Recharger : Static Control Wins Appeal Vs. Lexmark

[Anonymous]

This email can also be viewed as a web page.

 

9/7/2012

Sponsors Subscribe to Recharger Magazine Today! Static Control Wins Appeal SANFORD, N.C. – On August 29, 2012, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals again ruled in Static Control’s favor in the long-running dispute with Lexmark. The Court of Appeals reinstated Static Control’s claims against Lexmark under the Lanham Act and North Carolina state antitrust laws. The Lanham Act claims are for false advertising arising out of Lexmark’s claims that the remanufacturing of Prebate-program cartridges infringed Lexmark’s patents. The antitrust claims arose out of various Lexmark actions to reduce the number of cartridges remanufactured by third parties. The Court of Appeals also rejected Lexmark’s attempts to overturn the jury’s verdict rendered in Static Control’s favor and upheld the trial court’s finding that two of Lexmark’s design patents were invalid. "When we were sued in 2002, I stated that we were in the first round of a prize fight," said Ed Swartz, founder and CEO of Static Control. "We have won each round since, and we will win the fight at the end. The jury found for us because what Lexmark did to us was wrong. The Court of Appeals found for us because they agreed." This is the second time that the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Static Control’s favor in the 10-year-old fight. In 2004, Static Control appealed a finding that its chips violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, commonly known as the DMCA. The trial court had found that Static Control’s sales of chips, which could communicate with Lexmark’s printers, violated the DMCA. The 6th Circuit reversed the trial court verdict and held that the DMCA could not be used to prevent the use of chips to communicate with printers.  The case now goes to a trial on Static Control’s claims against Lexmark. "We have waited a long time to present our case on why Lexmark’s actions are unfair and illegal," Swartz said. "Lexmark had their turn at bat, and now it is our inning. We are confident the jury will agree with us and award us the damages we are entitled."

[Author]

September 11, 2012 at 7:29 AM