In 2016 and 2017, three lawsuits were filed against either Lexmark or Lexmark Enterprise Software over the alleged poor performance of various software solutions. The first of these was filed by an RV-maker called Forest River over an implementation of Lexmark’s Enterprise Content Management (ECM) software. The second of these lawsuits was brought against Lexmark
In April, we reported that the Ninestar group of companies had asked the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) for an advisory opinion determining that the company’s remanufactured inkjet cartridges are outside the scope of the general exclusion orders (GEOs) and cease-and-desist orders awarded to Epson in the 337-TA-565 and 337-TA-946 investigations (see “Apex and Ninestar
Canon has settled a dongle gear patent-infringement lawsuit in Italy, according to a June 1 announcement by the Japanese OEM. Canon launched legal action in the Court of Rome last August against J&H Greentech & Trading Ltd., which does business at Prestige Cartridge, seeking injunctive relief and damages (see “Canon Continues to Assert Its Dongle
In a remarkable win for Impression Products, fellow remanufacturers, and those who would like to see limits placed on patent holders’ rights and a remarkable loss for Lexmark, fellow printer OEMs, and other patent holders that would like to see their patent rights expanded, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision on Impression Products v.
On May 22, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issued a seizure-and-forfeiture order to a company called ISC/Cartridge King after Customs and Border Protection (CBP) found that the company attempted to import printer cartridges or components that violate a general exclusion order (GEO) awarded to Canon. This order is now the eighth seizure-and-forfeiture order issued
From November 2016 to mid-March 2017, Epson filed eight patent-infringement lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, accusing several online third-party cartridge sellers of infringing a pair of the OEM’s inkjet cartridge patents. Not long after these lawsuits were filed, Epson and a few of the defendants indicated they were discussing
Earlier this month, we reported that HP was close to settling a series of class actions over the firm disabling but continuing to advertise its Smart Install technology on various LaserJet models (see “HP May Settle Class Actions over Disabled Smart Install Technology”). Now, the parties say such an agreement should be in place by
Earlier this month, the hilariously named Straightouttaink made news for a not-so-funny reason. The company was again issued a seizure-and-forfeiture order by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) after U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) found it importing third-party cartridges that are barred from entry into the United States under a general exclusion order (GEO).
HP may be close to settling a series of class actions that alleged the OEM disabled but continued to advertise its Smart Install technology in various LaserJet models (see “HP May Settle Class Actions over Disabled Smart Install Technology”). In contrast, it appears HP is girding itself up for a fight in a consolidated class
Green Project reports that once again U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has found in Green Project’s favor after the firm protested a decision by CBP to exclude a shipment of Green Project remanufactured inkjet cartridges. In a May 4 press release, Green Project announced that CBP sided with Green Project in its challenge to