Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Hisense Co., Ltd.

I'll research this case thoroughly before drafting the overview.

I'll research this case using web searches. Let me start with several queries in parallel.

I'll research this case across multiple search angles.

Let me search press-specific outlets and other angles.

Let me try more press-focused angles and check the case's resolution.

Press coverage: essentially none for this case. After searching the case caption, the party names, the asserted patent numbers (including US 9,110,622), and the case number across the outlets you named (Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, EFF Deeplinks, JD Supra) plus general news, I found *no published news article or trade-press piece about Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Hisense Co., Ltd., E.D. Tex. No. 2:22-cv-00225.* Everything I located was either primary court/PTAB material or aggregator data: the Justia docket (filed 2022‑06‑24, Judge Rodney Gilstrap, Marshall Division, 35 U.S.C. § 271, jury demand, against eleven Hisense-affiliated entities), the Docket Alarm tracking page (which shows a change-of-venue motion, an order on that motion dated 2022‑10‑12, and a "Case Transferred Out – District Transfer" acknowledgment dated 2022‑10‑31), and the Stanford NPE Litigation Database, which is the source of the existing case-summary note that assertion of the '622 patent was "not confirmed." Notably, an AO 120 patent-filing report captioned Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Hisense Co., Ltd., et al. in the E.D. Tex. that appears in a USPTO PTAB filing lists five Flexiworld patents — 7,609,402; 10,140,072; 10,140,073; 10,387,087; and 10,768,871 — and does not list US 9,110,622, which reinforces rather than resolves the uncertainty about whether the '622 patent was ever actually asserted. I found no verdict, no damages figure, no settlement term, and no reported market impact attributable to this docket.

The nearest "coverage" is not press, and mostly concerns other Flexiworld actions. Two items are worth flagging so later sections don't mistake them for journalism. First, PatSnap published an AI-generated litigation analysis titled "Flexiworld v. Hisense — Wireless Content Streaming Patent Settled," but it describes a different case — Flexiworld's N.D. Ga. action (No. 1:22-cv-04371) asserting US 11,096,056, which it says settled in 156 days via administrative closure; it is machine-compiled from PACER and is not reporting on 2:22-cv-00225. Second, the Korean government IP dispute portal IP‑NAVI reported (posted 2025‑10‑31) that Flexiworld sued LG Electronics and LG Electronics USA in the E.D. Tex. in September 2025 over six wireless-connectivity/streaming patents, accusing LG smart TVs, soundbars, remotes and the ThinQ app — useful context on Flexiworld's broader campaign, but not coverage of the Hisense case. For the '622 patent specifically, the only arguably journalistic mention I found is a 2020‑06‑30 澎湃新闻 / The Paper report on Flexiworld's Amazon Echo suit (W.D. Tex. 6:20-cv-00553), which lists US 9,110,622 among ten asserted patents — again, a different defendant and different litigation. Given the E.D. Tex. docket's apparent transfer out of the district and the absence of any docketed judgment, I cannot substantiate any press-reported outcome for this case; treat any claim that it settled, was dismissed, or produced a payment as unsourced unless a docket entry is produced.

Sources

• AO 120 (Rev
• 50. Flexiworld is the owner and assignee of all rights, title, and interest in and under the '402 Patent
• Hisense International America Holdings Co., Ltd.
• 9836259 | NPE Litigation Database
• Hisense Co., Ltd.
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
• Flexiworld Technologies Inc v. Hisense Co., Ltd. et al, 2:22-cv-00225 (E.D.Tex.) - Track Docket
• 31. On information and belief, in January 2022, Hisense announced that several of its television models (including in its U9H, U...
• Flexiworld v. Hisense — Wireless Content Streaming Patent Settled | PatSnap - Your Agentic AI Partner
• Complaint analysis | 1:22-cv-04338 | Flexiworld Tech Inc v. Hisense Co Ltd | Ex Parte
• Hisense International Co., Ltd.
• Hisense Visual Technology Co., Ltd.

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

I have strong leads. Let me verify the specific docket entries and the transfer, plus confirm the plaintiff's counsel lineup.

Let me confirm the transfer mapping, the asserted patent, and the full plaintiff counsel list.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. — 2:22-cv-00225 (E.D. Tex.)

Framing / status caveat up front: The retrievable docket for this case ends with the Marshall-phase transfer. Getz/Justia, Docket Alarm, and Patexia all show the case being sent out of E.D. Tex. on the October 12, 2022 change-of-venue order (Dkt. 21), with the N.D. Ga. clerk's acknowledgment of receipt on October 31, 2022 — docketed in Georgia as Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Hisense Co., Ltd., No. 1:22-cv-04337 (N.D. Ga., Judge Steven D. Grimberg) (same $402 receipt number, ATXEDC-8990704, confirming the transfer mapping). Counsel of record therefore spans two dockets, and current appearances live on the N.D. Ga. docket, not PACER's E.D. Tex. sheet. Sources: Docket Alarm, 2:22-cv-00225, Justia, 1:22-cv-04337.

Plaintiff's counsel

What I could not verify

• No Texas-based local counsel appears anywhere in the retrievable E.D. Tex. record. The only Marshall-phase plaintiff appearances I can source are Grochocinski and Ginnings (both Illinois) — there is no notice of appearance from a Texas firm and no visible motion for admission pro hac vice in the entries retrieved. If a Texas local-counsel relationship existed, it is not in the public docket snapshots; PACER would be required to confirm.
• John Nixon Mahaffey's firm is unconfirmed. Both UniCourt and PatSnap (secondary aggregators, not primary docket sources) list him on the plaintiff side, and Docket Alarm's attorney list for the Georgia case family mixes plaintiff- and defense-side names, so I would not treat that list as authoritative. No primary filing, firm bio, or appearance notice bearing his name surfaced in my searches. Treat him as "reported but unverified."
• Sealed material. Dkt. 17 (Sept. 2, 2022) is a sealed document and Dkt. 18 (Sept. 6, 2022) its redacted counterpart, filed in connection with the venue-transfer briefing. Those filings are substantive, not appearance-related, but they are the reason part of the late-Marshall-phase record is not fully public.
• Dkt. 19 (Sept. 7, 2022) is docketed as adding/terminating parties and attorneys along with terminating motions — consistent with the venue fight, but I could not retrieve the text to confirm whether any plaintiff-side appearance was altered.

One-line experience notes (sourced, not inferred)

• Grochocinski — career patent-litigation specialist who has run Flexiworld's assertion campaign against Amazon, Roku, Lexmark, TCL, and Hisense; the Amazon suit was filed by the predecessor iteration of his firm, Nelson Bumgardner Albritton (Law Street Media), later appearing as Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC in the Hisense filings.
• Ginnings — same firm, appears as co-signatory on Flexiworld complaints in multiple districts (e.g., E.D. Ky. 5:22-cv-00110 complaint; E.D. Tex. 2:26-cv-229 appearances on April 9, 2026).
• Hill — Atlanta-based Georgia counsel positioned for the N.D. Ga. phase after transfer.

Contradiction to flag against the case metadata

The metadata lists the patent at issue as US 9,110,622, and the earlier summary noted the Stanford NPE database could not confirm that assertion. My searches affirmatively cut against it for the Hisense campaign: the AO 120 report I could retrieve for a Flexiworld–Hisense E.D. Tex. filing lists 7,609,402; 10,140,072; 10,140,073; 10,387,087; 10,768,871 (USPTO PTAB Center AO 120), and the '622 patent surfaces in Flexiworld v. Amazon.com (W.D. Tex. 6:20-cv-553), not against Hisense. Treat "9,110,622" as unconfirmed for this case until the Dkt. 1 complaint/AO 120 in 2:22-cv-00225 is pulled directly from PACER.

I'll research the docket and counsel appearances for this case.

Let me dig into the docket and defendant counsel specifically.

Let me get the full E.D. Tex. docket and the Georgia transfer-case counsel.

Defendant-side counsel of record — Flexiworld Techs., Inc. v. Hisense Co., Ltd. et al., No. 2:22-cv-00225 (E.D. Tex.)

Important framing before the names: this E.D. Tex. case has no live docket. It was transferred out of Judge Gilstrap's court in October 2022 (docket entries 20–21; acknowledgment of transfer out 10/31/2022, Docket Alarm docket sheet), re-docketed in the N.D. Ga. as No. 1:22-cv-04337, and settled/voluntarily dismissed on April 7, 2023 (confirmed in the "Related matters" section of Lexmark's IPR2023-00846 petition against Flexiworld's '233 patent, PTAB petition PDF). So the "counsel of record" question is answered by a short, now-closed docket plus the Georgia transferee case.

Attorneys identified

Docket support for Bernstein's appearance

The AppDiv E.D. Tex. docket shows the first defendant-side filing — the Agreed Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer / Move or Otherwise Respond and Waiver of Foreign Service Requirement, filed 8/3/2022 (Doc. 10) — attributed to (Bernstein, Matthew), with the order granting it at Doc. 11 (8/4/2022), and defendant answer deadlines reset to 12/3/2022. UniCourt's case page likewise lists Bernstein as the sole "Defendant Attorney" for 2:22-cv-00225. That motion was filed on behalf of all twelve named Hisense entities.

Gaps and things I could not verify (stated plainly, not papered over)

1. No Texas local counsel is identifiable from the data I could retrieve. Every defense-side CM/ECF stamp I found in 2:22-cv-00225 reads "(Bernstein, Matthew)." E.D. Tex. L.R. AT-2 ordinarily requires a member of the bar of this district as local counsel, so a local-counsel appearance may exist that simply isn't reflected in the free docket aggregators. Treat the Texas roster as potentially incomplete.
2. Docket entries 13–15 (8/30/2022, "Miscellaneous Relief," followed by a Notice of Deficiency) and entry 17 (sealed, 9/2/2022) / entry 18 (redacted, 9/6/2022) are likely pro hac vice applications and/or a sealed transfer-related filing, but their text was not retrievable. Entry 19 (9/7/2022) is an order captioned "Add and Terminate Parties / Add and Terminate Attorneys / Terminate Motions" — that caption suggests counsel were added or substituted, so additional names (quite possibly the Perkins Coie trial team and/or Georgia counsel) may exist that I cannot name without the actual documents. I am deliberately not guessing at those names.
3. In-house counsel: none identified in any public filing I reviewed. Hisense's legal department did not appear of record in the retrievable entries.
4. Which Georgia case number is which. The Lexmark IPR petition's related-matters section ties the '225 case (via transfer) to 1:22-cv-04337, and the NPE Litigation Database separately lists 1:22-cv-04338 for a second Hisense complaint. The Daily Report article, however, describes the transferred action as 1:22-cv-04371 before Judge Steven D. Grimberg. These are almost certainly parallel Flexiworld-v.-Hisense transfers filed the same day (there was also a companion E.D. Tex. case, 2:22-cv-00228), but I could not reconcile the three numbers with certainty — flagging rather than asserting.

Conflicts with the case metadata / prior summary worth flagging

• Patent-in-suit mismatch. The metadata (and the earlier section) identify US 9,110,622 as the patent at issue, noting the Stanford NPE database "did not confirm" that assertion. The AO 120 form filed in the Flexiworld v. Hisense E.D. Tex. litigation (reproduced as an exhibit in the Lexmark IPR filings) lists five different patents — 7,609,402; 10,140,072; 10,140,073; 10,387,087; and 10,768,871 — and the N.D. Ga. companion complaint (1:22-cv-04338) asserts exactly those five. That AO 120 is most consistent with the -00228 companion case; I could not retrieve an AO 120 or complaint patent list for -00225 specifically. So the '622 identification for this docket remains unconfirmed, and the two same-day E.D. Tex. complaints appear to have divided the patent family between them.
• Firm-level, not party-level, note: Perkins Coie is also counsel for Lexmark in the parallel IPRs against Flexiworld's patents (lead: Amy Simpson; backups Babak Tehranchi and Kristen Schunter, per the IPR2023-00846 petition). That is a separate representation and should not be attributed to Hisense.
• Firm naming: the Chambers profile of Perkins Coie trial lawyer Craig Tyler is currently presented under the name "Ashurst Perkins Coie" (Chambers profile). I could not verify a firm combination/rename from the sources retrieved, so I list the firm as Perkins Coie LLP and flag the discrepancy.

For cross-reference (plaintiff's side, since it appears in the same filings)

Flexiworld was represented by Timothy E. Grochocinski and Charles Austin Ginnings of Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC (Orland Park, IL) and, in the Georgia phase, by Steven G. Hill of Hill, Kertscher & Wharton, LLP (Atlanta) — per the signature block reproduced in the March 7, 2023 Georgia filing (RPX litigation document 15143102).