# Is September 1, 2014 big day for dye sub ink?



## sikkwidditt (May 21, 2007)

I know Sawgrass patent expires, I just wanted to know if there's any company produces dye sub ink after 
September 1st 2014 here in U.S.?

Thanks


----------



## djque (Feb 5, 2013)

Its companys doing it now


----------



## brinked (Mar 21, 2010)

I would guess there are some companies who have things lined up but will not announce anything until Sept 1. I myself am interested to see how the market sets itself. Sawgrass will probably have to lower prices to compete.


----------



## Techamongous (Aug 18, 2014)

Im new, I just got my printer and ink last week from these guys.. Now they have the Dye-Sub listed on their site. 

https://cobraink.com/ink/4-6_color_Sublimation.htm


----------



## primodvdprices (May 16, 2013)

I'm assuming that there isn't anything out there yet for the Ricoh SG3110DN. Does anybody know of a place yet?


----------



## brinked (Mar 21, 2010)

cobra always had dye sub inks, they just called them high temp inks and really were not allowed to advertise it, but word of mouth spread.

Interested to see what happens on the market in general now that companies can offer this stuff


----------



## killroy (Feb 16, 2014)

I figured there would've been more people talking about this. Guess there wasn't that many people on here that really used Sawgrass. If Sawgrass lowered the price I might be tempted to use them "Like 1/5 of the price", but knowing how greedy they've been I really doubt it. Cobra has been a pleasure to work with and the ink has been nice.


----------



## charles95405 (Feb 1, 2007)

I have been a satisfied customer of sawgrass since 1997 and have no plans to change...never had a problem and prints great....I just charge accordingly and my customers are happy and so is my bank account...Yes I have tried Cobra but opted out...just my opinion. I know that several on the forum have been quite satisfied...so if one is so inclined...go with it..


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

charles95405 said:


> I have been a satisfied customer of sawgrass since 1997 and have no plans to change...never had a problem and prints great....I just charge accordingly and my customers are happy and so is my bank account...Yes I have tried Cobra but opted out...just my opinion. I know that several on the forum have been quite satisfied...so if one is so inclined...go with it..


Charles,

You failed to inform that you used Cobra when they first came out years ago out and had cheap ICC equipment. Their first ICC's were not very good for sure but now they have much more expensive optical equipment and their inks are on par with anything SG has out there, at 1/5 the price.

Your bias is because you haven't used anything _modern_ from them that they have now. You seem to have forgot that disclaimer. 

Ink prices matter if you are doing large substrates BTW or a large volume of smaller ones. 

The "charge accordingly" idea, good luck with that on 8 x 10 inch substrates or greater ... especially now that now that ink prices are going to going down elsewhere and finished goods retail prices from desktop sublimators are going to be even more competitive now. 

I don't know about you, but a $2 hit on tabloid size transfer for each tshirt is huge hit from my pocket, or can reduce my sales volume if I have to "charge accordingly". Adds up very quickly on volume orders.

But glad you are able to be charging accordingly, if you were competing directly with me on price you would be in trouble. 2 dollars savings for me on material cost = about 5 dollars cheaper retail price to the customer.


----------



## charles95405 (Feb 1, 2007)

Mike..true my experience was two years ago BUT I did not bad mouth Cobra, I just said I tried and opted out....adding that was just my opinion. I said some members were very satisfied. At my age I am not likely to be in this business long term. I have an Epson 1100 with Cobra CIS that did work for me anyone can have if they pay shipping in advance. It is without any warranty! I should add that I have not used sublimation on garments for several years since went with DTG for tees...large runs I out source. For me sublimation is for mugs plates, tiles etc. started DTG with the Fast TJet 2...but that is another story


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

charles95405 said:


> Mike..true my experience was two years ago BUT I did not bad mouth Cobra, I just said I tried and opted out....adding that was just my opinion. I said some members were very satisfied. At my age I am not likely to be in this business long term. I have an Epson 1100 with Cobra CIS that did work for me anyone can have if they pay shipping in advance. It is without any warranty! I should add that I have not used sublimation on garments for several years since went with DTG for tees...large runs I out source. For me sublimation is for mugs plates, tiles etc. started DTG with the Fast TJet 2...but that is another story


Charles, noted your comments. 

While I believe it was not your intention to bad mouth Cobra, others reading this could easily read your comments as being negative to the product.

When Cobra first came out with the inks they used really low end profile equipment and had no experience making them.

I tested a set of carts with their inks and ICC profile back then and I too "opted out" and stuck with Artanium. 

Later when it was announced on their website that they upgraded their equipment I tried it again, never looked back after that.

Since you have not experienced their current product for a couple of years you would not know how much improvement they have made and what they have learned.

I think you should have disclosed that.


----------



## killroy (Feb 16, 2014)

I'm just glad they have to compete just like we do. When you have no competition you can set the market value, and they made it hard for many people. Competition is what makes things Great!! I'm always trying to find a way in the back door. If you leave it open, believe me, I will walk through it!! And price plays a big role.


----------



## brinked (Mar 21, 2010)

I am actually shocked no company has announced anything yet. Timing is everything and I would think a company like jteck or one of the others who already have a market in the wide format would have announced a product like for all printers.

I mean all they really need to do is take their existing ink they sell by the liter, offer smaller bottles of it, release profiles and make an announcement.

I am happy for Rich at cobraink, hes a great guy who offers outstanding support. He can now freely advertise his dye sub inks.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

brinked said:


> I am actually shocked no company has announced anything yet. Timing is everything and I would think a company like jteck or one of the others who already have a market in the wide format would have announced a product like for all printers.
> 
> I mean all they really need to do is take their existing ink they sell by the liter, offer smaller bottles of it, release profiles and make an announcement.
> 
> I am happy for Rich at cobraink, hes a great guy who offers outstanding support. He can now freely advertise his dye sub inks.


Big issue for the large format suppliers is support, and then ICC profiles.

A large format user is buying more ink so the vendor has margin to help pay for support. And the LF vendors don't have to cover so many printers.

Small format users use much less ink so the profit margins are much smaller for the LF vendors. 

Also there are so many small format printers out there and the life cycle is short, so not only a lot of models but they change into new models maybe every 2 years. 

Large format printers stay on the market longer.

To make an ICC you need to actually have the different models, or have access to them.

Then there is also a lot of added inventory for carts/ciss and then the support for those as well.


----------



## brinked (Mar 21, 2010)

Everything you said is true. But if a small company like Rich can do a good job with the smaller format market, I believe a bigger company can do it as well.

Just support half dozen popular printers for sublimation, and if the price is right, there are a lot of users who would have no problem with no support. These users will wind up on communities like this for support, profiles etc.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

brinked said:


> Everything you said is true. But if a small company like Rich can do a good job with the smaller format market, I believe a bigger company can do it as well.
> 
> Just support half dozen popular printers for sublimation, and if the price is right, there are a lot of users who would have no problem with no support. These users will wind up on communities like this for support, profiles etc.


Yes those companies have the resources to do that, just depends on how they look at is it worth it to them to do so.

The ink volumes from each desktop user is small and the margins tight. But new users need support so they would have to pad those costs into the ink prices and the ink prices are now going to be in a competitive market.

Figure for every large format user you might have 10 desktop users buying the same amount of ink volume as one large format user would, but instead of supporting 1 customer you are supporting 11 now but only doubling your ink volume sales. While you have some experienced users that don't need much if any technical support there is still support required taking orders and shipping etc. This is added overhead.

I'm sure many of those large format vendors are looking at this, maybe some will adopt but I suspect many won't.

The other variable is the existing sublimation dealers that currently offer SG on the desktop. They have a dilemma, the margins they make on the SG inks I would think (figure maybe 25% or so) are going to be about the total retail cost of other non SG inks. 

Do the existing SG dealers cannibalize they own sales for inks that would make them less margin? Maybe depends on how Sawgrass adjusts to the new market where they will now have competition. 

Thinks are going to be interesting.


----------



## pisquee (Jan 8, 2012)

Inktec already have 100ml quantities of their sublimation inks that are sold in markets where the Sawgrass patent has no hold - I can see them in product literature - product codes etc.
So, they could do it quickly as they already have the bottles, packaging, label design done, along with the equipment at the factory to fill bottles that size. It's back to the question of whether they want to. I will be getting in touch with them next week about it for UK sales.


----------



## GILSAN (Aug 17, 2014)

pisquee said:


> Inktec already have 100ml quantities of their sublimation inks that are sold in markets where the Sawgrass patent has no hold - I can see them in product literature - product codes etc.
> So, they could do it quickly as they already have the bottles, packaging, label design done, along with the equipment at the factory to fill bottles that size. It's back to the question of whether they want to. I will be getting in touch with them next week about it for UK sales.


Would be nice if you let us know what they have to say. I notice in their UK site that they only have 250ml bottles of pigment ink which is too much for someone like me that is planning on getting into the T-shirt printing business in a few weeks time.


----------



## 996porsche (Jun 23, 2011)

Has the patent expired for the Ricoh 3110DN sublimation ink cartridges too or just the Epson inks?


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

996porsche said:


> Has the patent expired for the Ricoh 3110DN sublimation ink cartridges too or just the Epson inks?


The patent was for a chemical agent in the ink that supposedly keeps the ink from sublimating in the print head from heat and clumping. It's not specific to a printer.


----------



## 996porsche (Jun 23, 2011)

I Sold some Ricoh ink and was told to stop. She cited patent 6,348,939
She said this patent expires thru 2019

Patent US20020012038 - Digital printable reactive dye and process - Google Patents


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

996porsche said:


> I Sold some Ricoh ink and was told to stop. She cited patent 6,348,939
> She said this patent expires thru 2019
> 
> Patent US20020012038 - Digital printable reactive dye and process - Google Patents


If you read the patent all the claims are for a "thermal" printer and using ribbons. Ricoh are piezo electric printers and no ribbons. 

_Seriously someone wants to BS you._


And who was "she" ?

Red Bold emphasis is mine.


"What is claimed is: 
*1*. A method of printing using a *thermal* printer, comprising the steps of: a. applying an ink layer to a *ribbon substrate*, wherein said ink layer comprises a reactive dye which reacts with hydrogen, a binder material which is thermally meltable at an operating temperature of a thermal printer, and an alkaline material which promotes the reaction of said reactive dye with a printable substrate having an active hydrogen containing functional group available for reaction with said reactive dye; 
b. supplying said *thermal printer with said ribbon* having said ink layer applied thereto; 
c. *thermally printing from said ink layer using said thermal printer* and forming an image on said printable substrate by means of said ink layer, wherein said reactive dye reacts with said printable substrate; and 
d. fixing said image by the application of heat. 



*2*. A method of printing using a *thermal printer* as described in claim 1, wherein said ink layer further comprises a carrier which is not meltable at said operating temperature of said *thermal printer*, but which is meltable at a higher temperature than said operating temperature of said thermal printer, wherein, upon the application of sufficient heat to melt said carrier, said dye is transported by said carrier, and said dye and said carrier are absorbed by said printable substrate. 


*3*. A method of printing using a *thermal printer* as described in claim 1, wherein said carrier is *urea*. 


*4*. A method of printing using a *thermal printer*; comprising the steps of: a. applying an ink layer to a *ribbon substrate*, wherein said ink layer comprises a reactive dye, a binder material which is thermally meltable at an operating temperature of a *thermal printer*, and an alkaline material which promotes the reaction of said reactive dye with a printable substrate having an active hydrogen containing functional group available for reaction with said reactive dye; 
b. supplying said *thermal printer with said ribbon* having said ink layer applied thereto; 
c. *thermally printing from said ink layer by said thermal printer* and forming an image on an intermediate substrate by means of said ink layer; 
d. subsequently transferring said image from said intermediate substrate and fixing said image to said printable substrate by the application of heat to said image. 



*5*. A method of printing using a *thermal printer* as described in claim 1, wherein said ink layer further comprises a carrier which is not meltable at said operating temperature of said *thermal printer*, but which is meltable at a higher temperature than said operating temperature of said *thermal printer*, wherein, upon transferring the image as described in claim 4, sufficient heat is applied to melt said carrier, and said dye is transported by said carrier, and said dye and said carrier are absorbed by said printable substrate. 


*6*. A method of printing using a *thermal printer* as described in claim 5,* wherein said carrier is urea*. 


*7*. A method of printing using a* thermal printer* as described in claim 4, further comprising a release layer which is applied to a portion of said *ribbon substrate,* wherein a portion of said release layer is transferred by means of said* thermal printer* onto said intermediate substrate prior to printing said image onto said intermediate substrate, and wherein said portion of said release layer which is transferred onto said intermediate substrate prevents a reaction between said intermediate substrate and said reactive dye and promotes the release of the image from the substrate when the image is transferred from the intermediate substrate to the printable substrate. 


*8*. A method of printing using a *thermal printer* as described in claim 5, *further comprising a release layer which is applied to a portion of said ribbon substrate*, wherein a portion of said release layer is transferred by means of said *thermal printer* onto said intermediate substrate prior to printing said image onto said intermediate substrate, and wherein said portion of said release layer which is transferred onto said intermediate substrate prevents a reaction between said intermediate substrate and said reactive dye and promotes the release of the image from the substrate when the image is transferred from the intermediate substrate to the printable substrate. 


*9*. A method of printing using a* thermal printer* as described in claim 6, further comprising a release layer which is applied to a portion of said* ribbon* substrate, wherein a portion of said release layer is transferred by means of said thermal printer onto said intermediate substrate prior to printing said image onto said intermediate substrate, and wherein said portion of said release layer which is transferred onto said intermediate substrate prevents a reaction between said intermediate substrate and said reactive dye and promotes the release of the image from the substrate when the image is transferred from the intermediate substrate to the printable substrate."

Do you really think this applies to a Ricoh piezo electric inkjet printer?


----------



## 996porsche (Jun 23, 2011)

This is what she emailed me.

One patent did expire on September 1, 2014; however the patent cited in my previous e-mail (6,348,939) is valid through 2019. It also covers sublimation ink.
Sincerely,

Laura D McGregor
Sawgrass Sawgrass Technologies


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

996porsche said:


> This is what she emailed me.
> 
> One patent did expire on September 1, 2014; however the patent cited in my previous e-mail (6,348,939) is valid through 2019. It also covers sublimation ink.
> Sincerely,
> ...


 Interesting. She is correct _but_ it covers _sublimation ink_ on a _ribbon_ and applied with a _thermal printer_.

I'd like to find out where one put's ribbon on their ink jet Ricoh printers?

This is a classic ....


----------



## joeshaul (Mar 1, 2008)

The 2019 patent sounds to me like it's more a patent for the plastic card printing machines for the hospitality/id/rewards card market:
http://www.amazon.com/ZEBRA-ZXP-SINGLE-SIDED-CARD-PRINTER/dp/B004Z16LD0

I remember seeing a lot of those billed as dye sub printers when I was looking at possibly writing some rewards program databases.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

joeshaul said:


> The 2019 patent sounds to me like it's more a patent for the plastic card printing machines for the hospitality/id/rewards card market:
> Amazon.com : ZEBRA ZXP SERIES 3 SINGLE-SIDED CARD PRINTER : Id Card Printer : Electronics
> 
> I remember seeing a lot of those billed as dye sub printers when I was looking at possibly writing some rewards program databases.


The example in that link is a thermal printer that uses a ribbon.

It is a true sublimation printer ... the actual heat transfer occurs on a substrate, the ID card.

I have 2 of these same class of printers, a HiTi and an Olympus. Back in the day these were used as event printers. They still exist today but limited use, ID cards and "instant photos". Probably if you take a kid to go see Santa Claus at the mall this would be class of printer used for the picture taken there.

There is another type of thermal printer that uses ribbons also, the wax thermal printer. These aren't made or used mainstream anymore. The printheads on these printers back in the day could take either a ribbon with wax or a ribbon with sublimation dye. These had a dual mode of operation, wax thermal or sublimation.

Back in the 90's Sawgrass had "Power Print" which was a ribbon designed for the Fargo and Epson/Seiko "dual mode" thermal printers.

I had a Farge with the Power print ribbon. In that printer I could use the stock ribbons for regular wax thermal (these made nice tshirts) or the dye sublimation ribbon if I wanted "photo quality". 

In the Power Print ribbon it was a wax thermal ribbon that used sublimation dye in the wax for heat transfer onto a polymer surface ... not paper printing. 

So I had 3 different ribbons for the printer.

Even before Sawgrass was a company the only way to make a photo mug was to buy a 4 x 6 dye sublimation printer and then use that as a transfer onto a coated mug. These were made by Hitachi and a few others.

The idea behind the "true" dye sub printers was that the sublimation dye was on the ribbon and the photo paper actually had a polymer coating. So the final substrate was a hard copy photo.

This patent was filed on May 28, 1999 for a printer that we no longer used for heat transfer sublimation.

The other point is that the Ricoh came out in 2005, and SG started supporting these I think sometime after 2008, so they could not have known anything unique about the Ricoh vs. the Epson in 1999.


----------



## primodvdprices (May 16, 2013)

996porsche said:


> I Sold some Ricoh ink and was told to stop. She cited patent 6,348,939
> She said this patent expires thru 2019
> 
> Patent US20020012038 - Digital printable reactive dye and process - Google Patents


So, Are the sawgrass people sending out emails like to people/companies trying to scare them off from selling ink? I'm wonder if that's why big companies like conde and coastal business supplies aren't selling bulk ink systems or refillable cartridges yet. Maybe it's still too early in the month after the patent has ended still.


----------



## joeshaul (Mar 1, 2008)

primodvdprices said:


> So, Are the sawgrass people sending out emails like to people/companies trying to scare them off from selling ink? I'm wonder if that's why big companies like conde and coastal business supplies aren't selling bulk ink systems or refillable cartridges yet. Maybe it's still too early in the month after the patent has ended still.


Most likely it's still too early for multiple reasons. I'm sure Conde and Coastal have both training for their employees provided by Sawgrass, as well as numbre to forward to get ahold of Sawgrass's support and all the likes. Sawgrass has its support system in place and has its i's dotted. 

In the wide format market there's a sometimes issues with switching over to non oem inks, and what happens when a printer suddenly quits working a few months after the non oem is installed? "The ink ruined my printer", and sometimes it was true, sometimes it's coincidence. Regardless a lot of suppliers won't stock non oem inks solely for that reason as they don't want to have to deal with the "you ruined my printer" calls, when it's not even their ink, they just sold it. 

I think once a few companies have established themselves and get a track record, more suppliers will pick them up, but it will definitely take a little bit of time for the bigger suppliers to make a decision, unless they decide to get their hand in the cookie jar as well (IE: Conde decides to start selling their own "CondeInk, twice the prefection, half the cost"). 

That's my thoughts on it though, I've heard Cobra mentioned in good tone quite a few times, so they will most likely be at the forefront into working their way into suppliers if they have the support to back it up.


----------



## bretbyron (May 7, 2013)

The large litre bottles of Sawgrass ArTainium2UV+ is the same ink as the ink for the small printers, but much, much more affordable. 

Anyone who has been printing in large quantities and buying those little bags or little bottles has not done their research and has been extremely over paying. No one is "allowed to market" their inks for small printers, but it is the same stuff.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

bretbyron said:


> The large litre bottles of Sawgrass ArTainium2UV+ is the same ink as the ink for the small printers, but much, much more affordable.
> 
> Anyone who has been printing in large quantities and buying those little bags or little bottles has not done their research and has been extremely over paying. No one is "allowed to market" their inks for small printers, but it is the same stuff.


A couple of people on Ebay have been breaking down liters of Artanium inks into smaller 100 mL bottles now for a few years. They have been selling half price of what SG dealers do.

When you buy Artanium in liters you have contractual agreement to not use for printers < 42 inches. But obviously some ignore that.


----------



## pisquee (Jan 8, 2012)

mgparrish said:


> When you buy Artanium in liters you have contractual agreement to not use for printers < 42 inches. But obviously some ignore that.


Is that actually the case legally though?
Do you have to sign a contract before purchase which stipulates how the ink can be used?


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

pisquee said:


> Is that actually the case legally though?
> Do you have to sign a contract before purchase which stipulates how the ink can be used?


Actually it's the dealers that were not supposed to sell to users less than with <42 inch printers. 

In most US large format sublimation websites there is/was usually a statement of usage for <42 inch printers.

I don't buy in liters so I haven't read the fine print at point of sale. But the end user usage would be implied since it is posted on all the websites.

For example,

Dye Sublimation Ink: Ink Jet, Offset, Litho, Screen

"Printer Compatibility: This ink set is compatible with Mimaki, Epson, Roland, Mutoh, D-Gen, Velotex, and other printers using Piezo Electric print heads. US Sublimation Ink Jet dye sublimation ink is licensed for use on printers that are 42" or wider; therefore, it cannot be used on desktop printers."

In the US we have "shrink wrap" contracts etc, if you read the fine print when you purchase and click "buy" there is almost always some legalize in the sale, when you click you agreed to terms of the sale, so that is what I refer to as a "contract". 

As I mentioned I haven't purchased liters before but here would be an example of a "contract" ... a license is a contract.

GO Xtreme-V Dye Sub Ink- 1 Liter - AvianiX.com

*Q. Does the license contain a limit on the printer size in which the inks can legally be used?
A. The licensing agreement states the ink must be used only on inkjet printers with a carriage width of 42-inches or more. As a policy, GO will not sell to anyone who indicates Xtreme inks will be used on a printer with a carriage width less than 42 inches. *

I have noticed 2 LF websites have taken down their language regarding <42 inch printer usage though.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

pisquee said:


> Is that actually the case legally though?
> Do you have to sign a contract before purchase which stipulates how the ink can be used?


 Tim, check your inbox.


----------



## pisquee (Jan 8, 2012)

done, and actioned


----------



## bretbyron (May 7, 2013)

Everyone should upgrade to a 42"-44" to save money. It's $1,800 in inks just to start a 6 color. 

There are aftermarket sub ink manufacturers that can't "market for small inkjet", but if the ink works in the heads, it works in the heads. They don't make you agree to terms of use.


I apologize for throwing this thread off and am not advocating people break a contract.


----------



## pisquee (Jan 8, 2012)

bretbyron said:


> Everyone should upgrade to a 42"-44" to save money. It's $1,800 in inks just to start a 6 color.
> 
> There are aftermarket sub ink manufacturers that can't "market for small inkjet", but if the ink works in the heads, it works in the heads. They don't make you agree to terms of use.
> 
> I apologize for throwing this thread off and am not advocating people break a contract.


1. You don't _need_ a big printer to use pro inks. Get a 42" printer if that's what you actually want/need.
2. 6 litres of pro sublimation ink is only £510 / $830


----------



## shane94 (Sep 30, 2011)

here is the one they sent a friend of mine with a take down request:

Sawgrass is the owner of the following patents: EP 778,798, EP 1,132,439, AU 768,805, BR P19508651-0; CA 2,198,750, JP 3,727,343, MX 231,098, US 7,654,660, US 8,425,029.

sent from 
Laura D McGregor

Looks like they are still trying to enforce the patent on it.


----------



## sikkwidditt (May 21, 2007)

shane94 said:


> here is the one they sent a friend of mine with a take down request:
> 
> Sawgrass is the owner of the following patents: EP 778,798, EP 1,132,439, AU 768,805, BR P19508651-0; CA 2,198,750, JP 3,727,343, MX 231,098, US 7,654,660, US 8,425,029.
> 
> ...


damn they still trying! Unbelievable!


----------



## 996porsche (Jun 23, 2011)

here is the one they sent a friend of mine with a take down request:

Sawgrass is the owner of the following patents: EP 778,798, EP 1,132,439, AU 768,805, BR P19508651-0; CA 2,198,750, JP 3,727,343, MX 231,098, US 7,654,660, US 8,425,029.

sent from 
Laura D McGregor

Looks like they are still trying to enforce the patent on it. 


So does Sawgrass still have patents for sublimation ink under 42" or are they trying to scare everyone from selling sublimation ink?


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

996porsche said:


> here is the one they sent a friend of mine with a take down request:
> 
> Sawgrass is the owner of the following patents: EP 778,798, EP 1,132,439, AU 768,805, BR P19508651-0; CA 2,198,750, JP 3,727,343, MX 231,098, US 7,654,660, US 8,425,029.
> 
> ...


Where is the ink being sold at in the US? 

The only patent applicable to the desktop inks *ever* being claimed in US court was the '907 as it is often referred to and expired 9/1/14.


The other US patents mentioned are not applicable to the desktop inks in the market, in fact those patents were filed a lot lot later than when SG initially put sublimation inks in the market and claimed patents to those. 

They cannot re-patent something. 


They can make new patents on new art but cannot put old art back in play legally if the patent is expired.

Sounds like FUD. Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt here at play.

I would ask SG to specify what_ specific claims_ in the SG patents were infringed. 

In order to make a case in court SG would have had to had the competitor inks analyzed and a list of infringing items specified. Not just what claim was violated but how the violation was determined, in other words what were the testing results.

And just for clarity Sawgrass never held any patents specific to <42 inch carriage printers, the patents had no language limiting carriage width. 

It was a business practice SG employed that allowed others to license inks that were >42 inches in the wide format area. 

Without the patent SG could not ask for license money for >42 inch printers. So it was never that large format inks vendors were technically clear of SG patents, it was just SG allowed licensing for large format but choose not to for desktop "small format".


----------



## brinked (Mar 21, 2010)

There are already different sublimation options out there. You can easily order directly from china the same stuff that would be imported, rebranded and sold here in the states.

When I purchased my 9890, when using SG pro photo inks all I experienced were issues. Nozzles constantly needed to be cleaned. Then my head started going bad. What was more alarming was when looking around for a used epson 9890 printhead, about 90% of the ones I could find were for sale for parts because the print head went bad....from you guess it...SAWGRASS SUBLIMATION INKS.

I have heard that j-teck doesnt have the same issue. I cant say if thats true or not but what I can tell you is I have been using j-techs for 4 months now without issue. Plus I am paying less than half what I was paying for SG.

There are also other options out there as well. At least the current options out there are supported by someone...do we really want a bunch of different sublimation inks coming to market with no support, no idea which ones are good for which printer?

J-teck
Maribu
sublimedge
cobra inks
plus others...

They are out there. Focus on an ink line that has profiles for your printer and a company who will support you. Ever since doing business with Daniel at digitally driven and switching to j-teck inks my production costs are so much lower and I no longer feel like I am being raped in the wallet.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

996porsche said:


> here is the one they sent a friend of mine with a take down request:
> 
> Sawgrass is the owner of the following patents: EP 778,798, EP 1,132,439, AU 768,805, BR P19508651-0; CA 2,198,750, JP 3,727,343, MX 231,098, US 7,654,660, US 8,425,029.
> 
> ...



A little more to my point I made in my other response to your question.

Philip Brooks' Patent Infringement Updates: Rule 11

I'm a Electrical Engineer by profession and in the business I am in there are many patents around. 

So patent attorneys that were consulted before by the companies I worked for all advised never to accept a "you are infringing on our patent number "XXXXX" letter or phone call without more detail of the specifics.

They don't have to provide the same level of analysis that would be required in court but certainly it has to be at the level of being able to take that information to someone for a legal/technical opinion. Otherwise everyone gets scammed for false infringement claims or extorted for licensing fees that should not have to be paid.

Civil Procedure: Pre-Suit Filing Requirements - Philip Brooks' Patent Infringement Updates

Before they file for any infringement they MUST conduct such an enquiry. The legal requirement is called Rule 11.

Specifically

Rule 11. Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions | Federal Rules of Civil Procedure | LII / Legal Information Institute
the part applicable to patents is called 

fed. r. civ. p. 11

Incidentally the last litigation in the US TOG vs. SG there was a filing of a Rule 11 violation against SG. It never got resolved as the suit was dropped due to an out of court settlement.

Not a lawyer here but they must give some more detail as to why they belief an infringement is occurring, not just because they say so. 

Someone else got a nasty notice and a patent SG had for Wax Thermal printers was thrown at them, clearly that was bogus, had nothing to do with sublimation ink for inkjet printing. It was beyond absurd,

This all assumes you are in the US of course.


----------



## shane94 (Sep 30, 2011)

My friend was selling on Ebay and Vero knocked them off 

Your listing was removed after the rights owner notified us that your item infringes on their patent rights. We urge you to contact the rights owner directly for more information about why they requested the removal of your listing.


We encourage you to contact Sawgrass Systems, Inc. - Tropical Graphics - TG Europe directly if you have any questions.

You can send an email to: 
[email protected]
--------------------------------------------------------

Maybe because the item was selling worldwide?


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

shane94 said:


> My friend was selling on Ebay and Vero knocked them off
> 
> Your listing was removed after the rights owner notified us that your item infringes on their patent rights. We urge you to contact the rights owner directly for more information about why they requested the removal of your listing.
> 
> ...


 I can't speak to the patents outside of the US. Here there are inks on Ebay, Amazon, and Cobra now sells openly.

Patent laws are different outside the US.


----------



## shane94 (Sep 30, 2011)

mgparrish said:


> I can't speak to the patents outside of the US. Here there are inks on Ebay, Amazon, and Cobra now sells openly.
> 
> Patent laws are different outside the US.


He is a US seller and the US ebay is the one that removed the listing. It was not ebay.eu The whole thing is ebay, amazon or any other 3rd party seller site is simply not going to question it or get involved. If Sawgrass complains and claims patent infringement then you can bet 99.99% of the time they are going to remove the item. If they do not and it turns out the one asking for the removal is correct then the site can be held liable and its not worth it to them. Thats why they tell you who to contact that made the complaint so the 2 parties can deal with it on their own. 

I am not sure why at least on Amazon/Ebay the few sellers who sell sublimation ink are still standing. A few claim to sell inktek which is as far as i know is licensed by Sawgrass but not manufactured by them so they are free to sell it. Maybe the other sellers have proven they are splitting up bottles of Artuiam inks. Who knows. All i can tell you is that Sawgrass I am sure has made millions selling their inks at the high price they ask for it and have plenty of money in the coffer to in force their wishes. 

Right or wrong it does not matter, anyone can sue anyone in this great country of ours even if they are wrong. The cost to defend a lawsuit is crazy high even if everyone knows your right. And even if you win and get a judgement collecting that money is near impossible. No matter what, if you lose you lose or most the time even if you win you still lose because you cannot collect. Only ones that win are the lawyers. 

Good times in sublimation land


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

shane94 said:


> He is a US seller and the US ebay is the one that removed the listing. It was not ebay.eu The whole thing is ebay, amazon or any other 3rd party seller site is simply not going to question it or get involved. If Sawgrass complains and claims patent infringement then you can bet 99.99% of the time they are going to remove the item. If they do not and it turns out the one asking for the removal is correct then the site can be held liable and its not worth it to them. Thats why they tell you who to contact that made the complaint so the 2 parties can deal with it on their own.
> 
> I am not sure why at least on Amazon/Ebay the few sellers who sell sublimation ink are still standing. A few claim to sell inktek which is as far as i know is licensed by Sawgrass but not manufactured by them so they are free to sell it. Maybe the other sellers have proven they are splitting up bottles of Artuiam inks. Who knows. All i can tell you is that Sawgrass I am sure has made millions selling their inks at the high price they ask for it and have plenty of money in the coffer to in force their wishes.
> 
> ...


I guess I am confused because you had posted a notice from SG and TG Europe. Anyway, the patent that had been litigated is expired in the US.

Cobra had been playing "chicken" with SG for years, then on 9/1/14 they started selling openly.

I see the same sellers on Ebay and Amazon for years now, those aren't TG inks unless it states so clearly in the ad. 
Anyone, especially SG, could tell TG inks just by visually looking at the K ink in the bottle. It has a distinct purple tint to it.

I would suggest that the person selling repost those inks only on US Amazon and US Ebay then see what happens.


----------



## shane94 (Sep 30, 2011)

mgparrish said:


> I guess I am confused because you had posted a notice from SG and TG Europe. Anyway, the patent that had been litigated is expired in the US.
> 
> Cobra had been playing "chicken" with SG for years, then on 9/1/14 they started selling openly.
> 
> ...


I will pass the info along, thank you for the advise!


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

shane94 said:


> I will pass the info along, thank you for the advise!


 I suspect the takedown originated outside the US and then Ebay would have had to go out of it's way to "decouple" everything else but the US postings, so they didn't. Anyway just my guess. 

To the best of my knowledge no one in the US has been taken down from Ebay or Amazon for a very long time, even before 9/1/14.


----------



## jfish (Feb 26, 2010)

Man I hated Sawgrass I had the WORST possible experience with them after their major flop of a product called "Chromablast" was in left bay and Artianium (SP?) long story short the "Russian" lady pretty much refused to send me a driver or any support for a MAC on my 4800/4880 nor the windows driver as they didn't list it as being available for the 4800 for some reason because it was on to the 4880. 

Anyways even the tech guy told me to lie and say I had the SubliQ inkset to get the driver she refused.. My printhead was shot and I maintained it like a champ but that Glue or Ink so they call it was crap. I just needed to use the CMYK artianium side as half the head was gone. I didn't have a RIP for the mac and was specifically going to an all mac workflow and no longer had access to the PC RIP. 

Anyways after my Epson 1400 went though an entire $140 set of Sawgrass sub ink after "charging" and running 2 cleanings I was done with such a joke of a company who refused to let me adapt and succeed from their garbage failure step child "Chroma-***" 

Cobra was nothing but professional and he called me back within an hour anytime I had an issue matching colors. I hoped I would still be in the business when that patent went out so I could watch karma in full effect. Darma Initiative


----------



## 996porsche (Jun 23, 2011)

This a cut and paste from Sawgrass Website
FAQ - Sawgrass

Which companies have Sawgrass’ licensed to produce inks based on Sawgrass’ sublimation printing patents?
No companies are authorized to produce sublimation inks for printers less than 42”. Sawgrass has licensed the following companies to produce sublimation inks for printers 42” and larger; BASF, Hilord Chemical, Huntsman (formerly Ciba Specialty Chemical), Inktec, J-Teck, Kiian Group, Kiwa Chemical Industry Co., Mimaki Engineering Company, Nazdar, and Sensient Technologies.

How does Sawgrass protect itself from companies that infringe on its patents?
Sawgrass owns patents covering the manufacture, printing, and application of sublimation inks used with inkjet printers and has invested over $10 million into the development of this proprietary technology.

There are companies currently selling sublimation inks into the market that are believed to infringe on Sawgrass patents. The companies supplying these inks are aware of Sawgrass patent claims and of their products patent infringement. They willfully choose to sell them for their financial gain in disregard of existing patents.

Sawgrass always seeks a business solution to this type of conflict but must ultimately rely on Federal Courts to enforce the patent law and force such suppliers to stop selling patent infringing inks into the marketplace.

So is Sawgrass still claiming they have the patents for printers less than 42"


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

996porsche said:


> This a cut and paste from Sawgrass Website
> FAQ - Sawgrass
> 
> Which companies have Sawgrass’ licensed to produce inks based on Sawgrass’ sublimation printing patents?
> ...


FUD

Fear Uncertainaly and Doubt. 

If you read the legal transcripts and the claims on the actual product in fine print the relevant patent in question is expired ...

Patent US5488907 - Permanent heat activated transfer printing process and composition - Google Patents

Sawgrass Technologies v. Texas Original Graphics, (2007) - Case Law - VLEX 44071934

Other patents SG has are either continuation patents of 907 and expire due to 907 having "priority", or relate to other inventions not related to inks that we use. 

Such other uses being as inks that sublimate at lower temperatures or inks that have certain properties that allow for much fast printing such as found on printers costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. Others are for sublimating with printers such as lasers and wax thermal printers, these patents are expired too, as well as the technology being no longer relevant.

The only patent ever litigated was the '907 patent. You can see that in more detail in the doc I attached.

From the attached doc

"Defendant Sawgrass Technologies, Inc. (“Sawgrass”) owns a number of patents that relate to the application of heat-activated dyes through an ink jet printer. The patent at issue in this case, the ’907 Patent, generally discloses a method of applying heat-activated dyes onto a substrate by dispersing tiny particles of dye solid into a liquid ink which can then be printed in the shape of a desired image onto the substrate with an ink jet printer."

And Sawgrass when the applicable patent '907 was in force didn't discriminate to printer carriage width. It was a _business practice_ for SG to license their technology to companies only if they sold it for printers larger than 42 inches. So the belief that greater than 42 printers not being covered under that patent was a long running myth on forums.


----------

