DCT

2:26-cv-11294

Flexiworld Tech Inc v. Toshiba America Business Solutions Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint
complaint Intelligence

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Toshiba America Business Solutions, Inc., 2:26-cv-11294, C.D. Cal., 09/29/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Central District of California because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s multifunction printers and associated mobile printing applications infringe a portfolio of seven U.S. patents related to wireless printing technology.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for printing digital content from mobile information devices (e.g., smartphones) to output devices (e.g., printers) over a wireless network, aiming to eliminate the need for device-specific printer drivers on the mobile device.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit and their infringement through at least a notice letter dated July 23, 2021, which may form the basis for a willfulness claim.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-11-01 Earliest Priority Date for ’856, ’791, ’073, ’031, ’846 Patents
2001-01-19 Earliest Priority Date for ’181, ’071 Patents
2015-05-19 U.S. Patent No. 9,036,181 Issues
2018-11-27 U.S. Patent No. 10,140,071 and 10,140,073 Issue
2019-11-19 U.S. Patent No. 10,481,846 Issues
2020-09-01 U.S. Patent No. 10,761,791 Issues
2020-11-24 U.S. Patent No. 10,846,031 Issues
2020-12-22 U.S. Patent No. 10,873,856 Issues
2021-07-23 Plaintiff sends notice letter to Defendant regarding alleged infringement
2026-09-29 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,036,181 - “Wireless Printing Device For Printing Digital Content Received Via Wireless Communication Compatible, At Least Partly, With IEEE 802.11 or Bluetooth”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9036181, “Wireless Printing Device For Printing Digital Content Received Via Wireless Communication Compatible, At Least Partly, With IEEE 802.11 or Bluetooth,” issued May 19, 2015.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The complaint describes the patent as addressing the inconvenience for mobile device users of needing to find and install a specific, dedicated printer driver for each different printer they encounter, a process that is particularly burdensome on devices with limited storage and processing power Compl. ¶25
  • The Patented Solution: The technology facilitates wireless printing by dividing the computationally-intensive Raster Image Processing (RIP) tasks between the mobile device and the printer. The mobile device performs initial processing to create an "intermediate" data format, which is then sent to the printer. A controller within the printer completes the device-specific processing (e.g., halftoning), allowing a single, lightweight application on the mobile device to work with multiple printers without needing full, dedicated drivers Compl. ¶25
  • Technical Importance: This approach aimed to make "walk-up" wireless printing from pervasive computing devices a practical reality, simplifying the user experience and reducing the resource burden on early mobile devices Compl. ¶¶3-5

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts claims 1, 5, and 6 of the ’181 Patent Compl. ¶87
  • The complaint does not provide the text of the asserted claims or a claim chart exhibit for analysis. The complaint alleges that the asserted claims cover wireless printing devices and methods Compl. ¶87

U.S. Patent No. 10,140,071 - “Printers, Printer Controllers, Printer Software, or Printer Firmware for Supporting Wireless Printing or Printing Over Air”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10140071, “Printers, Printer Controllers, Printer Software, or Printer Firmware for Supporting Wireless Printing or Printing Over Air,” issued November 27, 2018.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies the complexity and inconvenience for users, particularly mobile users, who must install a unique, device-dependent driver on their computing device for each printer they wish to use, a process that consumes time and limited device resources ’071 Patent, col. 2:15-3:4
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a system where an "information apparatus" (e.g., a mobile device) and an "output device" (e.g., a printer) share the printing workload. The mobile device discovers the printer and receives an "output device profile" describing the printer's capabilities ’071 Patent, abstract The mobile device then performs initial processing (rasterization) to create an "intermediate output data" format, which is sent to an "output controller" at the printer that performs the final, device-specific rendering steps like halftoning (’071 Patent, col. 5:35-6:13; ’071 Patent, Fig. 9).
  • Technical Importance: This distributed processing model allows a single, more universal client application on a mobile device to print to various compliant printers, obviating the need for full, dedicated drivers for each model ’071 Patent, col. 5:35-5:44

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts claims 1-7 of the ’071 Patent, with claim 1 being independent Compl. ¶94
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A printing device supporting wireless printing of digital content.
    • A memory/storage component to store an output device profile with at least one attribute.
    • One or more wireless communication units compatible with IEEE 802.11.
    • Using the wireless communication units to wirelessly broadcast availability for discovery.
    • Using the wireless communication units to wirelessly transmit at least part of the output device profile to a wireless information apparatus that has discovered it.
    • Using the wireless communication units to wirelessly receive print data from the information apparatus, where the print data is related to the digital content and is based on the transmitted output device profile.

U.S. Patent No. 10,873,856 - “Printing Devices Supporting Printing Over Air or Printing Over A Wireless Network”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10873856, “Printing Devices Supporting Printing Over Air or Printing Over A Wireless Network,” issued December 22, 2020 Compl. ¶37
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent relates to printing devices that support wireless "printing over air" by communicating over a wireless network Compl. ¶37 The technology appears to continue the theme of simplifying wireless printing from mobile devices.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts claims 17-20 Compl. ¶101
  • Accused Features: The "Accused Printers" are alleged to infringe Compl. ¶101

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”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10761791, “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,” issued September 1, 2020 Compl. ¶43
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent covers wireless printing devices that provide services over a network without requiring a device-specific printer driver on the client device, echoing the core technological theme of the suit Compl. ¶43
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts claims 1-5 Compl. ¶108
  • Accused Features: The "Accused Printers" are alleged to infringe Compl. ¶108

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”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10140073, “Wireless Devices That Establish A Wireless Connection With A Mobile Information Apparatus by Wirelessly Detecting, Within Physical Proximity, the Mobile Information Apparatus,” issued November 27, 2018 Compl. ¶49
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes wireless devices that can establish a connection with a mobile device by detecting it when it is in close physical proximity, facilitating a simplified setup for wireless communication Compl. ¶49
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts claims 8, 9, 11, 14, and 15 Compl. ¶115
  • Accused Features: The "Accused Printers" are alleged to infringe Compl. ¶115

U.S. Patent No. 10,846,031 - “Software Application For A Mobile Device To Wirelessly Manage or Wirelessly Setup an Output System or Output Device For Service”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10846031, “Software Application For A Mobile Device To Wirelessly Manage or Wirelessly Setup an Output System or Output Device For Service,” issued November 24, 2020 Compl. ¶55
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent relates to a software application on a mobile device used to wirelessly manage or set up an output device or system for service, suggesting a focus on the user-facing application side of the wireless printing ecosystem Compl. ¶55
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts claims 8-12 Compl. ¶122
  • Accused Features: The "Accused Apps" are alleged to infringe Compl. ¶122

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10481846, “Software Applications and Information Apparatus For Printing Over Air or For Printing Over A Network,” issued November 19, 2019 Compl. ¶61
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent covers software applications for an "information apparatus" (e.g., a mobile device) that enable printing over a wireless network, again focusing on the client-side software that facilitates the claimed printing methods Compl. ¶61
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts claims 1-5 Compl. ¶129
  • Accused Features: The "Accused Apps" are alleged to infringe Compl. ¶129

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are Defendant's "Accused Printers" and "Accused Apps" Compl. ¶73 Compl. ¶74
    • Accused Printers: Multifunction printers and printer models from series including e-STUDIO, B-FP, B-EP, BV, B-FV, DB, B, BA, B-EX, B-SX, and/or FC Compl. ¶73
    • Accused Apps: Toshiba's wireless printing applications, including eBridge Print & Capture, eConnect TouchFree, PaperCut MF, and e-BRIDGE Cloud Connect apps Compl. ¶73 Compl. ¶74

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges these products work together to provide wireless printing capabilities to users Compl. ¶73 The printers are alleged to be compatible with the accused applications, which enable users to print from mobile devices over a network Compl. ¶73 The complaint alleges that Defendant has made, used, sold, and imported these instrumentalities in the United States Compl. ¶72
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant's "Accused Printers" and "Accused Apps" infringe the patents-in-suit, both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents Compl. ¶73 Compl. ¶74 The complaint references Exhibits 8-14, described as exemplary claim charts detailing the infringement, but these exhibits were not included with the complaint document Compl. ¶80

The general infringement theory is that the combination of Toshiba’s printers and mobile apps practices the patented methods for wireless printing. This allegedly involves the mobile app discovering a nearby printer, the printer transmitting its capabilities (or "profile") to the app, the app processing a digital document into a specific intermediate format based on that profile, and the printer receiving that intermediate data and performing the final rendering steps to produce a printed page Compl. ¶¶73-74 This process is alleged to infringe claims directed to the overall system, the printing devices themselves, and the software applications that enable the process.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: A central technical question will be whether the Accused Apps and Accused Printers actually implement the specific distributed processing architecture claimed in the patents. For instance, does the eBridge Print & Capture app generate a true "intermediate output data" (a partially-processed raster image) as required by certain claims, or does it generate a standard Page Description Language (PDL) file (like a PDF) which is then sent to the printer for all processing? The evidence of the actual data format transmitted between the app and printer will be critical.
    • Scope Questions: The case may raise questions about the scope of key claim terms. For example, for the ’071 Patent, a question is whether the information broadcast by an accused Toshiba printer constitutes an "output device profile" as construed under the patent, and whether the data received by the printer constitutes "print data" that is "related, at least partly, to the at least one attribute" of that profile, as required by claim 1.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Analysis based on U.S. Patent No. 10,140,071.

  • The Term: "output device profile"

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed invention, as it is the mechanism by which the mobile device learns the printer's capabilities to generate compatible print data without a dedicated driver. The contents and transmission of this "profile" are recited in independent claim 1 of the ’071 patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine whether the device information transmitted by Toshiba's printers is sufficient to meet the claim limitation.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract states the printer transmits "at least part of an output device profile," suggesting the entire profile need not be sent ’071 Patent, abstract The claims require the profile to include "at least one attribute," which could be argued to encompass a very minimal set of information ’071 Patent, cl. 1
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides an extensive list of potential fields in a profile, including device identification, service features, specific technical parameters (color space, resolution, halftoning methods), and even payment information ’071 Patent, col. 9:63-10:27 A defendant may argue that a true "output device profile" must contain a substantive collection of such technical parameters, not just a simple identifier.

  • The Term: "print data that is related to at least part of the digital content for printing"

  • Context and Importance: This term in claim 1 of the ’071 patent defines what the printer receives from the mobile device. Its construction is critical because the infringement analysis will hinge on whether the data format actually used by the accused Toshiba system fits this definition, particularly in how it is "related... to the at least one attribute" from the device profile.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is general, requiring only that the print data be "related to" the content and "related, at least partly, to the at least one attribute." This could be argued to cover a wide range of data formats, including standard ones like PDF, if it can be shown they were generated with any awareness of a printer attribute.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification distinguishes the invention's "intermediate output data" from conventional methods that use a PDL like PostScript or fully client-side RIP (’071 Patent, col. 3:5-4:52; ’071 Patent, col. 5:3-6:13). A party may argue that to be "related" in the claimed way, the "print data" must be the specific type of "intermediate output data" (e.g., a rasterized image without halftoning) that is the focus of the patent's description, thereby excluding standard PDL files.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by providing customers with its Accused Printers and instructing them, via support websites and product manuals, on how to download and use the Accused Apps in an infringing manner Compl. ¶88 Compl. ¶95 Compl. ¶102 Compl. ¶109 Compl. ¶116 Compl. ¶123 Compl. ¶130
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant’s purported knowledge of the patents-in-suit since at least a July 23, 2021 notice letter Compl. ¶90 Compl. ¶97 Compl. ¶104 The complaint further alleges that despite this knowledge, Defendant has not ceased its infringing activities or sought to identify a good faith basis for non-infringement, justifying enhanced damages Compl. ¶91 Compl. ¶98 Compl. ¶105

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

  • A core issue will be one of technical operation: does the accused Toshiba system (apps and printers) actually practice the specific distributed Raster Image Processing (RIP) architecture described in the patents? The case may turn on evidence demonstrating whether the mobile apps generate a true "intermediate output data" (e.g., a partially rendered image) as claimed, or if they transmit a standard data format (e.g., PDF) that requires full processing by the printer, potentially placing the system outside the scope of the claims.
  • A second key question will be one of claim construction: can the term "output device profile," as described in the patents, be construed to read on the specific device information that Toshiba’s printers allegedly transmit to the mobile apps? The outcome will depend on whether a minimal data exchange is sufficient to meet the claim limitation or if a more comprehensive set of technical parameters is required.
  • Finally, an evidentiary question regarding willfulness will be central to damages. Did Defendant’s conduct after receiving the alleged July 23, 2021 notice letter constitute objective recklessness? The answer will depend on the strength of Toshiba's non-infringement or invalidity defenses developed post-notice.