The debate continues over what remedial orders the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) should issue now that the commission has found that the defaulting respondents infringed Canon’s U.S. patents 5,903,803 (‘803) and 6,128,454 (‘454), which cover the gear used to rotate the imaging drum in certain all-in-one toner cartridges. In his initial determination finding that there was
Lexmark’s patent-infringement lawsuit accusing various remanufacturers and empties brokers of infringing its toner cartridge patents is truly labyrinthine, involving twists and turns involving many players and related suits and motions before various district courts. And, of course, all those companies that Lexmark has named or is looking to name are looking for a way out.
Toward the end of April, Lexmark filed its first amended complaint before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, accusing 31 additional companies of infringing its patents (see “Lexmark Files Amended Complaint Naming John Does in Ohio Lawsuit”). Now, one firm that was named in both the original and the amended complaint,
Last month, Canon got some good news when the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) elected not to review Administrative Law Judge David P. Shaw’s initial determination finding infringement of a pair of patents (5,903,803 and 6,128,454) that Canon holds on the gears used in most HP and Canon all-in-one toner cartridges (see “Canon Takes Another Giant Step
While all eyes have been on Canon’s toner cartridge patent-infringement complaint currently before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), the OEM has also been busy ensuring that those firms that agreed to consent judgments and permanent injunctions to resolve a 2010 lawsuit over the same patents follow those agreements’ terms. In February, Canon filed a
For well over a year now, Lexmark has been attempting to ferret out firms that may have sold or remanufactured and sold with the United States empty Lexmark toner cartridges that were first sold outside the United States, thereby infringing the OEM’s patents. The million-dollar question has been who would be named when Lexmark filed
Cartridge World North America is one of many third-party supplies firms that Lexmark has subpoenaed as part of its efforts to add “John Doe” defendants to its ongoing patent-infringement lawsuit before the U.S. District Court for the Southern of Ohio. Lexmark has been endeavoring to identify companies that have remanufactured and sold empty cartridges first
In late February and early March, Brother launched a trio of lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, accusing Aster Graphics, LD Products, The Supplies Guys, Sophia Global, My Supply Buy, Nextag, and Chi Kin Wong, doing business as CW Media Pro, of selling compatible tape cassettes for P-Touch label printers
On April 15, empties broker Blue Trading filed a complaint against Lexmark that is very similar to FBA Holding’s complaint against the OEM but that also differs in some intriguing ways (see “Remanufacturer Strikes Back: FBA Holdings Files Suit against Lexmark”). To identify the “John Doe” infringers it plans to add to its patent-infringement suit
Eastman Kodak received some good news in its ongoing patent dispute with Kyocera Corporation, when the latter firm agreed to pay Kodak nearly $5 million to settle all ongoing litigation. The settlement is particularly welcome as Kyocera sought $80 million from Kodak for pre-petition infringement and additional damages for post-petition infringement of various Kyocera-owned patents.