# Kornit White Ink Printing Lawsuit



## ryanwestman (Oct 14, 2007)

Perhaps I'm just a little sensitive to these things - but Kornit's recent lawsuit against a number of manufacturers is just absurd:

[media]http://t-biznetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/kornitpatentlawsuit.pdf[/media]

I read through the suit and the patent - and it would appear to me that they are simply trying to sue anyone that uses white underbase to print on dark garments. 

Using the underbase argument, I think perhaps I should file a patent for using white ink underlayment for screenprinters and sue everyone in the biz for infringement. I don't know when they filed for this patent - but I can't imagine that there wasn't prior art before then. 

If Kornit wins this thing I would be suprised. But using the thugs over @ Howrey LLP I'm sure they will do some damage. They apparently want a jury trial on this - probably hoping to simply pull a cover over a technically uninformed jury to win the case.

Either way - it's scummy and lacks moral ethics - Based on this fact alone I wouldn't buy a Kornit printer. This is pretty close to the "one click" shopping patent Amazon had awhile ago. Along with numerous other cases where patent attorneys were able to push absurd patents through our antiquated and technically informed goverment patent agents. (there is a whole debate on patent reform these days, but that's another story)

Why not take the money they waste on that suit and use it for product research/development to actually benefit their customers? It's what the honest business with morality would do. If they do win this suit and damage their competitors - you can only be assured that the products will get crappier as each competitor closes up shop.


----------



## numbercruncher (Feb 20, 2009)

Shhhh...sometimes making sense can be dangerous.


----------



## vctradingcubao (Nov 15, 2006)

ryanwestman said:


> Either way - it's scummy and lacks moral ethics - Based on this fact alone I wouldn't buy a Kornit printer.


So, A Kornit boycott then? It would be good to hear their response here 'coz Kornit is a forum sponsor.


----------



## zhenjie (Aug 27, 2006)

Bad Kornit, BAD! Won't be buying a Kornit ever (although I made that decision a few years ago already, this just reaffirms it).


----------



## Titchimp (Nov 30, 2006)

I was under the impression DTG was a wet on wet process, the kornit patent describes curing the white layer before printing colour.. ?

Edit: actually they have that covered.


----------



## JeridHill (Feb 8, 2006)

The crazy thing is, they should never have been able to patent this. It would be classified as the next logical step and patents are almost never awarded for a next logical step approach. Obviously, there is no way to print waterbased inks on dark garments without a white underlay (effectively). This needs to be the argument and the fact that their machine costs over $200K whereas all others are substantially less. This would be a scenario where a company is taking advantage of an industry. It's unethical and should be challenged.


----------



## YoDan (May 4, 2007)

> and should be challenged


 And there is the problem, *challenged by whom?* All it takes besides time is a lot of money, maybe they could ALL join together to fight this BUT I doupt it 
Dan
*"HAPPY PRINTING"*


----------



## JeridHill (Feb 8, 2006)

YoDan said:


> And there is the problem, *challenged by whom?* All it takes besides time is a lot of money, maybe they could ALL join together to fight this BUT I doupt it
> Dan
> *"HAPPY PRINTING"*


I agree that all should work together to fight this, it would be in the best interest of the industry and each entity.

But if a jury trial is demanded and set, then all that can be done is whoever is representing the defendants must understand patent laws and really push that agenda. A jury trial in a situation like this is not proper since the laws are so confusing at times. It needs to be before a judge.

So if this happens and Kornit wins, then after all the pieces are picked back up and damages awarded, only a select few with deep enough pockets will remain and go back to selling machines for printing with no white ink.


----------



## YoDan (May 4, 2007)

> only a select few with deep enough pockets will remain and go back to selling machines for printing with no white ink.


The list will grow in the very near future, and than they will go after the vendors selling those printers, etc.
*"Than there is still the other patent suit from DIS"*
Dan
*"HAPPY PRINTING"*


----------



## ryanwestman (Oct 14, 2007)

I did voice my concerns against Howrey LLP and Kornit - this is my email thread below:

Reply to Howrey/Kornit:

http://www.t-shirtforums.com/direct-garment-dtg-inkjet-printing/t88554.html

Read the thread started here - this is truly scummy - popular opinion says so - bad lawfirm, even worse company. I will continue to publish as much information as I can to stimulate the conversation. Groundswell of popular opinion will make you and your client losers, even if you win in court.

As you shine the light on the ugly - it usually goes away. I don't manufacture printers or have any equity interest in any of the named parties. I do however get really pissed off when I see scum and do whatever I can to insure that nobody gets these "bright ideas" in the future. 

Do yourself, Kornit, and your law firm a favor - drop the case - it's baseless at best, and at worst an attempt to wrangle the legal system to your client's competitive advantage. 


-ryan


-----Original Message-----
From: Hill, Russell [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tue 6/23/2009 3:56 PM
To: Ryan Westman
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: Disgust @ White Ink Lawsuit

Sounds like the rantings of a clueless infringer to me.

Best regards,

Russ

On Jun 23, 2009, at 1:29 PM, "Ryan Westman" wrote:

>
> Kornit has done it - they have officially entered the ranks of 
> patent scum. Somehow they were able to fleece the patent office to 
> patent a printing technique that has been around for thousands of 
> years. They did this by including a new buzzword "ink jet" in lieu 
> of a paintbrush, screen print, etc..
>
> It's been common knowledge for thousands of years that to get an 
> accurate color representation you need a white background (unless 
> your inks are 100% opaque). Paper is white, artists canvases are 
> white - these are that way for a reason. If you background isn't 
> white and you want color it yellow - you put white underneath it. 
> This is like GM trying to patent a vehicle on the basis that is has 
> 4 wheels. It's just they way things are in order for them to work - 
> it's not some magical research someone tried to do.
>
> Even worse they were able to convince some clueless corporate 
> attorneys @ Howrey LLP to actually take the case. They of course 
> want to take it straight to a jury trial in a hope that they exhibit 
> the same technical aptitude that the patent agency demonstrated. We 
> can only hope that patent reform happens sooner then later, as every 
> time I read about a case like this my stomach turns.
>
> As far as Howrey LLP is concerned - ethics are out the window when 
> the money hits the table there. Any business is good business in a 
> recession I suppose.
>
> I sincerely hope the companies named in the lawsuit have the money 
> to fight off this scum. If there is any sanity in this world this 
> case will be disposed of before it ever sees the light of day.


----------



## joeshaul (Mar 1, 2008)

I was under the impression that Kornit only held the patent on a two printhead system (one underbase/white, one color), or is this a different patent? I seemed to recall the GT782 being under fire simply because it also had a two head system and that's why the other companies slipped through at the time.


----------



## calitrendz (Apr 23, 2009)

It's a wack machine anyway the printing isn't even that thick. Their machines really do suck and for a half a quarter million. Yeah I am so sure that I'd put that kind of money down for a stupid machine.


----------



## ryanwestman (Oct 14, 2007)

FWIW - there are a couple of distributors named in the lawsuit, the following is a list of the companies named and what I (believe) they make/distribute. I'm not a DTG market expert so if anyone wants to clarify anything I missed or needs corrected, feel free.

Kornit is suing the following parties:

All American Manufacturing (Flexijet, etc)
Anajet (Sprint, etc)
Belquette (Mod-1, etc)
Brother (GT-782, etc)
Expand Systems (Distributor - MS One, MS Zero, etc)
International Decorating Technologies (DreamJet, etc)
International Machine Group (Tex Jet, Freejet, T-jet Distributor)
M&R (idot, iscreen, etc)
Melco Industries (Kiosk, etc)
Mesa Distributors (Distributor)
MS Printing Solutions (MS One, MS Zero, etc)
Omniprint International (Tex Jet, Freejet, etc)

FWIW - the law firm replied telling me that I didn't understand the facts, etc - and that they had an "ironclad" case. This was of course after a somewhat dubious attempt to have a "face to face" with me. I accepted the opportunity but to date they haven't taken me up on my acceptance of their own offer. 

In light of the direct meeting, I proposed that they provide me whatever information they had that told their side of the story. I doubt I will see much but will post whatever I get from them.

One thing that struck me as somewhat odd is that they pointed out that the manufacturers didn't reply to their initial attempts to communicate. My guess is that they viewed the baseless threats as simply an attempt to extort. So like good people that have businesses to run, they refused to negotiate with the terrorists. 

I will drop an email to the companies named above and see if I can get any further information from them. Otherwise, the whole thing still smells of rotten eggs to me.


----------



## allamerican-aeoon (Aug 14, 2007)

I am the one of defenders. All American in PA who sell NeoFlex. I think many defenders are scare to say anything here. I was going to post here when I receive email from lawyer but it was not proper to me to start this post.
Small guys include me never harmed Kornit's business. Totally different customer base from Kornit buyers. Only company who could hurt them is Brother. 
In other side of coin
1. Does Brother (big company compare to Kornit) did not research patent before they invest millions? What is your answer?
2. Why after 6 years Kornit file the law suit? 
3. If anyone Consent it from all defenders what will it make in jury's eye = why while others consent but you are not to Brother? Make sense?
4. Patent lawyers have most expensive tag in legal field. Will we small guys (compare to them) will pay them and afford them? or Pay loyalty per machine and per ink sale? (it will end up with buyers burden)
5. As Someone address above: At least we all have to have one meeting before final move.
I have all contact name and email address but wait for right time.
6. Does Brother pays loyalty to Kornit and in same time can they compete with Kornit?
make sense?
7. How long this law suit will last? 2years +
8. Law firm will add more list later as they find them. It will be real long list. Someone who is not in the list should be stay low.

9. well ~. They are all part of business. If you had that patent what will you do? When anybody file patent = want to see $$$$$$$$$ 

10. Does white ink Mfg will like this law suit?

Please try to answer all.


----------



## calitrendz (Apr 23, 2009)

A lot of those companies don't sell Kornit's


----------



## ryanwestman (Oct 14, 2007)

Perhaps Kornit should go after Dupont for selling white inks made to the specifications required by the patent to the named infringing manufacturers. At the very least they could seek an injuction to stop the sale of these inks to the manufacturers - wouldn't that help stop the rampant infringement (and claimed damages) that Kornit is making? It would be a great move as it would prevent alot of us from buying ink to fuel the claimed "infringing" printers!

I think when considering the vastness of their (Dupont's) legal team - I doubt it would be profitable for Kornit - all of the companies named so far are smaller and henceforth more likely to roll over easily. Making such legal action suitable for both fun and profit! It may be of no small coincidence perhaps that US Screen (T-jet Manufactuers) had issues with the Hirsch (Kornit Distributor) in their stock buyout agreement in keeping the company alive. A few million dollars is pretty cheap to kill one of your biggest competitors!

Commenting on the other post, It is true that the patent discusses seperate white/colored heads - of course based on some of the defendants of the suit - I guess different nozzles also == different heads.


----------



## ryanwestman (Oct 14, 2007)

One suggestion to anyone trapped by the Kornit net and it would appear that there is no way out:

One of my all time favorite defenses is to simply drag out the battle as long as possible with the attacker (Kornit). Do whatever you can to stall and rack up legal bills for the company.

As you do this - slowly sell off any assetts you need to finance the legal battle dismantling/selling your company as you see fit (prerably to a foreign corporate entity) - leaving them (Kornit) with a judgement against a dead company. 

Then simply take your knowledge that you know and fuel the other entity. It effectively turns the whole thing into a game of whack-a-mole. Obviously this only works effectively for small organizations, in larger ones the cost of the shuffle costs more then the defense strategy.


----------



## grennix (Feb 26, 2007)

I was under the impression Dupont had the patent?
DIGITALLY PRINTING TEXTILES WITH WHITE INK AND COLOURED INKS - Patent Application WO/2007/035508


----------



## ryanwestman (Oct 14, 2007)

grennix said:


> I was under the impression Dupont had the patent?
> DIGITALLY PRINTING TEXTILES WITH WHITE INK AND COLOURED INKS - Patent Application WO/2007/035508


This is where it always gets interesting - just because you have the piece of paper (and for what it's worth, Dupont's patent is dated 2 months earlier then Kornit's) doesn't always mean you can win the battle. 

Dupont's patent is more about the inks and using the white as the underbase - Kornit's goes more into the mechanical process to apply that white underbase - but both essentially say similar things just from a different lens. Think of Dupon'ts as more an ink with a technique patent - whereas Kornit's is a technique that uses ink.

This might be a situation where Kornit doesn't hold a candle to Dupont - so rather then try to fight them (and lose) - they simply go after other DTG manufacturers/distributors (primarily responsible for developing techniques that use Dupont inks) leaving them with no real customer base and effectively cornering the market with high priced machines.


----------



## Lnfortun (Feb 18, 2006)

This is reminiscent of what Sawgrass to other sublimation ink manufacturers/vendors. Sawgrass filed a patent on the process when in fact sublimation has been around for number of years.


----------



## allamerican-aeoon (Aug 14, 2007)

let me tell you I have seen many in my short business life (near 30years). 
There was big fight between screen printing machine mfgs.
There was another big tag one in screen printing Frame industry
Sublimation industry
Digital to screen (DTS)
I am glad I was not in middle of any, but this time I am.
What I saw was there was no winners at any case. How can you get out the fight without recieved one punch or at least bite or scratches. Many were settled before last day. 
there were only winner = lawyers. I saw with my own eyes tag was over Million.
Winner who got out final court was hurt and tired. he Lost more than gain.
Every time Winner had deeper pocket than loser.
Sad but we are living in capitalism. look Simpson, if he had no money?
my 2 cents (I have no idea what it means but many people are using this after their post, so here me too. I have more than 2 cents)


----------



## ryanwestman (Oct 14, 2007)

Companies that abuse the patent system and file predatory lawsuits must be publicly shamed and boycotted. I for one believe in the ideas/basis of our patent system. But when you manipulate the spirit of this system you are nothing more then scum.

It's unfortunate however the individuals and companies that use it as a weapon and not for what it is intended for. It's sad because companies that abuse these systems only erode the faith that others have in them. 

Laws and court systems are the very foundation of our civilized society - if we do not have them or they are abused to the point where the common man feels as though the system is wholly corrupted - we will lose order as a society.

In my viewpoint Kornit is defeating the common mans trust in the glue that holds our society together. It is because of this that they must be publicly shamed and nothing less then apologetic for their predatory behavior. 

Just because you can be granted a ridiculous patent, sue someone, and win - does not mean that your actions are just. Those that act on the basis that Kornit is for these suits are nothing more then a glorified con artist working within the structures of our legal system.


----------



## vctradingcubao (Nov 15, 2006)

ddm said:


> my 2 cents (I have no idea what it means but many people are using this after their post, so here me too. I have more than 2 cents)


Lol, this is funny Peter, imo. My 0.02 there!

And yes, I agree, the lawyers are the only winners!


----------



## markc (Jun 3, 2009)

grennix said:


> I was under the impression Dupont had the patent?
> DIGITALLY PRINTING TEXTILES WITH WHITE INK AND COLOURED INKS - Patent Application WO/2007/035508


Hi,
Interesting about Dupont patent it is dated 09/15/2006 , Patents can be lodged up to year after invention, So Dupont are saying they invented this is in 2005 to 2006 . I am pretty sure that a hell of a lot of people were using this technology before that.
Kornit are saying they invented it before 2003. Not many except TJet were working with it in those days

These patents cover printing color over white, there is also another patent for printing white over white.
And there are patents for screen printing the white underbase.

The bottom line in all of these is white underbase.


----------



## allamerican-aeoon (Aug 14, 2007)

You may not realized but your all the opinions / anticipation can be present in court. More post may help defenders (again I'm not a lawyer. Common sense). When too much noise rise justice/politician jumps in and look closely.


----------



## Rodney P (Mar 11, 2009)

It seems there are a few things worth considering for the companies unlucky enough to have been served a letter on this:

Claim 1 - A method for color printing on a dark textile piece comprising the steps of: digitally printing, by mean of an inkjet printing head, an opaque *white* ink layer directly onto a dark textile piece; and digitally printing a colored image on said *white* ink layer, said digitally printing said *white* ink layer is performed such that said *white* ink layer substantially covers, without exceeding, the designed area of said colored image, and further such that said *white* ink layer and said colored image are substantially coextensive

So, any slight overlap of white ink will render claim 1 obsolete?

Claim 2 - The method according to claim 1, wherein said step of digitally printing said opaque *white* ink layer further comprises fixing said layer. 

Claim 3. The method according to claim 1, further comprising curing said *white* ink layer before the step of digitally printing said colored image. 

Well, most DTG carry out wet on wet. This eliminates these claims.

Further to that, could there be an argument that you are not actually printing direct onto a dark fabric - you are actually printing direct to a pre-treatment. The substrate is covered with a pretreated layer which now turns into your substrate? I guess this could be tenuous, but would it stand up?


----------



## allamerican-aeoon (Aug 14, 2007)

I am sure your point will delivered to invisible viewer.
Many good points could from where nobody look into. Always go back to basic. like golf.


----------



## ryanwestman (Oct 14, 2007)

One thing that is interesting to note - is that Howrey LLP (the law firm that Kornit has retained) is interested (or at least expressed said interest) in telling a private third party the facts of the case to avoid bad press. 

Russel Hill (partner in Howrey LLP) stated this with regards to a face to face discussion on the case: 

"Darn, I was just there last week for depositions. We could have had lunch, and I could have explained how ironclad our infringement position is against each defendant and why Congress provided for a presumption of patent validity for issued patents like Kornit's, and how we approached all the defendants before suing and they ignored us etc. etc. I'd be happy to help you publish the truth."

I accepted his offer and stated he could send me any information that he felt would help the public change their view on this case, I have yet to see any information.

I'm sure folks from Kornit and Howrey are monitoring this thread - so guys - if you have information that will change the minds of the community at large - you better get to it! 

As a side note it's highly unusual for someone to discuss a case like this with a third party, but (hopefully) they are having second thoughts about how great this case is. I can only hope that their legal ethics class is nagging at them. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. 

While I'm sure Kornit knows what type of profound impact this would have on the entire DTG industry in the United States, I doubt Howrey does. 

To all the folks at Howrey LLP: If you are able to win this suit for your client - you will shut down almost all competition to Kornit in the US. You will put many honest and hardworking businessmen, entrepeneurs, and innovators out of business. 

You will cause a profound impact on the industry that it will most likely take a long time to recover from, if it all. You will push all DTG manufacturing, production, and innovation off of US shores, forcing anyone but Kornit to countries where your legal strongarm does not reach.

Patent protection is a very powerful tool. Our system and enforcement of protecting ones ideas is one of the many reasons why so many people choose to do business in this country. Entire industries exist here (and nowhere else) because of these legal protections. 

I urge you to think long and hard about the consquences of your actions. To the hardworking families and the manufacturers working to continually improve and advance the DTG industry. Down to the garment decorators who benefit from a competitive industry from both a cost and technology perspective.

There are many good and bad patents out there - if strictly enforced many of the patents on the books would kill an entire industry. The patent you are trying to enforce is one of those patents. 

Kornit's value is not in coming up with the idea of using a white underbase that concept has been around much longer then even Kornit itself. Their value is coming up with a system that prints garments quickly and efficiently. It's their printers and their ink formulations that work as a system. The controllers, the software, the components, etc - that make them what they are. 

Ask any of their customers if they feel that a white underbase is what seperates Kornit from the rest, and they will laugh at you. Everybody uses a white underbase, they have to. It's a basic tenant of printing across multiple disciplines, from screen to pad, and yes - even inkjet.


----------



## allamerican-aeoon (Aug 14, 2007)

Rayn
You do really have hot blood in good way. You are the one who I saw last week who hold old lady's arm when she cross the road. god bless!! We neeed more you in this world! Cheers! beers are on me.


----------



## ReneeMarlea (Sep 6, 2007)

_"In order for an invention to be patentable, it must not only be novel, but it must also be a non-obvious improvement over the prior art. This determination is made by deciding whether the invention sought to be patented would have been obvious "to one of ordinary skill in the art." In other words, the invention is compared to the prior art and a determination is made whether the differences in the *new invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the type of technology* used in the invention."_

Ink jetting onto textiles have been around commercially for 15 years or more. 
It's quite reasonable to think that any of these machines could jet white ink. " *obviously*"
The only caveat was the white _ink-jet _ink wasn't developed yet!


----------



## allamerican-aeoon (Aug 14, 2007)

Hey All
Can you notice that I am the only one who BLA BLa bLa blA here amoung 11 defenders? Strange. I know I am the one of the smallest among all. Well~
I guess I am the dumbest, well I belong to mini golf putting range. put put and scraching head WHY?


----------



## JeridHill (Feb 8, 2006)

ReneeMarlea said:


> _"In order for an invention to be patentable, it must not only be novel, but it must also be a non-obvious improvement over the prior art. This determination is made by deciding whether the invention sought to be patented would have been obvious "to one of ordinary skill in the art." In other words, the invention is compared to the prior art and a determination is made whether the differences in the *new invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the type of technology* used in the invention."_
> 
> Ink jetting onto textiles have been around commercially for 15 years or more.
> It's quite reasonable to think that any of these machines could jet white ink. " *obviously*"
> The only caveat was the white _ink-jet _ink wasn't developed yet!


This is exactly what I was getting at earlier. This is the next obvious step. I contacted a patent lawyer before about an idea that was an overall improvement of something and they told me it was not patentable because it was the next obvious step. That's why it amazes me that Kornit's patent was approved and why it needs challenged.


----------



## zoom_monster (Sep 20, 2006)

markc said:


> .......
> Kornit are saying they invented it before 2003. Not many except TJet were working with it in those days
> 
> quote]
> ...


----------



## DAGuide (Oct 2, 2006)

It looks like some people are fired up about this. Maybe some background as to the process of litigating a paten claim will help people understand this a little better. LEGAL DISCLAIMER: At no point shall this post be considered legal advice for any of the parties to this case or any 3rd party. This is just general information that could be found doing some basic research at a law library.

First, it seems that people are afraid of the concept of a jury trial. This is a core principle of our legal system. Everyone assumes that a judge has the ability to understand complex matters better than a group of jury members. You never know who is going to be on that jury (i.e. what their backgrounds are). Second, the jury members can be swayed by either side. Thus, if we were to believe that all the jury members are simple minded and the defenses do a good job explaining why in simple terms that patent should not be applied... do you see where I am going? In most complex business cases, the attorneys don't want a jury because it can be confusing. When a jury is confused, they tend either not to make a decision or to go with the defendants since the plaintiff has the burden of proof. The reason for asking for a jury trial is the hopes that you will get a higher award for damages. So the attorneys need to do a risk v. reward analysis on whether to ask for a jury trial.

Second, it is very important to understand that the USPTO is most likely to play a larger role in this than the jury. I believe for a cost of around $2,500, one of the defendants can contest the patent. This means that the USPTO will review the patent and listen to arguements as to why some or all the claims in the patent should be upheld / removed. For example, Direct Imaging System (original patent on dtg printing) has an ongoing patent case against US Screen and the Freseners. Here is a link to the basics of this case - 
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-flmdce/case_no-8:2005cv02224/case_id-176588/. From what I am told, this case is still in the hands of the USPTO. So the patent is going to have to pass re-examination from the USPTO before every going to trial. Everything that people have argued in this thread and more will come up at the re-examination. One thing missed in this thread is that Kornit did not refer to DIS patent. There are a lot of arguments to be made and some of the defendants have really good legal counsel that I am sure will do a great job.

Finally from an decorators standpoint, nothing is going to happen for a long time. The link to the case above shows that it started in December of 2005 and it is still ongoing. Dealing with both the USPTO and the court system takes a lot of time. Things will shake out one way or another and we all might have to make some adjustments - that's life. By then, the cost of the printers and ink might drop so low that paying a license fee will not matter.

Remember, this is business. All the manufacturers have the opportunity to work out a licensing agreement with Kornit. All (or some of them at least) reviewed the C&D letter and patent when they got it and made a business decision one way or another. If you look at the list of defendants, you will notice some key names in the industry are not listed. I am not sure if this means that these companies have a licensing agreement or if Kornit decided not to go after them for specific reasons. But this is always an option for the manufacturers.

Time will tell.

Mark
P.S. Based on the comments above, being an attorney makes me a winner! Thanks for making my Thursday feel a little better.


----------



## DAGuide (Oct 2, 2006)

zoom_monster said:


> markc said:
> 
> 
> > .......Hmm....Maybe this is why USSPIT had to be snuffed at the hands of Hirsch/Kornit.
> ...


----------



## Justin Walker (Dec 6, 2006)

ryanwestman said:


> Kornit's value is not in coming up with the idea of using a white underbase that concept has been around much longer then even Kornit itself. Their value is coming up with a system that prints garments quickly and efficiently. It's their printers and their ink formulations that work as a system. The controllers, the software, the components, etc - that make them what they are.


Maybe that's why they need to knock the competition out of business.... Their "value" doesn't always add up to what it should! 

When quality and customer service fail, ATTACK THE COMPETITION!


----------



## sunnydayz (Jun 22, 2007)

I have to agree with Joe, I have said it before and I say it again, the epson based machines are not made the way that patent is written. They only have the one printhead, where kornits patent clearly states that it has two printheads, one for white ink and one for color. The only machine I see fitting into those designs is the new brother printer. I think that is a serious difference between Kornits machine patent and the epson based machines.


----------



## zoom_monster (Sep 20, 2006)

DAGuide said:


> Interesting concept. It might have something to do with it, but the financial side of the business was probably much larger.


 
The Copy on the posting here does not have a "filed" date but it is interesting that Hirsch (a Kornit dealer) would offer to "save" an early adopter only to let it die..... then when all is said and done, a lawsuit is re-publicized in seemingly perfect timing.


----------



## allamerican-aeoon (Aug 14, 2007)

zoom_monster said:


> The Copy on the posting here does not have a "filed" date but it is interesting that Hirsch (a Kornit dealer) would offer to "save" an early adopter only to let it die..... then when all is said and done, a lawsuit is re-publicized in seemingly perfect timing.


FYI
Hirsch is not Top list dealer to Kornit. My friends are. As I said before, TARGET is not small timer like us. (US screen, SWF, Ana, Mesa -- Me all) In Kornit shoes, it will be easier to deal with competitor now than later. Let's see how the big guys move. Big guy bent south we all have not many choice. Go north? Well we will see ~.
What did I said? I said usually deep pocket wins. Lawyers win. 
110% agree with DAguide. Smart and wise guy. He Knows prediction but not tell all.


----------



## cavedave (Dec 5, 2006)

I lots my business to a patent issue with EFI over 10 years ago, EFI have a big investment in Kornit and probably a large share holding.
Its seems to be the way they do business, I dont think they really care if they can win the patent or not, they will do lots of damage in the process. Small companies cant afford to fight these in the US and you spend most of your time and all your money on lawyers and not getting on trying to run your business. Its incredibly damaging to small companies.

In any patent, you only have to infringe on a single claim (not all claims), claim 1 is the main claim and to me the argument is when it says
opaque *white* ink layer directly onto a dark textile piece
I would say that as all the Epson solutions (and even Kornits solution) requires a pretreatment that it doesnt apply. But its an argument that the lawyers will have a field day with and the costs will be in the millions to fight this.

Also if you win as a defndant of a case like this, you dont get any money automatically from Kornit for your costs and would have to then take a separate legal action to regain your costs. So you if you win you still lose.

Unfortunatly, this will certainly put a number of the smaller companies out of business as well as stopping some new ones come in to it in the US, that or they will have to do a license with Kornit as its the cheaper option, if Kornit will do a license and drop the legal action. Which they might not....


Wish all defendants the best of luck.

Best regards

-David


----------



## ryanwestman (Oct 14, 2007)

Luckily things have changed somewhat, all it takes is enough people writing about this to the point where any search on Kornit comes up with negative conversations about them as the result of their actions. 

It makes the company undesirable to be a customer of or work for. These are old games that Kornit is playing that have worked for a long time, but luckily this time is drawing to a close. 

Let them play in the old manner, the important thing is that now globalization and electronic commerce systems pretty much remove the walls of having to be in the US to do business in the US for a large number of business models. 

Even better is that the size of the companies they are attacking won't give them any major reward at the end. (Except maybe Brother) Personally I don't see Brother giving much concession.

I will rejoice the day that Kornit tires itself out fighting the constant battle in an attempt to enforce such a pathetic and unenforceable patent.


----------



## CanExplorer (Apr 8, 2007)

Justin Walker said:


> Maybe that's why they need to knock the competition out of business.... Their "value" doesn't always add up to what it should!
> 
> When quality and customer service fail, ATTACK THE COMPETITION!


Yes! Yes! _Hir***/**rnit killed US screen, then all the other competitions!_


----------



## Astragoth (Jul 9, 2009)

Wow....Very interesting. I had no idea something like that happened and I "am" a Kornit 931DS owner. I too believe that Kornit shouldn't follow this path....As for the lawyers....I don't think the lawyers care about people losing their companies and their jobs... They never did...After all, those are the people who defend proven killers, rapists etc.... It is all about the money....Unfortunately...


----------



## DAGuide (Oct 2, 2006)

Astragoth said:


> As for the lawyers....I don't think the lawyers care about people losing their companies and their jobs... They never did...After all, those are the people who defend proven killers, rapists etc.... It is all about the money....Unfortunately...


I am all good with bagging on attorneys... as I am one and have worked with some of the not-so-nice ones in the past. But that is going too far with a generalization. I could easily say that Garment Decorators don't care about anything but money because some of them print designs that they know they don't have a right to solely to put money in their pocket. Show me one profession that does not have some bad apples in the barrel? You can't because it does not exist. How do you think our industry looks to people outside of it when companies like American Apparel are alleged to employ illegal aliens and use someone else's identification? What about all the knocked off garments that are seized every week by the FBI?

As for defending "proven killers, rapists etc"... there are plenty of other countries that you can go to if you have a problem with our legal system. There are too many cases where someone is put into jail for years only to find out that they were later innocent. How would you like it if it happened to you? That is my biggest fear as there is nothing you can do to replace that lost time with your family.

This lawsuit is nothing more than an intellectual property case that courts will determine whether Kornit has good cause to keep their patent (and then should be paid for their intellectual property rights) or to invalidate it. This is the heart of business in America. We are one of the strongest countries in the world when it comes to Research & Development. Take away the intellectual property rights (patents, trademarks, copyrights,...) and every business will suffer - including your's as anyone could take the designs you spent time creating and knock them off. 

Sorry if this comes of harsh, but I think too many decorators lack the knowledge when it comes to I.P. and they have no clue how much it is helping their business. As for trying to put all of Kornit’s competition out-of-business, this is not the case. Each defendant received notice about the patent and it is my understanding that Kornit was willing to setup a license agreement. Thus, it is in Kornit’s financial interest for these guys to stay in business so they can get royalties. Remember, Kornit is selling at a price point that is significantly higher than almost all of them. So the defendants are serving a complete different market segment.

Mark


----------



## Astragoth (Jul 9, 2009)

DAGuide said:


> I am all good with bagging on attorneys... as I am one and have worked with some of the not-so-nice ones in the past. But that is going too far with a generalization. I could easily say that Garment Decorators don't care about anything but money because some of them print designs that they know they don't have a right to solely to put money in their pocket. Show me one profession that does not have some bad apples in the barrel? You can't because it does not exist. How do you think our industry looks to people outside of it when companies like American Apparel are alleged to employ illegal aliens and use someone else's identification? What about all the knocked off garments that are seized every week by the FBI?
> 
> As for defending "proven killers, rapists etc"... there are plenty of other countries that you can go to if you have a problem with our legal system. There are too many cases where someone is put into jail for years only to find out that they were later innocent. How would you like it if it happened to you? That is my biggest fear as there is nothing you can do to replace that lost time with your family.
> 
> ...


Dear Mark,

I think you misunderstood my post. It was not an effort to make lawyers look bad, but then again I do understand your effort to defend the profession since you are one of them.  I was just replying to a previous post arguing that the lawyers need to think about all those people losing their jobs and companies etc. Now, I don't believe you think that the lawyers are going to say "Hmmm...yes...we have to protect the rights of those people, so let us not proceed and let us not earn bags of money...." I still don't believe that Kornit is right about this whole thing, but that is my personal opinion and I am not trying to enforce it on anyone...

As for me having to go to another country because of the legal system in the US, that is another story, but being in Europe, it is not something that really interests me.  Again, I think you are taking things way too personally...

It is true that it is in its best interest to keep the other companies alive, but by asking for royalties that would make their products more expensive than they currently are, cutting the difference of the prices between Kornit and the other manufacturers. 

In the end my friend, it is not our fight, but I will be looking for news...It is quite interesting...


----------



## noodle (Jan 27, 2009)

Yes and I think it wasn't kornit who are the first to invent this technology to print white underbase to be able to print on dark garment using garment printer.


----------



## AaronM (Mar 28, 2007)

> Hmm....Maybe this is why USSPIT had to be snuffed at the hands of Hirsch/Kornit.


Definately something to scratch your head about. I wonder if the Barnes circus was a set-up as well to divert people from this subject and the taking of Hirsch private?


----------



## noodle (Jan 27, 2009)

Even tough USSPIT did die, their first generation of their product still exist right on the market somewhere and I believe that their first generation product was in production far before any kornit machine hit the market. It is the proof that USSPIT was one step ahead of kornit. So why dont we use that fact to counter kornit white underbase lawsuit?


----------



## JeridHill (Feb 8, 2006)

The original patent was filed on June 16, 2003 before the first tjet hit the market. I think the bigger issue is whether or not the next logical step for printing on a dark garment is to print a white underbase first. This has been done for years in screen printing and in digital, it's no different. You must have a white underbase to print on dark garments. IMO, this patent never should have been awarded. This is information that I can only assume the patent offices did not have or did not research thoroughly. If they had, the patent never would have been approved.


----------



## sunnydayz (Jun 22, 2007)

I still think that the patent does not directly apply to the epson based machines, as it clearly states that the patent has two print heads one for white ink and one for cmyk. This is clearly not the way it is done with the epson based machines only having one printhead.


----------



## DandyLion (Apr 9, 2009)

Anyone heard any updates on this topic? I was going to post and ask but found this older thread about it, a lot of information there. We've recently talked to a rep about the Sprint and they were telling us about the lawsuit. They actually talked us out of getting one right now, telling us to wait and see what happens with it. They made it sound a lot more serious then what it sounded like in this thread.


----------



## 23spiderman (Jun 26, 2008)

DandyLion said:


> Anyone heard any updates on this topic? I was going to post and ask but found this older thread about it, a lot of information there. We've recently talked to a rep about the Sprint and they were telling us about the lawsuit. They actually talked us out of getting one right now, telling us to wait and see what happens with it. They made it sound a lot more serious then what it sounded like in this thread.


AnaJet suggested that you wait and not buy a Sprint right now?


----------



## DAGuide (Oct 2, 2006)

I believe all the manufacturers of white ink printers were recently served (around or during the SGIA Show). Any lawsuit, especially when you are talking about one that is backed by a large company with cash (i.e. EFI), is a serious thing. I doubt this is going to be resolved in the near future though.

Mark


----------



## DandyLion (Apr 9, 2009)

23spiderman said:


> AnaJet suggested that you wait and not buy a Sprint right now?


He was a rep for a few different companies like that, I know Anajet and Kornit for sure... that's the way I understood my boss that talked to them


----------



## Titchimp (Nov 30, 2006)

DandyLion said:


> He was a rep for a few different companies like that, I know Anajet and Kornit for sure... that's the way I understood my boss that talked to them


So he told you not to buy the sprint but to buy the much more expensive kornit?


----------



## zoom_monster (Sep 20, 2006)

DandyLion said:


> He was a rep for a few different companies like that, I know Anajet and Kornit for sure... that's the way I understood my boss that talked to them


Hearsay. Seriously, If there was a rep that sold two types of DTG technology( Hircsh for example), there would be no question as to wether Kornit would even allow this. I believe someone is yanking someone's chain. As Mark explained, the fat lady hasn't sung and it'll be years and several generations of Dtg before this opera is done. If you're trying to choose between a A and a K.... A lot more homework needs to be done.


----------



## 23spiderman (Jun 26, 2008)

zoom_monster said:


> If you're trying to choose between a A and a K.... A lot more homework needs to be done.


Very true!


----------



## DandyLion (Apr 9, 2009)

zoom_monster said:


> Hearsay. Seriously, If there was a rep that sold two types of DTG technology( Hircsh for example), there would be no question as to wether Kornit would even allow this. I believe someone is yanking someone's chain. As Mark explained, the fat lady hasn't sung and it'll be years and several generations of Dtg before this opera is done. If you're trying to choose between a A and a K.... A lot more homework needs to be done.



Trust me, we've done plenty of homework thank you and we were calling about the Anajet (Kornits are way too much for us)... He started telling us about the lawsuit with Kornit, that's how they got brought up... So are we ok to buy a Sprint then, because we do athletic apparel and deal with the different materials, like underarmor, asics, badger, etc, and that's the only machine we've really found that can do different materials.


----------



## Robert72 (Aug 12, 2006)

Hi,
to my knowledge, the Sprint uses the same Dupont ink than the other myriad of epson-based garment printers. Those machines/inksets aren't tailored to print on sports apparel, only on cotton. You could have some luck printing on white poly garments, but forget the darks. The only machine which claims it can print on light and dark sport clothing is Kornit. (I've seen a red basketball t-shirt with white numbers printed on a Kornit and it was very very stretchable without cracking, but I didn't take the t-shirt with me to test wash it, so I don't know the result in real world).


----------



## zoom_monster (Sep 20, 2006)

Dandylion,
I was just saying that The same rep Selling Kornit, would be unable to sell a competeting white printer. As for the Athletic angle, do just a bit more research on that. Anajet does have the polyester ink, but unless you plan on only doing white fabric, you may have an issue because there is not yet white ink and pretreat for 100% poly fabric. Understand also that in athletic printing, CMYK ususally isn't the mode of choice for matching spot colors. I love my Anajet and It's great for the team names and numbers thing, but don't expect it to print white and black on Orange jerseys or basketball shorts, and compete in the same price arena as a screener would.

Ian


----------



## DandyLion (Apr 9, 2009)

Either way, what are your suggestions then? We know it doesn't print on dark polys but would it still be ok to get as far as these lawsuits?


----------



## 23spiderman (Jun 26, 2008)

DandyLion said:


> Either way, what are your suggestions then? We know it doesn't print on dark polys but would it still be ok to get as far as these lawsuits?


I don't think the lawsuits are an issue at all. IF they are, it wouldn't be for several years down the road.


----------



## DAGuide (Oct 2, 2006)

US Screen was (or still is) in the lawsuit with the original dtg patent for at least two years. Every lawsuit is different and can take a different amount of time. The worse thing that could happen would be the manufacturer goes out of business and you lose tech support or a warranty. At this point, I would look at it this way. Can you get all of your ROI back from the printer within 2 years. If yes, than I doubt the lawsuit should make a decision because the odds are that it will be over by then is not great. Just one way to look at it.

By the way, there is nothing unique about the Anajet printer that allows it to print on other types of media. It is an Epson printer like many of the other dtg printers. The key to printing on other substrates is either the ink, pretreatment or top coat. Depending on the size of substrate (length, width, height) that you want to print on, you will want a printer that gives you that capability. I am not sure what the platen to the print head height on the Sprint is. That might be important if you are trying to print tall items.

Just some things to consider while you are going through your research.

Mark


----------



## DAGuide (Oct 2, 2006)

I was doing some research on patents for dtg printing and noticed that Kornit's got another patent approved through USPTO - United States Patent: 7954921. If the link does not work, do a search for Patent #7,954,921.

The most interesting thing I notice was how much info is listed in the "Other References" section. Never seen that many things listed before. Not sure if one can read one way or another as to whether the first patent that started all this discussion in this thread is going to pass or not.

Mark


----------



## zoom_monster (Sep 20, 2006)

Mark... sounds like they have it covered

"It will be appreciated that the invention is not limited to what has been described hereinabove merely by way of example. Rather, the invention is limited solely by the claims that follow. 

It is expected that during the life of this patent many relevant liquid applicator devices and ink applicator devices and systems will be developed and the scope of the terms herein, particularly of the terms "spraying nozzles" and "inkjet nozzles", is intended to include all such new technologies a priori. 

Additional objects, advantages, and novel features of the present invention will become apparent to one ordinarily skilled in the art upon examination of the following examples, which are not intended to be limiting. Additionally, each of the various embodiments and aspects of the present invention as delineated hereinabove and as claimed in the claims section below finds experimental support in the following examples. 

It is appreciated that certain features of the invention, which are, for clarity, described in the context of separate embodiments, may also be provided in combination in a single embodiment. Conversely, various features of the invention, which are, for brevity, described in the context of a single embodiment, may also be provided separately or in any suitable subcombination. 

Although the invention has been described in conjunction with specific embodiments thereof, it is evident that many alternatives, modifications and variations will be apparent to those skilled in the art. Accordingly, it is intended to embrace all such alternatives, modifications and variations that fall within the spirit and broad scope of the appended claims."


----------



## pawpaw (May 10, 2012)

Sorry to revive such an old thread, but I'm curious to know...

So how is it going?


----------



## Mabuzi (Jul 3, 2007)

Who invented DTG printing? Maybe they should sue or how about the guy that invented screen printing.

I hear some guys bought some patent for a part of 3d printing and are now suing everybody over 3d printing even though they do not manufacture. Like Google and Apple (i-phone was invented by a Frenchman) buying the Motorola patents.

I suppose they want to kill of all opposition but as far as I know they did not invent bu copied.


----------



## WholesalePrint (Sep 23, 2008)

Compromise has happened


----------



## allamerican-aeoon (Aug 14, 2007)

WholesalePrint said:


> Compromise has happened


How do you know? Lol. Were you in the middle of it? While someone middle of it do not understand what you are saying. Often you are making bold statements. I wish I have your balls. Did you read anyone get sued says same as you? 
Good luck with Patriot again, I like the team.
Cheers! Beers are on me always.


----------



## WholesalePrint (Sep 23, 2008)

I have been told of compromises from reliable source but Not really at liberty to say what they are so lets just be happy WE ARE ALL still printing. 


I don't fall into the trap of "only if you prove it, I'll believe it" BS. nor do i have to be a rocket scienctist to understand the simplest of human nature.
AS you would say Peter "Even big dog thinks twice before biting smaller dog with bigger teeth" LOL

PATRIOTS RULE!!!!!!!!


----------



## pawpaw (May 10, 2012)

WholesalePrint said:


> I have been told of compromises from reliable source but Not really at liberty to say what they are so lets just be happy WE ARE ALL still printing.
> 
> 
> I don't fall into the trap of "only if you prove it, I'll believe it" BS. nor do i have to be a rocket scienctist to understand the simplest of human nature.
> ...


But among the "victim" is Brother... I don't think Brother is a small dog after all...


----------



## allamerican-aeoon (Aug 14, 2007)

WholesalePrint said:


> Compromise has happened


I will tell you this much. You are wrong again. in big way.
However, all Dtg who use white ink future and past are in safe haven.
Cheers! One day we will meet and beers are on me always.


----------



## WholesalePrint (Sep 23, 2008)

If I'm wrong than why you sound like you understand that compromise has happened? You just describe it differently so you say I'm wrong, whatever. Enough already I have to many orders to print toooddles.


----------



## pawpaw (May 10, 2012)

allamerican said:


> I will tell you this much. You are wrong again. in big way.
> However, all Dtg who use white ink future and past are in safe haven.
> Cheers! One day we will meet and beers are on me always.


So a big war really happened then?

Anyway it's good to know we can still use white ink in the future...


----------



## rwshirts (Dec 5, 2007)

along with screenprinting, I am also in the carpet cleaning business. We had a manufacturer years ago that patented or trademarked "hi flow cleaning", in which the cleaning wand flowed more than 2 gallons of solution per minute. Well, all high end truck mounted carpet cleaning systems can flow more than 2 gallons per minute, and wern't allowed to use that term in their advertising. The manufacturer got a lot of negative advertisement for that ploy, but I haven't heard any thing about it lately.

Same type of BS corporate bullying, putting the kabash on smaller companies.


----------



## DAGuide (Oct 2, 2006)

A simple Google search will show that the Kornit patent has gone into re-examination. Here is a copy of the judge's order - [media]http://www.krongoldlaw.com/pdf/Kornit.pdf[/media]. 

Stating that, there is nothing stopping any of the defendants in the case from working out a settlement with Kornit. Most of the time, these types of settlements are not publicly stated because there are benefits to keeping them quiet. 

In this case, I am not sure if I agree with the statement "Same type of BS corporate bullying, putting the kabash on smaller companies." But we are going to have to wait till the USPTO reviews the patent and all the appeals on the USPTO have been exhausted. Then it will go back to the Federal judge if there are any remaining defendants that have not settled. I don't expect to hear anything on this for over 3 years as the USPTO process can be lengthy.

Mark


----------

