December 16, 2016
The case saw Samsung win at the Court of The Hague against two Dutch companies over patent infringement, specifically Maxperian and Digital Revolution, who were among those sued by the OEM two years ago, in a case that the OEM initially lost. However, the OEM continued to fight, and 123inkt.nl, which owns Digital Revolution, eventually won an appeal in this specific case in 2015.
The ruling saw 123inkt required to post a rectification on its website, with the retailer’s site currently displaying the message alongside another saying “Congratulations Samsung”, adding “P.S. Samsung, success with your exploding telephones and washing machines”. This is in relation to the OEM’s recent issues with the Note 7 smartphone and its washing machines, with both products exploding and seeing mass recalls.
123inkt also posted a summary of the case and its own views on the ruling (Dutch), with Director Gerben Kreuning stating that “you will again find a rectification text on our website”, adding that Samsung “has been largely vindicated by the judge”, and that it has been forced to include the rectification “in an absurdly large font” for two weeks. Kreuning said that “we would like to explain a few things” as customers “probably have no idea” what happened in the case, and went into detail on the case.
He stated that the OEM “managed to cram in 2013” two “totally different patents, two completely different design rights and two more advertisements in one indictment and sent it to several parties in the market”, with “almost every party […] intimidated by this display of power”, but it was “not”. The case concerned “only nine” 123inkt-brand toners for “a small number of old Samsung printers”, and Kreuning said that “a patent is a new solution to a problem”, but “we believe that the patent department of Samsung has invented a problem” and then tried to “find a solution”.
His view is that “this solution to a non-existent problem, Samsung managed to register as a patent”, with the cartridges’ “hole in the top of the housing such a solution to a non-existent problem of the accumulation of waste toner patented in the housing”, and his view was that the patent allows Samsung “to strengthen its monopoly on the sale of laser toners […] by dragging sellers […] to justice”.
Having won the previous case against the OEM by highlighting that its products were not “violating the patent of the original product”, 123inkt “assumed that this ruling would stand”, especially given that “a product that is marketed by a manufacturer in Europe may not be sold by resellers outside Europe and vice versa. This regulation is designed to protect the manufacturer. A consequence of this legislation is therefore a recycled Samsung toner sold in Europe, in his previous life (as original Samsung toner) must also be put on the European market”.
This meant the company “devoted less attention to gathering evidence on the origin of the empty original toner used, and so this proved insufficient, according to the court. Samsung hit us with this so successful in the ears”. However, the company “will definitely appeal against” the ruling, and in terms of its advertisement, the court “ruled that our information was not sufficiently founded”, with “chances are that we are going to appeal against this ruling” as well.
Categories : Around the Industry