Hewlett-Packard Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Inkjet Ink Cartridges With Printheads
On March 5, 2010, Hewlett-Packard Company of Palo Alto, California (“HP”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.
The complaint alleges that MicroJet Technology Co., Ltd. of Taiwan, Mipo Technology Limited of Hong Kong, Mipo Science & Technology Co., Ltd. of China, Mextec d/b/a Mipo America Ltd. of Miami, Florida, SinoTime Technologies, Inc. d/b/a All Colors of Miami, Florida, and PTC Holdings Limited of Hong Kong (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import into the United States, sell for importation, and/or sell within the United States after importation certain inkjet ink cartridges with printheads and components thereof that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,234,598 (the ‘598 patent), 6,309,053 (the ‘053 patent), 6,398,347 (the ‘347 patent), 6,412,917 (the ‘917 patent), 6,481,817 (the ‘817 patent), and 6,402,279 (the ‘279 patent) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”).
According to the complaint, the “technology and products at issue generally relate to thermal inkjet printing devices, and more particularly to inkjet ink cartridges that include a component portion, known as a printhead.” Specifically, (1) the ‘598 patent “primarily relates to an inkjet printhead, having a large number of ink ejectors, that reduces the number of interconnections needed to energize heater resistors (that power the ink ejectors) by using shared electrical ground returns,” (2) the ‘053 patent “primarily relates to inkjet printheads that include heater resistors that fire an ink drop when selected,” (3) the ‘347 patent “relates to uniformly energized heater resistors in an inkjet printhead,” (4) the ‘917 patent “relates to a narrow inkjet printhead having efficient FET drive circuits that are configured to compensate for parasitic resistances of power traces,” and (5) the ‘817 and ‘279 patents “relate[ ] to the transfer of drop generator activation information from a printer to a print cartridge to eject ink onto a print medium based on the image to be printed.”
Regarding related litigation, HP asserts in the complaint that “[s]imultaneousy with the filing of this Complaint, HP is filing a complaint against proposed respondents in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California relating to the [Asserted Patents].”
With respect to the domestic industry (technical prong) requirement, HP asserts that the HP 57 color ink cartridge practices at least one claim of each of the Asserted Patents. Regarding the economic prong, HP asserts that its “domestic industry activities include HP’s significant investment in plant and equipment, significant employment of labor and capital, and substantial investment in the exploitation of the [Asserted Patents].”
As to potential remedy, HP requests that the Commission issue a permanent general exclusion order (or, in the alternative, a permanent limited exclusion order), and permanent cease and desist orders directed to the Proposed Respondents.
