Asia Pacific Microsystems, Inc. Vs. Hewlett Packard

Toner News Mobile Forums Toner News Main Forums Asia Pacific Microsystems, Inc. Vs. Hewlett Packard

Date: Thursday December 8, 2011 08:26:25 am
Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • Author
    Posts

  • Anonymous
    Inactive

    Asia Pacific Microsystems, Inc. Vs. Hewlett Packard

    Commission finds inducement of infringement satisfied based on knowledge of asserted patents obtained after filing of complaint; issues general exclusion order.
    On December 1, 2011, the Commission issued the public version of its opinion in Certain Inkjet Ink Cartridges with Printheads and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-723. In that opinion, the Commission reversed the presiding ALJ’s finding that Complainants Hewlett-Packard Company and Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. (collectively, “HP”) failed to establish that Respondents Asia Pacific Microsystems, Inc. (“APM”) induced infringement of the asserted patents. The Commission held that the intent element required for an inducement of infringement claim was satisfied because “prior to obtaining actual knowledge of the asserted patents, APM willfully blinded itself to the asserted patent and to the infringing conduct, and that even after obtaining actual knowledge of the asserted patent, APM continued to induce infringement of the patents.” Additionally, even though the ALJ found that HP failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that APM had knowledge of the asserted patent prior to the investigation, the Commission held that knowledge requirement was satisfied because “APM certainly had knowledge of the asserted patents and the allegations of infringement against its ICs once it was served with HP’s Complaint.” The Commission further held that APM waived any argument that there was insufficient proof of post-complaint direct infringement.   

    Based on its finding of induced infringement, the Commission determined to issue a general exclusion order directed to infringing articles in this investigation because the evidence established that it is difficult to identify the source of infringing products, making a general exclusion order necessary to prevent circumvention of a limited exclusion order. For instance, the Commission found that “foreign manufacturers package their products in unmarked, generic or reseller branded packaging that lacks any markings to identify their origin.”

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.