Encryptawave v. Ricoh: Infringement Suit Over US7233664B2 Dismissed With Prejudice
Encryptawave Technologies, LLC filed suit against Ricoh Company, Ltd. in the Western District of Texas asserting US7233664B2 across more than 100 multifunction printer, scanner, and imaging products. The case ended by joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice after 196 days, with each party bearing its own attorneys’ fees and costs.
Imaging sector encryption patent ends in permanent bar after joint dismissal
Encryptawave Technologies, LLC, a patent assertion entity holding US7233664B2, filed suit against Ricoh Company, Ltd. on May 9, 2025 in the Western District of Texas (Case No. 7:25-cv-00221). The complaint alleged infringement across an unusually broad product list spanning more than 100 Ricoh devices — including IM-series multifunction printers, ScanSnap document scanners, SP-series laser printers, Pro production printers, and portable monitors — effectively targeting Ricoh’s entire commercial imaging portfolio.
The case closed on November 20, 2025 when the parties filed a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The court granted the request and ordered the clerk to close the action. Because the dismissal is with prejudice, Encryptawave is permanently barred from reasserting US7233664B2 against Ricoh on these same claims. Each party was ordered to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs, suggesting no monetary settlement was publicly disclosed.
At 196 days, the case resolved well before any substantive milestone — no Markman order, no summary judgment, and no trial date appears in the record. This timeline is consistent with early-stage resolution, whether through a confidential licensing agreement, a walk-away, or strategic capitulation. The equal-fees arrangement is a notable departure from a plaintiff-favourable outcome and may suggest Ricoh’s defence posture was sufficiently strong to prompt settlement or withdrawal on commercially acceptable terms. The precise commercial terms, if any, remain undisclosed.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 196 days
196 days — resolved before claim construction or trial in W.D. Texas
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal with prejudice: permanently closes the door
A stipulated dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) is self-executing — it requires no judicial approval and takes effect automatically upon filing. Critically, ‘with prejudice’ means Encryptawave cannot refile the same claims against Ricoh under US7233664B2 in any court. This is the strongest form of final resolution short of a merits judgment and carries res judicata effect on the asserted claims.
Permanent bar on reassertionEncryptawave permanently forfeits infringement claims against Ricoh
By agreeing to dismiss with prejudice, Encryptawave surrendered its right to pursue Ricoh for infringement of US7233664B2 on these claims. While the patent itself remains in force and can still be asserted against third parties, the voluntary acceptance of a with-prejudice dismissal — with no fee award in its favour — suggests the plaintiff either reached a private licensing arrangement or assessed continued litigation as commercially unviable against Ricoh’s Baker Botts defence team.
Claims extinguished vs. RicohRicoh exits litigation with prejudice protection across its entire product range
Ricoh secures a with-prejudice dismissal covering the full scope of asserted products — over 100 devices across its commercial imaging portfolio. This outcome insulates Ricoh from re-litigation of these specific claims under US7233664B2. The each-party-bears-own-costs structure is standard in confidential resolutions but also consistent with a defendant that successfully pushed back. Ricoh’s six-attorney defence roster from Baker Botts signals this was treated as a serious commercial threat.
Full product portfolio protectedBroad product-list PAE tactics in W.D. Texas: what this outcome signals
Filing against 100+ SKUs is a characteristic PAE strategy designed to maximise damages exposure and negotiating leverage. The with-prejudice exit — without a visible fee-shifting award to either side — is consistent with a confidential licence or a negotiated walk-away. Imaging and printer OEMs facing similar broad-brush assertions should note that aggressive early defence, combined with W.D. Texas’s active docket pace, can compress resolution timelines and limit plaintiff leverage before claim construction locks in scope.
PAE pressure, early resolutionFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Encryptawave Technologies, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US7233664B2 covering secure wireless imaging communicationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Ricoh Company, Ltd. | Company | Ricoh Company, Ltd. — global manufacturer of multifunction printers, scanners, and imaging systemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David R. Bennett, Esq., | Attorney | Counsel for Encryptawave Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Direction IP law | Law Firm | Representing Encryptawave Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jennifer C. Tempesta | Attorney | Counsel for Ricoh Company, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kiyotoki Natsume | Attorney | Counsel for Ricoh Company, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Mark A. Speegle | Attorney | Counsel for Ricoh Company, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Matthew Thompson | Attorney | Counsel for Ricoh Company, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael E. Knierim | Attorney | Counsel for Ricoh Company, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Robert L. Maier | Attorney | Counsel for Ricoh Company, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Baker Botts LLP | Law Firm | Representing Ricoh Company, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order adopts the parties’ joint stipulation verbatim, confirming the self-executing nature of Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissals — no judicial endorsement of the merits was required or given. The explicit ‘with prejudice as to the asserted patent’ language is significant: it ties the bar directly to US7233664B2, foreclosing any attempt to relitigate these claims. The each-party-bears-costs clause is neutral on the merits and provides no public signal as to whether a confidential licence was exchanged.
US7233664B2 — secure wireless communication for networked imaging devices
US7233664B2, filed under application number US10/448989, covers methods and systems for secure wireless communication in the context of networked imaging and printing devices. The patent’s technical domain sits at the intersection of wireless network security and peripheral device management — an area of persistent commercial relevance as enterprise MFP deployments increasingly operate over encrypted wireless infrastructure. Its grant date places it in an era when WPA/WPA2 security for printer networks was an emerging compliance concern.
For imaging OEMs, US7233664B2 represents a patent whose claim scope — however ultimately construed — was considered commercially threatening enough to prompt Ricoh to retain a six-partner Baker Botts team. The patent remains enforceable and, given the with-prejudice exit here, Encryptawave retains the right to assert it against Canon, HP, Xerox, Konica Minolta, Kyocera, and any other manufacturer whose products implement secure wireless printing protocols. Any company shipping MFPs or document scanners with Wi-Fi and encryption capability should assess exposure.
Should your product team run an FTO against US7233664B2?
If your organisation designs, manufactures, or distributes multifunction printers, document scanners, wireless-enabled peripherals, or enterprise imaging solutions with encrypted wireless connectivity, US7233664B2 is a live enforcement risk. This case demonstrates that Encryptawave is willing to assert the patent at scale — naming over 100 SKUs in a single complaint — and that W.D. Texas is the chosen venue. In-house IP teams and R&D leads at competing OEMs should prioritise a freedom-to-operate assessment before launching new wireless-enabled imaging products.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim landscape of US7233664B2 against your product specifications, identify relevant prior art, flag continuation filings in the same family (application US10/448989), and surface similar assertions in the imaging sector. Eureka’s litigation monitoring tools also allow you to track Encryptawave’s enforcement activity in real time, giving your legal team early warning if a demand letter or new filing is imminent.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7233664B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent infringement cases: wireless imaging and encryption IP in W.D. Texas
Cases asserting wireless communication and encryption patents against imaging OEMs in the Western District of Texas — a high-volume PAE enforcement venue.
What this case signals for the imaging and wireless communication IP landscape
A PAE asserting a single patent across 100+ printer and scanner SKUs — then exiting with prejudice — carries clear lessons for OEMs and IP teams.
Broad product lists inflate exposure but invite early-stage negotiation pressure
Naming over 100 products in a complaint signals maximum damages framing, but it also creates procedural complexity that can accelerate resolution. Ricoh’s early engagement with six defence counsel from Baker Botts suggests a strategy of front-loading costs to deter protracted litigation — a model that appears to have been effective here.
With-prejudice exits protect defendants but leave the patent alive for the market
US7233664B2 remains active and assertable against other imaging OEMs. Companies marketing multifunction printers, document scanners, or secure wireless printing solutions should treat this case as an early indicator of enforcement intent. An FTO analysis against this patent is warranted for any competitor in the commercial imaging space.
Encryptawave v Ricoh — key questions answered
The with-prejudice dismissal means Encryptawave is permanently barred from asserting the same claims under US7233664B2 against Ricoh in any court. The patent itself remains valid and enforceable against other parties. For Ricoh, the dismissal provides res judicata protection on the specific claims asserted in Case No. 7:25-cv-00221.
The complaint named over 100 Ricoh products including IM-series multifunction printers (IM 350 through IM 9000 and colour variants), ScanSnap document scanners (iX100, iX500, iX1300, iX1400, iX1500, iX1600), SP-series printers, Pro production printers (Pro 8300s through Pro C7500), MP-series copiers, and several portable monitor models.
The court’s order, adopting the joint stipulation, expressly directed each party to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs. This arrangement is common in agreed dismissals and is neutral on the merits. It does not establish either party as the prevailing party for fee-shifting purposes under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and is consistent with either a confidential licence or a negotiated walk-away.
Yes. The dismissal with prejudice extinguishes Encryptawave’s claims only against Ricoh. US7233664B2 remains in force and Encryptawave retains all enforcement rights against third parties. Competing imaging OEMs — including Canon, HP, Xerox, and Konica Minolta — should consider this case a signal of active enforcement intent.
The Western District of Texas is a preferred venue for patent assertion entities due to its historically favourable case management pace, jury pool, and plaintiff-friendly local rules. The district’s active docket compresses timelines, which can pressure defendants into early resolution. Ricoh’s engagement of a six-attorney Baker Botts team suggests the venue risk was taken seriously from the outset.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.