The Aster and Supplies Guys groups of companies responded to the OEM’s motion to “show cause why they should not be found in default”, stating that they wish to “negate any impression that they were not active participants in the investigation”.
The Supplies Guys, LLC and American Internet Holdings, LLC (collectively known as Supplies Guys) along with Aster Graphics, Inc., Jiangxi Yibo E-Tech Co., Ltd. and Aster Graphics Co., Ltd. (collectively called ‘the Aster Group’) were said in documents not to have “filed a pre-hearing statement or brief”, or “submitted or served any direct or rebuttal exhibits”, and so Canon would “move for an order to show cause why they should not be found in default”.
These documents were publicised when Supplies Guys settled in the District Court case, which began in February 2014. The two companies remain in the USITC (United States International Trade Commission) case however, which is moving towards a General Exclusion Order (GEO), which will ban any infringing cartridge products from being imported into and sold in the USA. Both cases concerned infringement of the OEM’s “dongle-gear” within toner cartridges – specifically the HP P2035, 2055 and P3015 – which are sold “for use in more than 50 models of Canon and HP laser beam printers”, Canon stated at the start of the case.
This did not mean that the investigation had ended – as the USITC’s documents stated, “the joint motion to suspend the hearing schedule is granted […] but the investigation has not been terminated”, and the same document added that “Canon intends to file a motion for leave to file a motion for summary determination in connection with a request for a General Exclusion Order”, while the remaining defendants did not take a position on the joint motion, and so remain in the case.
The companies – as per the earlier mention of an order “to show cause why they should not be found in default” – have been “deemed to have abandoned or withdrawn all of their contentions in this investigation”, with Canon declaring its intent to seek a GEO. The response from the companies to Canon’s motion noted that they “do not oppose” the motion, but aim to “clarify that they have participated throughout much of the investigation”.
The two groups stated that they “each responded to the complaint and notice of investigation”, and “participated in two settlement conferences and submitted the requisite settlement conference reports”. They added that both groups “submitted joint stipulations […] that provided significant factual details about their respective activities”, and commented that once they had reached agreements “outside of the Commission’s investigations”, their active participation “ended”.
The Aster group in particular referred to its settlements in the US, Dutch and French cases, and both groups concluded their statement by noting that they submitted the response to “negate any impression that they were not active participants in this investigation”. Other companies that had settled in the case since it began include ILG, Acecom, Do It Wiser and Green Project; ACM Technologies, Grand Image LLC, OnlineTechStores, Nectron, Provantage, Printronic and LD Products.