# Direct Imaging Systems Prevails in Patent Infringement Suit



## DirectImaging (Dec 14, 2011)

Direct Imaging Systems, Inc.
504 Lakeside Drive
Bradenton, FL 34210
Phone (941) 752-1043


*Press Release*

Contact: Andrew Romines
Phone: (941) 224-0720
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
9 A.M. EDT, December 13, 2011

*Final judgment against U.S. Graphic Arts*
Tampa, FL, December 13, 2011: The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida recently issued a Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction in favor of Direct Imaging Systems, Inc. The ruling brings to a conclusion six years of patent litigation Direct Imaging brought against U.S. Graphic Arts, Inc. for infringement of U.S. Patent 6,095,628. The ‘628 Patent describes a device for inkjet printing onto garments. As part of the final judgment, a permanent injunction was entered precluding U.S. Graphic Arts and its officers and employees from infringing the ‘628 via sales of its T-Jet® line of ink jet printers. A damage award of $3,021,929 was also entered in favor of Direct Imaging. 

David Lewis, CEO of Direct Imaging Systems, Inc., stated that he was “ecstatic over the Court’s ruling and that other potential infringers should be on notice that we take our Patent very seriously and will pursue enforcement”. Andrew Romines, CFO, also stated that “the Patent now is much stronger now than when we started this litigation, as it has been through re-examination and upheld by the Patent Office and now the Courts. We are confident that we will prevail against any other current or future infringement or in any patent litigation”.

ABOUT DIRECT IMAGING SYSTEMS
Direct Imaging Systems, Inc. designed and developed the first commercially available _direct to garment printer_ utilizing a moveable platen system and inkjet printing head. 

-End-​


----------



## royster13 (Aug 14, 2007)

So is this good for your customers?.....


----------



## YoDan (May 4, 2007)

royster13 said:


> So is this good for your customers?.....


They really do not have any customers other than the manufactures that have agreed to pay their patent fees, of course all the other manufactures will pay dearly very shortly.
Dan
*"HAPPY PRINTING"*


----------



## Liberty (Jul 18, 2006)

That suit was filed in 2005 so it took over 6 years to win against a defunct corporation. I'm sure they can retire on teh $3+ million dollar judgement? There looks to be another suit filed this past August against Anajet. If we hang around here until about 2017 we may know the outcome.

In the meantime, I needs me one of them illegal printers...


----------



## ROYAL SAVAGE (Feb 18, 2009)

hmm! who is next on that hit list.


----------



## YoDan (May 4, 2007)

ROYAL SAVAGE said:


> hmm! who is next on that hit list.


 Just my thinking, and that is that they will go after every DTG Manufactor that were not signed up with them (Paying the fees), They have been awarded the patent so now it would not take as long as the first one did, so lets stand by and see, of course no one likes to get sued or will post here that they have been sued so the information will trickel out to the public.
Dan
*"HAPPY PRINTING"*


----------



## zoom_monster (Sep 20, 2006)

This post is a bit confusing. If you look up the patent, it has nothing to do with the DTG industry Method in etching of a substrate - U.S. Patent Number 6,905,628 :: Justia Patents. You can google it for more info 
The Lawsuit by Kornit a few years back was regarding United States Patent 7134749. You can go online, and see that at least one other DTG manufacturer does refer to this.

@ direct imaging Please explain the connection here...since you seemed to have joined our group just to ring your bell

MORE INFO
"........appropriate control mechanisms, presents a significant stride forward. The presentinvention overcomes many of the drawbacks of the above prior art techniques, where as rigid flat substrates could not be decorated. Also, the substrates associated with the present invention are not only limited to garments or plastics. Additionalsubstrates include any flat material that is of cotton or polyester material, vinyl surfaces, canvas, wood, tile, cement, magnets with vinyl or plastic coatings, and even birthday cakes using a specially formulated FDA approved ink, and paper......." FROM: http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/6095628.html

This could not be further from the truth.


----------



## DAGuide (Oct 2, 2006)

Ian,

Not sure if this link will work for you or not, but this is the patent they are referring to - United States Patent: 6095628. It is entitled an Apparatus for ink jet printing.

Mark


----------



## Sun Turtle (Sep 2, 2010)

After reviewing the patent, I believe that the DTG machines that have a fixed platen, such as the neoflex do not infringe. It specifically states that there is a moveable platen in claim one. In order for a claim to be enforceable the infringing has to include the entire claim to be valid. In my opinion any DTG machine that has a moveable platen apprears to infringe on this patent. Companies should check with a Patent Attorney.


----------



## tman1 (Jun 19, 2009)

Before all the machine manufacturers freak out (most have followed this suit), DIS got a default judgment because U.S. Graphics/U.S. Screen had closed and no one was responding to the suit. It wasn't like the "won" because of patent infringement. They got a default judgement. We were able to get a good part of the patent overturned by the patent office - at a cost of over $50,000 in legal fees and a number of years. 

For those who followed this closely the key points were how you load and "tuck" a shirt. We often called this the "F..king" patent rather than the "tucking" patent. It was crazy that they got a patent on "tucking" but we got all the documents and they clearly showed they went back again and again and again and got turned down and finally a patent examiner gave up and told them "OK, you have the patent on the tucking." We fought it very hard with plenty of industry prior art on how you "load" "tuck" a shirt and how it had been done that way a long time before their patent. The patent office agreed.

U.S. Graphic Arts/U.S. Screen was the only company sued because we were the lead dog. The last I heard was they appealed the overturn of key points in the patent and then they lost the appeal and then they appealed again. I don't know how that appeal is going now that no one on my side is fighting the fight. 

The law suit was "stayed" for a number of years by the courts while they waited for the patent office to rule. Once the patent office ruled, DIS had one or two claims left (which we never felt we infringed on), and the suit moved forward but U.S. Graphic Arts/U.S. Screen was closed and there was no one to respond to suit - hence a default judgment. 

Don't let their news release lead you to believe they "won" the suit because there were infringements. They "won" because "nobody was home" when they knocked on the door.
Scott Fresener


----------



## ROYAL SAVAGE (Feb 18, 2009)

Scott 
The default judgement is clear and simple - the defendant was not able or willing to respond. The question now is who does or does not have exposure with regard to the patent. The industry is rife with rumors and those of us who have been around for many decades know a lot of people. Many folks in the DTG printers world are new to decorated apparel period. They do not have the resource of many years of contacts to get a clear picture of the landscape. I'm betting some people are looking over there shoulders tonight.

The sad part is that the success or failure of litigation will drain valuable R&D money from the industry as a whole. However, if infrigngement has occurred the holder of the patent is entitled to his compensation in many ways. People license patented technology all the time. The patent holder would rather see revenue than years of litigation.


----------



## tman1 (Jun 19, 2009)

Because I have not had to deal with this for a long time, I am fuzzy on exactly what claims were reversed and what few claims were left. And, obviously, I don't have an attorney on retainer on this. But, my attorney at the time is a good friend and I have asked her to see if there is a place to view the history of the patent so people can see what claims are left. Remember, they are appealing again the USPO decision and I don't think the appeal has been heard yet. I would not doubt if the lawyers will post their response here.

If I find anything else out I will post it. For now, my goal was to let people at least know that the "win" for them was not for infringement and the truth is even if there were a couple of claims left - it has been six years since my suit and I don't think they have sued anyone else. Over the years Mark from Belquette, Scott from SWF, and others have always asked me "how is the suit going?" and we have kept in touch on it over the years. I don't think they were ever sued.


----------



## stix (Feb 3, 2008)

The history of the patent is available but you must contact the USPTO..

www.uspto.gov

go to option 5 on Patents
select PAIRS ( Public
type in patent number 6,095,628 
select image wrapper

This will show Claims and Amendment to office actions. 

Have fun


----------



## zoom_monster (Sep 20, 2006)

stix said:


> The history of the patent is available but you must contact the USPTO..
> 
> www.uspto.gov
> 
> ...


Thanks Chris

Kind of interesting to look at some of those docs, including the changes to the inventers name


----------



## allamerican-aeoon (Aug 14, 2007)

Hello from Austria! Aeoon office. Checking final inspection now and read this none sense!
Blind spot of patent law.
NeoFlex has nothing to do with this none sense patent but still it is so laughable law suit. 
Always money talks, if Us screen had money and continued on defense them there will be no judgement like above. 
Cheers! Beers are on me always.


----------



## tman1 (Jun 19, 2009)

Stix..... thanks for the update on where to find the details. I had forgotten it was called a "wrapper." My attorney basically gave the same directions you posted. You have to dig around when in the wrapper but here are two links that might help. But, reading all the paper flow is interesting.

Here is the revised patent with only the one remaining claim that was allowed. *Click Here*. You will note on this the reference to Scott and Pat Fresener's _Encyclopedia of Garment Printing_ - written in 1986 - that was used to show prior art.

Here is the actual "default" judgement that was entered recently. * Click Here*.


----------



## Jolly Rogers (Dec 16, 2011)

I think everyone has lost focus. A federal US court judge has ruled that US Graphic Arts has infringed on this company's intellectual property and awarded them three million dollars in damages. At this point in time it is too late to cry over tucking or f**king or if it was a default judgment or not.


----------



## tman1 (Jun 19, 2009)

Jolly Rogers said:


> I think everyone has lost focus. A federal US court judge has ruled that US Graphic Arts has infringed on this company's intellectual property and awarded them three million dollars in damages. At this point in time it is too late to cry over tucking or f**king or if it was a default judgment or not.


You are right. My only point is that they make it appear they got the judgment because they proved there was an infringement when in fact that was not the case. I just wanted people to know the actual facts and that if you read the original patent without knowing that all but one claim was tossed then you get a sense that they own the inkjet world - which is not the case.


----------



## Jolly Rogers (Dec 16, 2011)

I am not an attorney but I can read and it appears by reviewing all of the documents that this company brought a lawsuit against US Graphics Arts six years ago for patent infringement. Your defence was to ask that the patent be reviewed by the US patent office in the hope that they would in your words ''toss'' their patent claims and render the patent useless. This was a big gamble as that did not happen. The patent office after five years of review kept the most important claim that delt with a platen moving on rails under a inkjet print head. This must have been a major disappointment for you as now you had no other options left. It looks like you made the smart business decision to cut your losses and take the judgment instead of spending more money on legal fees since you were probably going to lose since their remaining claim five seems to describe a t jets operation in perfect detail. I just hope you have the resources to pay a three million dollar judgment as they are sure to go after everyone associated with US graphic Arts company to secure their judgment


----------



## selanac (Jan 8, 2007)

You're right, your not an attorney.


----------



## stix (Feb 3, 2008)

Anyone can challenge a patent if they can provide the burden of proof that the patent is invalid. Just because one judge ruled in the plaintiffs favor doesn't mean another defendant can't make a better case.


----------



## Sun Turtle (Sep 2, 2010)

stix said:


> Anyone can challenge a patent if they can provide the burden of proof that the patent is invalid. Just because one judge ruled in the plaintiffs favor doesn't mean another defendant can't make a better case.


This patent has already be through the review process and whatever claims survived stand. In my opinion, I do not think the patent office will review this again everytime they want to enforce the rights of the patent from infringement.


----------



## stix (Feb 3, 2008)

If sued you may raise patent validity as a defense.
You can request reexamination of the patent without court but you will need to submit a sizable fee and evidence of other patents and publications that questions the patents validity.

Disclosure: I'm not an attorney and the information I provided are thoughts of my own.Nothing contained herein shall be deemed legal advice, and forums members are cautioned not to rely on any information contained herein.


----------



## allamerican-aeoon (Aug 14, 2007)

Why post starter reply anything? Does his fingers are all frozen? Does he lives in cold area? And why all Dtg makers not saying anything here?
I am wondering who benefits here? Lawyers only. He will never get penny out of it. Am I right Scott? No time to read patent, lol
If you worry too much getting old faster.
Cheers! Snowing quite peaceful very pretty here. Merry Christmas!


----------



## Jolly Rogers (Dec 16, 2011)

FYI, if you follow the link below it looks like these guys have filed suit aganist Anajet. Guess Anajet is the "lead dog" now.
Direct Imaging Systems, Inc. v. Anajet, Inc. patent lawsuit


----------



## BroJames (Jul 8, 2008)

tman1 said:


> ......For now, my goal was to let people at least know that





tman1 said:


> *the "win" for them was not for infringement *and the truth is even if there were a couple of claims left - it has been six years since my suit and I don't think they have sued anyone else. Over the years Mark from Belquette, Scott from SWF, and others have always asked me "how is the suit going?" and we have kept in touch on it over the years. * I don't think they were ever sued.*




The ruling reads in part:



> *permanently enjoined from further infringement, inducing infringement, and/or contributory
> infringement of United States Patent No. 6,905,628 (“the ‘628 Patent”) *through the making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importation of ink jet printing devices which infringe the ‘628 Patent, *including, but not limited to, the Fast T-Jet Standard and Fast T-Jet Jumbo*.



Just looking for some enlightenment. 

Aren't these cases supposed to be judged largely based on their own merits and not whether the defendant is actively defending or not? 

2nd, The above ruling in bold text and underscore, plus the awarding of damages seems to be a win.

3rd, since U.S. Graphic Arts, Inc(*a corporation*). folded shop, is it still obliged to pay the $3million damages and attorney's fee?

4th, isn't there a defense on being singled out or something?

5th, who has the patent on the fixed drawer DTG?


----------



## Resolute DTG (Jun 27, 2010)

Sun Turtle said:


> After reviewing the patent, I believe that the DTG machines that have a fixed platen, such as the neoflex do not infringe. It specifically states that there is a moveable platen in claim one. In order for a claim to be enforceable the infringing has to include the entire claim to be valid. In my opinion any DTG machine that has a moveable platen apprears to infringe on this patent. Companies should check with a Patent Attorney.


Forgive my ignorance on this one, it would seem that if this is true the t-jet blazer pro is exempt as it works exactly the same way as the Neoflex ? Please correct me if I am missing something here.


----------



## Sun Turtle (Sep 2, 2010)

In my opinion, I think you are correct. However, the T-Jet Express infringes on the patent.


----------



## BroJames (Jul 8, 2008)

Inkster UK said:


> Forgive my ignorance on this one, it would seem that if this is true the t-jet blazer pro is exempt as it works exactly the same way as the Neoflex ? Please correct me if I am missing something here.


How does neoflex differs from the patent?


----------



## HeadhunterX (Oct 23, 2007)

Well, I had a Fast T-Jet Jumbo 2 for sale on Ebay and ( Direct Imaging Systems, Inc ) had ebay pull my ad for infringing on their rights... I just have one I bought for sale Now how did I offend them I am not a manufacture I just want to get rid of this machine does that mean you cannot sale the machine you paid for??? Who do they think they are GOD....


----------



## HeadhunterX (Oct 23, 2007)

I just talked to this guy on the phone, he is a real ... he says he can stop anyone from selling a T-jet or any of its products.... Welcome to the land of the free......


----------



## stix (Feb 3, 2008)

Think outside the box.. The answer is right in front of your face..


----------



## stix (Feb 3, 2008)

I could create an LLC and sell the LLC....throw in some shirts etc, mouse pad..


----------



## zoom_monster (Sep 20, 2006)

Interesting. And the Jumbo2, does NOT have a movable platten...is that correct?


----------



## HeadhunterX (Oct 23, 2007)

stix said:


> I could create an LLC and sell the LLC....throw in some shirts etc, mouse pad..


I don't understand what you are trying to say?


----------



## ScreenFoo (Aug 9, 2011)

"As part of the final judgment, a permanent injunction was entered precluding U.S. Graphic Arts and its officers and employees from infringing the ‘628 via sales of its T-Jet® line of ink jet printers."

Are you an officer or employee of US Graphic Arts?

Is there some other part of the injunction that was not in the OP that they are implying is actionable in your case?

Weird stuff.


This isn't legal advice, and should not be misconstrued as such. Actually, it really isn't even advice, it's just a quote followed by a string of confused questions and a comment.


----------



## royster13 (Aug 14, 2007)

Well it seems you have equipment that infringes on patent that belongs to someone else, so I would say you are SOL.....


----------



## HeadhunterX (Oct 23, 2007)

royster13 said:


> Well it seems you have equipment that infringes on patent that belongs to someone else, so I would say you are SOL.....


 
That means that everyone that owns one can't sell it then, just because you bought one you cannot sell it ever ... This is still america.... That also means Equipment Zone cannot sell theirs then, according to your thinking


----------



## royster13 (Aug 14, 2007)

Yes in America if you are a patent holder you can enforce your rights just as they are doing now.....It appears T-Jet stole something that did not belong to them and sorry to say you are paying for their crime....


----------



## HeadhunterX (Oct 23, 2007)

royster13 said:


> Yes in America if you are a patent holder you can enforce your rights just as they are doing now.....It appears T-Jet stole something that did not belong to them and sorry to say you are paying for their crime....


 
Maybe you don't understand me or the Patent system I DID NOT MAKE THIS MACHINE I JUST BOUGHT IT. I am not trying to get into the printer business just sell one I bought with good old American money and I have that right.... if he wants to buy up all the T jets let him He can start with mine otherwise I will sell it.... Look him up he is a small company that won money from a defunct company When he buys a Lambo with that 3 Mil he can take us all for a ride until then he is the same as me and you I am not infringing on his rights he is infringing on mine...


----------



## royster13 (Aug 14, 2007)

You bought something that is now basically illegal because the manufacturer violated someone elses patents.....And now that someone else has the right to stop you from selling it....Perhaps you might need to confirm this with a lawyer.......


----------



## tman1 (Jun 19, 2009)

BroJames said:


> How does neoflex differs from the patent?


I'm blown away. They have a suit against Anajet. Does that mean they can call all the magazines and have Anajet's ads pulled? I think it is very heavy handed and I think in my "non-attorney" opinion that they are wrong and I don't see how they can get eBay to pull an ad. Does this mean that Apple can have eBay pull ads for HTC phones that infringe on Apple's patents? Does it mean they can call Peter Choi and tell him he can't sell printers? Peter, I assume you will respond to this. 

It looks like they are going all out. I even got a certified letter today from them saying they see that I am selling T-Jet printers and to cease and desist. Wow. I have not sold T-Jets for three years. 

If I hear anything else I will post here to let everyone know. I would be curious if Peter, Mark or others have been served. I assume they have.


----------



## HeadhunterX (Oct 23, 2007)

I don't understand how selling a USED T-Jet is any body's business I could see it if it was new and I was the company that was making them...And for all the people that own these someone better buy mine now just for parts since the people that bought these are going to be hunted down and Shot next... You would think I was sell drugs or something.... Oh wait you can probably get away with that just not selling second hand printers...


----------



## DAGuide (Oct 2, 2006)

There is a similar thread in this forum that talks about selling dye sub ink. Sawgrass owns the patent(s) on it and has monitored eBay for years. eBay does not want to be responsible for selling a product, new or used, that violates a patent because they could be held liable. So once a patent holder can show that they have won a court case, eBay will pull those ads. This has been common practice for eBay for years.

Mark


----------



## Sun Turtle (Sep 2, 2010)

The Neoflex does not have a movable platen, which is the primary claim of the patent.


----------



## Resolute DTG (Jun 27, 2010)

I think it could also be dependant on what kind of mechanism is used for the platen "fixed" the patent states this and it looks like (on the drawings) a central worm drive or belt drive attaching the moving element to the printer with two supporting rails either side.

Interesting to see quite a few points of the patent being denied after re examination.


----------



## ScreenFoo (Aug 9, 2011)

I like that disclaimer--"In my 'non-attorney' opinion" 

There are actually far crazier things happening in the world of patent law--if you don't believe me, look into microcontroller devices. We're only seeing the tip of the iceberg here.

A great interview with one of the inventors of the microcontroller:
Oral-History:Gary Boone - GHN: IEEE Global History Network
Check out the "Inventing around patents" section--near the end.


----------



## BroJames (Jul 8, 2008)

Sun Turtle said:


> The Neoflex does not have a movable platen, which is the primary claim of the patent.


And t-jet's platen?


----------



## Sun Turtle (Sep 2, 2010)

In my opinion, looking at the design, the t-jet blazer pro should not infringe, however the t-jet express does because of the movable platen. The movable platen I believe is the claim to the patent. The rest has been thrown out in patent review i.e lawsuit. The neoflex and flexi-jet do not infringe as well. Any manufacturer with a movable platen should be concerned, again in my opinion.


----------



## HeadhunterX (Oct 23, 2007)

Sun Turtle said:


> In my opinion, looking at the design, the t-jet blazer pro should not infringe, however the t-jet express does because of the movable platen. The movable platen I believe is the claim to the patent. The rest has been thrown out in patent review i.e lawsuit. The neoflex and flexi-jet do not infringe as well. Any manufacturer with a movable platen should be concerned, again in my opinion.


 
That is the key (The Red Part) to what I have been saying I don't care what beef they have with a manufacturer but leave us citizens alone.... What if someone told you you could not sell your car over this same silly $hit as this would you be happy about it.... Think about it because it could happen.... And most DTG's have a movable platen to some extent.


----------



## Sun Turtle (Sep 2, 2010)

*35 U.S.C. 271 Infringement of patent.*

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States, or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent
(b) Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer.

35 U.S.C. 271 Infringement of patent. - Patent Laws

I agree with you, but unfortunately the law is clear. Even a person using a machine is infringing on the patent.


----------



## DAGuide (Oct 2, 2006)

Just curious if you would feel the same if someone stole all your artwork and started to sell it on the Internet. I know I would not want anyone using it whether they paid for it or not. Just goes to show the level of research we should go through before making a purchase. Wonder if this will affect the sale of other Dtg printers?

Mark


----------



## HeadhunterX (Oct 23, 2007)

DAGuide said:


> Just curious if you would feel the same if someone stole all your artwork and started to sell it on the Internet. I know I would not want anyone using it whether they paid for it or not. Just goes to show the level of research we should go through before making a purchase. Wonder if this will affect the sale of other Dtg printers?
> 
> Mark


 
That is not the same thing and you know it.... I purchased it just as hundreds of other people purchased the machine so I will sell it or they can buy it back from me plain and simple... And buy the way it is an EPSON Printer....


----------



## royster13 (Aug 14, 2007)

Good luck trying to find another "sucker".....


----------



## AL Emb'r (Jul 20, 2009)

I think you should ask Scott Fresener for your money back. He’s the one that sold you equipment he knew infringed on these peoples patent.


----------



## DAGuide (Oct 2, 2006)

HeadhunterX said:


> That is not the same thing and you know it.... I purchased it just as hundreds of other people purchased the machine so I will sell it or they can buy it back from me plain and simple... And buy the way it is an EPSON Printer....


Well, most of the people I know that purchased T-Jets did not get them in a bankruptcy auction as an extra with other equipment. http://www.t-shirtforums.com/tf-classifieds/t174178.html 

And no, I do think it is the same thing, but that might be because I have a legal background. Both regard the theft of intellectual property rights. Whether you like the court ruling or not, the court found that there was infringement on a patent that went through the patent appeals process. So I see no difference from a legal perspective.

Mark


----------



## Stitch-Up (May 26, 2007)

DAGuide said:


> Just curious if you would feel the same if someone stole all your artwork and started to sell it on the Internet. I know I would not want anyone using it whether they paid for it or not. Just goes to show the level of research we should go through before making a purchase. Wonder if this will affect the sale of other Dtg printers?
> 
> Mark


I'm with Mark on this one. If I'd invented something and went to the expense of protecting my invention with a patent and then discovered a n other was stealing my design I'd be justly concerned and seek compensation.

I fully understand the frustration expressed by those who have become innocent victims in all this and perhaps the law that protects patent holders could be used to protect you too.


----------



## cavedave (Dec 5, 2006)

As an end user I wouldnt worry about it, or if you do you should probably be more worried about your Android / IPhone as the amount of litigation flying about on these devices would mean that pretty much everyone is probably going to be infringing on someones patent if you own one.

The reality is companies own patents dont go after the end users they go after the manufactures / resellers and having won this case (although with a lot of limitations) they may be spured on now to go after some others.

Just owning a machine I wouldnt get sleepless night over this.


Best regards

-David


----------



## Stitch-Up (May 26, 2007)

I agree with your comments Dave however, in this thread an innocent 'end user' has had his Ebay ad removed at the request of the patent holder hence my comment ....



Stitch-Up said:


> I fully understand the frustration expressed by those who have become innocent victims in all this and perhaps the law that protects patent holders could be used to protect you too.


 
Of course this now means the printer's owner, probably a law abiding citizen, will now commit a criminal act by selling the printer, in the same way as the dealer did in 'possibly knowing of the patent infringement' sold the printer originally.


----------



## cavedave (Dec 5, 2006)

I dont think its a criminal act, you cant get a criminal record or go to prison for patent infrigment, its a civil case.
But I can imagine the frustration of an end user not being able to advertise on e-bay to resell, you would think they would have bigger fish to fry.

From my own perspective patents have got way out of hand and are to often used for bad business practise.

Best regards

-David


----------



## ROYAL SAVAGE (Feb 18, 2009)

Stitch-Up said:


> I'm with Mark on this one. If I'd invented something and went to the expense of protecting my invention with a patent and then discovered a n other was stealing my design I'd be justly concerned and seek compensation.
> 
> I fully understand the frustration expressed by those who have become innocent victims in all this and perhaps the law that protects patent holders could be used to protect you too.


 
This is telling -
*If I'd invented something and went to the expense of protecting my invention with a patent and then discovered a n other was stealing my design I'd be justly concerned and seek compensation.*

Did everyone steal this technology? The final interpretation of this ruling could have far reaching implications for this industry for some time.


----------



## charles95405 (Feb 1, 2007)

for the record, this suit was in the courts for SIX years. Suit was filed shortly after US Screen came out with the units...not sure how much later, but the T Jet 2 had an Epson 2200 that came out in 2005....that is six years ago and the first T Jet may have been a bit earlier. But seems to me the patent holder filed within a reasonable time frame...just the courts/USPO were a bit slow. US Screen filed bankruptcy in Mar/Apr of 2009 I think. I wonder if the infringement suit was the reason?


----------



## zoom_monster (Sep 20, 2006)

HeadhunterX said:


> "....... should have been smart enough to protect it before it got out in the mainstream obviously he wasn't.... So he chooses to blame everyone for his own stupidity and go after the end user also... which is not right anyway you slice it...


I think that's what a patent is. He may not have been rich enouph to bring it to market first, but he did have forethough to get it filed.

HunterX, perhaps you should go after the Auctioner that sold the "stolen" mechandise to you. DIS is just yanking your chain to cause waves. This is not personal, but if you raise a big stink, you're doing their bidding for them and doing exactly what they want you to.
To put this another way if Bob steals my car and sells it to Jane, Then Jane trys to sue me (using her time and attorney), Then Jane is not doing the wise thing with her resources.
This is TSF and "ranting" is allowed, but take a moment to think about the big picture and where you fit it. Again..nothing personal


----------



## bornover (Apr 10, 2008)

Mastermind of Japan was the manufacturer of the original T-Jets. It was their design to my understanding. Scott would not have likely known there was someone in the world who had a claim to parts of the design of Mastermind's equipment. That kind of research into the designs of something you want to OEM is not done in any industry I know of or have been a part of. Is that good or bad? I am not sure, but it is normal.

I am wondering why Mastermind is not named as a party in the suit?


----------



## zoom_monster (Sep 20, 2006)

HeadhunterX said:


> And why would I go after the auctioneer? It was a legit sale and I am an end user and they are not bothering me... I will sell it or they can buy it from me if they call it their property


I would not tell you to go after anyone other than the fact that you need to take this up the chain of command. Getting mad and calling names at the guy ("little fish") who some judge named the owner is not going to get you anywhere. If you spout off on a public forum, then sell the mechandise, then the new buyer could sue you for selling machinery that you "had knowledge" (even if you disagree) was made from "stolen technology". I totally understand your frustration and agree that you've been screwed. The guy with the idea is not the one who did you in, and he's probably a lot more bitter than you are


----------



## zoom_monster (Sep 20, 2006)

HeadhunterX said:


> The guy went after me because he thought I was a little guy that would just lay down and die.....


Like I said, The guy is probably bitter. I would be to. Personally, I might have some sympathy for a guy like you... but only if you "respected" my point of view.


----------



## vinyl signs (Dec 26, 2007)

bornover said:


> *Mastermind of Japan* was the manufacturer of the original T-Jets. It was their design to my understanding. Scott would not have likely known there was someone in the world who had a claim to parts of the design of Mastermind's equipment. That kind of research into the designs of something you want to OEM is not done in any industry I know of or have been a part of. Is that good or bad? I am not sure, but it is normal.
> 
> I am wondering why Mastermind is not named as a party in the suit?


You answered your own question! It is a US patent!


----------



## vinyl signs (Dec 26, 2007)

Headhunter if you buy a stolen item from a pawn shop and the police find out after you purchased it that it had been stolen and pawned then you bought it, guess what you loose out! Us screen should not have sold any of these printers once they were served with Court papers!


----------



## bornover (Apr 10, 2008)

vinyl signs said:


> You answered your own question! It is a US patent!


I am hoping Mark, a.k.a. DAGuide, will answer me because his in not an armchair lawyer. He is the real thing! But it is no big deal, I am just curious.


----------



## DAGuide (Oct 2, 2006)

Mark,

With any lawsuit, the first thing you look at is jurisdiction. You have to prove to the court that the court has the right to hear the lawsuit and that the court has jurisdiction over the parties involved. There is something called "Long Arm Jurisdiction" that allows a court to have jurisdiction over a company that is a non-resident of that state. However, it gets more challenging when you are dealing with a company that is from a different country and has no offices in that state or in the United States.

The second thing you have to look at is how you can enforce a judgment should you be lucky enough to win. (Otherwise, you have no need of going to court to spend a lot of money when you know you are not going to be able to enforce the judgment. I don't believe in going to court of "the principle of a matter.") Very few occasions (most likely never) will you find a foreign company with no personal ties to the U.S. that will just hand over money for a judgment from a U.S. court.

So for these situations, most attorneys will recommend to their client to sue a U.S. company that makes jurisdiction and enforcement easier.

Hope that answers your questions.

Mark


----------



## Sun Turtle (Sep 2, 2010)

ROYAL SAVAGE said:


> This is telling -
> *If I'd invented something and went to the expense of protecting my invention with a patent and then discovered a n other was stealing my design I'd be justly concerned and seek compensation.*
> 
> Did everyone steal this technology? The final interpretation of this ruling could have far reaching implications for this industry for some time.


Well said. In my opinion, any manufacturer with a movable platen should seek further professional advice.


----------



## trifate (Oct 20, 2011)

If I read the judgement right the 3 million dollars is damages for the machines already sold so why are they going after people who bought the machines sold. It looks like they are trying to double dip.


----------



## AL Emb'r (Jul 20, 2009)

bornover said:


> Mastermind of Japan was the manufacturer of the original T-Jets. It was their design to my understanding. Scott would not have likely known there was someone in the world who had a claim to parts of the design of Mastermind's equipment.


He knew for six years that he was selling equipment that infringed on these guys patent. Again I ask Headhunterx why is he giving the poor guys that own the patent such a hard time. They got ripped off by Fresener just like you did. Why don't you call Scott up and ask him to buy your printer.


----------



## bornover (Apr 10, 2008)

DAGuide said:


> Hope that answers your questions.


Yes, thanks Mark.

It would be nice if Direct Imaging sold single license rights to owners of T-Jets so we could sell our equipment if we wanted. Direct Imaging would have received a small amount for each unit sold if the patent right was licensed by US Graphic Art originally. He could just sell us a license individually for a reasonable price. It is not likely he would have got even $10.00 per unit on license if it works like it did for us in the electronics industry. We licensed a few of our patents and got a few bucks per unit. Even if he sold a license for a fifty bucks I would probably buy it so I could one day sell my T-Jet legally. The license would need to transfer to the new owner though if it were to work the same as if it was licensed from the get go.


----------



## charles95405 (Feb 1, 2007)

Headhunter x Evidently did not buy a TJet to use in garment decoration, but ....by his statement in classified...got it at some sort of auction where the unit was included with some other stuff which he wanted..and was trying to unload it. When I checked a few minutes ago he had posted a request for the for sale entry be deleted. so go figure why he is so irate


----------



## AL Emb'r (Jul 20, 2009)

charles95405 said:


> so go figure why he is so irate


Maybe he has a hidden agenda?


----------



## BroJames (Jul 8, 2008)

trifate said:


> If I read the judgement right the 3 million dollars is damages for the machines already sold so why are they going after people who bought the machines sold. It looks like they are trying to double dip.


Could they collect from a company that has already filed bankrupcy?


----------



## crazymike (Aug 18, 2008)

Hirsch bought control of US Graphic Arts in 2008 and
closed it in 2009. There hasn't been a T-Jet made in 
3 years.


----------



## HeadhunterX (Oct 23, 2007)

crazymike said:


> Hirsch bought control of US Graphic Arts in 2008 and
> closed it in 2009. There hasn't been a T-Jet made in
> 3 years.


 
So what did they win... Nothing.


----------



## HeadhunterX (Oct 23, 2007)

AL Emb'r said:


> Maybe he has a hidden agenda?


 
Yea, I work for the CIA.


----------



## royster13 (Aug 14, 2007)

The judgement was two fold......Damages are one aspect, and stopping anyone else from infringing is the other.....


----------



## BroJames (Jul 8, 2008)

Yes, but would anyone know if the judgement, specifically the damages, is executed or executory at all? I am just wondering if declaring bankruptcy frees a company from legal responsibility.


----------



## royster13 (Aug 14, 2007)

If a company is bankrupt, there is no company to recover damages from.....So at the end of the day, what is left is being able to stop anyone from infringing on the patent....


----------



## BroJames (Jul 8, 2008)

Then that's a technical/legal loophole to escape damages. 

If that is so, then Direct Imaging may have only won(stop) the infringement but US Graphic Arts won the prior profits.


----------



## essigns (Nov 27, 2011)

tman1 said:


> I'm blown away. They have a suit against Anajet. Does that mean they can call all the magazines and have Anajet's ads pulled? I think it is very heavy handed and I think in my "non-attorney" opinion that they are wrong and I don't see how they can get eBay to pull an ad. Does this mean that Apple can have eBay pull ads for HTC phones that infringe on Apple's patents? Does it mean they can call Peter Choi and tell him he can't sell printers? Peter, I assume you will respond to this.
> 
> It looks like they are going all out. I even got a certified letter today from them saying they see that I am selling T-Jet printers and to cease and desist. Wow. I have not sold T-Jets for three years.
> 
> If I hear anything else I will post here to let everyone know. I would be curious if Peter, Mark or others have been served. I assume they have.


 
Anyone know if Anajet got served to cease and desist letter yet?


----------



## bornover (Apr 10, 2008)

I guess DTG Digital based in Sydney escapes the wrath of Direct Imaging because of jurisdiction? DTG Digital also had OEM products from Mastermind with moving beds.


----------



## royster13 (Aug 14, 2007)

"had" is the key word here......It does not appear that anything they have now infringes....so maybe in the past there was a "quiet" settlement that we do not know about....DTG Digital sells in the US so if they were infringing, there is no doubt in my mind, they would have been shut down....


----------



## Sun Turtle (Sep 2, 2010)

This is a recent development. We will have to see now that the initial lawsuit has been settled, what action is next.


----------



## DAGuide (Oct 2, 2006)

royster13 said:


> If a company is bankrupt, there is no company to recover damages from....


Not sure this is 100% accurate in every case based on this article that states that corporate officers and directors can be held personally liable for patent infringement. 

Intellectual Property Law Blog: Leadership liability: Protecting directors, officers from exposure to patent infringement damages

Article is a couple of years old, but I can't find anything that directly overrules the cases listed. I do agree that one of the benefits for this ruling is to set a precedent for other dtg companies. 

Mark


----------



## BroJames (Jul 8, 2008)

If those "personal liability" decisions are not yet overruled, will marketing and other officers be liable? Or does that apply only to officers directly involved in the product development and in the decision making process?


----------



## DAGuide (Oct 2, 2006)

BroJames said:


> If those "personal liability" decisions are not yet overruled, will marketing and other officers be liable? Or does that apply only to officers directly involved in the product development and in the decision making process?


Based on my experience, appellate courts use broad language and allow lower court judges to use their judgment as to what level of officers would have personal liability. A Marketing Officer in a smaller company could really have more responsibility than a similar titled individual at a larger company. So using a broad language will allow the judges to consider the specifics of the company in question. 

I am sure that there are more cases on this issue that will refine what judges can consider to determine if personal liability is even an option. It seems the concept behind these cases is that they don't want people hiding behind the limited liability protections that corporations provide when it comes to the aid and abet the patent infringement.

Interesting article and I expect the issue of negligence vs. intent will be one that is defined more in future cases.

Mark


----------



## seopower (Aug 20, 2011)

WOW... thank god i dont live in US.... these crazy patent laws making me mad 

I feel Digital Imagine should now goto China and stop their mass production of Epson 4880 based printers into DTG's.


----------



## allamerican-aeoon (Aug 14, 2007)

seopower said:


> WOW... thank god i dont live in US.... these crazy patent laws making me mad
> 
> I feel Digital Imagine should now goto China and stop their mass production of Epson 4880 based printers into DTG's.


It is sad you do not live in USA. I don't know which country you live in but patent law should not stop you to if you can live in USA.
Actually, patent law is not bad but greedy peoples are bad. Deep pocket usually wins here.. Current famouse law suits in this industry were Kiwo sued Planet for computer to screen. Kiwo won but there were no winner. Both lost lots of money for own egos. I heard from both end. Newman roller frame sued diamond frame. Both were hurt crazily made couple lawyers rich. I heard from both end. Next was Kornit sued All except SWF (it was lucky shot). End up with few companies bend over and made a deal and Brother stand strong (deep pocket? I'll love to be in his team,lol) and secure their position. 
And now this case.
Cheers USA! Beers are on me always. Save the last drink for me and you.


----------



## BroJames (Jul 8, 2008)

seopower said:


> WOW... thank god i dont live in US.... these crazy patent laws making me mad
> 
> I feel Digital Imagine should now goto China and stop their mass production of Epson 4880 based printers into DTG's.





allamerican said:


> It is sad you do not live in USA. I don't know which country you live in but patent law should not stop you to if you can live in USA.
> Actually, patent law is not bad
> ...
> Cheers USA! Beers are on me always. Save the last drink for me and you.


Works both ways. Patent laws can protect you if you are the patent holder. If I live near you, I'd surely drop by for some beer. hadn't had one for years


----------



## calitrendz (Apr 23, 2009)

Has anyone heard anything like a legitimate update?


----------



## BroJames (Jul 8, 2008)

update of what?


----------



## allamerican-aeoon (Aug 14, 2007)

I heard there is another summon delivered to company in south. Why this person take one company at a time? Kornit took us all at once. I fought and fighting. Lol. Kill one by one? It is not my field. and never my favorite thing. AA sued one company who is real Bad in my view. thief, back staber, lies, use AA and toss as old sneakers. But no fun.
Peace on earth!
Cheers! Beers are on me always.


----------



## abmcdan (Sep 14, 2007)

allamerican said:


> I heard there is another summon delivered to company in south. Why this person take one company at a time? Kornit took us all at once. I fought and fighting. Lol. Kill one by one? It is not my field. and never my favorite thing. AA sued one company who is real Bad in my view. thief, back staber, lies, use AA and toss as old sneakers. But no fun.
> Peace on earth!
> Cheers! Beers are on me always.


Which machine are they going after? 

There seems to be a ton of speculation of what violates and what doesn't so I'm curious.


----------



## allamerican-aeoon (Aug 14, 2007)

abmcdan said:


> Which machine are they going after?
> 
> There seems to be a ton of speculation of what violates and what doesn't so I'm curious.


But we heard you settled with them. Did you settled without knowing what are you settling for and pay for? Give me some of your money. Lol joke.
Have a nice week.
Cheers! Beers are on me always.


----------



## abmcdan (Sep 14, 2007)

allamerican said:


> But we heard you settled with them. Did you settled without knowing what are you settling for and pay for? Give me some of your money. Lol joke.
> Have a nice week.
> Cheers! Beers are on me always.


I know why I entered a license agreement.

I was just curious if it was a maker of a moving head unit.


----------



## allamerican-aeoon (Aug 14, 2007)

abmcdan said:


> I know why I entered a license agreement.


Why? I am sure many of us are very curious. Could you Kindly explain to us WHY? So others who was not summoned yet will understand better? Does your lawyer said they are right and advised you settle because you are violating patent? Or is it yourself call? There are so many printers like yours but why it was you? This is my main question. Read my other post pls. I know why not Brother because of Matt working with them. He is the man~. We should like this guy, cool and knowledgable who file original patent. Years ago he sold his patent to other.
Cheers! Beers are on me always.


----------



## missswissinc (Feb 21, 2012)

yeah I bet the lawyers will get about 60% of the supposed money if they can ever get it which I highly doubt will happen since the other company who was sued has GOOB (gone out of business)


----------



## vicsign01 (May 16, 2012)

good judagement is important, good luck


----------



## BroJames (Jul 8, 2008)

luck is also important


----------



## samking (Feb 3, 2009)

Did these guys invent the printer or the platen, seems these guys are trying to make money from other peoples inventions, they didn't invent inkjet technology, nor did they invent the platen, I guess all you have to do today, is describe the way people walk, sit or stand apply for a patent, and any and everyone is infringing on you patent, and now by law no one can walk, sit or stand without paying this sick person.


----------



## allamerican-aeoon (Aug 14, 2007)

Soon, they will sue Epson too. lol. 
They are introducing Dtg printer very soon fact.
I assume CYMK only at very cheap price or sublimation. A3 size. Like 13"x? Size. It can be big competition to A3 mfgs? We don't know yet. . No RIP usually stands for less control of quality printout.
Sells in Staples, Walmart ---? How can they service? Training? 
Mimaki failed, this does not mean Epson will fail too but ~~~. If I am a buyer I will hold up for at least year. IMHO.
This Dtg jungle is very interesting field. I love it. 
Who has plan wins all the time David and Goliath! 
What do you think? Or start new thread? "Epson Dtg printer" Lol. I born as happy person. Never steal, cheat and back stab anyone. Love to laugh all the time and having fun on short life.
I bought near 300ea Epson 4880 on my this EU trip. I am going back home tomorrow.
Salute! Beers are on me always. From Italy


----------



## kinzie (Jun 2, 2014)

Does anybody know about the patents on cylindrical printing?


----------



## allamerican-aeoon (Aug 14, 2007)

kinzie said:


> Does anybody know about the patents on cylindrical printing?


When you ask this kind of question It will be nice to mention 
Why? Who? Motive etc will increase answering/reply rate.
Patent = deeper pocket wins.
Cheers! Inks are on me always.


----------

