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

  • ink-direct-banner-902-x-177-v-1-2-big-banner-03-23-2017
  • 536716a_green_sweep_web_banner_902x17712
  • 161213_banner_futorag_902x177px
  • 05 02 2016 429716a-cig-clearchoice-banner-902x177
  • cartridgewebsite-com-big-banner-02-09-07-2016
  • Print
  • futor_902x177v7-tonernew
  • 4toner4
  • banner-01-26-17b
  • 2toner1-2
  • 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 8:45:18 am Views: 60
  • #24195

    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