- This topic has 0 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 11 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
U.S. CUSTOMS SEIZES EPSON AND HP INK CARTRIDGES
A March 30 seizure and forfeiture order from the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) indicates that Lake Oswego, OR-based Nano Ink Spot, also known as Nano Digital, recently attempted to import into the United States inkjet cartridges that are barred from entry under the ITC’s general exclusion orders. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) denied entry, apparently in the port of Seattle, and provided Nano Digital with written notice of the exclusion orders and “the fact that seizure and forfeiture would result from any further attempt to import the article into the United States.”
According to Nano Digital’s website, the company was founded in 2001. Before that, it was known as PolymTech, Inc., an inkjet ink and coating research and development firm. The company currently has a manufacturing facility in Zhuhai, China, although it is headquartered near Portland, OR.
The general exclusion orders that Nano Digital violated are from investigations 337-TA-565 and 337-TA-691. The first of these is the general exclusion order that Epson was granted for practically all its inkjet cartridges designs back in 2007. According to Epson’s website on the ruling, “The ITC orders apply to infringing on-carriage cartridges and infringing components of cartridges for Epson desktop printers, including infringing empty cartridges intended for ink fill in the U.S. The patents at issue cover innovations in the entire line up of Epson on-carriage cartridges for Epson desktop printers. The patents at issue in the ITC action do not apply to off-carriage cartridges of the type used in Epson large format printers.”
While Nano Ink Spot, aka Nano Digital, says that its Epson inkjet cartridges do not infringe Epson’s patents, U.S. Customs disagreed, and the ITC has served the firm with a seizure and forfeiture order
The NanoDigitalInk.com website offers an enormous range of refillable cartridges for use in Epson’s desktop inkjets. The firm’s website has a disclaimer for these products that reads:Note: These cartridges are designed and manufactured after Feb. 2008 under U.S patends [sic]: 7,328,986 & 7,192,109. US Patent under Pending: 12/660/265. They do not infringe with Epson’s patents 6,502,917 & 6,955,422 & 7,008,503.
The general exclusion order granted in investigation 337-TA-691 relates to the HP 02 ink tanks (see “ITC Grants HP General Exclusion Order in HP 02 Patent-Infringement Suit” and “HP Requests Another General Exclusion Order Related to HP 02 Ink Tanks”). Once again, the Nano Digital website shows a lineup of compatible and refillable HP 02 tanks. Unlike with the Epson cartridges, there is no note promising that the cartridges do not infringe HP’s patents, perhaps because the exclusion order for the HP 02 tanks is more recent.
Ignoring the ITC’s exclusion orders for certain inkjet cartridges—or indeed any other barred product—can prove to be costly. The ITC levied $11.1 million in fines against Ninestar, as well as millions of dollars in fines against other companies, for violating the same general exclusion order for Epson inkjet cartridges that Nano Digital is now accused of violating. Ninestar is appealing the ITC’s fines (see “Ninestar’s Appeal Opens, Epson Asks ITC to Broaden Exclusion Order”). In addition to facing fines from the ITC, OEMs can sue importers of such cartridges for damages in U.S. district courts.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.