Placeholder image
  • Nubeprint Online 425x90
  • Katun March Web Advert 2021
  • Static Web ad March 2021
  • Ninestar Masthead banner April 2021
  • Biuromax web ad Jan 2021
  • PW Dubai December Sticky Ad
  • The Recycler Subscribe Web ad January 2021
  • PW Dubai December Sticky Ad
  • The Recycler Subscribe Web ad January 2021

Canon v ITC: Judges hear the arguments by phone

April 20, 2020

In the long running dispute, Canon is back in court by phone giving oral arguments about why the ITC decision in favour of three non-OEM manufacturers is wrong.

Canon lawyers were on the phones last week in one of the first hearings by phone. They were arguing why the ITC’s determination in favour of Aster, Ninestar and Print-Rite was wrong before three Federal Judges.  

Canon had originally argued that the defendants, Aster, Ninestar, and Print-Rite were guilty of infringing a number of its patents, namely US Patent Numbers 9,746,826; 9,836,021; 9,841,729; 9,857,764; 9,857,765; 9,869,960; 9,874,846; 9,841,727; and 9,841,728.

Canon had originally argued that the defendants were guilty of infringing a number of its patents, namely US Patent Numbers 9,746,826; 9,836,021; 9,841,729; 9,857,764; 9,857,765; 9,869,960; 9,874,846; 9,841,727; and 9,841,728.

Since the initial filings, Canon withdrew the complaints based upon the ‘727 and ‘728 patents, and withdrew its allegations based upon certain claims of the remaining patents. However, several disputes stayed in place.

All three defendants filed motions for summary determination of non-infringement, with the OEM responding with a motion for summary determination of infringement. In response to this, Ninestar filed another motion, for summary determination of invalidity, of Canon’s patent claims.

In March 2019 the ITC’s 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.

The dismissal of Canon’s arguments brought the ITC investigation to an end. Canon then announced it would appeal the U.S. International Trade Commission’s final determination terminating Investigation No. 337-TA-1106.

In May 2019 the ITC confirmed Administrative Law Judge Dee Lord earlier determination and Canon announced its intention to appeal the ITC’s affirmation of the non-infringing initial determination.

Canon appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and last weeks oral hearings were the next step in Canon’s ongoing IP battles with the aftermarket.

You can listen to the oral hearings here.

Categories : World Focus

Tags :

Leave a Reply

Advertisement

  • Apex web ad May 2021 version 2
  • Aster web ad April 2021
  • Armor May banner Ink
  • GPI May 2021 web advert
  • IR Italiana Web ad January 2021
  • Ninestar Big & Bold April 2021
  • Mito Web ad May 2021
  • GM Tech Web ad March 2021
  • Static Web ad January 2021
  • HYB Web ad February 2021
  • CET Web ad April 2021
  • PCL Web ad January 2021
  • CTS Toner Supplies Web ad April 2021
  • Adter Recruitment Web ad April 2021
  • PW Dubai December Ad
  • ITP Web ad January 2021
  • HYB Web ad February 2021
  • Adter Recruitment Web ad April 2021
  • CTS Toner Supplies Web ad April 2021
  • ITP Web ad January 2021
  • CET Web ad April 2021
  • PW Dubai December Ad
  • PCL Web ad January 2021
  • HYB Web ad February 2021
  • PW Dubai December Ad
  • Adter Recruitment Web ad April 2021
  • ITP Web ad January 2021
  • CET Web ad April 2021
  • PCL Web ad January 2021
  • CTS Toner Supplies Web ad April 2021