Unified Patents, LLC v. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.

Case Overview

Unified Patents, LLC v. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc., IPR2022-00775 is not a district court infringement suit but an inter partes review before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) — the administrative counterpart to the underlying patent litigation. The petitioner, Unified Patents, LLC, is a well-known patent risk-management and defensive patent-aggregation company whose members include 3,000+ technology companies; it funds IPRs targeting NPEs/PAEs through its "NPE deterrence" zones and was represented here by in-house counsel Jordan Rossen and Roshan Mansinghani (Unified Patents, "Flexiworld wireless communications patent likely invalid," Nov. 10, 2022). The patent owner, Flexiworld Technologies, Inc., is a Portland-area company founded in 2000 by inventor William Ho Chang that developed early pervasive-wireless technology, holds 80+ U.S. patents, and now operates as a licensing/NPE-type entity — classified by Stanford's NPE Litigation Database as a "failed startup" asserter and described by Unified itself as an "NPE." Flexiworld's enforcement campaign has targeted streaming, smart-TV, and consumer-electronics makers including Roku, Sony, Hisense, Brother, and Indeed (Stanford NPE Database; PatSnap).

Patent and accused technology. The sole patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 9,836,257 B2, titled "Mobile information apparatus that includes intelligent wireless display, wireless direct display, or transfer of digital content for playing over air the digital content at smart televisions, television controllers, or audio output devices" (priority claimed to a Jan. 19, 2001 provisional; granted Dec. 5, 2017). Only claims 27 and 28 were challenged — claim 27 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium whose software, executing on a wireless information apparatus (e.g., a smartphone), establishes a short-range wireless connection (IEEE 802.11/Bluetooth), performs a security/authentication procedure (transmitting username, password, ID, security key, or voice), then establishes an 802.11 WLAN connection to a distinct wireless output controller device associated with a television or audio output device, and wirelessly transfers audio/video output data for rendering — in essence, driverless phone-to-TV/speaker streaming (Institution Decision, Paper 10, at 4–7, quoting Ex. 1001, 50:8–67; claim 28 depends on claim 27). In the related litigation, Flexiworld asserted this patent family against Roku's streaming devices and wireless display/streaming technology in Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Roku, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00767-ADA (W.D. Tex., filed July 27, 2021) — the case the parties identified as related in the IPR — which was resolved by settlement in 2022 (Patexia, Nov. 3, 2023; Paper 10 at 2).

Procedural posture, venue, and why it matters. Unified filed the IPR petition on April 8, 2022; the Board (APJs Terrence W. McMillin, Christopher L. Ogden — author of the institution decision — and Brent M. Dougal) granted institution on November 8, 2022 on both obviousness grounds: (1) Olgaard (U.S. 7,849,198) in view of Moghadam (U.S. 5,917,542), and (2) Acharya (U.S. 2002/0080091) in view of Griffiths, each under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). On November 1, 2023, the Board issued its Final Written Decision (Paper 41) holding that Unified failed to prove claims 27–28 unpatentable and dismissing Flexiworld's revised contingent motion to amend (substitute claim 41) (PTAB Litigation Blog, Jan. 2, 2024; Patexia). Flexiworld was represented by Nelson Bumgardner Albritton P.C. (Brent Bumgardner, Charles Ginnings, T. William Kennedy). Venue matters here in a distinctive way: the IPR is an administrative trial at the USPTO rather than a judicial forum, and it functioned as the principal validity battleground once the parallel W.D. Tex. case before Judge Alan Albright — at the time the most NPE-friendly district in the country — settled in 2022; a separate Roku-initiated IPR against the same patent (IPR2022-01267), challenging claims 3–7, 12–16, and 27–40, was also filed in July 2022 (DocketAlarm; Roku Ex. 1002 declaration), though its disposition was not confirmed in my searches.

Why the case is notable. The decision is a significant data point in the broader NPE-vs.-Big-Tech IPR ecosystem: Unified — which frequently wins IPRs on behalf of its member-funded zones — lost, and a patent that Flexiworld had asserted in the W.D. Tex. hotspot survived. The FWD is also notable for its pre-AIA "swear behind" evidentiary analysis: because both asserted references (Olgaard, effective Oct. 24, 2000; Acharya, Dec. 22, 2000) predated the '257 patent's Jan. 19, 2001 provisional filing, Flexiworld proved conception as of October 22, 2000 using inventor Chang's declaration corroborated by draft provisional-application file metadata; the Board credited the OS-generated metadata as independent, contemporaneous corroboration under the rule-of-reason standard — a holding of interest to any patent owner trying to antedate § 102(e) references (PTAB Litigation Blog; Lexology). Finally, the proceeding surfaced recurring policy questions around Unified's model: Flexiworld's preliminary response argued the petition should be denied for Unified's failure to identify all real parties in interest (i.e., its paying members) and for inadequate member disclosure (Preliminary Response, Paper 8), issues that track broader FTC/DOJ and congressional scrutiny of third-party-funded IPRs.

I'll research this case thoroughly, including the underlying district court litigation and the PTAB IPR proceeding.

I have good initial results. The metadata case is the PTAB IPR, but the user is asking about the underlying patent infringement litigation — which is Flexiworld's W.D. Tex. suit against Roku asserting the '257 patent (among others). Let me dig into the district court docket, the related Roku cases, any appeal of the IPR, and the final dispositions.

I now have strong detail on the IPR and the settlement. Let me verify the Federal Circuit appeal status, the Roku IPR termination, and the district court docket details (standing/transfer motions, dismissal order).

Key Legal Developments & Outcome — Unified Patents, LLC v. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. (IPR2022-00775) and the Underlying Infringement Litigation

Threshold clarification on the "case" in the metadata

The case metadata (IPR2022-00775, PTAB, filed 2022-04-08, terminated 2023-11-01) is not a patent infringement suit — it is an inter partes review (a USPTO PTAB validity challenge) in which Unified Patents, LLC (petitioner) challenged claims 27–28 of U.S. Patent No. 9,836,257 ("the '257 patent") owned by Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. The actual infringement litigation in which the '257 patent was asserted is Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Roku, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00767-ADA (W.D. Tex.) — the related case identified by both parties in the IPR (Pet. 81; Paper 5, 2; Institution Decision, Paper 10). The Roku litigation settled in October 2022, well before any trial. Below is the full chronological picture, covering both the district court suit and all parallel PTAB proceedings (including the instant IPR).

---

I. District Court Litigation — Flexiworld v. Roku, No. 6:21-cv-00767-ADA (W.D. Tex.)

1. Filing & initial pleadings

• 2021-07-27 — Flexiworld filed its complaint in the Western District of Texas (Waco Division, Judge Alan D. Albright), asserting four patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,944,577, 9,389,822, 9,836,257 (asserting claim 27), and 10,846,031, with a jury demand. The accused products were Roku devices (Express, Streaming Stick, Ultra), the Roku Mobile App, Roku TV OS, and Roku TV products (Complaint ¶¶ 43–47, 70; see Case Readiness Status Report, ECF, 2021-10-25; Ex Parte complaint analysis).
• 2021-11-05 — Roku answered via a Motion for Partial Dismissal Due to Lack of Standing directed to the '577, '257, and '031 patents (ECF 15). Roku contended Flexiworld lacked standing on assignment/ownership grounds. Briefing was completed ~2021-10-27 per the parties' status report (some dates in the status report are internally inconsistent; the motion itself is dated 2021-11-05).
• No counterclaims of substance are identified in the available record; the case was effectively frozen by a de facto stay pending resolution of the standing motion (the parties agreed in their 2021-10-25 status report that "this case should be stayed pending the Court's ruling on the Standing Motion").

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

• 2021-10-20 — Roku filed a motion to transfer venue (ECF 26).
• 2021-11-05 — Roku's motion to dismiss (lack of standing) on the '257 patent (among others) (ECF 15). Neither motion was resolved on the merits — the case settled first.
• No stay pending IPR motion was needed at the district court level in 6:21-cv-00767 because the case was already stayed pending the standing ruling; the later IPRs (Roku's, filed 2022-07-29) were terminated by settlement rather than litigated to stay orders. (Note: the parties' status report for a related Roku case, 6:21-cv-00680, shows the same pattern — a standing motion and transfer motion pending, with the case stayed.)

3. Claim construction (Markman)

• Never reached. The case settled in October 2022 before Markman proceedings. Preliminary Infringement Contentions had not yet been served (per the 2021-10-25 status report). No claim construction order was issued in the district court action.

4. Discovery milestones

• The only "milestone" of record is the parties' agreement to stay discovery pending resolution of the standing motion. No infringement contentions, expert discovery, or depositions of consequence occurred in the district court action before settlement. (Strategic significance: Roku's early standing challenge and transfer motion, coupled with the de facto stay, kept the case from reaching merits discovery.)

5. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

• None. No trial, verdict, JMOL, new-trial motion, or fee motion ever occurred.

6. Settlement, dismissal, final disposition

• 2022-10-21 — Roku and Flexiworld executed a Patent License Agreement resolving "all pending controversies between Roku and Flexiworld concerning U.S. Patent No. 9,836,257" and providing for dismissal with prejudice of the Roku Litigation (Joint Motion to Terminate, IPR2022-01267, Paper 7, 2022-10-27, quoting the Agreement).
• ~2022-10-27 — The parties filed joint motions to dismiss all claims in 6:21-cv-00767 with prejudice. The case was dismissed with prejudice in late October 2022 (exact dismissal order not retrieved from PACER in my searches; the settlement-related joint filings are documented in the PTAB record). Terms of the license were kept confidential and filed under seal at the PTAB (37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c)).
• Net result: The infringement litigation ended by confidential settlement ~15 months after filing, with no finding of infringement or validity, and with the '257 patent claims surviving intact.

---

II. Parallel PTAB Proceedings on the '257 Patent (and related patents)

A. Roku's IPRs — terminated by the settlement

• 2022-07-29 — Roku filed three IPRs against patents asserted in 6:21-cv-00767: IPR2022-01267 ('257 patent), IPR2022-01268 ('822 patent), and IPR2022-01269 ('577 patent). Roku's IPR2022-01267 challenged claims 3–7, 12–16, and 27–40 of the '257 patent on pre-AIA § 103 obviousness grounds over Ortiz, Kammer, and Varadharajan (Roku petition, PTACTS).
• Roku also filed IPR2022-01112/01113/01114 against other Flexiworld patents asserted in a related W.D. Tex. case (6:21-cv-00680), and PGR2021-00111 ('031 patent, filed 2021-08-24) and PGR2021-00112 ('903 patent, filed 2021-09-15) in other related Roku cases.
• 2022-10-27 — Roku and Flexiworld jointly moved to terminate IPR2022-01267 (and the companion IPRs) citing the 2022-10-21 license agreement (Joint Motion to Terminate, Paper 7, IPR2022-01267).
• 2022-10-31 — The Board granted termination pre-institution in the parallel IPR2022-01112/01113/01114 line, treating the settlement agreement as confidential business information (Termination Decision, IPR2022-01112/01113/01114, Paper 10). The same outcome applied to Roku's '257 IPR (IPR2022-01267), which never reached an institution decision.
• Effect on litigation: Roku's validity challenges evaporated as part of the global settlement — the district court case was dismissed with prejudice and Roku's IPRs were terminated without any merits decision.

B. Unified Patents' IPR (the instant case, IPR2022-00775) — went to Final Written Decision

Because Unified Patents is a third-party petitioner (a defensive-patent-pool/NPE-challenger, not a defendant), its IPR was not settled and ran to completion:

• 2022-04-08 — Unified Patents filed the Petition (Paper 1) challenging claims 27 and 28 of the '257 patent on two obviousness grounds: (1) Olgaard (U.S. 7,849,198) in view of Moghadam (U.S. 5,917,542); and (2) Acharya (U.S. 2002/0080091) in view of Griffiths (U.S. 7,136,999). Unified was represented by in-house counsel Jordan Rossen and Roshan Mansinghani, with expert Dr. Immanuel Freedman. Flexiworld appeared through Nelson Bumgardner (later Nelson Bumgardner Albritton/Conroy), lead counsel Brent Bumgardner, with Charles Austin Ginnings, Robert Delafield, Timothy Grochocinski, and pro hac vice T. William Kennedy.
• 2022-05-12 — Flexiworld's Mandatory Notices identifying 6:21-cv-00767-ADA as the related litigation (Paper 5).
• 2022-11-08 — Institution Decision (Paper 10): the Board (APJs McMillin, Ogden, Dougal; Ogden author) granted institution on all grounds and all challenged claims, finding Unified reasonably likely to prove obviousness over Olgaard/Moghadam and Acharya/Griffiths. Notably, the Board flagged that neither party had proposed a construction of "distinct device" and invited further evidence (Institution Decision at 34).
• 2023 (spring) — Patent Owner Response (Paper 16) and Contingent Motion to Amend (Paper 17); Unified's Reply (Paper 23) and Opposition to the motion to amend (Paper 24). Flexiworld's amendment strategy was contingent on the challenged claims falling.
• 2023-06-23 — Preliminary Guidance on the motion to amend (Paper 27); Flexiworld then filed a Revised Contingent Motion to Amend (Paper 31, ~2023-07-03), with opposition, reply, and sur-reply (Papers 35–37).
• 2023-08-29 — Oral hearing (transcript filed as Paper 40, 2023-09-22).
• 2023-11-01 — Final Written Decision (Paper 41): the Board determined no challenged claim unpatentable under pre-AIA § 103 and dismissed the Revised Contingent Motion to Amend as moot. The dispositive issue was priority, not claim scope: Unified failed to carry its burden to show that Olgaard (filed 2000-10-24) and Acharya (filed 2000-12-22) were prior art under § 102(e), because Flexiworld proved, under the rule-of-reason corroboration standard (Fleming v. Escort, 774 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014)), that the inventors conceived claims 27–28 by 2000-10-22 — before both references — based on inventor William Ho Chang's declaration (Ex. 2031) and file metadata from draft provisional applications (Exs. 2024–2029, 2040), which the Board credited as independent, contemporaneous corroboration. The Board also found diligence/reduction-to-practice adequate. (FWD Paper 41; see also Jones Day/PTAB Litigation Blog commentary, 2024-01-09.)
• No appeal identified. My searches did not surface any Federal Circuit appeal of IPR2022-00775 by Unified Patents; the IPR appears to have ended with the 2023-11-01 Final Written Decision (the docket terminates there per the case metadata).

---

III. Outcome Summary & Effect of the IPRs on the Litigation

Net effect: The '257 patent survived every challenge. Roku's district court suit and its own IPRs were resolved by the confidential October 2022 license/settlement, which had no effect on Unified's independent IPR. Unified's IPR then ran to a final written decision that — on the strength of the inventors' pre-2000 conception evidence — left claims 27 and 28 valid and enforceable, a favorable outcome for Flexiworld (Patexia, 2023-11-03; Unified Patents, 2022-04-11). The PTAB record is the public window into the case: Institution Decision (Paper 10), FWD (Paper 41), and the Roku termination filings (IPR2022-01267, Paper 7; IPR2022-01112/13/14, Paper 10).

Caveats on sourcing: I relied on PTAB papers and docket-index sources (DocketAlarm, PTACTS, RPX, Ex Parte, ipverse) plus commentary (Patexia, Jones Day, Unified Patents blog). I could not verify from PACER the exact district court dismissal order date or any later docket entries in 6:21-cv-00767, and I found no evidence of a Federal Circuit appeal — but absence of a search hit is not definitive proof none was filed. If you need the precise district court dismissal order and post-FWD appellate status confirmed, those two items should be checked directly on PACER and the Federal Circuit docket.

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

Let me search for additional press coverage from legal trade publications and other outlets.

Press and analyst coverage of this case

Coverage of Unified Patents v. Flexiworld (IPR2022-00775) and the underlying Flexiworld v. Roku litigation is confined almost entirely to the specialized patent bar — PTAB-focused blogs, legal-newswire aggregators, and the parties' own publications. I found no Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, or EFF Deeplinks reporting on this proceeding, and no mainstream coverage of either the IPR or the confidential Roku settlement. Two outlets dominate: a law-firm analysis piece, widely syndicated, and a PTAB-analytics news feed.

The most substantive article is the Jones Day commentary "Conception and Reduction to Practice Dates Matter," authored by Andreas Holzwarth-Rochford and published on the PTAB Litigation Blog and syndicated via JD Supra and Mondaq (Mondaq dateline 2024-01-09). It reports the Board's Nov. 1, 2023 Final Written Decision (Paper 41) holding claims 27–28 not unpatentable under pre-AIA § 103(a) because Unified failed to show Olgaard (filed 2000-10-24) and Acharya (filed 2000-12-22) qualified as § 102(e) prior art — Flexiworld having proved conception no later than 2000-10-22 via inventor William Ho Chang's declaration plus draft-provisional file metadata. The article flags the decision's two "takeaways": that metadata can constitute independent corroboration of inventor testimony "even if the metadata originated with the inventor," and that routine holiday-era gaps in reduction-to-practice diligence can still satisfy the Perfect Surgical standard. This is the coverage that goes deepest into the record, summarizing the Fleming v. Escort rule-of-reason corroboration analysis and the diligence dispute — including Unified's argument that the file-naming convention was unwritten and that 14 of 16 drafts had mismatched "finalized" and "last modified" dates.

The other case-specific item is Patexia's "PTAB Upholds Flexiworld's Wireless Content Transfer Patent After Challenge by Unified Patents," by Mikele Bicolli (2023-11-03). It frames the result as a loss for Unified — "an organization known for frequently challenging patents and boasting a membership of over 3,000 companies" — and supplies case context the court record alone doesn't: that the '257 patent "was a central point of contention" in Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Roku, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00767 (W.D. Tex., filed 2021-07-27), that Flexiworld accused Roku of infringing the '257 patent plus three others, and that "this case was resolved through a settlement in 2022." Neither Patexia nor the Jones Day piece reports any damages figure, settlement amount, or market impact; consistent with the PTAB record, the Roku license terms were kept confidential. The only reported numbers are procedural (claim counts, filing dates, the 2000 conception/reference dates), not monetary.

Notably, the most visible "reporting" on the case comes from the losing party itself. Unified Patents' own insights page (2022-11-10) announced the institution decision under the headline "Flexiworld wireless communications patent likely invalid," describing Flexiworld as "an NPE" and noting the patent "has been asserted against Roku" — a partisan characterization that the eventual Final Written Decision did not bear out. Unified's related posts (e.g., a 2022-07-05 item on a separate Flexiworld patent) illustrate that Unified publicizes its campaigns as they progress but does not appear to have published a post-mortem acknowledging the IPR2022-00775 loss. On the litigation side, Law Street Media covered an earlier Flexiworld-Roku complaint asserting the '064/'114/'066 patents, and the Lexology-hosted Georgia IP Litigation blog (2022-11-09) covered Flexiworld's separate fifteen-patent campaign against Hisense over smart-TVs — useful for situating the '257 patent within Flexiworld's broader assertion activity, but neither article discusses IPR2022-00775 or the '257 patent's PTAB outcome.

Caveats on sourcing: Two of the three substantively distinct sources (Jones Day's piece and Patexia's) are the only found items that report the FWD itself; the rest concern adjacent litigation. I could not locate any article reporting an appeal of the FWD or a Federal Circuit outcome, and none of the coverage I found reports attorney commentary, executive statements, or quantified market impact beyond the "NPE deterrence" framing. A separate docket-analysis tool (Ex Parte) asserts that an IPR certificate "confirming patentability of asserted claim 27" issued 2024-01-25; that is a docket-derived data point, not press reporting, and should be verified against the USPTO before relying on it.

Sources

• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• Petitioner's Request for Oral Hearing, IPR2022- 00775U
• Trials@uspto
• Conception and Reduction to Practice Dates Matter - PTAB Litigation Blog
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• In response, Flexiworld disputes that Acharya’s expansion module 110 is a “distinct device” from handheld computing system 110. ...
• Filed on behalf of: Flexiworld Technologies, Inc
• Filed on behalf of Unified Patents, LLC By: Jordan M
• IPR2022-00775, No. 23 Pet Reply to PO Resp - Petitioners Reply to Patent Owners Response (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2023) - Exhibits:
• Freedman Decl
• Unified Patents, LLC v. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. - IPR2022-00775
• Docket Alarm | Litigation Outcomes, Delivered - - All Courts

Important framing note

This case is not a patent infringement case. The docket is IPR2022-00775, an inter partes review before the PTAB in which Unified Patents, LLC is the petitioner (the functional analogue of the "plaintiff") challenging claims 27–28 of U.S. Patent No. 9,836,257 owned by Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. (patent owner). The proceeding was terminated by Final Written Decision on November 1, 2023 (Paper 41), which found Unified Patents failed to prove the claims unpatentable and dismissed Flexiworld's revised contingent motion to amend. There is no district-court infringement plaintiff here.

Counsel of record for Unified Patents, LLC (petitioner)

All counsel of record were in-house attorneys at Unified Patents, LLC — no outside/local firm appeared for Unified Patents in this IPR.

1. Jordan M. Rossen (Reg. No. 74,064) — Lead Counsel

• Firm/office: Unified Patents, LLC (in-house), 4445 Willard Ave., Suite 600, Chevy Chase, MD 20815; email jordan@unifiedpatents.com; Tel. (202) 701-1850.
• Role: Lead counsel throughout the proceeding — signed the Petition (Apr. 8, 2022, Paper 1), the Reply, the Request for Oral Argument (June 27, 2023), and was confirmed as lead in Petitioner's Updated Mandatory Notices of June 30, 2023 and Nov. 2, 2023 (Paper 42). He presented Unified Patents' case at the August 29, 2023 oral hearing (hearing transcript, Paper 40).
• Experience: Senior Patent Counsel at Unified Patents; ~11 years of prior IP litigation at Ropes & Gray and Paul Hastings (Washington, DC), including PTAB, ITC, district-court, and Federal Circuit work across software, hardware, semiconductors, and medical devices (per Unified Patents' own bio announcement).

2. Roshan Mansinghani (Reg. No. 62,429) — Back-Up Counsel

• Firm/office: Unified Patents, LLC (in-house), 4445 Willard Ave., Suite 600, Chevy Chase, MD 20815; email roshan@unifiedpatents.com; Tel. (214) 945-0200.
• Role: Back-up counsel — named on the Petition (Paper 1) and consistently maintained as backup counsel in the Updated Mandatory Notices of June 30, 2023 and Nov. 2, 2023 (Paper 42, filed after the Final Written Decision).
• Experience: Longtime Unified Patents in-house attorney (formerly its general counsel/legal lead); handles Unified Patents' PTAB docket challenging NPE/SEP patents. (Note: I could not pull a fuller bio within my search limit, so his prior-firm history is not independently confirmed here.)

3. Ashraf Fawzy (Reg. No. 67,914) — Back-Up Counsel (added mid-case; withdrawn after decision)

• Firm/office: Unified Patents, LLC (in-house), 4445 Willard Ave., Suite 600, Chevy Chase, MD 20815; email afawzy@unifiedpatents.com.
• Role: Designated backup counsel by Petitioner's Updated Mandatory Notices of June 30, 2023 (Paper 30); appeared as co-counsel with Rossen at the August 29, 2023 oral hearing ("with me as well is my colleague Ashraf Fawzy," Paper 40 transcript). He was formally withdrawn as backup counsel in the Nov. 2, 2023 Updated Mandatory Notices (Paper 42).

Related persons who were not counsel of record

• Kevin Jakel — Unified Patents' founder/CEO; submitted a declaration (Ex. 1014) on real party-in-interest standing, but was not counsel.
• Ashley Cheung — Unified Patents paralegal; signed certificates of service (e.g., Paper 20), not counsel.

Patent Owner's counsel (for contrast, not the petitioner)

Flexiworld was represented by Nelson Bumgardner Conroy P.C. (Fort Worth/Dallas, TX): lead counsel Brent N. Bumgardner (Reg. No. 48,476) and backup counsel T. William Kennedy Jr. (pro hac vice), with Robert Delafield II, Charles Austin Ginnings, and Timothy Grochocinski appearing on the initial mandatory notices.

Sources: PTAB docket/Papers 1, 20, 30, 40, 42 (Docket Alarm and PTACTS); Institution Decision (Paper 10); Final Written Decision (Paper 41); Unified Patents' attorney-bio page; Patexia case summary (Nov. 3, 2023). No filings were sealed, and no additional counsel had appeared as of the November 2, 2023 mandatory notices.

Clarifying note on "the defendant" in this case

The case in the metadata — Unified Patents, LLC v. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc., IPR2022-00775 (PTAB) — is not a patent infringement case; it is an inter partes review, an administrative trial in which Unified Patents is the petitioner and Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. is the patent owner/respondent. The case metadata itself lists Flexiworld as the "defendant," and the PTAB's counsel-of-record rules treat the patent owner as the respondent party. I therefore treat Flexiworld's counsel of record in IPR2022-00775 as the primary answer. Because the task mentions a "patent infringement case," I also address the actual infringement suit — Flexiworld v. Roku, No. 6:21-cv-00767-ADA (W.D. Tex.), the related litigation identified in the IPR — and Roku's counsel there, to the extent verifiable.

---

I. Counsel of record for Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. (patent owner/respondent — the "defendant" per metadata)

All Flexiworld counsel came from Nelson Bumgardner Conroy P.C., which during the proceeding rebranded/affiliated as Nelson Bumgardner Albritton P.C. (and, in related matters, Nelson Bumgardner Casto PC). The firm is a Texas patent-litigation boutique.

1. Brent N. Bumgardner — Lead Counsel

• Firm/office: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy P.C. (later Nelson Bumgardner Albritton P.C.), 3131 W. 7th Street, Suite 300, Fort Worth, TX 76107; brent@nelbum.com / bbumgardner@nbelaw.com.
• Role: Lead counsel throughout IPR2022-00775 — signed the Patent Owner's Mandatory Notices (Paper 5, May 12, 2022), the Power of Attorney (Feb. 6, 2023), the Patent Owner Response, the Revised Contingent Motion to Amend, and other substantive filings; he also appeared in the parallel Roku IPRs (IPR2022-01267/68/69) for Flexiworld.
• Experience: USPTO Reg. No. 48,476; a veteran of Texas patent litigation, with a docket dominated by patent-owner/NPE-side enforcement in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas (e.g., Cardio Access LLC v. Boston Scientific; Cellular Communications Equipment LLC v. Amazon/Dell/Apple/HTC; EMSAT v. AT&T/T-Mobile/TracFone; Stambler v. Visa) (PlainSite docket database).

2. Robert A. Delafield II — Back-Up Counsel

• Firm/office: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy P.C., 3131 W. 7th Street, Suite 300, Fort Worth, TX 76107; bobby@nelbum.com.
• Role: Back-up counsel designated in the May 12, 2022 Mandatory Notices (Paper 5); also appeared on Flexiworld's mandatory notices in the related Roku IPRs.
• Experience: USPTO Reg. No. 64,709; trial/PTAB practitioner at the same boutique.

3. Charles Austin Ginnings — Back-Up Counsel

• Firm/office: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy P.C., 15020 S. Ravinia Ave., Suite 29, Orland Park, IL 60462; austin@nelbum.com.
• Role: Back-up counsel per Paper 5 (May 12, 2022); continued through the proceeding (listed on the Nov. 28, 2022 refund notice in IPR2022-01267 and on later IPR2022-00775 papers as "Nelson Bumgardner Albritton P.C.").
• Experience: USPTO Reg. No. 62,706; handles the firm's PTAB practice.

4. Timothy E. Grochocinski — Back-Up Counsel (pro hac vice)

• Firm/office: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy P.C., 15020 S. Ravinia Ave., Suite 29, Orland Park, IL 60462; timothy@nelbum.com.
• Role: Back-up counsel designated in Paper 5 with "Pro Hac Vice to be filed"; in the W.D. Tex. litigation he was Flexiworld's local counsel and moved pro hac vice in the related 6:20-cv-00819 case (Justia docket).
• Experience: Illinois-based patent litigator; appeared as Flexiworld's counsel across the Roku W.D. Tex. cases.

5. T. William Kennedy Jr. — Back-Up Counsel (pro hac vice, added mid-case)

• Firm/office: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy P.C., 2727 N. Harwood St., Suite 250, Dallas, TX 75201; bill@nelbum.com.
• Role: Added as back-up counsel by pro hac vice motion (Paper 12, Dec. 21, 2022) and confirmed in Flexiworld's Feb. 6, 2023 Power of Attorney; served as back-up counsel for the remainder of the case, including the oral hearing and the motion-to-amend phase.
• Experience: Dallas-based patent litigator at the same firm (the firm's "Nelson Bumgardner Albritton" era).

Sources: PTAB Papers 5, 12 (DocketAlarm copies), Feb. 6, 2023 Power of Attorney and Nov. 28, 2022 refund notice (PTACTS), IPR2022-01114 Patent Owner Mandatory Notices (DocketAlarm), bannerwitcoff.com posting of the Institution Decision showing the firm's later name, PlainSite attorney docket data.

---

II. Counsel for the defendant in the underlying infringement litigation (if that is the intended referent)

The actual patent infringement suit was Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Roku, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00767-ADA (W.D. Tex., Judge Albright), in which Roku, Inc. was the defendant. That case settled in October 2022 with dismissal with prejudice, so no counsel list was ever litigated to conclusion.

• Roku's counsel (verifiable from the parallel PTAB record): In Roku's own IPRs against the '257 patent (IPR2022-01267 et al.), Roku was represented by Perkins Coie LLP — Patrick McKeever (lead), Miguel Bombach, Evan Day, and Kristen Schunter (service addresses mckeever-ptab@perkinscoie.com, bombach-ptab@perkinscoie.com, day-ptab@perkinscoie.com, schunter-ptab@perkinscoie.com) (PTACTS Nov. 28, 2022 fee-refund notice in IPR2022-01267; Flexiworld's mandatory-notice certificates of service).
• District court filings: The parties' Oct. 25, 2021 Case Readiness Status Report in 6:21-cv-00767 contains a "COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT ROKU, INC." signature block, but the signatory's name is truncated in the publicly available copy I retrieved, and I could not verify Roku's complete district-court counsel roster from PACER in my searches. (Notably, the same status report lists Matthew C. Bernstein and Martin E. Gilmore of Perkins Coie under Flexiworld's counsel block — an apparent oddity given Perkins Coie's role for Roku in the parallel IPRs; I flag this as unverified rather than resolve it.)

---

III. Caveats

• No filings in IPR2022-00775 are sealed; the Flexiworld counsel list above is drawn directly from the PTAB record and is reliable.
• The Roku-side district court counsel roster for 6:21-cv-00767-ADA could not be fully confirmed from public sources in my searches (PACER would be needed for the exact docket appearances). The Perkins Coie attorneys listed are confirmed counsel of record for Roku in the related PTAB proceedings, not necessarily the full district-court team.
• The case settled before claim construction, discovery on the merits, or trial, so no later substitution of counsel occurred in the district court action.