STATIC CONTROL CORP WANTS $ 17,463,580.00 FROM LEXMARK CORP

  • 161213_banner_futorag_902x177px
  • clover-depot-intl-us-ca-email-signature-05-10-2017-902x1772
  • ink-direct-banner-902-x-177-v-1-2-big-banner-03-23-2017
  • 2toner1-2
  • futor_902x177v7-tonernew
  • 4toner4
  • cartridgewebsite-com-big-banner-02-09-07-2016
  • Print
  • 05 02 2016 429716a-cig-clearchoice-banner-902x177
  • banner-01-26-17b
  • mse-big-banner-new-03-17-2016-416716a-tonernews-web-banner-mse-212
Share

STATIC CONTROL CORP WANTS $ 17,463,580.00 FROM LEXMARK CORP

 user 2011-01-19 at 8:43:37 am Views: 63
  • #23871

    http://www.therecycler.com/news/15077/Static-Control-files-for-Lexmark-compensation-and-counterclaim-review.aspx

    STATIC CONTROL CORP WANTS $ 17,463,580.00 FROM LEXMARK CORP

    Static Control Components has cited vastly underestimated compensation and the dismissal of counterclaims as serious issues in its Lexmark case in a review request with the US Court of Appeals. The appeal relates to the outcome of Static and Lexmark’s long running legal action, which began with Lexmark accusing Static of copyright violations relating to its Prebate cartridges in 2002.The court eventually ruled in Static’s favour in 2007, but there have been continued disputes. Full details can be read here.On January 12, Static filed a brief with the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit stating that the district court had “abused its discretion” by setting damages at less than two percent of the requested amount.The damages relate to an injunction from Lexmark restricting sales of Lexmark compatible chips and components for two years, which was later overturned.

    In the filing, Static states: “The court was obligated to set the bond at a level sufficient to compensate Static Control’s damages from an injunction.“Static Control presented unrebutted evidence that it would suffer lost profits of $17,463,580 if the injunction persisted for two years (as it did), which caused the district court to find that the injunction would cost Static Control ‘substantial lost profits,’” the company continued.Static Control also accuses the court of making a serious error by dismissing the company’s counterclaims against Lexmark. Static contended that it had cause to sue for “violations of federal and state antitrust, false advertising, and unfair trade practices laws”.

    Static claimed that Lexmark’s “anticompetitive” dealings were not only a serious threat to Static Control’s business but also “threatened to eliminate the entire Lexmark-compatible remanufacturing industry”.Finally, Static contends that if the counterclaim dismissal was overturned, the jury’s factual findings on patent misuse relating to the counterclaims would become binding under the Seventh Amendment.Most recently, Lexmark requested a retrial for Static’s 2007 victory on several ground, but was rejected on all counts.

    http://www.therecycler.com/news/15077/Static-Control-files-for-Lexmark-compensation-and-counterclaim-review.aspx