Canon takes another swipe at Ninestar

September 17, 2020

Canon lawyers are back again as the company has filed another complaint against Ninestar alleging a breach of five cartridge patents.

Canon has announced the filing of a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Ninestar Corporation, Ninestar Image Tech Limited, and Ninestar Technology Company, Ltd. (collectively, “Ninestar”), for infringement of Canon’s U.S. Patent Nos. 9,851,688; 9,857,766; 10,620,582; 10,712,709; and 10,712,710.

Patent	US-9851688-B2	US-9857766-B2	US-10620582-B2	US-10712709-B2	US-10712710-B2
Priority Date	2007-03-23	2007-03-23	2007-03-23
Application Date	2017-03-10	2016-12-13	2019-09-18	2019-09-18	2019-09-18
Grant Date	2017-12-26	2018-01-02	2020-04-14	2020-07-14	2020-07-14
Expiration Date	2028-03-24	2028-03-24	2028-03-24

Canon alleges that Ninestar sells toner cartridges that infringe Canon’s patents for use in various models of Canon and HP laser beam printers. These include printers which accept Canon toner cartridge models 729 and HP toner cartridge models 126A and 130A.

The HP 126 family of cartridges are used in the following printers:

HP LaserJet Pro 100 Color MFP M175a (CE865A)
HP LaserJet Pro 100 Color MFP M175nw (CE866A)
HP LaserJet Pro CP1025 Colour Printer (CE913A)
HP LaserJet Pro CP1025 Colour Printer (CF346A)
HP LaserJet Pro CP1025nw Colour Printer (CE914A)
HP LaserJet Pro CP1025nw Colour Printer (CE918A)
HP TopShot LaserJet Pro M275 MFP (CF040A)

The HP 130 family of cartridges are used in the following printers:

HP Color LaserJet Pro MFP M176n (CF547A)
HP Color LaserJet Pro MFP M177fw (CZ165A)

In March 2018, The Recycler reported that the OEM had filed legal proceedings against nearly fifty companies claiming infringement of several patents. The accused companies include such well-known aftermarket names as Aster, Ninestar Corporation, Static Control, and Print-Rite.

In March 2019, The Recycler reported that The United States International Trade Commission has ruled against the OEM, throwing out its dispute with a series of aftermarket companies, following the Markman ruling of non-infringement earlier this month.

In legal documents seen by The Recycler, Administrative Law Judge Dee Lord granted the motions for summary determination of non-infringement by Aster, Ninestar, and Print-Rite.

As a result of this decision, Canon’s own motion, for summary determination of infringement, and Ninestar’s motion for summary determination of invalidity, were both denied as moot.

Canon went on to appeal this decision, but the Administrative Law Judge Dee Lord decision was upheld.