The OEM’s former partner alleges it is “illegally trying to stifle inkjet ink competition”.
The VL Versamark 2000
Democrat and Chronicle reported on the resumption of the two companies’ legal battles, with Collins Ink previously suing the OEM in 2011 for similar reasons – though that case was thought to be settled in an agreement that saw the two businesses part ways.
Both companies supply inkjet inks for users of the Versamark digital inkjet printing press, manufactured by Kodak, and the previous case centred around Kodak’s alleged control of the market for the ink. Collins had manufactured inks for the Versamark, with Kodak reselling it under its own brand, but Kodak sued Collins after it “tried to end the decade-old supplier agreement” amid worries about Kodak’s financial situation, with Kodak claiming Collins “was just trying to steal Kodak ink customers”.
The case came to a head in November 2011 when a judge decided Collins had “prematurely exited” its agreement and Collins was ordered to supply Kodak again, before the OEM filed for bankruptcy weeks later, leaving the supplier with $1.9 million (€1.4 million) in unpaid invoices. The enforced contract ended in May this year when Collins said it would “no longer” supply Kodak and would offer its own branded ink directly to customers.
Collins’ new court papers state that Versamark inks account for 70 percent of its output, and alleges that Kodak is “trying to elbow it out of the Versamark ink business by telling Versamark users that getting their printheads refurbished” – something that needs to be done regularly – will “cost more if they used non-Kodak-made inks”. Collins also claims Kodak has “threatened certain customers with slow or no refurbished printheads if the customer continues to use Collins ink”.
The supplier is seeking a court order prohibiting the OEM from “linking sale of its printheads to using only Kodak-made inks”, as well as “hiking refurbishment costs for customers using Collins inks on their Versamarks”, noting in turn that it has attempted to enter the Versamark printhead refurbishment business “to no avail”. Kodak, at this point, had declined to comment on the case.