Rivals Hijacked Trucks to Steal Technology ?

LiveJournal Tags: microjet,hp,hewlett packard,mipo,printheads,printer cartridge

Technorati Tags: microjet,hp,hewlett packard,mipo,printheads,printer cartridge

del.icio.us Tags: microjet,hp,hewlett packard,mipo,printheads,printer cartridge

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – Well the latest rumour is Hewlett Packard claims Chinese and Taiwanese competitors stole patented printer cartridge components from HP's factory in Singapore and copied them to sell made-to-order counterfeit HP inkjet cartridges on Amazon.com. "Trucks carrying HP parts were apparently hijacked while en route from the manufacturing facility in Singapore to the assembly plant in Malaysia ... in direct response to the heightened security measures that had been implemented in HP production facilities," HP says.
     After stealing the technology, Hewlett Packard claims, Microjet Technology (of Taiwan) Mipo Technology (of Hong Kong and mainland China), and their U.S. affiliates, including SinoTime Technologies (of Florida) sold more than 300,000 of the inkjet cartridges in the United States. The defendants have the capability to make nearly 10 million counterfeit cartridges a year in Asia, Hewlett Packard says.
     The federal filing is the latest in a long line of complaints that China is making up its technology gap with the United States through industrial espionage, theft, and wholesale patent infringement.
     MicroJet "sells generic and/or made-to-order infringing ink cartridges to other companies, including defendants Mipo and PTC [PTC Holdings Ltd., of Hong Kong]," and sells them itself as well, Hewlett Packard says. HP claims the defendants violated six patents after stealing the HP components.
     Hewlett Packard says it discovered the scheme after seeing color ink cartridges for sale on Amazon.com and Craigslist, advertised as "HP compatible."
     HP bought some of the cartridges from Amazon.com, then used HP's internal tracking database to cross-reference ID numbers on components, and found that the cartridges had "a genuine HP printhead and a non-HP cartridge body that closely resembled a genuine HP cartridge body."
     And it found that the printheads came from HP lots from Malaysia that had never been assembled by HP - "i.e., were identified as production gaps." All of these stolen items "were packaged in a 'Mipo' labeled box and were individually wrapped in a clear plastic interior packaging that is clearly consistent with the standard packaging for products manufactured by defendant Microjet," according to the complaint.
HP demands an injunction and damages for patent infringement, unfair competition and conversion.

ALJ Wants $30M In Penalties In ITC Ink Cartridge Spat

ALJ Wants $30M In Penalties In ITC Ink Cartridge Spat

Law360New York (April 22, 2009) --

A U.S. International Trade Commission administrative law judge has recommended that China's NineStar Technology Co. Ltd., a U.S. NineStar unit and Town Sky Inc. be held liable for $20.5 million and Mipo International and Mipo America for 9.7 million in civil penalties for violations of a cease-and-desist orders issued in an ink cartridge case brought by Seiko Epson Corp.

U.S. Court of Appeals Affirms ITC General Exclusion Order That Prohibits Imports of Infringing Ink Cartridges

Epson Continues Enforcement of Its Ink Cartridge Patents - – LONG BEACH, United States.- On January 13, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington D.C. affirmed the Final Determination and General Exclusion Order of the U.S. International Trade Commission ("ITC").

A General Exclusion Order that bars imports of infringing new and refilled cartridges was entered by the ITC in October 2007, after an ITC trial established widespread infringement of Epson’s cartridge patents by many foreign manufacturers, importers and U.S. distributors.

The unsuccessful Appeal was filed by Ninestar Technologies Co, Ltd.of China, Ninestar’s U.S.
subsidiaries and Dataproducts USA LLC (a division of Clover Technologies Group). Epson will vigorously proceed with enforcement of its patents now that the validity and enforceability of its patents have again been ratified.

A second ITC trial was conducted on Jan.14-16, 2009 in Washington D.C. to determine any financial penalties that may be assessed against Ninestar, Mipo America,Ltd. and Cana-Pacific Ribbons Inc. and their affiliates for alleged violations of the General Exclusion Order.

The ITC has not yet determined any violations, but has the authority to assess substantial penalties up to $100,000 per day of violations or twice the commercial value of infringing imports. In addition to the ITC actions, Epson filed U.S. District Court lawsuits in Portland, Ore., for patent infringement damages against the same 24 companies named in the ITC action and numerous additional distributors and retailers alleged to have continued infringements after the ITC Final Determination.

The District Court cases were stayed pending the ITC Determination and Appeal, but will now proceed against those defendants that have not settled. Recently, Epson settled two of these lawsuits filed against major internet retailers: Media Street Inc. and Comptree Inc.

Epson maintains a Web site (http://www.itc.epson.com/) that provides U.S. importers, distributors and retailers with timely information about the ITC action and related U.S. District Court lawsuits. The U.S. Court of Appeals Judgment, ITC Exclusion Orders, ITC Seizure and Forfeiture Orders, ITC Enforcement Complaints, and U.S. District Court complaints referenced in this press release are all posted on the Web site with other useful information including a summary of the legal requirements for refilled cartridges.

These ITC actions and U.S. District Court lawsuits were all brought by Epson Portland Inc., Epson America Inc. and Seiko Epson Corp. as part of Epson’s worldwide efforts to protect Epson’s intellectual property rights and its substantial investments in R & D to produce high quality, innovative printers and ink cartridges.

Although most U.S. importers and distributors have now undertaken commendable efforts to avoid infringing Epson’s cartridge patents, Epson will continue taking the necessary actions to protect the company and legitimate competitors from ongoing infringements and unfair competition.

In the Matter of Certain Ink Cartridges and Components Thereof; Notice of Institution of Formal Enforcement Proceeding

May 07, 2008 (U.S. International Trade Commission Documents and Publications/ContentWorks via COMTEX) -- -- SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has instituted a formal enforcement proceeding relating to exclusion orders and cease and desist orders issued at the conclusion of the above-captioned investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Haldenstein, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3041. Copies of all nonconfidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov/. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on the matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation on March 23, 2006, based on a complaint filed by Epson Portland, Inc. of Oregon; Epson America, Inc. of California; and Seiko Epson Corporation of Japan (collectively "Epson"). 71 FR 14720 (March 23, 2006). The complaint, as amended, alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 ("section 337") in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain ink cartridges and components thereof by reason of infringement of claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 5,615,957; claims 18, 81, 93, 149, 164 and 165 of U.S. Patent No. 5,622,439; claims 83 and 84 of U.S. Patent No. 5,158,377; claims 19 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 5,221,148; claims 29, 31, 34 and 38 of U.S. Patent No. 5,156,472; claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 5,488,401; claims 1-3 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 6,502,917; claims 1, 31 and 34 of U.S. Patent No. 6,550,902; claims 1, 10 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 6,955,422; claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 7,008,053; and claims 21, 45, 53 and 54 of U.S. Patent No. 7,011,397. The complaint further alleged that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337. The complainants requested that the Commission issue a general exclusion order and cease and desist orders. The Commission named as respondents 24 companies located in China, Germany, Hong Kong, Korea, and the United States. Several respondents were terminated from the investigation on the basis of settlement agreements or consent orders or were found in default.

On March 30, 2007, the presiding ALJ (Judge Luckern) issued a final ID in the investigation finding a violation of section 337 with respect to certain respondents. He found the asserted claims valid and infringement by certain respondents' products. He recommended issuance of a general exclusion order and cease and desist orders directed to certain respondents and bond in the amount of $13.60 per cartridge during the Presidential review period.

On October, 19, 2007, after review, the Commission made its final determination in the investigation, finding a violation of section 337. The Commission issued a general exclusion order, limited exclusion order, and cease and desist orders directed to several domestic respondents. The Commission also determined that the public interest factors enumerated in 19 U.S.C. 1337(d), (f), and (g) did not preclude issuance of the aforementioned remedial orders, and that the bond during the Presidential review period would be $13.60 per cartridge for covered ink cartridges.

On February 8, 2008, complainant Epson filed two complaints seeking enforcement proceedings under Commission Rule 210.75. One complaint alleges that Ninestar Technology Co., Ltd.; Ninestar Technology Company, Ltd.; and Town Sky Inc. have violated the general exclusion order and that Ninestar Technology Company, Ltd. and Town Sky Inc. have violated the cease and desist orders directed to them. Epson's second complaint alleges that Mipo International Ltd. and Mipo America, Ltd. have violated the general and limited exclusion orders and that Mipo America, Ltd. has violated the cease and desist order directed to it.

Having examined the complaints seeking a formal enforcement proceeding, and having found that the complaints comply with the requirements for institution of a formal enforcement proceeding contained in Commission rule 210.75, the Commission has determined to institute a consolidated formal enforcement proceeding to determine whether the five respondents are in violation of the Commission's exclusion orders and cease and desist orders issued in the investigation, and what, if any, enforcement measures are appropriate.

The following entities are named as parties to the formal enforcement proceeding: (1) Complainant Epson, (2) respondents (Ninestar Technology Co., Ltd.; Ninestar Technology Company, Ltd.; Town Sky Inc.; Mipo America Ltd., and Mipo International, Ltd.) and (3) a Commission investigative attorney to be designated by the Director, Office of Unfair Import Investigations.

The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in section 210.75 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.75).
Issued: May 1, 2008.
By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E8-9984 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
Notice.
Citation: "73 FR 25768"
Document Number: "Inv. No. 337-TA-565 Consolidated Enforcement Proceeding"
Federal Register Page Number: "25768"
"Notices"