The OEM had sought a retrial for the 2007 ruling that Static Control and its customers had not infringed its patents, but US District Court Judge Gregory Van Tatenhove rejected the company’s arguments.
The case began in 2002, when Lexmark accused Static Control of violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, in relation to chips used in Lexmark’s Prebate cartridge return scheme.
Edwin Swartz, President of Static Control, commented on the ruling: “When Lexmark sued us on New Year’s Eve, eight years ago, I told the press that this was round one in a 12 round fight. Well now we are at the end of round 12, and Static Control is still standing.”
He added that the ruling was good for the remanufacturing industry as well as consumers. “The court’s decisions encourage competition which gives consumers a wider range of choices at better prices,” he said.
“Lexmark was trying to exclude competitive chips which meant higher prices in the market.”
Lexmark had sought a retrial based on various aspects of the trial it claimed had prejudiced the jury, but all arguments were rejected. Static Control said it is expected Lexmark will file an appeal over the rejected issues.
Meanwhile, Static Control has filed an appeal seeking “substantial” damages caused by Lexmark’s “anti-competitive behaviour and unfair and deceptive trade practices”.