On September 23, 2009, Hewlett-Packard Co. (“HP”) of Palo Alto, California filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to section 337.

The complaint alleges that the following proposed respondents (collectively, “Respondents”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and sell within the U.S. after importation certain inkjet ink supplies and components thereof, which allegedly infringe HP’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,959,985; 7,104,630; 6,089,687; and 6,264,301 (“the asserted patents”):

  • Zhuhai Gree Magneto-Electric Co., Ltd. of China

  • InkPlusToner.com of Canoga Park, California

  • Mipo International Ltd. of Hong Kong

  • Mipo America of Miami, Florida

  • Shanghai Angel Printer Supplies Co. Ltd. of China

  • SmartOne of Hayward, California

  • Shenzhen Print Media Co., Ltd. of China

  • Comptree of City of Industry, California

  • Zhuhai National Resources & Jingjie Imaging Products Co., Ltd. of China

  • Tatrix International of China

  • Ourway Image Co., Ltd. of China

According to the complaint, the asserted patents relate to specialized printing fluid containers.  In particular, the inventions relate to printing fluid containers that have enhanced alignment and latching features, the ability to hold different volumes of ink, and the ability to electronically communicate with the overall printing system regarding the amount of ink remaining in the container.

HP discloses in the complaint that simultaneously with the filing of its ITC complaint, HP filed a complaint against Respondents in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging infringement of the same four asserted patents.

HP further discloses in the complaint that on August 1, 2006, HP asserted two of the four patents that are asserted in the current complaint against parties other than Respondents, both at the ITC (Inv. No. 337-TA-581), and also in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.  The ITC investigation and the district court litigation both settled.

Regarding potential remedy, HP requests that the Commission issue a permanent general exclusion order, or in the alternative, a permanent limited exclusion order.  Additionally, HP requests that the Commission issue cease and desist orders directed to all Respondents.