The OEM told The Recycler that the agreement to “stop production […] means exactly that”.
The OEM confirmed earlier this week that it had concluded the inkjet and chip IP case against Ninestar and Apex in the US District Court of Northern District of California, with Ninestar and Apex agreeing to “stop their involvement” in production and sale of the infringing products. 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 responded to The Recycler by noting that the settlement was agreed on 6 May, and that the agreement to “stop involvement” in producing or selling the infringing products “means exactly that – stop involvement in the production of cartridges that infringe the patents”. The OEM also noted that its strong case against the defendants was dismissed without prejudice, meaning that it can file the case again if circumstances change. While the OEM would not confirm aspects of the settlement agreement, there is no connection whatsoever to the recent Static Control-Apex deal.
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.