DCT

5:22-cv-00098

Flexiworld Tech Inc v. Lexmark Intl Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 5:22-cv-00098, E.D. Ky., 04/15/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Kentucky because Defendant Lexmark is headquartered and maintains a permanent physical presence and regular and established place of business within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s wireless printers and mobile printing applications infringe four patents related to universal wireless data output, proximity-based connection establishment, and network printing technologies.
  • Technical Context: The patents address methods for enabling mobile devices to print to various output devices without needing pre-installed, device-specific drivers, a key technological challenge in the growth of mobile computing.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant has been aware of Plaintiff’s technology since at least April 2002, citing a news article in which a Lexmark manager commented on Plaintiff's technology. Plaintiff also alleges it sent Defendant a notice letter identifying the patents-in-suit and accused products on July 23, 2021, which may be relevant to allegations of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-11-01 Earliest Priority Date for ’073, ’846, ’791 Patents
2001-01-19 Earliest Priority Date for ’402 Patent
2002-04-18 Date of article allegedly showing Lexmark's awareness of Flexiworld
2009-10-27 U.S. Patent No. 7,609,402 Issues
2018-11-27 U.S. Patent No. 10,140,073 Issues
2019-11-19 U.S. Patent No. 10,481,846 Issues
2020-09-01 U.S. Patent No. 10,761,791 Issues
2021-07-23 Plaintiff sends notice letter to Defendant
2022-04-15 Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 7,609,402 - “Methods For Universal Data Output”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Mobile device users face significant inconvenience when attempting to print documents, as conventional methods require pre-installing a specific printer driver for each output device, a process that is often not feasible for a user in a remote location like an airport or hotel (’073 Patent, col. 2:14-28, col. 3:20-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a universal output method where an information apparatus (e.g., a mobile device) performs only part of the necessary image processing, such as rasterization, to create an "intermediate output data" format. This intermediate data is then sent to an output device or an associated controller, which performs the remaining device-specific processing (e.g., halftoning, color correction) to generate the final printout (’073 Patent, col. 5:35-67). This bifurcated process aims to reduce the computational load on the mobile device and eliminate the need for device-specific drivers on that device.
  • Technical Importance: This approach sought to decouple mobile devices from specific printer hardware, enabling a "walk-up-and-print" capability that was critical for the utility of pervasive computing devices (’073 Patent, col. 3:45-53).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 13 (Compl. ¶61).
  • The complaint does not provide the text of the asserted claim.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 10,140,073 - “Wireless Devices That Establish A Wireless Connection With A Mobile Information Apparatus by Wirelessly Detecting, Within Physical Proximity, the Mobile Information Apparatus”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the complexity of setting up wireless connections between mobile devices and peripherals like printers, which traditionally involves manual configuration steps (’073 Patent, col. 2:14-28).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where a wireless device and a mobile device (e.g., a smart phone) establish a connection by simply being brought into close physical proximity. During this initial proximity-based detection, the devices exchange security or device information to facilitate future connections without needing to repeat the discovery process (’073 Patent, Abstract). The process is designed to be seamless for the user.
  • Technical Importance: This technology aimed to simplify the user experience for device pairing, a persistent challenge in wireless networking, by automating the initial discovery and connection handshake based on physical proximity (’073 Patent, Abstract).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 8 (Compl. ¶70).
  • Claim 8 of the ’073 Patent recites a wireless connection method for a wireless device comprising the essential elements of:
    • Wirelessly detecting a smart phone, where the detection is based on physical proximity.
    • Wirelessly transmitting device information from the wireless device to the smart phone.
    • Wirelessly receiving a service or connection request from the smart phone.
    • Establishing a wireless communication link with the smart phone in response to the request.
    • Wirelessly receiving data from the smart phone over the established link.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 10,481,846 - “Software Applications and Information Apparatus For Printing Over Air or For Printing Over A Network”

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a software application on an information apparatus (e.g., a mobile device) that supports network printing. The application includes a discovery component to find a supported printer on a local area network (LAN) and a printing component to generate and transmit print data in a format acceptable to the discovered printer (’846 Patent, Abstract). The system is designed to allow applications like web browsers or email clients to print digital content over the network.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶77).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the “Accused Lexmark Apps,” including non-transitory computer-readable storage mediums containing those apps, of infringement (Compl. ¶77).

U.S. Patent No. 10,761,791 - “Wireless Printing Devices That Provide Printing Services Over A Network Without A Need for A Client Device of the Printing Device to Use, at the Client Device, A Printer Specific Printer Driver”

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is directed to a wireless printing device that registers itself with a service over a network (e.g., the Internet) to provide printing services. This registration allows client devices to select and print to the device via the network service without the client needing to install a printer-specific driver (’791 Patent, Abstract). The printing device itself may have an interface to receive security information for connecting to a wireless local network.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶86).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the “Accused Wireless Printers” of infringement (Compl. ¶86).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies two categories of accused products:
    1. “The Accused Wireless Printers,” which include but are not limited to Lexmark’s “Go Line series” of wireless printers (Compl. ¶44).
    2. “The Accused Lexmark Apps,” which include “Lexmark’s Mobile Print App, Mobile Assistant App,” and other mobile print applications (Compl. ¶45).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Accused Products collectively provide a system that enables users to print from mobile devices to Lexmark printers over a wireless connection (Compl. ¶¶44-46). The complaint alleges that these products are marketed and sold in the United States and are central to Lexmark's strategy for mobile device integration (Compl. ¶¶6-7, 44-45). The complaint references Lexmark's customer support website and instructional materials as evidence of the accused functionality (Compl. ¶65, ¶74). The complaint references but does not provide Exhibits 5-8, which allegedly contain screenshots and materials demonstrating the operation of the Accused Products (Compl. ¶58).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references but does not attach Exhibits 5-8, which it states are claim charts detailing infringement (Compl. ¶58). In the absence of these exhibits, the infringement theory is summarized from the complaint’s narrative allegations.

The complaint alleges that the Accused Lexmark Apps directly infringe at least claim 13 of the ’402 Patent and claim 1 of the ’846 Patent (Compl. ¶61, ¶77). It further alleges that the Accused Wireless Printers directly infringe at least claim 8 of the ’073 Patent and claim 1 of the ’791 Patent (Compl. ¶70, ¶86). The overarching theory is that Defendant’s mobile printing ecosystem, comprising the apps and printers, practices the patented methods for simplified wireless printing and connection establishment.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A potential point of dispute regarding the ’073 Patent may be whether the connection protocols used by the Accused Products (e.g., Wi-Fi Direct, network discovery) meet the claim limitation of "wirelessly detecting... based, at least in part, on physical proximity." The specific technical basis for connection establishment will be a key factual question.
  • Technical Questions: For the ’402 and ’846 Patents, a likely area of contention is whether the data format created by the Accused Lexmark Apps constitutes the claimed "intermediate output data" or a standard, fully rendered print file (e.g., PDF). The allocation of processing tasks between the mobile app and the printer will be a critical technical issue for the court to resolve.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "wirelessly detecting, using the wireless communication circuitry of the wireless device, the smart phone, the wireless detection is based, at least in part, on physical proximity" (from claim 8 of the ’073 Patent)

    • Context and Importance: This term is the central inventive concept of the ’073 Patent. Its construction will determine whether modern wireless discovery methods, which may rely on network protocols rather than simple radio signal strength, fall within the scope of the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because the factual basis for "detection" in the accused system—whether it is truly based on physical proximity or on network-level broadcasts—will be dispositive for infringement.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The abstract describes the invention in general terms as using "short range wireless detection" when devices are "placed within physical proximity of each other," which could be argued to encompass various technologies like Bluetooth or Wi-Fi that operate at short ranges (’073 Patent, Abstract).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language recites "detecting... the smart phone," which could be construed to require a specific action by the wireless device to sense the phone's presence, potentially excluding passive listening for network broadcast packets common in standard Wi-Fi discovery.

  • The Term: "intermediate output data" (a term central to the ’402, ’846, and ’791 patent family)

    • Context and Importance: Infringement of the asserted system and method claims depends on whether the data passed from the Accused Lexmark Apps to the Accused Wireless Printers meets this definition. The dispute will likely center on the degree of processing performed by the app versus the printer.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification of the related ’073 Patent states that intermediate output data "includes a rasterized image... however, device dependent image processing operations of a RIP (e.g. color matching and halftoning) have not been performed" (’073 Patent, col. 5:39-44). This provides a functional definition that could read on any data format that offloads such specific tasks to the printer.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also provides a specific example, noting that "the intermediate output data includes MRC (Mixed raster content) format" (’073 Patent, col. 5:46-47). A defendant may argue this disclosure limits the term's scope to specific, non-standard raster formats rather than universally used formats like PDF or JPEG.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Lexmark’s product manuals, website, customer support, and instructional materials instruct and encourage customers to use the Accused Products in a manner that directly infringes the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶ 65, 74, 81, 90). The complaint also alleges contributory infringement on the basis that the Accused Lexmark Apps are not staple articles of commerce and are especially made or adapted for infringing the patents (Compl. ¶¶ 67, 83).

Willful Infringement

  • Willfulness is alleged based on both pre- and post-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that Lexmark has known of Flexiworld and its technology since at least April 2002, citing a news article quoting a Lexmark manager (Compl. ¶¶ 48, 94). It further alleges that Lexmark received actual notice of the patents-in-suit via a letter dated July 23, 2021, and that its continued infringement thereafter was willful (Compl. ¶¶ 51, 97).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A core issue will be one of technical equivalence: Does the method by which the Accused Wireless Printers and Accused Lexmark Apps discover and connect to each other align with the specific "physical proximity"-based detection required by the ’073 patent's claims, or does it operate on a different technical principle, such as standard network-layer service discovery?
  • A key question of claim scope will be central to the dispute: Can the data generated by the Accused Lexmark Apps be properly characterized as the "intermediate output data" described in the patents—a partially processed raster file—or will evidence show it to be a standard, fully rendered print job format that falls outside the claims?
  • A critical issue for damages will be willfulness: Do the 2002 news article and the 2021 notice letter constitute sufficient evidence to establish that Lexmark knew or should have known its conduct constituted infringement, thereby justifying a finding of willfulness and potential enhanced damages?