K.Mizra LLC v. Konica Minolta — Dismissed With Prejudice in 171 Days
K.Mizra LLC brought a four-patent infringement action against Konica Minolta, Inc. and its U.S. business solutions subsidiary in the Northern District of Illinois, targeting document reading, toner development, and image forming technologies. The case closed after just 171 days — dismissed with prejudice before any answer or summary judgment motion was filed, with each party bearing its own fees.
Four-patent imaging IP dispute resolved before Konica Minolta responded
On 26 May 2023, K.Mizra LLC filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois against Konica Minolta, Inc. and Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A., Inc., asserting infringement of four U.S. patents: US7449274B2 (document reading device), US7840165B2 (electric apparatus), US7570400B2 (toner for electrostatic image development and image forming method), and US9769342B2 (toner replenishing apparatus, image forming apparatus, and color image forming apparatus). The case was assigned to Judge Sara L. Ellis.
The recorded basis of termination is 'Dismissed with Prejudice.' The docket order states that, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, K.Mizra LLC dismissed with prejudice all of its claims against both Konica Minolta defendants, noting that no defendant had served an answer or a motion for summary judgment, and that each party agreed to bear its own attorney fees, costs, and expenses.
The case closed on 13 November 2023, just 171 days after filing — a notably short lifespan for multi-patent infringement litigation. Because the dismissal was filed before the defendants served any responsive pleading, the procedural posture suggests the matter was resolved at an early stage. The specific terms or circumstances driving the resolution are not disclosed in the available public record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 171 days
171 days — resolved before any defendant answer or dispositive motion was filed
US7449274B2 and three further patents — imaging, toner, and document-reading technology
Any company designing, manufacturing, or distributing document reading devices, electrostatic toner systems, image forming apparatus, or color printing platforms should assess freedom-to-operate against this four-patent portfolio. The patents were asserted against a major OEM in a commercial infringement action, signalling that K.Mizra LLC regards them as commercially relevant and enforceable. The absence of any invalidity ruling means no prior art defence was tested in this proceeding.
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal was filed by K.Mizra LLC under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — a unilateral plaintiff's notice requiring no court order — but expressly designated as with prejudice, which transforms an otherwise procedurally simple exit into a permanent bar on re-assertion against these defendants. The agreement that each party bears its own costs means no fee-shifting occurred. No merits findings — on infringement, validity, or claim construction — were made, leaving the four asserted patents unadjudicated and enforceable against other parties.
Dismissed with prejudice: what the resolution means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal with prejudice — what it means
Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Here, K.Mizra LLC invoked that right but expressly stipulated the dismissal is with prejudice — meaning the same claims cannot be re-filed against these defendants in future proceedings. The court need not enter a separate order for such a dismissal to be effective.
Voluntary dismissal, with prejudiceK.Mizra forfeits the right to reassert these claims against Konica Minolta
By dismissing with prejudice, K.Mizra LLC permanently surrenders its ability to bring these four patent claims against Konica Minolta, Inc. and Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A., Inc. The patents themselves remain in force and could potentially be asserted against other defendants, but enforcement against the Konica Minolta entities on these specific claims is foreclosed. The specific terms driving this election are not disclosed in the available record.
Claims extinguished vs. these defendantsKonica Minolta exits without admitting liability or paying fees
Both Konica Minolta defendants are released from the asserted infringement claims without having filed any responsive pleading. The agreed cost allocation — each party bearing its own fees — means neither side extracted a fee award from the other. No court-entered finding of infringement, validity, or invalidity was made. The Konica Minolta entities are protected from any re-assertion of these specific claims by K.Mizra LLC.
No liability finding; own costsEarly resolution leaves underlying patent validity uncontested
Because the case ended before any substantive merits ruling, the validity and scope of all four asserted patents — covering document reading, electric apparatus, toner development, and toner replenishing systems — remain unadjudicated. Other market participants in the imaging and document-solutions sector cannot rely on this outcome as a validity or invalidity determination. The patents remain potentially enforceable against third parties.
Patents unadjudicated; sector risk remainsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | K.Mizra, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Konica Minolta, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A., Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kyle David Wallenberg | Attorney | Counsel for K.Mizra, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Matthew G. McAndrews | Attorney | Counsel for K.Mizra, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Niro McAndrews LLC | Law Firm | Representing K.Mizra, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Niro Mcandrews, LLP | Law Firm | Representing K.Mizra, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Sara L. Ellis | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals: imaging, toner, and document-device patent intelligence
Forward-looking IP and R&D intelligence derived from K.Mizra LLC's four-patent assertion against Konica Minolta in electrostatic imaging and toner technology.
K.Mizra LLC's imaging patent portfolio: scope and filing activity
K.Mizra LLC asserted four patents spanning document reading, electric apparatus, and toner systems. Understanding the full breadth of its portfolio — including any continuation applications, family members, or related filings — helps imaging-sector companies anticipate future assertion risk and identify which product lines may be in scope.
Portfolio monitoring signalFiling trends in electrostatic toner and image forming apparatus
The four asserted patents cover toner chemistry, image forming methods, and replenishing apparatus — areas with ongoing innovation activity. Tracking recent patent filings in electrostatic image development and color image forming systems can reveal which players are building defensive or offensive positions in this space.
Sector filing trendsKonica Minolta's patent position in imaging and toner technology
Konica Minolta is a major OEM in the imaging sector with its own substantial patent portfolio covering document solutions, toner systems, and printing apparatus. Analysing Konica Minolta's defensive and offensive IP activity in these domains can reveal gaps in third-party coverage and inform competitive product strategy.
Konica Minolta IP activityAdjacent innovation gaps near toner replenishment and document-capture patents
The claim scope of US9769342B2 and US7570400B2 around toner replenishment and electrostatic development methods may leave adjacent design spaces unclaimed — particularly in high-speed color systems, sustainable toner chemistries, or digital document capture integration. Identifying these white-space areas can guide defensible R&D investment.
R&D white spaceSimilar patent cases: imaging, toner, and document-device assertions in N.D. Illinois
Explore related infringement actions involving electrostatic imaging, toner technology, and document-reading devices litigated in the Northern District of Illinois.
What this case signals for the imaging and document-solutions IP landscape
A four-patent assertion resolved before any defendant response raises questions about assertion strategy and portfolio risk in the imaging technology sector.
Pre-answer dismissal with prejudice suggests early-stage resolution dynamics
The case closed before Konica Minolta filed any answer or dispositive motion — the earliest possible procedural exit. For IP teams monitoring assertion patterns, this suggests the matter was resolved swiftly, though the drivers are not disclosed in the public record. Companies in imaging and document-solutions should track K.Mizra LLC's broader portfolio activity.
Four unadjudicated patents remain live enforcement tools against third parties
US7449274B2, US7840165B2, US7570400B2, and US9769342B2 received no validity or infringement ruling. Manufacturers, OEMs, and component suppliers operating in electrostatic imaging, toner systems, or document-reading technology should assess FTO exposure against this portfolio, as enforcement against others is not foreclosed.
K.Mizra v Konica — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice on 13 November 2023. K.Mizra LLC filed a voluntary notice of dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) before Konica Minolta served any answer or summary judgment motion. Dismissal with prejudice means K.Mizra LLC cannot re-file the same claims against the Konica Minolta defendants. Each party agreed to bear its own attorney fees and costs.
K.Mizra LLC asserted four patents: US7449274B2 (document reading device), US7840165B2 (electric apparatus), US7570400B2 (toner for electrostatic image development and image forming method), and US9769342B2 (toner replenishing apparatus, image forming apparatus, and color image forming apparatus).
No. The case was dismissed before Konica Minolta filed any responsive pleading, so no court made any finding on infringement, validity, or claim construction. All four patents remain unadjudicated and potentially enforceable against third parties.
Yes. The dismissal with prejudice bars only future claims by K.Mizra LLC against the Konica Minolta defendants specifically. The four asserted patents remain in force and could be asserted against other companies operating in imaging, toner, or document-device markets. The specific terms of any resolution between these parties are not disclosed in the available public record.
The case lasted 171 days from filing on 26 May 2023 to closure on 13 November 2023. This is a short lifespan for a four-patent commercial infringement action. The dismissal occurred at an early procedural stage — before any defendant response — which is consistent with, but does not prove, an off-docket resolution between the parties.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.