Another day, another development in Lexmark’s ongoing toner cartridge patent-infringement complaint against remanufacturers and empties brokers. Most recently, there is news related to Blue Trading LLC’s and FBA Holding’s separate lawsuits seeking declarations of non-infringement for the patents Lexmark is asserting in its lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
Last month, the attorney general for the State of Vermont filed a lawsuit in the state’s Superior Court against MPHJ Technology Investments, which owns the so-called Laurence Klein patents and operates various shell companies that have been sending letters demanding patent-licensing fees of $1,000 per employee to small businesses (see “Call in the Calvary: Ricoh,
In May, Ricoh, Xerox, and the Vermont attorney general took steps to stop MPHJ and various affiliated shell companies from extorting patent-licensing fees from small businesses that use the scan-to-email function on their scanners or MFPs (see “Call in the Calvary: Ricoh, Xerox, and Others Take Action to Stop ‘Laurence Klein’ Scanning Patent Trolls”). Now,
On June 3, the Supreme Court granted Lexmark’s petition for a writ of certiorari. The OEM had asked the Supreme Court to review an appeals court’s decision that Static Control Components’ complaint against it for false advertising could proceed. The litigation between Lexmark and Static Control Components started all the way back in 2002 and
For roughly a year now, ever since Greentec International was forced to turn over a customer list with names of remanufacturers that may have bought empty Lexmark cartridges first sold outside the United States, Lexmark has been looking to subpoena information about the trade in Lexmark cartridges to add “John Doe” defendants to its patent-infringement
Recently, small business throughout the United States have been targeted by patent trolls claiming that by using the scan-to-email capabilities of their scanners or MFPs they are infringing the so-called Laurence Klein patents and demanding a patent-licensing fee of roughly $1,000 per employee. Now, Ricoh, Xerox, and the state of Vermont are taking action to
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