The Recycler
  • Ambiente 2025 Masthead
  • Katun web banner December 2022 NEW
  • G&G Masthead August 2024
  • Biuromax Masthead web banner March 2024

Developments for Canon in GPI dispute

February 27, 2018

In the latest developments in the well-documented legal dispute between Canon and GPI, the OEM has been granted a permanent injunction and a 20 percent enhancement of damages.

The Recycler has viewed new legal documents from the case, which were filed on 22 February 2018 at the United States District Court in Atlanta, Georgia.

The first set of documents regard Canon’s motion for a permanent injunction against the defendants, Color Imaging Inc. and its distributor, General Plastic Industrial, Co, Ltd, which Canon has accused of infringing its ‘012 patent.

In June 2017, a court had previously found the defendants guilty of three counts of patent infringement, awarding the OEM $3,740,603 (€3.044 million) in damages for GPI’s infringement and $730,380 (€594,530) for Color Imaging’s infringement.

After considering Canon’s motion for a permanent injunction at length, including the OEM’s contention that the infringement of the defendants had caused it to lose market share and was doing Canon “irreparable harm”, District Judge Amy Totenberg granted the motion. In so doing, the court enjoined Color Imaging and GPI from “infringing claims 24, 25, and 30 of the ’012 patent, directly or indirectly, through the manufacture, use, offer for sale, or sale within the United States, or importation into the United States, of Type A and Type B toner bottles and any other product that is not more than colourably different from the Type A or Type B toner bottles.”

In the second set of court documents viewed by The Recycler, Totenberg considered a motion filed by Canon for “Enhanced Damages”. In determining whether or not these damages would be appropriate, the court considered a variety of factors, among them the issue of copying, whether or not the defendants sufficiently investigated the patent they subsequently infringed, litigation misconduct, remedial action and motivation for harm.

Taking all these factors into account, Totenberg concluded that Canon was entitled to “a modest enhancement of damages by 20 percent”. This ruling did not tie in with the treble damages which Canon had originally sought, due to the fact that the case was deemed not to “rise to the level of egregiousness that warrants treble damages”.  

 

Categories : Around the Industry

Tags : Canon Color Imaging GPI Legal Patent infringement USA

  • Apex Web ad Nov 2024
  • Ink Tank No Web advert
  • IR Italiana Web ad January 2021
  • Static Control June 2022 Big & Bold Ad
  • G&G web advert October 2024
  • GM Technology October 2024
  • Cartridge Web Nov Web Banner
  • TN Core Nov Web advert
  • Biuromax web banner July 2024
  • ITP Web ad January 2021
  • Zhono Web ad March 2024
  • Denner Feb 2024 Web Ad
  • HYB Web banner Jan 2024
  • Mito Web banner June 2024
  • CET Web ad December 2023
  • denner UK Web Banner Jul 2024
  • PCL Nov Web advert
  • CET Web ad December 2023
  • Zhono Web ad March 2024
  • PCL Nov Web advert
  • Mito Web banner June 2024
  • ITP Web ad January 2021
  • HYB Web banner Jan 2024
  • Denner Feb 2024 Web Ad
  • denner UK Web Banner Jul 2024
  • denner UK Web Banner Jul 2024
  • CET Web ad December 2023
  • ITP Web ad January 2021
  • Mito Web banner June 2024
  • PCL Nov Web advert
  • Zhono Web ad March 2024
  • HYB Web banner Jan 2024
  • Denner Feb 2024 Web Ad

The Recycler, Wittas House, Two Rivers, Station Lane, Witney, OX28 4BH, United Kingdom | Tel: +44 (0) 1993 899800 | Fax : +44 (0) 1993 226899
©2006-2023 The Recycler - Terms & Conditions - Privacy Policy including cookie use

Web design Dorset | Websites by Mark