Flick Intelligence, LLC v. Microvision, Inc. was filed March 5, 2026 in the Eastern District of Michigan as No. 2:26-cv-10753 and assigned to District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith. On November 3, 2026, Judge Goldsmith transferred the case to the Western District of Washington, which docketed it on November 9, 2026 as No. 2:26-cv-04338. The Washington docket lists the case as assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge S. Kate Vaughan. The complaint describes Flick Intelligence, LLC as a New Mexico limited liability company with its principal place of business in New Mexico, and Microvision, Inc. as a Delaware corporation with a principal office in Redmond, Washington. Flick demands a jury.
The patent
U.S. Patent 9,965,237, "Methods, systems and processor-readable media for bidirectional communications and data sharing," issued May 8, 2018 from an application filed June 22, 2016, a continuation of the application that issued as U.S. Patent 9,459,762. It has 16 claims, and claim 1 is the only independent claim. The patent names Flick Intelligence, LLC as assignee, and the complaint says Flick owns it by assignment.
Claim 1 covers an augmented reality device for accessing a video annotation infrastructure. The device has a local display and a scene alignment module that locates a display position in the local display from at least one marker; that position is used to map points on the local display to points on a second display, and the marker helps the device determine the second display's location and distance. An annotation data receiver generates annotation selection data, downloaded ahead of time or on demand, that includes cursor coordinates yielding an element identifier and annotation data specifying at least one selectable zone, a combination of selectable areas and the time periods during which they are selectable, with coordinates in both space and time specified as a series of discrete coordinates. The device also has a local data store and a query router that sends queries to at least one data server and to the local data store, and the local display shows a cursor and the query results overlaid on top of a displayed image.
The original complaint
The original complaint, ECF No. 1, pleads one count for infringement of the '237 patent. It alleges that MicroVision makes and sells devices, "including but not limited to, Passthrough and related systems," that infringe one or more of claims 1 to 16, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and it identifies the accused instrumentality as MicroVision's smartglasses, "including, but not limited to, the Microvision AR/MR/VR systems with software." Its Exhibit B, a preliminary chart for claim 1, cites MicroVision's perception software, its MAVIN N and MOVIA L sensor pages, and a scanned-beam laser head-up display based on MicroVision's projection display engine. The complaint also alleges induced infringement through MicroVision's website and product instruction manuals, and contributory infringement.
On marking, the complaint says Flick has never sold a product, is "a non-practicing entity, with no products to mark," and that its earlier settlement licenses were not licenses to produce a patented article. It asks for a judgment of infringement; damages no less than a reasonable royalty or lost profits, with interest and costs under 35 U.S.C. § 284; an accounting; a declaration of willfulness with treble damages, including attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs, if Flick proves the infringement was deliberate or intentional, with a parallel request tied to what discovery reveals about MicroVision's knowledge of the patent before suit; a permanent injunction or, in lieu of one, damages for future infringement; and other relief.
Amended complaint and transfer
MicroVision moved to dismiss on June 24, 2026, ECF No. 12. On June 29, 2026, the court allowed Flick to file an amended complaint, and Flick filed it on July 8, 2026, ECF No. 16. The amended complaint is the operative pleading and is not available. According to the transfer order, it alleges that MicroVision is "licensed to do business in the state of Michigan and has a regular and established business in Detroit Michigan, a technology center," and it describes the patent as "augmented-reality, display, and data-sharing technology."
MicroVision's second motion, ECF No. 18, argued that venue in Michigan was improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) and that Flick had not properly pled infringement. The order recounts a MicroVision affidavit stating that the company is not incorporated or registered to do business in Michigan, that it leases a single office in Grand Blanc, Michigan that is not being used and is empty, and that its employees in the district work remotely. The court wrote that Flick "does not directly disagree that venue is improper in this district" and instead asked for transfer rather than dismissal with prejudice. "Because the parties seem to be in agreement regarding improper venue," the court transferred the case to the Western District of Washington, "where MicroVision's headquarters is located and where Flick requests the case be transferred." It declined to dismiss with prejudice, finding transfer in the interest of justice, declined to analyze the pleading arguments, and denied the other issues raised in the motion without prejudice.
Earlier suits on the same patent
Flick has asserted the '237 patent in at least six earlier suits: No. 6:21-cv-01291 (W.D. Tex., filed December 13, 2021) and No. 6:23-cv-00057 (W.D. Tex., filed January 27, 2023), each of which also asserts U.S. Patent 9,465,451; No. 6:25-cv-06281 (W.D.N.Y., filed May 30, 2025); No. 7:25-cv-00263 (W.D. Tex., filed June 4, 2025); No. 2:25-cv-00663 (E.D. Tex., filed June 26, 2025); and No. 7:25-cv-00449 (W.D. Tex., filed October 3, 2025). The dockets list notices of voluntary dismissal in No. 6:21-cv-01291 on August 1, 2022 and in No. 6:23-cv-00057 on June 1, 2023, and orders dismissing No. 2:25-cv-00663 on October 1, 2025, No. 7:25-cv-00263 on January 23, 2026, and No. 7:25-cv-00449 on April 7, 2026.