Universal Imaging Ind. Response To Frivolous Lawsuit Filed By Lexmark.

  • mse-big-banner-new-03-17-2016-416716a-tonernews-web-banner-mse-212
  • 05 02 2016 429716a-cig-clearchoice-banner-902x177
  • 2toner1-2
  • Print
  • 180202_futor_banner_902x170_cleaning_machines-big-2-02-06-2018
  • cartridgewebsite-com-big-banner-02-09-07-2016
  • 180202_futor_banner_902x170_efficiency-big-02-06-2018
  • universal-imaging-big-banner-for-bob-final-10-05-2017
  • facebook-tonernews-12-08-2016-08-22-2017
  • gsc_large
  • ces_web_banner_toner_news_902x1776
  • clover-depot-intl-us-ca-email-signature-05-10-2017-902x1772
  • q2-large-banner-tonernews-09-26-2017
  • csg-209x1772-05-22-2018
  • metro-fuser-big-banner-902x177-12-04-2017
  • 4toner4
  • liberty-big-banner-09-18-2018
  • planet-green-big-ad-hp-972xl-02-06-2018
  • banner-01-26-17b

Universal Imaging Ind. Response To Frivolous Lawsuit Filed By Lexmark.

 news 2018-05-02 at 9:10:21 pm Views: 2600
  • #50112

    Universal Imaging Industries, LLC
    Response to Frivolous Lawsuit Filed By Lexmark.

     By Steven Miller President.

    Universal Imaging Industries, LLC develops and manufactures its products with IP compliance as the top priority and UII does not infringe a single claim of Lexmark’s patents.  This lawsuit is simply a tactic by Lexmark and its co-owned companies, Apex, Ninestar, and Static to stifle the remanufacturing industry so they can take over the industry and then stop selling chips like they did a few months ago.  The only reason Apex and Static began selling MS/MX chips again recently is likely because UII released its line of MS/MX chips and Lexmark, Apex, Ninestar, and Static are trying to eliminate their competition so they can then resume not supplying chips again, effectively eliminating the Lexmark aftermarket remanufacturing industry.
    Image result for IP compliant chips

    Lexmark is notorious for these bullying tactics.  For example, prior to 2010, Lexmark had sued many remanufacturers and forced them into accepting one-sided settlement agreements until one of my companies, Advanced Cartridge Technologies, LLC, sued Lexmark for falsely marking patents on their cartridges, including patents that had been invalidated, and Lexmark was forced to remove the majority of their patent numbers from their cartridges.  Additionally, in 2004 Lexmark filed a case against our distributor, ISV Chips, that was so frivolous that after years of litigation Lexmark was forced to accept a $500 offer for judgment because if they didn’t win at least $600 in damages they would have had to pay all of ISV’s legal fees.  And in recent years, Lexmark had been bullying companies with its lawsuits over its return program and forcing those companies to stop remanufacturing Lexmark cartridges, only to lose their case to Impression Products in the Supreme Court.

    We have battled with Lexmark through multiple companies in the past and we've never lost, and this time will be no different.  We have done our due diligence in developing our non-infringing chips, and this lawsuit is simply an attack on the remanufacturing industry.  With the industry’s support, we look forward to furthering the prosperity of remanufacturers world-wide.Image result for prosperity