【 Case summary 】
On February 27, 2006, Epson filed a "337 investigation" application for several ink cartridge manufacturers, including Chinese enterprises, and then, on August 1 of the same year, when Epson's "337 investigation" case had not yet appeared, HP also filed a "337 investigation" application for three companies affiliated with Nastar Group.
Epson Cartridge "337 Investigation" case overview
On February 17, 2006, three companies, Epson Portland Co., LTD., Epson USA, and Seiko Epson, submitted an application to the ITC, alleging that 24 companies from China, the United States, Germany, and South Korea exported and sold ink cartridges to the United States in violation of nine patents in the United States. The above patents involved are shown in Table 2-5-1. Epson seeks a general exclusion order from the ITC or against the Company, prohibiting the import, sale, distribution, and marketing of the infringing products by such company and all related companies in the United States. The list of 24 companies involved in the case, involving a total of 17 Chinese enterprises, mainly Zhuhai Nastar Digital Technology Co., LTD., Zhuhai Gree Magneto Electric Co., LTD., and Shenzhen Huerlian Trading Co., LTD.
On March 23, 2006, the ITC officially opened the case under the "337 Investigation" file number 337-TA-565. In addition to the response of the domestic enterprises, the rest of the enterprises gave up the response.
On March 30, 2007, the ITC Administrative Judge issued a preliminary ruling declaring all 11 Epson patents (including two subsequent patents) valid, finding that more than 1,000 models of ink cartridges sold by 24 companies, including Nastar, infringed Epson's patents. It also recommends the issuance of an injunction and a general exclusion order requiring all defendants to cease the import and sale of infringing cartridges into the United States and to prohibit all infringing cartridges, whether or not manufactured by such defendants, from entering the United States market.
Nastar disagrees with the preliminary finding, arguing that the ITC administrative judge's adoption of Epson's expanded interpretation is excessive protection of Epson's patent rights. Nastar requested the ITC to review the preliminary opinion. At the same time, in July 2007, Nastar filed invalid applications with the United States Patent and Trademark Office against several Epson patents.
On October 19, 2007, the ITC made a final finding that Epson's patents were valid and that the investigated party had violated Epson's patents. It also issued an injunction and a general exclusion order requiring all importers not to import and sell the infringing products into the United States. According to the final ruling, in addition to the latest independent patented technology cartridges of Zhuhai Nastar Company, other Chinese consumables companies that did not respond to the lawsuit, the relevant ink cartridge products produced by the company are not allowed to be sold to the United States market.
According to the results of the review, the ITC still adopted Epson's expanded interpretation of whether the parties to the lawsuit infringed US6502,917. After learning the outcome of the review, Nastar was disappointed. "The issuance of a general exclusion order is bound to have a significant adverse impact on compatible consumables manufacturers worldwide. And in fact, the lack of support for compatible cartridges, Epson printer sales in the US market will certainly decline sharply, accelerating the speed of the US HP printer from the US market out of the HP ink cartridge "337 investigation" case process
On August 1, 2006, HP filed an application with the ITC to initiate a "337 investigation" on some inkjet printers and their parts belonging to the petitioner Zhuhai NASTar Company, Nastar USA Company and four other American companies that imported Nastar products. The patents involved are shown in Table 2-5-2. The Applicant believes that 28 models manufactured or sold by the Respondent infringe the Applicant's U.S. patent rights for the "intjek" series of products, and requests the ITC to investigate and issue a general exclusion order and an injunction.
On February 27, 2007, the applicant HP entered into a settlement agreement with the respondent Nastar Digital Technology Co., LTD. (China) and Nastar Digital Technology Co., LTD. (California), filing a joint motion to terminate the investigation in exchange for the Respondent's stopping the sale of the printer cartridges in the United States and some other countries in question.
On June 6, 2007, the ITC Administrative Judge made a preliminary finding, granting a joint motion by the applicant and the respondent to terminate the investigation. The administrative judge found that the joint motion met the ITC's requirements and that there was no evidence that termination of this investigation would harm the public interest. In addition, the administrative judge noted that termination of proceedings as an alternative method of dispute resolution is usually in the public interest.
On June 27, 2007, the ITC agreed with the preliminary findings and decided to discontinue the investigation.
【 Case Revelation 】
In two cases of "337 investigation" in the cartridge industry in 2006, we can get the following enlightenment. First of all, enterprises in the face of the "337 investigation" should not passively escape. In the face of the "337 investigation" filed by Epson and HP, Nastar actively responded to the lawsuit, and successfully declared several of Epson's basic patents invalid to the State Intellectual Property Office and finally reached a settlement with HP, which shows that if Chinese enterprises actively responded to the lawsuit, there are still many different possibilities in these cases. Even if the final case did not win the result, the act of responding to the lawsuit itself has left a better corporate image for Chinese enterprises in the international community. In addition, the act of responding to lawsuits can accumulate important experience in foreign-related legal affairs for enterprises, and also provide important experience for Chinese enterprises to deal with the "337 investigation" filed by foreign enterprises in the future.
Source: Shenzhen Intellectual Property Protection Center, China
Related Cases
The first instance told that the light distance company filed a lawsuit with the original trial court, and the original trial court accepted the case on November 27, 2020. Guang Distance Company sued to order Puneng Company: 1. Immediately stop manufacturing, selling, promising to sell products that infringe the patent rights involved; 2. Compensation for economic losses (including reasonable expenses) 800,000 yuan. The defendant of the first instance argued that the original trial of Panneng Company argued: the patentee involved is a Taiwan enterprise, the authenticity of the Patent licensing Agreement is not recognized, it is impossible to confirm whether the light distance company enjoys authorization when suing, and the light distance company is not the subject
2022-05-25
The appellant Zhongshan Yalesi Electric Appliance Industrial Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as Yalesi Company) is not satisfied with the civil judgment (2016) No. 1238 of Guangdong 03 Minchu made by the Intermediate People's Court of Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province on February 26, 2019, due to the invention patent infringement dispute with the appellant Shenzhen Topang Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as Topang Company). Appeal to this court. After the filing of the case on July 2, 2019, the court formed a panel in accordance with the law, and tried the case in public on August 7, 2019. The appellant Yalesi Company appointed an agent AD litre Chen Wei, and the appellant Tuopang Company appointed an agent AD litre Yi Zhao to attend the court. The case is now closed.
2022-05-18
Huawei vs Samsung 5G dispute case summary Involved in the patent (patent No. 200880007435.1) the name of the invention patent (referred to as the patent), applied on January 7, 2008 (the earliest priority date is January 5, 2007), authorized notice on July 23, 2014, The patent holder is Samsung Electronics Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as Samsung Corporation). Huawei Technologies Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as Huawei) filed a request for invalidation of the patent with the Patent Reexamination Board of the former State Intellectual Property Office (hereinafter referred to as the Patent Reexamination Board) on September 2, 2016.
2022-05-17
Retrial of the applicant China Resources (Group) Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as China Resources Group) and China Resources Intellectual Property Management Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as China Resources Intellectual Property Company) for trademark infringement and unfair competition disputes with the respondent China Resources Lighting Store (hereinafter referred to as China Resources Store) in Jinniu District, Chengdu, If you are not satisfied with the civil judgment No. 174 of Sichuan Higher People's Court (2020), apply to the court for a retrial.
2022-04-21
Us Steel and Baosteel 337 investigation
In May 2016, more than 40 Chinese steel companies, such as Baosteel and Shougang, launched a 337 investigation against carbon steel and alloy steel imported from China to the United States. From anti-monopoly, infringement of trade secrets, fictitious origin and other three aspects of the Chinese steel enterprises accused.
2021-08-31
In January 2009, Cargill filed a "337" infringement lawsuit with the United States International Trade Commission ITC on the grounds that six defendants such as Nantong Foreign Trade Medical and Health Products Co., Ltd. infringed its patent, and applied for a general exclusion order to prohibit all the vegetarian glycosamines and products containing the substance that infringed its patent from entering the United States market, regardless of origin.
2021-08-31
Philips Lumens v. Crystal Light emitting Diodes Patent infringement case
On September 6, 2001, after confirming the validity of its US patent No. 5008,718 in the US patent litigation, Philips Lumens filed its first patent lawsuit against Crystal Optoelectronics in July 2004, and Crystal agreed to settle the case by paying a one-time patent license fee.
2021-08-12
Resmed v. ABbot medical device patent infringement case
On March 28, 2013, Resmed filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission against AB and its distributor, California's Driver Medical Design & Manufacturing, for illegally importing and selling "certain systems and components for the treatment of sleep disordered breathing. sleep-disordered breathing treatment systems and components thereof) and other products infringed Resmed's seven patents related to humidity regulators and breathing masks.
2021-08-12
Telephone：
Telephone：+86-755-82566227、82566717、13751089600
Head Office：13 / F, Building 14, Longhua Science and Technology Innovation Center (Mission Hills), No. 8 Golf Avenue, Guanlan Street, Longhua District, Shenzhen
Head Office：
13 / F, Building 14, Longhua Science and Technology Innovation Center (Mission Hills), No. 8 Golf Avenue, Guanlan Street, Longhua District, Shenzhen
Subsidiary Company：2808, Block B2, Yuexiu Xinghui Junbo, No.18 Tazihu East Road, Jiangan District, Wuhan City, Hubei Province
Subsidiary Company：
2808, Block B2, Yuexiu Xinghui Junbo, No.18 Tazihu East Road, Jiangan District, Wuhan City, Hubei Province
Service Number
Subscription Number
Copyright ©2016 Shenzhen Shenkexin patent Agency Co., LTD All rights reserved | 粤ICP备2021174526号
Copyright ©2016 深圳市深可信专利代理有限公司 版权所有 | 粤ICP备2021174526号 SEO标签
Copyright ©2016 深圳市深可信专利代理有限公司 版权所有
