The OEM has filed an IP suit in California against Apex, Ninestar China and Ninestar USA alleging infringement of three inkjet cartridge-related patents, with Apex responding.
HP filed the patent infringement suit on 6October in the United States District Court of Northern District of California accusing Ninestar Image Tech Ltd., (Ninestar China) Ninestar Technology Co., Ltd. (Ninestar USA) and Apex Microelectronics Co., Ltd. (Apex) of infringing the following HP patents: 6,089,687 (the 687 patent), 6,264,301 (the 301 patent) and 6,454,381 (the 381 patent). All three patents apply to HP’s inkjet printer cartridges.
The 687 patent relates to the method and apparatus for specifying ink volume in an ink container (cartridge), whilst the 301 patent relates to identifying parameters in a replaceable component (cartridge), and the 381 patent relates to providing ink container (cartridge) extraction characteristics to a printing system.
HP alleges that the defendants knowingly directly and through subsidiaries, agents, and or divisions, have made, used, imported and sold electrical storage devices (chips) for HP printers that use the 564, 920, 932/933, 950/951, and 970 cartridges, which infringed at least one claim of the 687, 301 and 381 patents. It further alleges that the defendants Apex, Ninestar China and Ninestar USA had actual knowledge of the 301 patent before filing their action and actual knowledge of its infringement, but acted despite the likelihood that its action would infringe a valid patent, and HP is seeking treble damages on count.
The OEM is seeking judgment that the defendants have also infringed the 687, 301 and 381 patents, and to issue preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting the defendants from infringing the 687, 301 and 381 patents. HP is further seeking costs, substantial damages and specifically triple damages for infringing the 301 patent.
Apex Microelectronics responded to The Recycler’s request for comment, stating: “Apex Microelectronics has not received any official document from HP or from the court. Thus we have no comment on the information published by The Recycler.”