K.Mizra LLC v. Epson America: Four-Patent Inkjet Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
K.Mizra LLC filed a broad patent infringement action against Epson America in the Central District of California, asserting four patents across more than 100 Epson inkjet printer models. The case closed 238 days after filing via voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), with each side bearing its own attorneys’ fees and costs.
Broad Epson printer IP suit ends before Epson files its first pleading
On January 7, 2025, K.Mizra LLC — a patent assertion entity — filed suit against Epson America, Inc. in the Central District of California alleging infringement of four United States patents: US10018938B2, US7570400B2, US7568170B2, and US9769342B2. The complaint targeted an exceptionally wide product range spanning Epson’s EcoTank Pro, Expression Photo, Expression Premium, SureColor, WorkForce, and WorkForce Enterprise printer lines — over 100 individual SKUs in total.
The case closed on September 2, 2025, when K.Mizra filed a voluntary dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Because Epson had not yet served an answer, motion for summary judgment, or other responsive pleading, the plaintiff retained the unilateral right to dismiss without court approval. The ‘with prejudice’ designation is critical: K.Mizra is permanently barred from reasserting any of the four patents against Epson America on the same claims, making this a final resolution of the dispute.
At 238 days, the case resolved well before the typical C.D. Cal. patent litigation timeline — and without any substantive court ruling on validity or infringement. The pre-answer dismissal timing suggests the parties likely reached an out-of-court accommodation, though the public record is silent on any settlement terms. The fee-sharing arrangement — each party bearing its own costs — is consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a concession of weakness by either side.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 238 days
238 days — faster than the C.D. Cal. median for patent cases, which typically exceeds 2 years at trial
Dismissed with prejudice: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows unilateral dismissal before any responsive pleading
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without court order if the defendant has not yet served an answer or motion for summary judgment. Epson had filed no responsive pleading, so K.Mizra held this right unilaterally. The ‘with prejudice’ designation — chosen by K.Mizra rather than mandated — converts the dismissal into a final judgment on the merits, permanently barring refiling of the same claims.
Plaintiff-initiated, no court approval neededK.Mizra closes the door permanently — and bears its own litigation costs
Voluntarily dismissing with prejudice is a significant concession by the plaintiff: K.Mizra cannot reassert these four patents against Epson America on the same infringement claims. The absence of any fee award against K.Mizra suggests Epson did not move for — or obtain — an exceptional case finding under 35 U.S.C. § 285. The fee-sharing arrangement leaves open the possibility of a confidential settlement, though no public terms were recorded.
Claims extinguished; no fee award against plaintiffEpson exits without admitting liability or paying a public judgment
Epson America obtained a final dismissal without ever filing a responsive pleading, avoiding the cost and risk of full litigation. The with-prejudice ruling protects Epson from any re-assertion of these specific claims. Each party bearing its own costs means Epson recovered no legal fees, which is typical where no exceptional case motion was pursued. The resolution leaves Epson’s product lines commercially unencumbered by these four patents.
No liability finding; product lines clearedK.Mizra’s four patents remain enforceable against other printer manufacturers
Dismissal with prejudice binds only K.Mizra’s claims against Epson. The four asserted patents — US10018938B2, US7570400B2, US7568170B2, and US9769342B2 — remain fully valid and enforceable against third parties. Other inkjet printer manufacturers in the C.D. Cal. jurisdiction should treat this case as a signal that K.Mizra is actively asserting this portfolio. The broad product scope named in the complaint suggests K.Mizra was testing the enforceability range of the patents.
Patents remain live against third partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | K.Mizra, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US10018938B2, US7570400B2, US7568170B2, and US9769342B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Epson America, Inc. | Company | Epson America, Inc. — U.S. subsidiary of Seiko Epson Corp., manufacturer of inkjet printersSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Benjamin A Nix | Attorney | Counsel for K.Mizra, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert R. Brunelli | Attorney | Counsel for K.Mizra, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Scott R. Bialecki | Attorney | Counsel for K.Mizra, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Sean A. O’Brien | Attorney | Counsel for K.Mizra, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Tristan D. Lewis | Attorney | Counsel for K.Mizra, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Payne & Fears LLP | Law Firm | Representing K.Mizra, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Sheridan Ross PC | Law Firm | Representing K.Mizra, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Benjamin Graham Nelson | Attorney | Counsel for Epson America, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Christina N. Goodrich | Attorney | Counsel for Epson America, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joel Gotkin | Attorney | Counsel for Epson America, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Peter T. Ewald | Attorney | Counsel for Epson America, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Rachel Berman | Attorney | Counsel for Epson America, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | William Scott Strickland | Attorney | Counsel for Epson America, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | KandL Gates LLP | Law Firm | Representing Epson America, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Oliff PLC | Law Firm | Representing Epson America, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Central District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal order confirms K.Mizra invoked Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — the unilateral pre-answer dismissal right — and elected the ‘with prejudice’ standard voluntarily. This is a legally significant choice: a without-prejudice dismissal would have preserved K.Mizra’s right to refile, while the with-prejudice designation permanently extinguishes these claims against Epson. The order’s reference to Seiko Epson Corporation alongside Epson America suggests both entities were named defendants, and the dismissal covers the action in its entirety.
US10018938B2, US7570400B2, US7568170B2 & US9769342B2 — Inkjet Printing Technology Patents
The four asserted patents — US10018938B2, US7570400B2, US7568170B2, and US9769342B2 — cover various aspects of inkjet printing technology, including imaging pipeline control, print head operation, document handling, and networked printer management. Their application numbers span filings from 2005 through to the mid-2010s, suggesting the portfolio captures both foundational inkjet techniques and later-generation features incorporated into modern multifunction and enterprise printer platforms.
The breadth of the accused product list — spanning consumer EcoTank and Expression series through to enterprise WorkForce models — suggests K.Mizra believes the asserted claims read broadly across Epson’s inkjet architecture rather than on any niche feature. For competing manufacturers including Canon, HP, and Brother, the survival of all four patents post-dismissal means this portfolio remains an active enforcement risk, particularly for products sharing similar print management, imaging, or wireless connectivity architectures.
Should you run an FTO against US10018938B2 and the K.Mizra inkjet portfolio?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or importing inkjet multifunction printers, wide-format printers, or enterprise print management systems into the U.S. market should assess freedom-to-operate against this four-patent portfolio. K.Mizra’s willingness to target over 100 Epson SKUs — from entry-level consumer models to high-volume enterprise units — indicates the claims are drafted to cover mainstream inkjet architectures, not edge cases.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent claims of US10018938B2, US7570400B2, US7568170B2, and US9769342B2 against your product specifications, flag design-around opportunities, and surface prior art that may support an IPR or post-grant review challenge. Given the portfolio’s active enforcement status, a structured FTO analysis is a prudent first step before product launch or market expansion in the U.S.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10018938B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar inkjet printer patent infringement cases in U.S. district courts
Cases involving inkjet printing technology patents filed in C.D. California and related U.S. districts, including comparable PAE assertion strategies against printer manufacturers.
What this case signals for the inkjet printing IP landscape
A pre-answer withdrawal with prejudice rarely means the plaintiff simply gave up — it typically signals a negotiated exit or portfolio recalibration.
Pre-answer dismissal with prejudice is consistent with confidential settlement
When a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses with prejudice before the defendant has filed any pleading, and both sides bear their own costs, it strongly suggests a commercial resolution outside the public record. IP teams monitoring K.Mizra’s portfolio should not interpret this as an admission that the patents lack merit — rather, it may reflect a licensing outcome that made continued litigation unnecessary.
K.Mizra’s four-patent, 100+ SKU complaint signals a broad assertion strategy
The complaint’s scope — four patents covering more than 100 Epson printer models across every major product line — is characteristic of a portfolio assertion strategy designed to maximise licensing leverage. Competing printer manufacturers should audit their own products against US10018938B2, US7570400B2, US7568170B2, and US9769342B2, particularly for inkjet imaging and document handling features.
K.Mizra v Epson — key questions answered
K.Mizra LLC filed a patent infringement suit against Epson America on January 7, 2025 in the Central District of California, asserting four patents across more than 100 Epson printer models. The case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by K.Mizra on September 2, 2025, under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), with each party bearing its own attorneys’ fees and costs. No court ruling on validity or infringement was issued.
K.Mizra asserted four U.S. patents: US10018938B2, US7570400B2, US7568170B2, and US9769342B2. These patents relate to inkjet printing technology and were asserted against a broad range of Epson consumer, professional, and enterprise printer product lines including EcoTank Pro, Expression, SureColor, WorkForce, and WorkForce Enterprise models.
Dismissal with prejudice permanently bars K.Mizra from reasserting any of the four patents against Epson America on the same infringement claims. It operates as a final judgment on the merits as to Epson. However, the patents remain fully valid and enforceable against any other third party, and K.Mizra may continue to assert them against other printer manufacturers.
The public record does not disclose K.Mizra’s reasons. The pre-answer timing and the with-prejudice election, combined with a mutual cost-bearing arrangement, is consistent with a confidential settlement or licensing agreement between the parties. It may also reflect a strategic portfolio decision. No court ruling, consent decree, or public licensing agreement was filed.
Yes. The dismissal with prejudice operates only as to K.Mizra’s claims against Epson. All four patents — US10018938B2, US7570400B2, US7568170B2, and US9769342B2 — remain in force and can be asserted against competing inkjet printer manufacturers. The breadth of the original complaint suggests K.Mizra views the claims as reading on widely used inkjet architectures, making FTO analysis advisable for other market participants.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.