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


 user 2007-07-25 at 11:45:00 am Views: 35
  • #18457

    Review Ordered in Epson Complaint Against Ninestar
    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.

    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