On December 2, MyMail, Ltd. filed a patent-infringement lawsuit against Lexmark International in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Lexmark, of course, requires little introduction. The Kentucky-based printer OEM was spun off from IBM in 1991 and has been in the printer business ever since. Lexmark was acquired by a consortium
On November 30, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issued five seizure-and-forfeiture orders to companies that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) caught trying to import cartridges in violation of the ITC’s general exclusion orders (GEOs). Altogether, three companies received such orders: Discount Ink, Golden State FC, and Green Project. This latest batch brings the
In huge news for the printer supplies industry, the U.S. Supreme Court indicated on Friday, December 2, that it will hear Impression Products v. Lexmark International, a case that raises two key questions about patent exhaustion. As Impression Products put it in its petition to the Supreme Court (see “Impression Products Appeals to the Supreme
One of the more exciting lawsuits we have been following is Epson’s counterfeiting and trademark-infringement suit against an alleged cartridge-counterfeiting ring in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. The wealth of details about the raids on the defendants’ operations captured our attention, and the enormous scope of the counterfeiting operations surprised us.
Last week, Seiko Epson Corporation, Epson America, and Epson Portland (collectively Epson) filed suit against Nano Business and Technology in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. The lawsuit claims that Nano Business and Technology sells third-party inkjet cartridges that infringe a pair of Epson patents. Moreover, Epson claims that Nano’s continued sale
A trio of class actions filed against HP in federal district court in California allege that HP continued to advertise a printer-installation technology called Smart Install on a number of laser printers when this technology had actually been disabled. All three lawsuits were filed by the same group of attorneys. One of these class actions
In August, news broke that HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) had been named as defendants in a class action that claimed the companies practiced age discrimination in their layoffs by jettisoning workers aged 40 and above and replacing them with younger workers (see “HP Faces Suits over Age and Sex Discrimination, ERISA Litigation”).
On November 9, Christopher Ware filed a class action against HP Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit is over a firmware update that HP rolled out on some OfficeJet, OfficeJet Pro, and OfficeJet Pro X inkjet printer models that caused certain aftermarket cartridges to stop working in
In October, the U.S. Solicitor General submitted the United States’ brief on the two main questions raised by Impression Products v. Lexmark. The United States’ brief urged the Supreme Court to grant Impression Products’ petition and hear both issues presented by the case. Since then, both Lexmark and Impression Products have responded by filing supplemental
Xerox recently settled one lawsuit against a shareholder who threatened to block its impending split into two separate companies (see “Xerox and Darwin Deason Settle, Allowing Split to Proceed”). However, in advance of its split, the company faces several new lawsuits, including some individuals’ disability and discrimination complaints and some class-action lawsuits. Of the rash