenged the '402 patent (7,609,402) on obviousness grounds (Yamaguchi, Kammer, Moore, Kemp, Behlok, Davis; declaration of Majid Rabbani). Institution was DENIED on 2023-11-17 (35 U.S.C. § 314), after Flexiworld's Patent Owner Preliminary Response (2023-08-23); the proceeding terminated and petitioner's fee refund was approved 2024-01-24. This IPR had no effect on the settled district case (it came after dismissal), though it shows the same '402 patent remained contested in the parallel Flexiworld–Lexmark disputes (E.D. Ky.), where Lexmark's suits were likewise dismissed (2023-06-06).

Bottom Line

This was a short, coordinated NPE-style enforcement campaign: four complaints (April 2022) → two rounds of amended pleadings → a substantive Rule 12(b)(6) motion targeting method/third-party/contributory infringement theories (September–November 2022) → settlement and a with-prejudice consent judgment in all four cases (March 13, 2023). The case never reached claim construction, summary judgment, trial, or appeal, and Brother never pursued PTAB review of the asserted patents. The '402 patent was later challenged (unsuccessfully, institution denied) by Lexmark in IPR2023-00845.

Sourcing note: Dates and docket numbers above are drawn from UniCourt, Justia dockets, RPX Empower/Insight, DocketAlarm, PatSnap's litigation summary, action-intell.com (including PDFs of the 2022-09-02 motion-to-dismiss briefs and the 2023-03-10 joint dismissal motion), and the PTAB case database (IPverse/greyb) for IPR2023-00845. The precise answer/counterclaim filing date, the SAC filing dates in August 2022, and any discovery rulings could not be confirmed from free public sources and are flagged accordingly; PACER would be needed for exact docket-entry dates on those items.

I'll research the counsel of record for Flexiworld Technologies in this case through multiple sources.

I've found the core counsel list. Let me dig deeper into the docket and each attorney's background to verify roles and experience.

Now let me verify William Routt and check the specific docket for case 2:22-cv-02237, plus whether other Watson Burns attorneys appeared.

Based on my research, here is the plaintiff-side counsel of record in Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Brothers Industries (U.S.A.), Inc., No. 2:22-cv-02237 (W.D. Tenn., filed Apr. 15, 2022; terminated Mar. 13, 2023):

---

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record

1. Timothy E. Grochocinski — Lead Counsel (pro hac vice)

• Firm: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy P.C. — at the time of the case: 15020 S. Ravinia Ave., Suite 29, Orland Park, IL 60462 (the firm has since listed offices in Burr Ridge, IL and Fort Worth, TX).
• Role: Lead counsel / principal at Nelson Bumgardner Conroy; admitted pro hac vice in the W.D. Tenn. action (Illinois Bar No. 6295055). He filed the complaint-related PHV motions (Dkt. #11, with certificates of good standing from the N.D. Ill. and Illinois), the joint planning report, and appeared as the primary filer for Flexiworld throughout the coordinated litigation (2:22-cv-02236/02237/02250/02251).
• Experience: Senior partner whose practice is almost entirely patent litigation for NPEs. He has been Flexiworld's lead attorney across its enforcement campaign, including Flexiworld v. Amazon.com (6:20-cv-00553-ADA, W.D. Tex. before Judge Albright, lead attorney), Flexiworld v. Canon (6:21-cv-00143-ADA), Flexiworld v. Epson America (8:21-cv-00807, C.D. Cal.), Flexiworld v. Sony (2:23-cv-00616, E.D. Tex.), and Flexiworld v. Indeed (1:24-cv-01254, W.D. Tex.). Admitted to the Federal Circuit (2009); J.D., Saint Louis University (2007).
• Sources: Unicourt case page (pc-db5) for 2:22-cv-02237; Joint Motion to Dismiss (Mar. 10, 2023) signature block (action-intell.com); Martindale profile; PTAB IPR2023-00845 Power of Attorney.

2. Charles Austin Ginnings — Lead/Co-Lead Counsel (pro hac vice)

• Firm: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy P.C. — Orland Park, IL office at the time (15020 S. Ravinia Ave., Suite 29; firm now also at 745 McClintock Rd., Suite 340, Burr Ridge, IL).
• Role: Lead counsel / partner; admitted pro hac vice in W.D. Tenn. (New York Bar No. 4986691; USPTO Reg. No. 62,706). He filed joint stipulations in the coordinated actions (e.g., Dkt. #18 in the related case 2:22-cv-02250) and appears on the Joint Motion to Dismiss as counsel for Flexiworld.
• Experience: Registered patent attorney specializing in patent litigation and PTAB/IPR work. Served as lead counsel for Flexiworld in IPR2022-00775 (Unified Patents v. Flexiworld, U.S. Patent No. 9,836,257) and in the power of attorney for IPR2023-00845 challenging the '402 patent-in-suit here. He has also represented other patent owners such as Stellar LLC (v. Motorola Solutions, E.D. Tex.), Perceptive Automata (v. Tesla, W.D. Tex.), and Malikie Innovations (v. Toyota, E.D. Tex.).
• Sources: Unicourt case page; PTAB mandatory notices (IPR2022-00775, May 31, 2022); IPR2023-00845 Power of Attorney; Joint Motion to Dismiss; PacerMonitor party listings.

3. William E. Routt, III — Local Counsel

• Firm: Watson Burns, PLLC, 253 Adams Avenue, Memphis, TN 38103 (at the time of the case; he has since moved to Bass, Berry & Sims PLC, Memphis, as a Senior Litigation Attorney).
• Role: Local counsel (Tennessee-licensed; TN Bar). He signed the certificate of service for the complaint (Dkt. #10, May 3, 2022), filed the affidavit of service, and signed the Joint Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice (Mar. 10, 2023) on behalf of Flexiworld.
• Experience: ~20 years of complex commercial litigation (contract disputes, business torts, class actions, appellate work in the Sixth Circuit and Tennessee courts). He is not a patent specialist — his role here was the Memphis-based local-counsel anchor for the W.D. Tenn. venue, while Nelson Bumgardner Conroy ran the substantive patent work.
• Sources: Unicourt/PatSnap docket entries; Joint Motion to Dismiss signature block; Bass, Berry & Sims attorney bio.

---

Additional names on the pleadings worth flagging

The Joint Motion to Dismiss signature block for plaintiff also lists Frank Watson (TN Bar No. 15073) and William F. Burns (TN Bar No. 28577) of Watson Burns, PLLC. However, the docket-derived attorney-of-record lists (Unicourt, PatSnap/RPX) for these coordinated cases show only Routt from Watson Burns as appearing counsel for Flexiworld, so Watson and Burns appear in the firm's signature block but likely did not file formal notices of appearance. I'd treat them as firm signatories, not counsel of record, unless a PACER query confirms otherwise.

---

Caveats

• The consent judgment and settlement terms were entered with prejudice on March 13, 2023 and are not public; no substantive rulings on the patents-in-suit ('402, '073, '846, '791) were reached on the merits.
• I could not pull the full PACER docket directly (paywalled); the attorney list above is corroborated by Unicourt, PatSnap/RPX, the public Joint Motion to Dismiss PDF, and PTAB filings. No in-house counsel for Flexiworld appeared of record — the company is a small IP-licensing entity founded by inventor William Ho Chang, and it litigates through outside counsel (Nelson Bumgardner Conroy + Watson Burns).

Defendant's Counsel of Record — Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Brothers Industries (U.S.A.), Inc. (No. 2:22-cv-02237-JPM-tmp, W.D. Tenn.)

Important caption/party note: The original complaints named "Brother Industries (U.S.A.), Inc." (as styled in the case metadata), but Brother's own briefs state that Flexiworld's amended pleadings "dropped Brother Industries (U.S.A.), Inc. and named Brother International Corporation as the sole defendant" (see Brother's supporting memorandum, Dkt. #36 area, at action-intell.com). The defense team below appeared for the Brother entity in all four coordinated actions (2:22-cv-02236/02237/02250/02251). No in-house Brother counsel appears in the public docket as counsel of record — representation was entirely outside counsel.

Lead / pro hac vice counsel — Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP (New York)

The six-attorney signature block on Brother's September 2, 2022 motion to dismiss (public PDF via action-intell.com) and the Cadwalader firm site confirm this team. All four New York attorneys were admitted pro hac vice.

1. John T. Moehringer — Partner / lead defense counsel (pro hac vice; N.Y. Bar No. 2841211)

   • Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, 200 Liberty Street, New York, NY 10281.
   • Partner and co-chair of Cadwalader's Intellectual Property Group; former Morgan & Finnegan partner and former electrical engineer (Grumman Aerospace). His firm bio lists extensive Brother representation, including Cedar Lane Techs. v. Brother Int'l Corp. (D. Del.), Gladiator IP LLC v. Brother Int'l Corp. (D. Del., dismissed with prejudice after Rule 12 motions), and Modern Telecom Systems v. Brother (Wi-Fi training-sequence patent) — the same wireless/networking patent-defense profile as this Flexiworld case.

2. Danielle V. Tully — Partner / lead trial counsel (pro hac vice; N.Y. Bar No. 4302758)

   • Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, New York.
   • Veteran first-chair IP litigator and core member (later co-chair) of Cadwalader's IP Group; known for the C.R. Bard v. AngioDynamics Delaware defense win (post-trial judgment of invalidity/non-infringement, June 2023, with Moehringer, Powell, and Augelli on the trial team). Note: in January 2026 she and Mike Powell moved to Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe — after this case closed, so it does not affect the litigation record here.

3. Michael B. Powell — Associate (later partner) (pro hac vice; N.Y. Bar No. 5130059)

   • Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, New York.
   • Longtime Tully trial teammate (13+ years per the Orrick hire announcement); was on the AngioDynamics trial team and is identified in the Flexiworld–Brother motion signature block as counsel for Brother.

4. John T. Augelli — Associate (pro hac vice; N.Y. Bar No. not legible in the retrieved PDF)

   • Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, New York.
   • Also on the Cadwalader AngioDynamics trial team with Tully/Moehringer/Powell; his appearance for Brother is confirmed by the signature block on the September 2, 2022 motion to dismiss.

Local counsel — Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs, LLP (Memphis)

1. Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr. — Local counsel (Tenn. Bar No. 6389)

   • Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs, LLP, 6070 Poplar Ave., Suite 300, Memphis, TN 38119.
   • Filed Brother's notice of appearance (Dkt. #13, 5/20/2022) and the unopposed extension motion (Dkt. #14); signed the September 2022 motion to dismiss and, per the record, the March 2023 joint dismissal motion. Seasoned Memphis commercial/patent litigator at Wyatt's Memphis office.

2. Matthew Mahoney Lubozynski — Local counsel (Tenn. Bar No. 033163)

   • Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs, LLP, Memphis.
   • Filed Brother's notice of appearance (Dkt. #15, 5/23/2022); co-signed the motion to dismiss and dismissal filings (UniCourt docket confirms his appearance on behalf of the Brother defendant).

Sourcing and gaps

• Primary sources: public PDF of "Defendant Brother International Corporation's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim" (Sept. 2, 2022) and its supporting memorandum (both hosted at action-intell.com), which contain the complete signature block; UniCourt docket entries ##13, #15, #16, #17 (appearances and extensions); Cadwalader.com (Moehringer bio); Crain's New York Business / IAM / National Law Review (Tully bio); legalnewsfeed.com (Jan. 2026 Orrick partner moves for Tully and Powell).
• I could not verify from free sources: the pro hac vice order numbers for the four Cadwalader attorneys in the W.D. Tenn. docket, John Augelli's full N.Y. bar number (truncated in the PDF), and whether any additional Cadwalader associates (e.g., paralegal-level or additional junior attorneys) filed appearances in the later docket entries. PACER would be needed for those specifics.
• No defense attorney for Brother Industries (U.S.A.), Inc. as originally named should be distinguished: the same Wyatt/Cadwalader team represented the Brother entity throughout, per the coordinated dockets, after the amended complaints substituted Brother International Corporation as the sole defendant.