The USITC’s headquarters in Washington D.C.
In updates from the case begun in January, the United States International Trade Commission (USITC) has found most of the defendants in default, and settled with two.
The case, which began in December 2014, moved to a section 337 investigation before a potential General Exclusion Order (GEO), and was brought by Epson against 19 aftermarket companies over the infringement of one to five of its inkjet cartridge patents, specifically in terms of chips on “on-carriage cartridges” from a previous GEO. However, a wide range of the defendants did not respond to the USITC’s claims, and have been found in default.
Failure to respond to the claims “may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations”, as well as to “authorise the administrative law judge” and the USITC itself to “find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint”, with those companies that do not contest nor respond to the allegations found guilty in their absence and subject to the GEO if passed.
The companies found in default, after failing to respond or show “cause why they should not be found in default, include: Huebon Co., Ltd; Chanchen Co., Ltd.; Yotat Group Co., Ltd.; Ourway lmage C0., Ltd.; Shanghai Orink Infotech Intemational Co., Ltd.; Orink Infotech International Co., Ltd.; Kingway Image Co., Ltd.; Zhuhai Chinamate Technology Co., Ltd.; Yotat (Zhuhai) Technology Co., Ltd.; Zhuhai Richeng Development Co., Ltd.; Dongguan OcBestjet Printer Consumables Co., Ltd.; OeBestjet Printer Consumables (HK) Co., Ltd.; Zinyaw LLC; InlcPro2day, LLC; Aomya Printer Consumables (Zhuhai) Co., Ltd.; Zhuhai National Resources & Jingjie Imaging Products Co., Ltd.; and Zhuhai Rich Imaging Technology Co., Ltd.
In turn, the USITC revealed that respondents Zhuhai Nano Digital Technology, Co., Ltd. (China) and Nano Business and Technology, Inc. (USA) (collectively, “Nano Digital”) filed a joint motion with Epson to “terminate the investigation” after having come to a settlement agreement, making Nano Digital the only defendant to settle in the case.
The cartridges at the centre of the case are “installed immediately behind the printhead of inkjet printers”, and the case concerns alleged infringement of five further patents that “relate to the functionality of IC chips on many of the same on-carriage cartridges” covered in the previous GEO in 2006. Epson added that the new case also concerns “many off-carriage cartridges for current Epson business and professional large-format inkjet printers”, with off-carriage cartridges “larger capacity cartridges installed to the side of the printer cartridge and connected to the printhead with ink supply tubes”.
The action was said to “protect against unfair competition”, and seeks to block “all imports of ink cartridges that infringe Epson’s ink cartridge patents” from 19 companies it claims “manufacture, import or distribute” the infringing cartridges. The complaint “requests the ITC to issue a General Exclusion Order prohibiting these companies and all others from importing the infringing cartridges into the United States”.
The OEM previously obtained a GEO in an action in 2006 “that is still enforced” concerning a “broad range of on-carriage cartridges” for both consumer and business inkjet machines. In terms of the US patents named in the action, these include: 8,366,233; 8,454,116; 8,794,749; 8,801,163 and 8,882,513. Among the companies named was Zhuhai Richeng Development Co. Ltd., who apologised to Epson earlier this year. Richeng stated it was sorry for “the inconvenience”, and “will never let this issue happen again”. You can view the letter of apology here.
