• Print
  • 2toner1-2
  • cartridgewebsite-com-big-banner-02-09-07-2016
  • 4toner4
  • Video and Film
  • 05 02 2016 429716a-cig-clearchoice-banner-902x177
  • mse-big-new-banner-03-17-2016-416616a-tonernews-web-banner-mse-114
  • big-banner-ad_2-sean
  • 7035-overstock-banner-902x177
  • mse-big-banner-new-03-17-2016-416716a-tonernews-web-banner-mse-212


 user 2007-07-25 at 11:44:00 am Views: 46
  • #18456

    Review Ordered in Epson Complaint Against Ninestar
    July  2007 Ninestar Technology Co., Ltd. announced that on June 29, 2007, the United States International Trade Commission ordered review of the initial determination rendered earlier this year by an administrative law judge in the Seiko Epson ink cartridge investigation.

    Following the administrative law judge’s initial determination, Ninestar identified to the Commission numerous errors in the initial determination including errors in claim interpretations and in the infringement conclusions.  Ninestar requested that the Commission review and reverse those errors.  Upon the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (April 30, 2007), Ninestar also requested that the Commission review validity of certain Epson patents in light of KSR’s lower standard for obviousness.  The Commission has now agreed that review of the issues identified by Ninestar is necessary.  This is the first time the Commission has agreed to review invalidity issues using the new KSR standard.  Currently the administrative law judge’s initial determination has no legal effect.

    Rusong Lu, Chairman of Ninestar has stated, “We are extraordinarily pleased that the ITC has accepted our petition for review and are confident that this review will result in reversal of the errors in the initial determination.”   Mr. Lu added, “This has been a long and expensive battle for Ninestar.  We are the only respondent in the investigation to have actively defended against Seiko Epson’s assertions.  We have engaged in this battle to protect the investment we have made in independently developed technology as well as to protect our customers.  The Commission’s decision to review demonstrates that the confidence we have in our position is justified.”  Ninestar is represented in this case by a team of lawyers from Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP, of New York headed by Joel Lutzker, chair of Schulte’s Intellectual Property Department.