Current Trends of Recharger Litigation and Risk Mitigation
-
Upload
rechargeasia-corp -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Current Trends of Recharger Litigation and Risk Mitigation
![Page 1: Current Trends of Recharger Litigation and Risk Mitigation](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020421/568bf31e1a28ab8933991fef/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Current Trends of Recharger Litigation and Risk Mitigation
![Page 2: Current Trends of Recharger Litigation and Risk Mitigation](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020421/568bf31e1a28ab8933991fef/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
SPEAKERS
Roland Tong, Esq.:
Brooks Kushman, P.C. – Senior Patent Attorney
Peter Bauman, Esq.:
Tharpe & Howell, LLP – Senior Associate
![Page 3: Current Trends of Recharger Litigation and Risk Mitigation](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020421/568bf31e1a28ab8933991fef/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Brief History Patent Issues Affecting Recharger Industry
1. Technology Involved
2. Manufacturer Designs
3. Toner Technology
![Page 4: Current Trends of Recharger Litigation and Risk Mitigation](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020421/568bf31e1a28ab8933991fef/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Patent Infringement Cases Filed By HP
Hewlett-Packard Company v. Ninestar Technology Co Ltd
![Page 5: Current Trends of Recharger Litigation and Risk Mitigation](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020421/568bf31e1a28ab8933991fef/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Hewlett-Packard Company et al v. Microjet Technology Co, Ltd et al
![Page 6: Current Trends of Recharger Litigation and Risk Mitigation](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020421/568bf31e1a28ab8933991fef/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Patent Infringement Cases Filed By Lexmark Lexmark International, Inc. v. Ink Technologies Printer Supplies, LLC
![Page 7: Current Trends of Recharger Litigation and Risk Mitigation](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020421/568bf31e1a28ab8933991fef/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Patent Infringement Cases Filed By Epson
Seiko Epson Corporation et al v. Abacus 24-7 LLC et al
![Page 8: Current Trends of Recharger Litigation and Risk Mitigation](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020421/568bf31e1a28ab8933991fef/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Seiko Epson Corporation et al v. Inkjetmadness.com, Inc. et al
![Page 9: Current Trends of Recharger Litigation and Risk Mitigation](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020421/568bf31e1a28ab8933991fef/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Seiko Epson Corporation et al v. E-Babylon, Inc. et al
![Page 10: Current Trends of Recharger Litigation and Risk Mitigation](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020421/568bf31e1a28ab8933991fef/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Patent Infringement Cases Filed By Canon Canon Inc. v. GCC International Limited
![Page 11: Current Trends of Recharger Litigation and Risk Mitigation](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020421/568bf31e1a28ab8933991fef/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Canon Inc., v. Densigraphix Kopi Inc.
![Page 12: Current Trends of Recharger Litigation and Risk Mitigation](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020421/568bf31e1a28ab8933991fef/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Canon, Inc. v. Ninestar Image Int'l, Ltd.
![Page 13: Current Trends of Recharger Litigation and Risk Mitigation](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020421/568bf31e1a28ab8933991fef/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Canon Inc. v. Clover Holdings, Inc. et al
![Page 14: Current Trends of Recharger Litigation and Risk Mitigation](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020421/568bf31e1a28ab8933991fef/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
![Page 15: Current Trends of Recharger Litigation and Risk Mitigation](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020421/568bf31e1a28ab8933991fef/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
U.S. patents asserted:
5,903,803 and 6,128,454
![Page 16: Current Trends of Recharger Litigation and Risk Mitigation](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020421/568bf31e1a28ab8933991fef/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
5,903,803
Claims 1. An electrophotographic image forming apparatus for forming an image on a recording material, comprising:
an electrophotographic photosensitive drum; charging means for charging said photosensitive drum; developing means for developing a latent image formed on said photosensitive drum into a toner image; transfer means for transferring the toner image onto the recording material; fixing means for fixing the toner image on the recording material; a motor; a driving rotatable member for receiving a driving force from said motor; a twisted hole substantially coaxial with said driving rotatable member, said hole having a polygonal cross-section; a twisted prism projection provided at a longitudinal end of said photosensitive drum, wherein when said driving rotatable member rotates with said hole and projection engaged with each other, a rotational driving force is transmitted from said driving rotatable member to said photosensitive drum through engagement between said hole and said projection with said projection being pulled into said hole; and
moving means for imparting relative movement between said hole and said projection in a longitudinal direction of said photosensitive drum.
![Page 17: Current Trends of Recharger Litigation and Risk Mitigation](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020421/568bf31e1a28ab8933991fef/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
6,128,454
![Page 18: Current Trends of Recharger Litigation and Risk Mitigation](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020421/568bf31e1a28ab8933991fef/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
6,128,454
4. A process cartridge which is detachably mountable to a main assembly of an electrophotographic image forming apparatus for forming an image on a recording material, the apparatus including a motor; and a driving rotatable member for transmitting a rotational driving force from said motor and having a twisted hole formed therein at a central portion thereof having a non-circular cross-section with a plurality of corner portions, said process cartridge comprising: an electrophotographic photosensitive drum; process means actable on said electrophotographic photosensitive drum; and a twisted projection provided at a longitudinal end of said electrophotographic photosensitive drum and having a non-circular cross-section with a plurality of corner portions, said twisted projection being engageable with the twisted hole, wherein the rotational driving force is transmitted from said driving rotatable member to said electrophotographic photosensitive drum by engagement between the twisted hole and said twisted projection, and wherein said twisted projection is urged toward the twisted hole when said driving rotatable member is rotated with said twisted projection being in engagement with the twisted hole when said process cartridge is mounted to the main assembly.
![Page 19: Current Trends of Recharger Litigation and Risk Mitigation](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020421/568bf31e1a28ab8933991fef/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
ITC PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY OEMs
![Page 20: Current Trends of Recharger Litigation and Risk Mitigation](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020421/568bf31e1a28ab8933991fef/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
What is the US International Trade Commission (ITC)? 1. Independent non-partisan federal agency
2. Administers import injury investigations
3. Oversees IP Based import investigations under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930
4. Patent cases involving imports that are alleged to infringe a US patent
5. Besides patent cases, Section 337 includes registered trademarks, copyrights, gray markets good cases, unfair competition, antitrust, and trade secret cases, products liability, violation of US environmental laws, child labor and other human rights violations
![Page 21: Current Trends of Recharger Litigation and Risk Mitigation](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020421/568bf31e1a28ab8933991fef/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Elements of a Section 337 Case
1. Domestic industry related to the patent at issue
– Significant investment in plant and equipment
– Significant employment of labor or capital, or
– Substantial investment in exploitation, eng’g, R&D
• Manufacturing not required, sales and marketing not sufficient
– Nexus between its litigation expenses and licensing
2. Importation of products by respondent
3. Unfair act e.g. infringement of a valid patent
![Page 22: Current Trends of Recharger Litigation and Risk Mitigation](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020421/568bf31e1a28ab8933991fef/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Remedies:
1. Exclusion Order directing US Customs to exclude goods
from entering the US
2. General exclusion order, limited exclusion order
3. Cease and Desist Orders preventing sale
4. Distribution or infringing use of imported products
5. No monetary remedies
6. Violation of Orders can lead to civil penalties
7. Ninestar $11,110,000
![Page 23: Current Trends of Recharger Litigation and Risk Mitigation](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020421/568bf31e1a28ab8933991fef/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Timeline: 1. File Complaint 2. Day 30- ITC decision to investigate 3. Day 75- set target date 4. Date 75-280: case development 5. Discovery, experts, motions, settlement conferences (3-4),
summary determinations, hearing prep 6. Hearing day 280 7. Initial determination on liability day 395 8. Recommended determination on remedy 395-455 9. Remedy and public comment day 455-515 10. Target date 515 days 11. Presidential review 515-575 days 12. Final decision day 575 13. Appeal to federal circuit
![Page 24: Current Trends of Recharger Litigation and Risk Mitigation](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020421/568bf31e1a28ab8933991fef/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Differences between: District Court and ITC
1. Types of relief
a.Damages, injunctive relief in DC
b.Exclusion and Cease and Desist Orders in ITC
2. Availability of jury trials
a.No jury trials in ITC
3. Time limit of 12-16 months in ITC vs. 3 or more years
in DC
![Page 25: Current Trends of Recharger Litigation and Risk Mitigation](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020421/568bf31e1a28ab8933991fef/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Advantages of Going Though: ITC vs. District Court 1. 12-16 months decision
2. Name all known companies in one proceeding
3. Customs enforcement of the orders
4. Administrative law judges with experience in patent
cases
5. The grant of permanent injunctions may be
uncertain in district courts post eBay
![Page 26: Current Trends of Recharger Litigation and Risk Mitigation](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020421/568bf31e1a28ab8933991fef/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Risk Management
1. Structuring for Asset Protection
- Asset identification
- Asset development
- Asset protection
- Entity Formation & Structuring
- Maintaining Entity Protections
![Page 27: Current Trends of Recharger Litigation and Risk Mitigation](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020421/568bf31e1a28ab8933991fef/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Risk Management
2. Risk Mitigation through Contracts
- Vendor Agreements
- Supplier Agreements
- Customer Agreements
- Real Estate Agreements
![Page 28: Current Trends of Recharger Litigation and Risk Mitigation](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020421/568bf31e1a28ab8933991fef/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Risk Management
3. Available Insurance
- Advertising Injury
- Specialty IP Related
- Breach of Contract Attorney Fee
- Personal Guarantee
**Ongoing Consultation with Broker**
![Page 29: Current Trends of Recharger Litigation and Risk Mitigation](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020421/568bf31e1a28ab8933991fef/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Risk Management
4. Building Value to resolve disputes
- Customer Lists
- Distribution Network
- Recharging Equipment
- Derivative Works
- Pricing Lists
- Component Suppliers
![Page 30: Current Trends of Recharger Litigation and Risk Mitigation](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020421/568bf31e1a28ab8933991fef/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Receiving a Cease & Desist Demand
- What to do first
- When to get counsel involved
- What type of counsel to hire
- Measures to protect evidence
![Page 31: Current Trends of Recharger Litigation and Risk Mitigation](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020421/568bf31e1a28ab8933991fef/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Receiving an ITC Complaint or Lawsuit
- What to do first
- When to get counsel involved
- What type of counsel to hire
- Measures to protect evidence
![Page 32: Current Trends of Recharger Litigation and Risk Mitigation](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020421/568bf31e1a28ab8933991fef/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Resolution of ITC Complaint or Lawsuit
- Cross-Licensing
- Litigating Efficiently
- Inventory Issues
- Continuing Jurisdiction of Court
![Page 33: Current Trends of Recharger Litigation and Risk Mitigation](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022020421/568bf31e1a28ab8933991fef/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Thank you - Questions? Roland Tong
Brooks Kushman, PC 601 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2080
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5726 Main: (213) 622-3003 | Direct: (213) 622-3096 | Fax: (213) 622-3053
[email protected] www.brookskushman.com
Peter Bauman
Tharpe & Howell, LLP
15250 Ventura Blvd., 9th Floor
Sherman Oaks, California 91403
Main: (818) 205-9955 Fax (818) 205-9944
www.tharpe-howell.com; www.commercialcounselor.com