Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Xerox Corporation

Case Overview and Background

Parties and their roles. Plaintiff Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. is a patent-licensing (non-practicing) entity founded in 2001 by inventor William Ho Chang (a former Sharp R&D engineer) and focused on short-range wireless connectivity, mobile printing, and "driverless" network output technology. Industry databases categorize it as an NPE/small company (Unified Patents; Stanford NPE Litigation Database lists asserter categories including "failed startup" and "acquired patents"), and it does not appear to sell products practicing the asserted patents — indeed, Flexiworld has affirmatively alleged it "has not made, offered for sale, sold, or imported a product that practices any of the Patents-in-Suit" (see Flexiworld v. Lexmark, E.D. Ky., quoting amended complaints). Defendant Xerox Corporation is the global document-technology and printing-solutions company (HQ in Norwalk, CT) that manufactures and sells the accused networked printers and mobile-printing software. The complaint was filed June 29, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York as 6:23-cv-06371 (Justia docket; Ex Parte complaint analysis), one of four coordinated Flexiworld complaints against Xerox (Nos. 6:23-cv-06370 through -06373) asserting 14 patents total (The Recycler, Sept. 2023).

Accused products and asserted patents. The accused instrumentalities are (i) Xerox's "Accused Wireless Printers" — AltaLink, ColorQube, VersaLink, WorkCentre, Phaser, B, C, and EC series — and (ii) "Accused Xerox Apps" — Xerox Print and Scan Experience, the Xerox Print Service Plug-in for Android, and Xerox Workplace apps (Compl. ¶¶40-41, via Ex Parte complaint analysis). Flexiworld's infringement theory centers on Xerox marketing of Apple AirPrint and ConnectKey driverless mobile printing: printers that let smartphones discover and print over Wi-Fi without installing printer-specific drivers. This case (6:23-cv-06371) asserts three patents: U.S. 10,761,791 (wireless printing devices that register with a network service so client devices can print without a printer-specific driver, with the printer receiving Wi-Fi credentials via an interface); U.S. 10,481,846 (non-transitory computer-readable medium/software method for driverless printing — obtaining digital content, discovering a printer on a LAN, receiving a device profile, generating print data from it, and transmitting it to the printer; claim 1 asserted); and U.S. 10,140,073 (wireless printing method/device — printer detects a nearby mobile device, exchanges device information, establishes a wireless link, and receives print data; claim 8 asserted). Exemplary claim charts were attached as Exhibits 4-6 (Ex Parte complaint analysis).

Procedural posture, venue, and resolution. The case was initially assigned to Judge Frank P. Geraci, Jr., but on September 27-28, 2023, Chief Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford granted Xerox's unopposed motion to consolidate all four related Flexiworld v. Xerox actions for pretrial purposes before a single judge, reassigned Nos. 06371 and 06373 to her, and referred all four to Magistrate Judge Marian W. Payson for pretrial matters excluding dispositive motions (Patexia docket; Dkt. 21 text order). Xerox answered and filed counterclaims (Dkt. 15, Sept. 2023), and Flexiworld replied (Dkt. 22, Sept. 29, 2023) (Patexia; Actionable Intelligence). The case ended by stipulated dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) on May 21, 2024 — 327 days after filing — with each party bearing its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees, and all of Xerox's counterclaims also extinguished; there was no Markman ruling, validity determination, or infringement finding (PatSnap/Eureka PACER-based analysis; Actionable Intelligence, "Flexiworld's Lawsuits against Xerox Are Dismissed after Settlement"). Venue in W.D.N.Y. is significant under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b): Xerox maintains a major, long-standing "regular and established place of business" at its Webster/Rochester, NY campus in the district, and Flexiworld's local counsel (Peter Glennon, The Glennon Law Firm) is Rochester-based — a recurring forum for Flexiworld's printer-OEM campaign.

Why the case is notable. This suit is a textbook example of Flexiworld's serial NPE enforcement pattern: in recent years it has sued essentially every major printer OEM — Canon (Feb. 2021), Epson (2021), Brother (2022), Lexmark (2022), HP (2023), plus Amazon (Echo devices), Hisense, and Sony — and its cases typically resolve quickly through confidential settlements memorialized as with-prejudice dismissals (The Recycler; Actionable Intelligence; Stanford NPE database; RPX Insight). The Xerox quartet's rapid, bilateral walk-away (no fees, no damages, counterclaims dropped) is consistent with a confidential license or covenant, though the public record discloses no terms. The three patents here survived intact and unconstrued, so they remain enforceable against other wireless-printing vendors; I could not confirm any IPR involving the specific '791/'846/'073 patents (Lexmark has pursued PTAB challenges against other Flexiworld patents, e.g., IPR targeting U.S. 7,609,402 — USPTO PTAB filing — but no parallel IPR on these three is well sourced), so any IPR linkage should be treated as unverified. The case's main industry signal: driverless mobile printing (AirPrint/ConnectKey-class features) remains an active enforcement vector, and dismissal protects only Xerox, not the broader printer market.

Based on the PACER-derived docket records, PatSnap/Eureka litigation intelligence, Ex Parte complaint analysis, UniCourt, Patexia, and Actionable Intelligence reporting gathered in this and prior sections, here is the chronological account of key legal developments and the outcome in Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Xerox Corporation, No. 6:23-cv-06371 (W.D.N.Y.).

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

2023-06-29 — Complaint filed (Dkt. 1). Flexiworld sued Xerox in the Western District of New York, asserting U.S. Patent Nos. 10,761,791 ('791, wireless printing via network registration without a printer-specific driver), 10,481,846 ('846, driverless-printing software method, claim 1), and 10,140,073 ('073, wireless printing device method, claim 8). Accused instrumentalities: Xerox "Accused Wireless Printers" (AltaLink, ColorQube, VersaLink, WorkCentre, Phaser, B, C, EC series) and "Accused Xerox Apps" (Xerox Print and Scan Experience, Xerox Print Service Plug-in for Android, Xerox Workplace apps), with infringement theories centered on AirPrint/ConnectKey driverless mobile printing (Compl. ¶¶40–41, 64, 73, 84, via Ex Parte complaint analysis). The case was initially assigned to Hon. Frank P. Geraci, Jr.

2023-07-13/07-18 — Service. Xerox was served through Corporation Service Company on July 13, 2023; affidavit of service filed July 18, 2023 (Dkt. 9).

2023-07-13 to 07-19 — Pro hac vice admissions for Flexiworld's out-of-state counsel. PHV motions for Timothy E. Grochocinski and Charles A. Ginnings (Nelson Bumgardner Conroy P.C.) were filed (Dkt. 5–8) and granted by Judge Geraci on July 19, 2023 (Dkt. 10). Peter J. Glennon (The Glennon Law Firm, Rochester) appeared as local counsel.

2023-08-02/08-03 — Xerox appears and extends its answer deadline. Notice of appearance (Dkt. 11), stipulation extending time to answer (Dkt. 12), and corporate disclosure statement (Dkt. 13) filed August 2, 2023; text order setting the answer deadline to September 15, 2023 (Dkt. 14, entered 8/03/2023).

2023-09-15 — Xerox's Answer and Counterclaims (Dkt. 15). Xerox denied infringement and asserted counterclaims against Flexiworld (docket text: "ANSWER to 1 Complaint, COUNTERCLAIM against Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. by Xerox Corporation"). The substance of the counterclaims is not in the public docket snippets retrieved; PatSnap's analysis characterizes them as "likely declaratory judgment of invalidity or non-infringement," which is a reasonable inference from standard practice but should be treated as unverified unless the full answer is pulled from PACER.

2023-09-29 — Flexiworld's Answer to Counterclaims (Dkt. 22). Filed by Glennon, four pages, terminating the pleading phase.

---

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

The only substantive pre-trial motion identified on the docket was procedural, not merits-based:

2023-09-25 — Xerox's unopposed Motion to Consolidate (Dkt. 19 in 6:23-cv-06371). Xerox moved to consolidate the four coordinated Flexiworld actions (6:23-cv-06370 through -06373) before a single judge for pretrial purposes, expressly reserving the right to later seek trial consolidation.

2023-09-27/09-28 — Text Order granting consolidation (Dkt. 20–21, signed by Chief Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford 09/27/2023, entered 09/28/2023). The court consolidated all four cases for pretrial purposes, transferred 6:23-cv-06371 (and -06373) from Judge Geraci to Chief Judge Wolford, and referred all four cases to Magistrate Judge Marian W. Payson for all pretrial matters excluding dispositive motions.

No motions to dismiss, transfer venue, stay pending IPR, or for summary judgment were filed in this case (or surfaced in the docket records reviewed). No § 285 fee motion, JMOL, or new-trial motion was ever filed.

---

3. Claim construction (Markman)

None occurred. The case was dismissed before any Markman hearing, claim-construction order, or O2 Micro-style construction dispute. The claims of the '791, '846, and '073 patents were never construed by any court — a point PatSnap's analysis flags as preserving the patents' enforcement value against third parties.

---

4. Discovery milestones

Discovery never progressed past the initial scheduling stage:

2023-10-10 — Scheduling Order (Dkt. 23). Magistrate Judge Payson set a telephone scheduling conference for October 23, 2023, with dial-in instructions to be distributed by email.

No substantive discovery disputes, motions to compel, or protective-order rulings appear in the accessible docket records. The parties' settlement track began before fact discovery matured — Actionable Intelligence reported in spring 2024 that "Xerox Is Working on Settlement Agreement with Flexiworld Technologies," describing Xerox as "the latest printer vendor to decide to settle patent-infringement lawsuits filed against it by patent-licensing company Flexiworld."

---

5. Trial

No trial occurred. There was no verdict, no bench ruling, and no post-trial motion practice of any kind.

---

6. Settlement, dismissal, and final disposition

2024-05-21 — Stipulated Dismissal with Prejudice (final disposition). The parties filed a joint stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissing all claims and counterclaims with prejudice, each party bearing its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. The verbatim operative language (quoted from the PACER docket for the coordinated cases, including 6:23-cv-06371, via PatSnap/Eureka):

"Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), Plaintiff Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. ('Flexiworld') and Defendant Xerox Corporation ('Xerox'), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and agree to dismiss with prejudice all pending claims and counterclaims in these actions, including all claims by Flexiworld against Xerox and all claims by Xerox against Flexiworld. Each party is to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees."

Key characteristics:

• Timing: approximately 327 days after filing (filed 2023-06-29; dismissed 2024-05-21).
• Scope: bilateral and unconditional — Flexiworld's infringement claims and Xerox's counterclaims were extinguished with prejudice; the with-prejudice designation bars re-filing between these parties on the same patents/accused conduct (res judicata effect).
• No fee award: the mutual cost-bearing clause removed any predicate for a later § 285 exceptional-case motion; no damages, injunction, or prevailing-party designation appears in the public record.
• No merits adjudication: no Markman ruling, validity determination, or infringement finding. The three patents survived intact and unconstrued, remaining enforceable against all parties other than Xerox.
• Appeal: none. The Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal was self-executing upon filing and was not appealable; the docket was administratively closed.

The public record discloses no settlement terms; consistent with Flexiworld's pattern against other printer OEMs (Canon, Epson, Brother, Lexmark, HP), the walk-away dismissal is most consistent with a confidential license or covenant-not-to-sue, though that remains inference — no license agreement was filed.

---

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings

No IPR or PGR was filed against the three patents-in-suit in this case ('791, '846, '073). I could not confirm any PTAB proceeding involving these specific patents, and the case record shows no stay request predicated on an IPR.

Related context (not on these patents): Flexiworld's patent portfolio has been the subject of third-party PTAB challenges in other campaigns — notably Unified Patents LLC v. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. (IPR2022-00775, where Flexiworld's lead counsel here, Austin Ginnings, appeared) and Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. (IPR2023-00846, challenging U.S. 7,609,402, terminated after a settlement/license). Neither involves the '791/'846/'073 patents at issue in 6:23-cv-06371. Any claim that an IPR targeted the asserted patents here should be treated as unsupported by the available sources.

---

Bottom line

This was a short, settlement-driven case: complaint (2023-06-29) → answer with counterclaims (2023-09-15) → four-case pretrial consolidation before Chief Judge Wolford/MJ Payson (2023-09-27/28) → scheduling conference (2023-10-23) → bilateral stipulated dismissal with prejudice, each side bearing its own costs (2024-05-21). No motion to dismiss, transfer, stay, or summary judgment; no Markman; no discovery disputes of record; no trial; no appeal; no parallel IPR on the asserted patents. The patents remain valid, unconstrued, and enforceable against third parties.

Caveats: The specific dismissal entry for 6:23-cv-06371 is confirmed by PatSnap's PACER-quoted text and the coordinated-case dismissal language (identical across 6370–6373), but I did not independently pull the 6371 docket's final entry on PACER; the counterclaim substance and any post-October-2023 docket activity (e.g., settlement communications or the exact stipulation filing date) are inferred from secondary sources and should be verified on PACER if precision is required.

I'll search several angles to find press coverage of this case.

Let me dig into the trade-press coverage and check mainstream legal outlets specifically.

Let me try to locate the Actionable Intelligence articles directly and check legal trade outlets.

Press coverage of Flexiworld v. Xerox (6:23-cv-06371)

Press coverage of this case is thin, and almost entirely confined to one trade outlet. The most substantive reporting I could verify is from Actionable Intelligence, an independent publication covering the printer/copier industry ("Courthouse Briefings"). Its tag indexes for the Xerox/Flexiworld matters (Part I (2023) and Part II (2023)) list a four-part series tracking the litigation: "Flexiworld Technologies Sues Xerox for Patent Infringement" (reporting that on June 29 Flexiworld filed four patent-infringement complaints against Xerox in the Western District of New York "claiming that a wide range of Xerox printers…"); "Xerox Answers Flexiworld's Patent-Infringement Complaint, Files Counterclaims" (confirming Xerox denied the claims and counterclaimed); "Xerox Is Working on Settlement Agreement with Flexiworld Technologies" (framing Xerox as "the latest printer vendor to decide to settle patent-infringement lawsuits filed against it by patent-licensing company Flexiworld Technologies"); and "Flexiworld's Lawsuits against Xerox Are Dismissed after Settlement" (Actionable Intelligence, Courthouse Briefings), whose teaser reads: "Eleven months ago, Flexiworld Technologies filed four patent-infringement lawsuits against Xerox Corporation, claiming that a wide range of Xerox printers,…". Caveat: I retrieved only the headlines and opening lines of these articles via the outlet's index pages, not full-text; I could not confirm from the retrieved text whether Actionable Intelligence reported any damages figure or settlement amount, and the "Eleven months ago" framing is consistent with — but does not independently confirm — the May 21, 2024 dismissal reflected in the prior sections.

I found no coverage in the outlets a patent-litigation analyst would normally check: nothing from Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, Ars Technica, The Verge, JD Supra, or the EFF. The similarity searches surfaced only (i) docket aggregators and AI docket-summary services — Justia, UniCourt, the Unified Patents litigation portal, and Ex Parte's complaint analysis — and (ii) vendor/analytics content that is not journalism. The complaints themselves were republished as PDFs by the trade site tonernews.com (copy of one complaint), but that is document hosting, not reporting.

The only other "analysis" coverage is PatSnap Eureka's AI-generated litigation blog — e.g., its case page for 6:23-cv-06371, which correctly names the three '846/'791/'073 patents and quotes the Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation verbatim, and companion PatSnap pages for the sibling cases. These are machine-generated summaries derived from PACER dockets, not press reporting, and should be treated as secondary/derivative: one PatSnap page for the 6:23-cv-06370 matter attributes different patents to the campaign and another (for -06373) lists four patents, so the PatSnap family pages do not consistently map patents to case numbers — a discrepancy worth flagging against any reliance on them for per-case patent identification.

Taking this together: the reporting consensus is the same as the court record — four June 2023 complaints, an answer with counterclaims, then a negotiated with-prejudice dismissal about eleven months later. No outlet reported a damages figure, a settlement amount, or license terms; the Actionable Intelligence "working on settlement agreement" piece is the only journalism to characterize the resolution as a settlement, and even it does not disclose terms. Industry-reaction takes and executive statements are, as far as I could find, absent from the published record.

Sources

• Flexiworld Technologies v. Xerox Corp. — Wireless Output Patent Dispute | PatSnap - Your Agentic AI Partner
• Flexiworld v. Xerox: Wireless Printing Patent Dispute Dismissed | PatSnap - Your Agentic AI Partner
• Patent Cases, Dockets and Filings in the US District Court for the Western District of New York
• Intellectual Property Cases, Dockets and Filings in the US District Court for the Western District of New York
• AO 120 (Rev
• US-481-A - null - - Filing Date: 2023-07-06
• in the Asserted Claims are not directed to long- standing practices that were well- understood, routine, and conventional as con...
• Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Xerox Corporation - This case was last updated from U
• Flexiworld Technologies v. Xerox Corp. — Wireless Output Patent Dispute | PatSnap - Your Agentic AI Partner
• Author AI staff
• | Actionable Intelligence
• The only evidence in the '413 application that Flexiworld cites for support is a statement describing Figure 1 as depicting "per...

Based on the available docket and secondary-source evidence, here is the counsel-of-record picture for plaintiff Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. in Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Xerox Corporation, No. 6:23-cv-06371 (W.D.N.Y.):

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record

1. Charles Austin Ginnings — Lead/Out-of-State Counsel (admitted pro hac vice)

• Firm: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy P.C. — Burr Ridge, IL office (745 McClintock Drive/Road, Suite 340, Burr Ridge, IL 60527; the firm's historical docket address also shows Orland Park, IL). USPTO Reg. No. 62,706. Email: austin@nelbum.com.
• Role in this case: Admitted pro hac vice for Flexiworld (PHV motion docketed 7/17/2023; granted by Order at Dkt. #10, signed by Hon. Frank P. Geraci, Jr. on 7/19/2023). He is the lead Flexiworld/patent-owner counsel who has appeared across the parallel Flexiworld actions (6:23-cv-06370 through -06373) and in the related PTAB matters.
• Experience note: Longtime Flexiworld patent counsel; served as lead counsel for Flexiworld before the PTAB in IPR2022-00775 (Unified Patents LLC v. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.) and in IPR2023-00846 (Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.), the latter terminated after a settlement/license agreement. Also appears in other NPE-side litigations such as Perceptive Automata LLC v. Tesla, Inc. and Malikie Innovations Ltd. v. Toyota Motor Corp. (E.D. Tex.).

2. Timothy Edward Grochocinski — Lead/Out-of-State Counsel (admitted pro hac vice)

• Firm: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy P.C. — offices in Burr Ridge, IL and Fort Worth, TX (3131 W. 7th Street, Suite 300, Fort Worth, TX 76107). Email: tim@nelbum.com.
• Role in this case: Admitted pro hac vice for Flexiworld under the same July 19, 2023 order (Dkt. #10) covering the two PHV motions (Dkt. #7, #8). UniCourt's docket summary lists him among the three "Plaintiff Attorneys" of record.
• Experience note: Senior partner concentrating in patent infringement and complex commercial litigation (Super Lawyers 2023–2027); co-counsel for patent owners in Stellar LLC v. Motorola Solutions (E.D. Tex. + Federal Circuit mandamus briefing), Perceptive Automata LLC v. Tesla, Inc., and Unification Technologies LLC v. Micron Technology (W.D. Tex.).

3. Peter John Glennon — Local Counsel

• Firm: The Glennon Law Firm, P.C. — Rochester, NY (160 Linden Oaks, Rochester, NY 14625). Email: PGlennon@GlennonLawFirm.com.
• Role in this case: The W.D.N.Y. local counsel; he filed the Complaint (Dkt. #1), the Affidavit of Service (Dkt. #9), the PHV motions (Dkt. #7, #8), and Flexiworld's Answer to Xerox's counterclaim (Dkt. #22, signed "Glennon, Peter"). His name on those filings is consistent with his role sponsoring the out-of-state Nelson Bumgardner Conroy attorneys for PHV admission.
• Experience note: Founder/CEO of a Rochester boutique business/employment litigation firm (Best Lawyers in America since 2016; commercial litigation); not primarily a patent litigator — his role here is local-counsel admission and filings in the Western District of New York.

Notes and Caveats

• No in-house counsel for Flexiworld appeared of record in the accessible docket entries; the three attorneys above are the complete plaintiff-side counsel list reported by UniCourt/PatSnap/Patexia for this case.
• Docket grounding: The PHV admissions are documented at Dkt. #7, #8 (Motions to Appear Pro Hac Vice, filed by Glennon on behalf of Flexiworld) and Dkt. #10 (Order granting both, signed 7/19/2023). The case was later reassigned from Judge Geraci to Chief Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford (9/28/2023) and consolidated for pretrial purposes with the three related Flexiworld v. Xerox actions (6:23-cv-06370, -06372, -06373) before Magistrate Judge Marian W. Payson (Dkt. #21 and related orders).
• Outcome: Consistent with the case metadata, the four related actions were resolved by a bilateral Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation dismissing all claims and counterclaims with prejudice, each side bearing its own costs/fees — no Markman ruling, validity determination, or infringement finding. PatSnap's published account of the stipulation (quoting the parallel dockets) shows the identical dismissal language was used across the consolidated Flexiworld/Xerox actions; I did not independently pull the final 6371 dismissal entry itself within this search, so the specific dismissal filing date for this case number should be confirmed on PACER if precision is needed.
• Defendant-side counsel (for context only): Eric J. Ward (Hodgson Russ LLP, Buffalo/NY local) and McKool Smith attorneys (James E. Quigley, Alexandra F. Easley, David Sochia, Claire E. Wells, Casey L. Shomaker), who were admitted PHV for Xerox in the related actions.

Based on the available docket records for Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Xerox Corporation, 6:23-cv-06371 (W.D.N.Y.), here is what I can verify regarding defendant Xerox's counsel of record.

Counsel of Record for Defendant Xerox Corporation

1. Eric J. Ward — Local Counsel / Lead for Xerox (confirmed on the docket)

• Role: Counsel of record for Xerox; filed the Notice of Appearance (Dkt. 11), the stipulation extending the answer deadline (Dkt. 12), and Xerox's Corporate Disclosure Statement (Dkt. 13) — all entered August 2, 2023.
• Firm: Ward Greenberg Heller & Reidy LLP, Rochester, NY (1800 Bausch & Lomb Place).
• Experience note: A seasoned trial lawyer with nearly 100 civil jury trials, including patent and IP disputes. Notable representations include St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Company (D. Del.), OS Security LLC v. John D. Brush & Co. (C.D. Cal.), and Kodak Graphic Communications Canada Co. v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. (2d Cir. 2016). Listed in Best Lawyers for IP litigation and Chambers USA for commercial litigation. He is admitted in the W.D.N.Y. and E.D. Tex., among other courts.

2. James E. Quigley — Pro Hac Vice / Out-of-District Counsel (appears in the related consolidated actions; confirmation for this specific docket is limited)

• Role: Pro hac vice counsel for Xerox. The related case docket (6:23-cv-06370, Dkt. 19) shows an ORDER granting Motion for Pro Hac Vice for James E. Quigley to appear and participate in the above-captioned matter on behalf of the defendant, signed by Magistrate Judge Marian W. Payson on September 19, 2023.
• Firm/office: Not confirmed from the sources I retrieved. My searches did not surface a firm bio or affiliation for this attorney, and the docket text I obtained does not identify his firm. I will not speculate.
• Caveat: The four Flexiworld v. Xerox actions (6:23-cv-6370–6373) were consolidated for pretrial purposes by Chief Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford (TEXT ORDER, Sept. 27, 2023; Dkt. 21 in 6:23-cv-6370), and 6:23-cv-6371 was transferred to Judge Wolford and referred to Magistrate Judge Payson. It is likely that Quigley's PHV admission extended to the consolidated matters, but the retrieved docket for 6:23-cv-06371 specifically (Unicourt, retrieved Aug. 28, 2023; Patexia docket through Oct. 10, 2023) lists only Eric J. Ward as defendant's attorney of record. I could not confirm from public sources whether Quigley filed a separate PHV motion in 6:23-cv-06371 or appeared on later filings in this case.

Additional Notes

• Plaintiff's counsel (for context, not requested but useful for completeness): Peter John Glennon (local, W.D.N.Y. bar), Charles Austin Ginnings and Timothy Edward Grochocinski (pro hac vice) represent Flexiworld.
• Case outcome: The parties stipulated to dismissal of all claims and counterclaims with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), each side bearing its own costs/fees. No Markman order, validity determination, or infringement finding was made. Accordingly, all appearances in this matter have terminated by operation of the dismissal.
• Limitation: The final dismissal stipulation entry was not retrievable in my searches; if the stipulation names additional Xerox counsel (e.g., in-house counsel), that information is not in the public docket snippets I obtained. For a complete list, PACER (case 6:23-cv-06371) would show the final docket, including any additional appearances filed after August 2023.