Toner News Mobile › Forums › Latest Industry News › *NEWS*NINESTAR ASKS I.T.C. TO RECONSIDER
- This topic has 0 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 9 years, 8 months ago by Anonymous.
-
AuthorPosts
-
AnonymousInactiveNinestar Asks ITC to Consider Recent Decisions
Ninestar
has asked the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) to
re-examine its legal standards for establishing patent rights in the
face of recent landmark decisions issued by the Supreme Court and Court
of Appeals of the Federal Circuit. Ninestar has filed a petition with
the ITC asking the six member Commission to review and reject the
Initial Determination (ID) and recommendation of Administrative Law
Judge Paul J. Luckern.
Ninestar is one of a new breed of
Chinese companies coming of age in the global market. Rather than
withdraw from the U.S. marketplace in the face of legal attacks on its
right to sell in the U.S., Ninestar is fully defending itself against
all patent infringement claims made by Japanese printer giant Seiko
Epson.
After Ninestar filed its petition for review at the ITC, the
United States Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in KSR
International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. On April 30, 2007, the Supreme
Court reversed the legal test for patent invalidity that had been
widely used for decades. In what has been hailed as the most important
patent decision in 50 years, the Supreme Court unanimously declared
that a patent combining pre-existing elements is invalid if the
combination is no “more than the predictable use of prior art elements
according to their established functions.” Ninestar sent a letter to
the U.S. International Trade Commission the day after the Supreme
Court’s decision and urged the Commission to consider the invalidity of
Seiko Epson patents in light of the newly enunciated legal standard
established by the Supreme Court.
Ninestar is a worldwide
leader in the manufacturing of OEM compatible ink cartridges. It has
filed for patents in the U.S., China, Europe, Japan and other countries
for its innovative technology in cartridge manufacturing. Ninestar has
made and continues to make substantial investment in R&D and its
patent portfolio. Its sophisticated team of engineers works under the
guidance of top Chinese patent attorneys, along with other top patent
attorneys in countries where its products are sold to ensure compliance
with all national regulations.The ITC litigation against Ninestar is
one of many examples of Epson’s anti-competitive behavior in the U.S.
market. Several months ago, Epson was forced to ettle a class action
lawsuit in California based on the fact that Epson’s cartridges
registered as empty and suspend printer functions even while ink still
remains in the cartridge. Epson was forced to settle the lawsuit by
paying consumers significant reimbursement for the injuries they had
sustained from its damaging practice.
Rusong Lu, Chairman of
Ninestar stated that “Ninestar’s position at the ITC has gotten even
stronger as a result of a recent decision of the United States Supreme
Court which should make it easier for patents to be held invalid on
grounds of obviousness.” Ninestar remains confident in its defenses of
non-infringement and invalidity of the asserted patents. By a
unanimous decision, the Commission extended to May 31, 2007 the date by
which it will decide whether to review, reject, or accept ALJ’s
recommendation. -
AuthorJune 7, 2007 at 3:12 PM
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.