Ninestar asks ITC to reexamine

May 16, 2007

Ninestar Asks ITC To Consider New Supreme Court And Federal Circuit Decisions

Ninestar Technology Co., Ltd., has asked the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) to reexamine its legal standards for establishing patent rights in the face of recent landmark decisions issued by the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit. Ninestar has filed a petition with the ITC asking the six member Commission to review and reject the Initial Determination (ID) and recommendation of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Paul J. Luckern in In re: Certain Ink Cartridges, Investigation No. 337-TA-565.

Ninestar is one of a new breed of Chinese companies coming of age in the global market. Rather than withdraw from the U.S. marketplace in the face of legal attacks on its right to sell in the U.S., Ninestar is fully defending itself against all patent infringement claims made by Japanese printer giant Seiko Epson.

After Ninestar filed its petition for review at the ITC, the United States Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. On April 30, 2007, the Supreme Court reversed the legal test for patent invalidity that had been widely used for decades.

In what has been hailed as the most important patent decision in 50 years, the Supreme Court unanimously declared that a patent combining preexisting elements is invalid if the combination is no “more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.”

Ninestar sent a letter to the U.S. International Trade Commission the day after the Supreme Court’s decision and urged the Commission to consider the invalidity of Seiko Epson patents in light of the newly enunciated legal standard established by the Supreme Court.

Ninestar is a worldwide leader in the manufacturing of OEM compatible ink cartridges. It has filed for patents in the U.S., China, Europe, Japan and other countries for its innovative technology in cartridge manufacturing. Ninestar has made and continues to make substantial investment in R&D and its patent portfolio. Its team of engineers works under the guidance of top Chinese patent attorneys, along with other top patent attorneys in countries where its products are sold to ensure compliance with all national regulations.

According to Ninestar representatives, the ITC litigation against Ninestar is one of many examples of Epson’s anti-competitive behavior in the U.S. market. Several months ago, Epson was forced to settle a class action lawsuit in California based on the fact that Epson’s cartridges registered as empty and suspend printer functions even while ink still remains in the cartridge. Epson was forced to settle the lawsuit by paying consumers significant reimbursement for the injuries they had sustained from its damaging practice.

Rusong Lu, Chairman of Ninestar stated that “Ninestar’s position at the ITC has gotten even stronger as a result of a recent decision of the United States Supreme Court which should make it easier for patents to be held invalid on grounds of obviousness.” Ninestar remains confident in its defenses of non-infringement and invalidity of the asserted patents. By

Search The News Archive