At the end of January, Canon filed 11 patent-infringement lawsuits against 18 companies that manufacture or sell third-party toner cartridges for various Canon and HP-branded laser printers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (see “Here We Go Again: Canon Sues Firms for Infringing Various Gear and Drum Patents”). What
Canon won its toner cartridge complaint before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) last June and was awarded a general exclusion order (GEO) (see “U.S. ITC to Restrict Imports of Infringing Canon Gears; Alerts U.S. Customs of GEO” and “ITC Opinion Granting Canon a GEO Made Public”). However, one piece of the massive litigation launched
Happy New Year! To kick off the year, we are tooting our own horn a bit and wishing ourselves a happy birthday. The Actionable Intelligence website was officially launched in January 2011. It seems hard to believe Actionable Intelligence has now been providing readers with printer and supplies industry news and analysis for three years.
One patent-infringement complaint before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that we have been following, albeit not closely, was the Section 337 investigation brought by Technology Properties Limited, LLC (TPL) against printer OEMs Brother, Canon, Dell, Epson, and HP, along with numerous others, including Acer, Dane-Elec Memory, Falcon Northwest Computer Systems, Fujitsu, Jasco Products Company,
When Canon brought its toner cartridge patent-infringement complaint against 34 third-party supplies companies before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) in January 2012, the OEM also filed similar suits against these same companies in federal district court. The ITC already issued its verdict, finding infringement, and its remedy, a general exclusion order barring the importation
On October 10, Hewlett-Packard announced it had settled two separate cases pending in U.S. courts related to new compatible cartridges that violate the OEM’s intellectual property. One case, which was initiated in 2010, involves the Taiwanese chip foundry Asia Pacific Microsystems (APM), which manufactures inkjet print heads and other MEMS devices. The second case was
Actionable Intelligence’s new white paper, which is available as a free downloadable PDF, provides analysis of recent patent-infringement lawsuits that have significantly impacted the aftermarket supplies industry—from Epson’s litigation in the United States that blazed a path that other OEMs would follow, to Canon’s complaint that recently won it a general exclusion order from the
Although the decision was long expected, the U.S. International Trade Commission’s (ITC’s) pronouncement on June 28 that it would issue a general exclusion order (GEO) as the remedy in the Canon toner cartridge investigation (337-TA-829) was huge news for the printer and supplies industry. Now, the ITC’s opinion on remedy and bonding has been made
Late in the day on June 28, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) released a two-page letter to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) informing the agency that the commission has issued a general exclusion order (GEO) prohibiting the importation of products that infringe two Canon patents. The patents in the matter, U.S. patent numbers 5,903,803 (’803)
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