Ortiz & Associates v. Lexmark International — Dismissed With Prejudice in 243 Days
Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC brought a patent infringement claim against Lexmark International in Colorado federal court, asserting US9549285B2 covering wireless data brokering systems. The case closed after 243 days via voluntary dismissal with prejudice — before Lexmark filed any answer — with each party bearing its own legal costs.
Pre-answer voluntary dismissal in wireless data brokering IP dispute
Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC filed suit against Lexmark International, Inc. on 28 June 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint asserted infringement of US9549285B2, a patent covering systems, methods and apparatuses for brokering data between wireless devices, servers and data rendering devices. Lexmark, a well-known provider of printing and imaging technology, was named as the sole defendant. Plaintiff was represented by Ramey LLP, a firm with a substantial volume of patent assertion activity across U.S. district courts.
The case resolved on 26 February 2024 — 243 days after filing — when Ortiz filed a notice of voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Crucially, the dismissal was stipulated to be with prejudice as to the asserted patent, meaning Ortiz permanently relinquished the right to bring the same patent claims against Lexmark. Each party was directed to bear its own costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees, indicating no financial concession was extracted from either side under the public record.
Dismissal before Lexmark even filed an answer suggests the parties may have reached an informal resolution, or that Ortiz assessed the litigation as commercially unviable at an early stage. The with-prejudice designation is notable: Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissals are typically without prejudice by default, so the explicit with-prejudice election signals a deliberate, negotiated endpoint. Whether a private licensing agreement or other consideration underpinned the dismissal is not disclosed in the public record.
Filing to resolution in 243 days
Case duration — resolved before defendant answered
Voluntary dismissal with prejudice — what the Rule 41 filing means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — unilateral dismissal before any answer
Federal Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order at any point before the defendant has served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because Lexmark had not yet responded to the complaint, Ortiz held the unilateral right to file this notice. The procedural timing gave Ortiz maximum flexibility — and the choice to make the dismissal with prejudice was entirely voluntary, not court-imposed.
Pre-answer voluntary exitWith prejudice — Ortiz permanently bars its own future claims
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits, barring the plaintiff from ever relitigating the same claims against the same defendant. By expressly designating the dismissal as with prejudice ‘as to the asserted patent’, Ortiz foreclosed any future assertion of US9549285B2 against Lexmark. This is an unusually strong concession for a plaintiff acting unilaterally under Rule 41 — it typically signals either a negotiated settlement or a strategic decision to permanently close the dispute.
No refiling against LexmarkEach party bears own fees — no prevailing party declared
The order specifies that each party shall bear its own costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees. This mutual cost-bearing arrangement is consistent with a negotiated resolution or a plaintiff withdrawal without financial concession. Had Lexmark pursued fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 by seeking an ‘exceptional case’ finding, the outcome could have been more consequential for Ortiz. The absence of a fee motion suggests Lexmark was satisfied with the with-prejudice dismissal as a sufficient outcome.
No § 285 fee awardPrivate agreement likely — public record is silent on consideration
The combination of a with-prejudice designation and mutual cost-bearing is consistent with a confidential settlement or licensing agreement reached before formal litigation steps were taken. Ramey LLP, which represented Ortiz, has filed numerous patent assertion suits across multiple districts; early resolution before answer is a recurring pattern in such campaigns. Whether Lexmark paid any consideration in exchange for the with-prejudice dismissal cannot be determined from publicly available filings.
Confidential terms possibleFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9549285B2 covering wireless data brokeringSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Lexmark International, Inc. | Company | Lexmark International, Inc. — global provider of printing, imaging and data management technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William P. Ramey , III | Attorney | Counsel for Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Amy E. Simpson | Attorney | Counsel for Lexmark International, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jacob W.S. Schneider | Attorney | Counsel for Lexmark International, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Leah E. Capritta | Attorney | Counsel for Lexmark International, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge / | Chief Judge | Colorado District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The dismissal notice expressly invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and designates the outcome as with prejudice ‘as to the asserted patent’ — language that goes beyond the rule’s default and constitutes a permanent bar on Ortiz reasserting US9549285B2 against Lexmark. The mutual cost-bearing provision confirms no financial award was made publicly. Taken together, the phrasing is consistent with a negotiated exit: Lexmark gains permanent protection from this patent by this plaintiff, while Ortiz avoids the cost and risk of contested litigation.
US9549285B2 — Wireless Data Brokering Systems and Methods
US9549285B2 covers systems, methods and apparatuses for brokering data between wireless devices, servers and data rendering devices. Filed under application number US14/919108, the patent sits within the wireless connectivity and data management space — a domain that intersects mobile computing, cloud infrastructure and networked output devices such as printers. The patent’s technical framing is broad, addressing the orchestration layer that sits between a wireless source device, a backend server and a downstream rendering endpoint.
The strategic significance of this patent lies in its potential applicability to a wide range of commercial products: enterprise print ecosystems, IoT data relay architectures, mobile-to-printer workflows and cloud-connected device platforms. Lexmark’s products — particularly its networked printers and document management solutions — fall within the general technology category the patent describes, which likely explains why it was named as a defendant. Organisations developing or distributing products that broker data across wireless and rendering endpoints should treat this patent as a live risk reference even after this single dismissal.
Should your product team run an FTO check against US9549285B2?
If your organisation designs, manufactures or distributes products that coordinate data flow between wireless input devices, backend servers and output or rendering devices — including networked printers, IoT gateways, mobile print solutions or cloud document platforms — US9549285B2 is relevant to your freedom-to-operate assessment. The dismissal against Lexmark with prejudice only protects Lexmark; it provides no legal shelter to any other company in the same product category.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s technical functionality against the claim language of US9549285B2, identify any related family members or continuation patents, and flag whether any claims remain active and in force. Ongoing claim monitoring through Eureka ensures your team receives alerts if prosecution activity or new assertion filings emerge around this patent or its assignee’s broader portfolio.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9549285B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent infringement cases in wireless data brokering technology
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the wireless data brokering IP landscape
A pre-answer, with-prejudice exit raises questions about assertion strategy, patent strength and Lexmark’s defensive posture.
With-prejudice pre-answer dismissals signal potential private resolution
When a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses with prejudice before the defendant has even answered, it suggests either a licensing deal was struck privately or the plaintiff concluded the case lacked merit to pursue. Either way, the defendant — here Lexmark — emerges without any admitted liability and retains freedom to operate under the asserted patent. Companies facing similar assertions should note that early, firm defensive signalling can accelerate favourable resolution.
Ramey LLP assertion patterns warrant portfolio-wide monitoring
Ramey LLP has a documented history of filing patent infringement actions on behalf of assertion entities across multiple technology domains. Organisations in the wireless connectivity, printing and data management sectors should monitor US9549285B2 and related family members for continued assertion activity against other defendants. A dismissal against Lexmark does not preclude assertion against other parties in the same technology space.
Ortiz v Lexmark — key questions answered
The case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by plaintiff Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC on 26 February 2024, approximately 243 days after filing. The dismissal was filed under Federal Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) before Lexmark answered the complaint. Each party bore its own costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees.
The patent asserted was US9549285B2, filed under application number US14/919108. It covers systems, methods and apparatuses for brokering data between wireless devices, servers and data rendering devices — a technology domain relevant to networked printing and wireless data management.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order before the defendant has answered. A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final judgment on the merits, permanently barring the plaintiff from bringing the same claims against the same defendant in any future proceeding. Dismissals under this rule are without prejudice by default, so the with-prejudice designation here was a deliberate, voluntary election by Ortiz.
No. The with-prejudice dismissal only bars Ortiz & Associates from asserting US9549285B2 against Lexmark International specifically. Any other company whose products fall within the patent’s claim scope — including those in wireless connectivity, IoT, mobile printing and cloud document management — remains potentially exposed to assertion by Ortiz or any subsequent assignee of the patent.
The public record does not disclose the reason. However, a with-prejudice voluntary dismissal at this early stage is commonly consistent with a private settlement or licensing agreement, or with a plaintiff’s strategic assessment that the case was unlikely to yield a favourable result. The mutual cost-bearing provision and the absence of any Lexmark responsive pleading suggest Lexmark may have signalled a strong defensive posture that influenced Ortiz’s decision.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.