The antitrust case was based upon patent tying. Patent tying is the practice of conditioning the use of a patented product (piezoelectric inkjet print head) on the customer's purchase of a second non-patented product (ink). In this case, Trident and ITW are the patent holders of a print head technology. Trident and ITW require their print head customers to use only ink they supply. Independent Ink has alleged that this practice is illegal when the patent holders, like Trident and ITW, have market power in the patented product.
The court, disagreeing with Independent, ruled that Trident and ITW were not guilty of patent tying and dismissed Independent Ink's case. Independent Ink is appealing this decision.
In this same lawsuit, Trident and ITW made claims that Independent Ink was infringing on their patent by selling ink that competed with Trident and ITW. The court previously ruled in favor of Independent Ink with regard to these claims. As a result, Trident and ITW could not assert that purchasers of Independent's ink infringed their ink formula patents.
Depending upon how the Court of Appeals rules, this case may eventually be decided by the United States Supreme Court.
Edward O'Connor, the attorney on the case, represented Repeat-O-Type Manufacturing Corp. against Hewlett-Packard in 1998. In that victorious case, the court ruled that Repeat-O-Type did not infringe upon Hewlett-Packard patents when adjusting inkjet cartridges for refilling purposes. O'Connor is hoping for a similar victory when he appeals the Independent Ink v. Trident verdict.
Contact Independent Ink Inc. at (310) 523-4657 or www.independentink.com.
