The OEM stated that the inkjet cartridge and chip case is now resolved, with Ninestar and Apex agreeing to “stop their involvement” in production and sale of the infringing products.
HP stated that the case, which The Recycler previously reported on, has been “resolved”, and that as “part of the settlement”, all three defendants – Ninestar Image Tech Ltd., (Ninestar China) Ninestar Technology Co., Ltd. (Ninestar USA) and Apex Microelectronics Co., Ltd. (Apex) – have “agreed to stop their involvement in the production and/or sale of the products that HP accused of infringement”.
HP filed the patent infringement suit on 6 October 2014 in the United States District Court of Northern District of California, accusing the companies of infringing the following 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 and chips, for a range of products including the 564, 920, 950 and 970.
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 alleged in the case that the defendants knowingly, directly and through subsidiaries, agents, and or divisions, had made, used, imported and sold electrical storage devices (chips) for HP printers that use the previously named cartridges, which infringed at least one claim of the 687, 301 and 381 patents. It further alleged that 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.