When we last updated readers on Canon’s toner cartridge investigation currently before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), we noted that certain filings from Ninestar and some other respondents in the investigation indicate that they will argue that Canon’s patents are invalid and never should have been granted based on the existence of prior art
Canon’s 2014 toner cartridge litigation involves many different countries and different judicial bodies and federal agencies. Earlier today, Actionable Intelligence published an update on the latest in the UK cases and how Canon’s apparent anti-remanufacturing tactics in those cases have the potential to impact the United States (see “Canon Case Taking Anti-Reman Twist in Europe,
When Actionable Intelligence last updated readers on Canon’s U.S. toner cartridge complaints before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, we shared some details on Print-Rite’s settlement with Canon, which will end the OEM’s litigation against the aftermarket manufacturer both before the ITC and
Canon has shaken up the third-party toner cartridge industry once again with a new round of patent-infringement litigation against aftermarket toner cartridge manufacturers and resellers. One of the defendants, online reseller Provantage, has already come to terms with the OEM. There have been some other new developments related to other defendants as well. Background
Canon made headlines last week when it asked the U.S. International Trade Commission to begin an investigation into whether 33 aftermarket supplies manufacturers and resellers infringed nine of the OEM’s patents (see “Canon Requests New ITC Investigation over Coupling Used in Third-Party Toner Cartridges”). The ITC complaint is a key part of a new round
Since our last report on various defendants choosing to settle with Lexmark rather than continue to fight the OEM’s toner cartridge patent-infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (see “More Motions to Dismiss, More Settlements and Injunctions in Lexmark Toner Cartridge Lawsuit”), still more defendants, including the online reseller
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.
When we last checked in on Lexmark’s toner cartridge patent-infringement complaint before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Lexmark had filed its second amended complaint, resolved its dispute with FBA Holding and Green Project, and seen Onlinetechstores.com answer the complaint and file a counterclaim (see “Lexmark Settles with FBA Holding and
Ninestar Image Tech Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Seine Group, is preparing to begin production at its huge new industrial park in Zhuhai, China. According to a Ninestar spokesperson, the company will begin migrating production from its existing plant in Zhuhai to the 250,000-square-meter New High-Tech Industrial Park in December. The new campus
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