issue7en1010

©2010 Static Control Components, Inc. All rights reserved worldwide. The stylized S, Static Control and Odyssey are registered trademarks of Static Control Components, Inc. All other brand or product names are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective companies.

VIEW ON DEMANDwww.scc-inc.com

web

inar

s

Go to www.scc-inc.com to Register

Static Control ZhuhaiTelephone: +86 756 3320300 800 630 0700 Fax: +86 756 3321700E-Mail: [email protected]

Static Control Hong KongTelephone: +852 2427 6011Fax: +852 2427 6677E-Mail: [email protected]

Over 14,000 Products

FREE View on Demand Webinars

©2010 Static Control Components, Inc. All rights reserved worldwide. The stylized S, Static Control and Odyssey are registered trademarks of Static Control Components, Inc. All other brand or product names are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective companies.

VIEW ON DEMANDwww.scc-inc.com

web

inar

sGo to www.scc-inc.com to Register

Static Control ZhuhaiTelephone: +86 756 3320300 800 630 0700 Fax: +86 756 3321700E-Mail: [email protected]

Static Control Hong KongTelephone: +852 2427 6011Fax: +852 2427 6677E-Mail: [email protected]

Over 14,000 Products

FREE View on Demand Webinars

Issue7--1-48-.indd 1 2010-9-17 14:10:27

October 2010 | www.recyclingtimes.com.cn2

All rights reserved. © 2010 by Recycling Times Media Corporation. The contents are not be to copied or republished without official written consent. The editorial content does not represent official positions of Recycling Times Media Corporation.

RecyclingTimes

In the last few months, both Canon and Lexmark have taken legal action against

manufacturers of replacement t o n e r c a r t r i d g e s , d r a w i n g attention yet again to the legal issues faced by the industry. To keep you up-to-date, we’ve included in this issue a review of the major legal dispute between OEMs and aftermarket we’re aware of. Both OEMs and aftermarket players have had wins and losses. The truth is both OEMs and the aftermarket have to play by the rules and respect others’ intellectual property. Aftermarket players should learn the lesson and find the right way forward.

In this issue we interview US patent attorney Ed O’Connor, who has represented clients before the United States Supreme Court and the USITC, including Chinese companies. He shares his opinions on issues faced by the industry and gives some free legal advice!

The IDC’s Worldwide Quarterly Hardcopy Peripherals Tracker shows that the total market for printers grew 20% year over year in the second quarter 2010 to 29 million units while shipment value increased 14% year over the year to $13.3 billion. This is the third consecutive quarter of year-over-year unit growth and the first double-digit growth for both units and shipment value since early 2000.

Inkjet remains the dominant technology with a 66% share in the overall hardcopy peripherals market, a year-over-year growth of 14%.

By the time you pick up this issue, RemaxAsia Expo 2010 will have grandly opened. Four years in the making, RemaxAsia Expo has become the world’s largest professional trade show for the printer supplies industry, with an exhibition space of more than 23,000 square meters.

Our motto, ‘by the industry, for the industry’, will continue to drive us to produce the best trade events and publications for our readers. We’re always ready to listen to your advice and suggestions. Please don’t hesitate to drop by our booth at the trade show or send your views to us.

Thank you for coming to our show. I wish you a most rewarding trip here in Zhuhai!

Tony LeePublisher & Managing Director

editorialeditorialwww.recyclingtimes.com.cnPublisher & Managing Director

Tony [email protected]

DirectorsDavid Gibbons

[email protected] Lo

[email protected]

EditorialEditors

Johanna Breen Cherry Xu

[email protected] Yin

[email protected] Jiang

[email protected] Ou

[email protected] Lin

[email protected]

SalesSales Manager

Anna [email protected]

Account ManagerKevin Zhu

[email protected] Executives

Joy [email protected]

Sally [email protected]

Susi [email protected]

Operations and MarketingOperations Manager

Charles [email protected]

Operations AssistantWilliam Feng

[email protected] Manager

Morrow [email protected]

Marketing AssistantEugenia Zhai

[email protected]

Feng [email protected]

Published byRecycling Times Media Corporation

Address5F Pacific Insurance Building, Jiuzhou Ave, Zhuhai, China

Tel：+86 (0)756 3220716 Fax：+86 (0)756 3220717

Email：[email protected] Website：www.recyclingtimes.com.cn

RecyclingTimesThe magazine by the industry, for the industry.

Recycling Times Magazine

Issue7--1-48-.indd 2 2010-9-17 14:10:29

www.recyclingtimes.com.cn | October 2010 3

Recycling Times Magazine

contentscontentswww.recyclingtimes.com.cn

Industry UpdatesE-Cycle Wisconsin in effect

Katun Corporation partners with Print Management

Solutions Group for MPS

Armor to partner with S.T. Sangyo

Lexon/INTEK merger still on track

Eco Service strengthens its position in China

Print-Rite wins HK MAKE Award

5

6

7

Product ReleaseMIS Computer launches MIS Deluxe Basic

Coates Toners releases HP LaserJet P2055 MICR type toner

Metrofuser introduces LaserJet P3015 fuser

Faroudja offers bulk toner for Xerox DocuColor 30 and

dust collector

Green Project releases toner cartridges for Dell 3130

Apex releases chip for Samsung SCX-5635/5835 series printers

Jadi offers fixing toner for HP and Samsung machines

8

9

10

OEM newsKodak releases ESP 9250 multifunction printer

HP and Dell expands to services

Global Imaging Systems acquires Georgia Duplicating Products

Epson announces Stylus NX625 printer

Canon India eyes 25% growth in MPS

ColorLok standard maximizes printer performance

12

13

FeaturesOEMs vs Aftermarket: Reports from the front-line15

Just a Minute with David GibbonsFight for market shares4

ProfilesAn interview with Ed O'Connor36

Legal IssuesUtility model protection39

Tech ZoneRemanufacturing the Okidata MB-260 MFP series toner cartridge44

Market DataUS printer import and export by country in 2010

Worldwide hardcopy peripherals recorded double-digit

year-on-year growth in Q2 2010

The future of the office document

2428

32

US printer import and export by country in 2010

Sales of inkjet photo printers jumped 27.5% during the first 6 months of 2010, with America importing far more inkjet printers than it exports. China, Japan and Vietnam make almost 95% of imported laser printers, while Mexico is the largest export market for US laser printers as of June 2010. Read this article to know more about US import and export of printers in 2010.

OEMs vs Aftermarket: Reports from the front-line

In order to survive, the aftermarket is continuing to fight back with no indication of surrendering the battle. But the aftermarket must innovate and regulate its operation activities. Aftermarket companies that focus on quality and respect intellectual property rights can go a long way in the market.

An interview with Ed O'ConnorAs far as remanufactured products are concerned, be sure to determine the country of first sale. When making new products for use in OEM printers, the aftermarket should be very careful to design around patents whenever possible and/or to investigate possible patents which could be used against them to determine if those patents can survive attacks on their validity.

Issue7--1-48-.indd 3 2010-9-17 14:10:31

Just a Minute with David GibbonsRecycling Times Magazine


Fight for market sharesThe pending legal battle between Canon and China’s Ninestar is a

timely reminder that the original equipment remanufacturers (OEMs)

and remanufacturers continue to be at loggerheads with each other.

And that’s where the real industry competition should be also!

For the past twenty years remanufacturers have continued to

compete with each other, instead of with the OEMs. Time and again

I have seen a remanufacturer come into town and set up business.

And the first thing they do is sell their remanufactured cartridges

cheaper than their remanufacturing competitors.

Some businesses believe all they have to do is add 50c to the

cost of the replaced parts, toner and labour. Others have told me

they recharge 5,000 units per month with a profit margin of $1 per

cartridge.

In each case, the remanufacturer thinks he is successful because he

has beaten his remanufacturing competitors, and won the contract.

But has he really?

I cannot help but notice some remanufacturers set their prices

between 60% and 80% of the OEM

prices. They are mostly dearer

than other remanufacturers, but

they continue to be in business

decades later.

They can afford to offer real

service, have little problem

finding empties, and have

money in the bank. One such company only recharges 800

cartridges every month, but they make a profit margin (after

overheads) of $15 per unit. So who is the most successful at

the end of the day?

Take your favourite fruit pie. And cut it into 10 slices. The OEMs

are eating 7 of those slices. Which leaves 3 pieces of the pie. Why

are you squabbling with the remanufacturer down the road over

those three pieces? Why not go and chase down the biggest piece

of the pie?

David Gibbons is Director of Recycling Times. He has been a school principal, marketer, businessman,

remanufacturer and Executive Director of the Australasian Cartridge Remanufacturers Association until 2005.

He is currently the director of communication of a large South Pacific organization.

Industry UpdatesRecycling Times Magazine


W i sconsin's new electronics

r e c y c l i n g l a w t o o k e f f e c t

September 1, 2010.

The legislation has paved the way for the

establishment of a statewide program, now

called E-Cycle Wisconsin, to collect and recycle

certain electronics. The program is based on a

product stewardship approach, which assigns

primar y responsibility for collection and

recycling to the manufacturer. The law also bans

certain electronics from Wisconsin landfills and

incinerators after September 1, 2010.

Manufacturers, recyclers and collectors are

now legally required to ensure that recycling

is done in an environmentally sound manner.

There are also requirements for electronics

retailers and local government responsible

units (RUs). The law covers electronics such

as televisions, computers and printers sold to/

used by Wisconsin households, K-12 public

schools and Milwaukee Parental Choice Program

schools.

All Wisconsin residents are affected by a ban

on disposing of many electronics in a landfill or

incinerator after September 1, 2010. Wisconsin

households, K-12 public schools and Milwaukee

Parental Choice program schools are eligible

to recycle electronics under E-Cycle Wisconsin.

There are 5 collection sites where residents can

bring electronics to recycle.

For more information about E-Cycle Wisconsin,

please visit www.dnr.wi.gov.

E-Cycle Wisconsin in effect

K atun Corporation announces the

formation of a unique and strategic

alliance with Print Management

Solutions Group (PMSG).

Print Management Solutions Group is a well-

respected name in the imaging industry and

in the Managed Print Services (MPS) arena as

Katun says and the partnership is built to “unlock

the key to MPS”.

“Katun is excited to have the opportunity to

partner with PMSG, a Managed Print Services

industry leader. We look forward to leveraging

their extensive t ra in ing and consult ing

capabi l i t ies to the benef i t o f our loya l

customer base,” says Joseph

C. Wagner, vice president of

marketing.

“I t remains an important

p a r t o f K a t u n’ s o n g o i n g

philosophy to develop and form

strategic alliances with leading

organizations that are dedicated

t o p r o v i d i n g e x c e p t i o n a l

products and services that will

help our customers be more

efficient and successful. In this

case, we intend to provide our

dealers with access to top-of-

the-line training and consulting

in the MPS arena – an area

where many dealers have been

struggling to get up to speed.”

PMSG is dedicated to supporting managed

print services init iat ives and provides a

comprehensive suite of consulting and training

resources to the office imaging market.

Tom Cooke, managing principal of Print

Management Solutions Group, and president

of Learning Outsource Group, PMSG’s parent

organization stated, “we could not be more

pleased to form this strategic alliance with

Katun, clearly one of the most recognized

and respected names in the industry. Given

the commitment and rapid transition dealers

must make to the MPS market, this alliance will

immediately impact those dealers wanting to

accelerate their initiatives and simplify their

process.”

Jerry Newberry, a PMSG partner, added, “My

relationship with the Katun organization extends

over 20 years. Katun is synonymous with quality.

Their entry into the MPS environment will

elevate the definition of quality in MPS strategy.

We are excited to be expanding our relationship

with the entire Katun organization.”

Katun Corporation partners with Print Management Solutions Group for MPS

Issue7--1-48-.indd 5 2010-9-17 14:10:39



Armor to partner with S.T. Sangyo

F rench aftermarket printer supplies

manufacturer, Armor, has agreed a

partnership deal for its Armor Office

Printing (AOP) business with its Japanese

counterpart S.T. Sangyo.

The two parties agreed to share to information

and expertise in marketing, industrial property

and patent applications on both Europe and

Asia. The two companies will also share their

R&D expertise in developing new products,

optimise the use of resources and reduce launch

timescales.

In addition to these areas of cooperation, the

partnership will also provide an opportunity

for both companies to expand their global

commercial coverage and move into markets

that would previously have been difficult to

access. For Armor, the first outcome of this

partnership will see its brand listed and sold at

Mediamarkt Shanghai,

the first Mediamarkt in

Asia.

“This partnership is

par t o f our ongoing

d e v e l o p m e n t d r i v e ,

which begun in May

wi th the acquis i t ion

o f We c a r e 4 i n t h e

N e t h e r l a n d s . B y

exchanging information,

both companies can

grow stronger in our

respect ive markets ,”

explains Pierre-Yves Léger, Operations Director

at Armor Office Printing.

S.T. Sangyo is the leading inkjet cartridge

company in Japan, with its headquarters in

Tokyo. The company started as a manufacturer

of printer ribbons in 1976. Now its products

also include compatible and remanufactured

inkjet cartridges. Its subsidiary NS Technology

(C. H) Ltd. is located in Hong Kong and factory

Innotech is located in Shenzhen, China.

Lexon/INTEK merger still on track

L exon Technologies

Inc has announced

that to further the

execution of a Letter of Intent

w i th INTEK Amer ica Inc

(“INTEK”), Lexon has now

completed the due diligence

of INTEK. Discussions have

a lso occur red to address

concerns around the poor

performance of Lexon's toner

manufactur ing operat ion

(Paragon Toner). Although

subject to a definitive agreement between the

Parties and subject to Board and Shareholder

approval, revised deal terms will include:

• Paragon Toner will be repurchased by the

previous owners of Paragon Toner (current

management of Lexon) immediately after the

merger. In return, management will transfer

shares of Lexon to Lexon/INTEK and those

shares will be subsequently retired or cancelled.

• Internet properties of Lexon will not be

disposed of at time of reverse merger.

• Clause in the definitive agreement will allow

for acquisition of Paragon at a later time.

• Company Name and Ticker code change will

occur.

James Park, current CEO of Lexon, stated, “We

felt because of our lackluster performance last

quarter, that including Paragon Toner at this

time would hurt the momentum of the merged

entity. Moreover, we have already implemented

restructuring measures to bring our company

back to profitability. Our first concern is

always for our shareholders, and the future

performance of Lexon.”

Lexon is currently identifying a suitable audit

firm to begin and complete the audit of INTEK

to be filed along with the 8k upon the time

of merger. The proposed merger is subject to

a definitive Merger Agreement between the

parties.

James Park further stated: “During the due

diligence process, we are now more impressed

with the growth potential of INTEK as a public

entity. With strong, disciplined management,

combined with healthy revenues and, most

importantly, new business lines that are realistic

and timely, we are more than optimistic for the

future.”

Recycling Times will keep you up to date with

the merger’s progress.

Issue7--1-48-.indd 6 2010-9-17 14:10:39



Print-Rite wins HK MAKE Award

P rint-Rite Holdings Ltd is proud to

announce its win at the Hong Kong

Most Admired Knowledge Enterprise

(MAKE) Awards 2010.

The award presentation ceremony will be held

in November 2010 with Arnald Ho, Print-Rite’s,

chairman, being invited to the ceremony.

P r i n t - R i t e h a s a l s o b e e n f e a t u r e d i n

Transformation and Upgrade files prepared

by the Hong Kong Productivity Council for

“transforming creativity into value-added

products”.

C o s t r e d u c t i o n s a n d t e c h n o l o g i c a l

breakthroughs are challenges for R&D. As a

supplier in the aftermarket sector, Print-Rite

needs to be creative in developing alternative

solutions rather than following the same

technological approaches adopted by OEM

suppliers. At the same time, Print-Rite strives to

stay ahead as a cost leader.

Arnald Ho, Chairman of Print-Rite Holdings

Ltd, says, “We realized there are businesses

built around the remanufacturing of printer

cartridges in the US in our earlier years. From

the environmental perspective, not only is the

dumping of used cartridges wasteful, it also

causes ecological pollution. If we refill the empty

cartridges and clean the other components, then

the cartridges can be reused. That’s why I think

this idea is feasible.” He’s also confident about

expanding the business into mainland China.

The Hong Kong MAKE Award was f irst

in t roduced in 2008 and hos ted by the

Knowledge Management Research Centre of

the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. The

purpose of this award is not just to acknowledge

commitment to Knowledge Management (KM)

but also to bring public recognition to those

organizations that have achieved outstanding

performance in KM practices.

For more information please go to www.

makeaward.com.

Eco Service strengthens its position in China

E m p t y i n k j e t c a r t r i d g e b r o ke r

Eco Service is strengthening its

posit ion on the global market.

First shipments of cartridges from Europe

are being delivered to the Chinese branch

of the company. The broker est imates

that the volume of orders handled by Eco

Service China will have increased up to 200

thousand units monthly by the end of the

year.

“I am certain that Eco Service's presence

in China will soon pay off and within the

next two years it will be reflected by a quick

growth in sales in this part of the world,

which will consequently let us become one

of the major suppliers there,” said Marcin

Adamski, CEO at Eco Service.

Eco Service China began its operations

in mid June and it is currently receiving

f i rs t del iver ies f rom Europe. L ocat ing

the logist ics centre in Hong Kong has

s t r e a m l i n e d t r a n s p o r t a t i o n o f i n k j e t

cartridges in this part of the world. Thanks

to that orders can now be combined, which

allows for their quicker and more frequent

handling. It is Eco Service's intention to be

able to carry out orders in weekly cycles,

while deliveries are expected to go beyond

the present limits and reach 200 units per

month.

Eco Service China is another Eco Service's

foreign branch. Eco Service also owns

a daughter company in Germany. With

support of TBG it runs its trade operations

in the western part of Europe. Now the well-

tried European model is being implemented

in Asia. The company, operating in America

apart from the European market, is going to

collect 4 million empty cartridges from the

market this year, which will make it one of

the most efficient European brokers as the

company claims.

Issue7--1-48-.indd 7 2010-9-17 14:10:41

Product ReleaseRecycling Times Magazine


R efill machine manufacturer MIS

Computer has launched a new kit to

refill all black and color cartridges,

adding to its Deluxe family.

T h e M I S D e l u x e B a s i c i s a c o m p a c t

combination of cartridge cleaning machine,

refilling machine and print head priming

machine. Every available variety of sponged and

non-sponged black and color cartridges can be

refilled using MIS Deluxe Basic.

The new machine also features the vacuum

filling technique, which the company says will

guarantee OEM quality printouts.

The MIS Deluxe Basic comes with an in-built

feature to clean and flush cartridges. It doesn’t

occupy a large space in the workshop and four

cartridges can be refilled at the same time. Like

the other Deluxe machines, the new addition

primes the print head as soon as the cartridge is

refilled.

According to MIS, MIS Deluxe Basic is “the

most affordable member of the Deluxe Family”.

The asking price is US $995.

MIS Computer launches MIS Deluxe Basic

M etrofuser has introduced

r e m a n u f a c t u r e d f u s e r s

for the Hewlett Packard

LaserJet P3010 and P3015 printers (RM1-

6274).

“Reliable laser printer parts solutions

are in high demand with the advent of

more feature-rich laser printers in the

marketplace - part icular ly for Hewlett

P a c k a r d L a s e r J e t p r i n t e r s , ” s a y s W i l l

DeMuth, Chief Operating Officer. “Our

c u s t o m e r s r e q u i r e t h e m o s t p r e c i s e

imaging technology in this demanding

market and our R&D team has devised a

solution for the P3015 fuser.”

“We believe remanufacturing is not only

an eco-friendly alternative, but it is also

a chance for the part to evolve from its

original state. At Metrofuser each repair

generation is an evolution to greater quality

- a cont inuous improvement from the

original factory model. From implementing

engineering upgrades and component-level

redesigns all the way through to process

engineering efficiencies, the evolution and

innovation never stops at Metrofuser.”

Metrofuser's remanufactured fusers for

HP’s L aserJet pr inters of fer br i l l iant ly

crisp black and white printouts and are

guaranteed against defects such as image

ghosting, toner buildup and film tearing.

“Our LaserJet fusers hold up to the most

demanding conditions offering unequaled

durability,” DeMuth adds. “These fusers

work flawlessly with OEM and compatible

toners.”

About MetrofuserMetrofuser remanufactures and distributes

laser printer parts, remanufactured printers

and offers service training for HP, Lexmark

and Canon laser printers. The company

offers a broad array of laser printer products

from its Eastern and Western distribution

hubs including fusers, maintenance kits,

boards, and paper handling assemblies. For

more information, visit www.metrofuser.

com, or call 888-Fusers-1 Ext 107.

Metrofuser introduces LaserJet P3015 fuser

• Contact MISTel: +90 5552 4313 39Website: www.miscomputer.comWebsite: www.misrefillmachine.com

C oates Toners, a leading global

m a n u f a c t u r e r o f c o l o r a n d

monochrome aftermarket & OEM

toners as it claims, announces the release of

its newly developed HP LaserJet P2055 type

toner.

Larry Berti, CMO of Coates Toners, said

“being one of the global leaders in both OEM

and aftermarket MICR toner technologies,

Coates is committed to bring high quality

products to the market. The new LaserJet

2055MICR product achieves two crit ical

objectives - average signal strength readings

of 135 and excellent yield.

The product will be packaged in 100kg

drums.

Coates Toners releases HP LaserJet P2055 MICR type toner

• Contact Coates TonersTel: +1 570 675 1131 ext.30Email: [email protected]: www.coatestoners.com.

Issue7--1-48-.indd 8 2010-9-17 14:10:41



G reen Project Inc has announced

the availability of replacement

Dell 3130 BK, C, M and Y toner

cartridges with chips for Dell printer model

numbers 3130cn.

Company president, Joseph Wu, states:

“These high yield replacement Dell toners

were remanufactured with the environment

and quality in mind. The toners are collected

and remanufactured in order to prevent

further waste entering and polluting our

landfil ls. Our research and development

d e p a r t m e n t h a s c r e a t e d a n e x t e n s i v e

remanufacturing process to produce the best

quality print results. Our Dell toners have

vibrant and flawless print results that are

comparable to their OEM counterparts.”

Green Project is a leading manufacturer and

remanufacturer of inkjet and toner cartridges

and provides a free-from-defect guarantee on

all their products. As a wholesaler, with the

understanding that their clients’ customers

are ult imately their own, Green Project

Inc’s aim is to produce and perfect quality

products that meet user needs and standards.

The factor y is ISO 9001 and IS O 14001

certified.

I n September 2010, Apex Microelectronics

Co Ltd announced the release of the

f irst compatible chip for Samsung

SCX-5635/5835 series printers. The chips for

this series of printers utilized tremendously

complex encryption techniques and the MCU

has been out of reach for other manufacturers

in the aftermarket so far. The table shows the

compatibility of thie chip.

But the Apex R&D team has managed to break

through the barrier and has

the jump on its competitors

with this release. Apex claims

the result is comparable with

OEM products in function

and quality.

T h e s e r i e s p r o d u c t s

are segmented into four

regions: Europe, US, Korea

and China.

For more information, log on to www.apexmic.

com or contact your account manager.

F aroudja Toner has released color

t o n e r i n b a g s f o r t h e X e r o x

D o c u C o l o r 3 0 . Te n - k i l o g r a m

(22-pound) bags are available for black, cyan,

yellow and magenta, and can be purchased

individually or in quantity.

Marketing director Tim Farrell says, “It’s a

versatile toner that also works for the Xerox

DocuColor 30 and 40, but the biggest feature

is savings. With the bulk bags you reduce

your cost by 40 percent compared to bottles.”

I n a d d i t i o n , Fa r o u d j a o f f e r s a X e r o x

DocuColor 30 and 40 OPC drum.

Faroudja Toner has also launched a portable

toner dust co l lec tor. A t approx imate ly

3‘x3’x3’,, the dust collector has a powerful

950 cubic feet per minute airflow, as well as

a pre-filter and main filter, which combine

to trap nearly all toner particles. The dust

collector is quick and easy to set up, with no

assembly is required. It can be plugged into

any 120 volt outlet.

The powerful 950 cubic feet per minute

(actual measured air flow) variable speed

blower processes 3 to 4 times as much air as

other units claiming '1000cfm'. The blower

can run continuously and is designed to be

set on low speed as a general air-cleaning

device. The low speed setting reduces noise,

wear and energy consumption.

“When you recycle cartridges, a lot of toner

dust floats in the air and lands on clothes,

equipment, and the general workstation

area,” says Marketing Director, Tim Farrell.

“The dust collector, which you can place on

your workbench, has a rotating fan which

continually attracts any toner in the air. So the

dust winds up in the collector itself, helping to

provide a much cleaner working environment.”

For more information and specifications

about the toner dust collector, please visit

Faroudja toner’s website.

Green Project releases toner cartridges for Dell 3130

Apex releases chip for Samsung SCX-5635/5835 series printers

Faroudja offers bulk toner for Xerox DocuColor 30 and dust collector

Apex Product code Description

ALS-D208S SamsungRSCX-5635FNK；SCX-5835FNSamsungRML-3475D/ND;ML-3475D/GOV;ML-3475ND/GOV

ALS-D208L

ALS-P208A SamsungRSCX-5635FN/5835FNALS-D208S/XIL

SamsungRSCX-5635FN/5635HNALS-D208L/XILALS-D2082S

SamsungRSCX-5635FN/5835ALS-D2082LALS-P2082A

• Contact ApexTel: +86 756 3333768Website: www.apexmic.com

Issue7--1-48-.indd 9 2010-9-17 14:10:42



Jadi Imaging Technologies Sdn Bhd has

introduced its new HP Premium Plus

compatible toner ( JLT-003P). The JLT-003P

toner is recommended for use in the following

printers:

• HP 1160/1320/3390/3392(5949)

• HP 2300(2610)

• HP 2400/2410/2420/2430(6511)

• HP 1010/1012/1015/1018/1020/1022/3015/3

020/3030/3050/3052/3055

• AIO/M1005

• MFP/M1319

• MFP(2612)

• Canon Fax L100

• Canon Faxphone L120

• Canon I-Sensys 4120/4140/4150

• Canon Imageclass MF4150/4690

• Canon LBP-2900/3000/3300/3360/3460

• Canon Satera MF4120/4130/4150/6570.

The HP1010 series printer, one of the most

reliable printers ever produced, was designed

for small office and home office (SOHO) use.

Different models in the series are capable of

printing speeds ranging from 12 to 15ppm,

600 dpi or 1,200 dpi effective print resolution

for high quality prints and 8 to 16MB of base

memory, sufficient for the most complex

printing task. These printers also feature “instant

on” fuser technology to enable immediate

printing upon start up from the energy-saving

standby mode.

According to Jadi, the JLT-003P will complement

its existing JLT-003 toner by providing a more

durable print performance throughout the

cartridge’s life cycle. It is designed to maintain

image density over an extended period for

consistently good print quality.

Some of the main features of JLT-003P include

high image density for a crisper print result

(>1.50), strong gray scale for excellent tones,

high transfer efficiency for a lower printing cost

per page, improved glossiness and 50% waste

reduction.

Jadi has also introduced the Samsung Superior

Fixing toner ( JLT-035SF), recommended for use

in a wide range of new Samsung printers. The JLT-

035SF toner is mainly designed to suit Samsung

printers recently released to the market, as well

as several older models that are known to have

higher fixing requirements.

In view of the advanced features and eco-

conscious technology recently introduced by

Samsung, Jadi has developed a universal JLT-

035SF toner which is well suited to high speed

printing and provides instant fusing to give

excellent print quality. In addition, the JLT-035SF

toner maintains a consistently high image density

and strong gray scale, and is able to deliver OEM

standard page yields due to its superior transfer

efficiency and low waste characteristics.

Samples of JLT-035F are now available upon

request. Please contact your Jadi for more

information.

Jadi offers fixing toner for HP and Samsung machines

Issue7--1-48-.indd 10 2010-9-17 14:10:47

Issue7--1-48-.indd 11 2010-9-17 14:10:50

OEM NewsRecycling Times Magazine


K odak has jus t re leased a new

multifunction printer (MFP), the ESP

9250. The new device replaces the

ESP 9 as Kodak’s top-of-the-line MFP.

The $250 ESP 9250 is a four-color inkjet

printer, and uses two ink cartridges: one black,

and one color, with cyan, yellow, and magenta

inks. The standard black replacement cartridge

retails at $10; a high-volume black ink cartridge

is available for $17. The color replacement

cartridge is $18. The ESP 9250 uses the same ink

cartridges as the ESP 9 but Kodak says the inks

have be reformulated for optimum results.

According to Kodak, the printer is rated at

32 pages per minute (ppm) for monochrome

output and 30 ppm for color. A 4”x6” photo

takes about 29 seconds to print with a maximum

color resolution of 9600 dots per inch (dpi) and

a monochrome resolution of 1200-by-1200.

The flatbed scanner has an optical resolution

of 2400 dpi. The scanner can also be used

as a copier, with a copy speed of 27 ppm for

monochrome and 26 ppm for color.

The ESP 9250 has built-in Wi-Fi, Ethernet and

USB interfaces. The card slot can be used to

print directly from memory cards. The device

also supports Kodak’s Pic Flick App, which

allows for printing from an iPhone, iPod touch,

or iPad.

Kodak releases ESP 9250 multifunction printer

H P and Dell, the leading makers of

personal computers, have been

making acquisitions in recent years

to strengthen their positions as purveyors of

technology and consulting services to businesses

of all sizes. A sampling of recent deals:

HPSeptember 2010: 3Par, data-storage provider,

for 2.4 billion.

August 2010: Stratavia, a privately held

database and application automation company,

for undisclosed amount.

August 2010: Fortify Software, a privately

held software security assurance company, for

undisclosed amount.

November 2009, 3Com Corporat ion, a

networking switching, routing and security

solutions provider, for approximately $2.7

billion.

July 2009: Ibrix, storage software maker, for

undisclosed amount.

October 2008: LeftHand Networks, storage

technology provider, for $360 million in cash.

May 2008: Electronic Data Systems, technology

services and outsourcing firm, for $13.9 billion

in cash.

DellJuly 2010: Ocarina Networks, maker of

technology to compress data and remove

duplicate information, for undisclosed amount.

July 2010: Scalent, maker of software to help

companies manage data center infrastructure,

for undisclosed amount.

February 2010: Exanet, bankrupt Israeli start-

up that made calable network-attached storage

software solutions to OEM partners, for $12

million.

September 2009: Perot Systems, IT services

and solution provider with major focuses on

health care and government agencies, for $3.9

billion in cash.

November 2007: EqualLogic, maker of storage

systems, for $1.4 billion in cash.

HP and Dell expands to services

G lobal Imaging Systems, a Xerox

company, has acquired Georgia

Duplicating Products of Macon,

Georgia.

Established in 1977, Georgia Duplicating

Products is one of the state’s largest independent

office equipment dealers, with offices in Macon

and Atlanta. Georgia Duplicating is positioned to

immediately begin offering Xerox’s full range of

office printing products.

The acquisition furthers Global’s strategy of

supporting business customers across the country

with an expanding network of office technology

providers.

“Georgia Duplicating Products’ attention to

customer relations makes it a great fit for our

company,” said Michael Shea, president and CEO

of Global Imaging Systems. “With this acquisition,

we gain an experienced partner with excellent

employees and the ability to create proven

customer solutions.”

The former owner of Georgia Duplicating

Products, Ed Greene, will remain with the company

as will company president, Leon Strickland.

“We have long regarded Xerox as a top tier

document management player,” said Greene. “Our

customers will now have access to award-winning

Xerox technology, while continuing to receive the

superior service they have always enjoyed from

Georgia Duplicating.”

Global Imaging Systems acquires Georgia Duplicating Products

Issue7--1-48-.indd 12 2010-9-17 14:10:50

OEM NewsRecycling Times Magazine


E pson America, Inc. has just introduced

the Epson Stylus NX625, a powerful all-

in-one featuring high -speed automatic

two-sided printing. Ideal for busy households

with multiple users and students who need an

affordable all-in-one, the Epson Stylus NX625

is the fastest printer in its class with built-in

Wi-Fi and ethernet capabilities to quickly and

flawlessly print everything from simple e-mails

and vacation photos to elaborate invitations and

more.

"The Epson Stylus NX625 is perfect for families

and students who need a superior performing

all-in-one at an affordable price," says Stacey

Tieu, associate product manager at Consumer

Ink Jets, Epson America, Inc. "Not only is the

Epson Stylus NX625 the world's fastest all-in-one

with high-speed automatic two-sided printing,

it is also a feature-rich machine with copy and

scan functions plus superior photo capabilities."

The Epson Stylus NX625 features built-in

memory card slots and a 2.5-inch color LCD to

easily view, select, edit, and print photos without

a computer. Utilizing Epson's all-pigment

DURABrite Ultra ink, this versatile all-in-one

delivers superior photo quality and durable

prints that are fade, smudge and water-resistant,

while also printing a 4"x6" photo in as little as

20 seconds. In addition, the Epson Stylus NX625

offers high-quality scanning up to 2400 dpi to

archive important documents.

Additional Features include restoring faded

color photos without a PC and auto photo

correction for over and under-exposed photos.

The Epson MicroPiezo print head features DX3

technology with smart nozzles that precisely

place three sizes of ink droplets to create

exceptional photos and documents.

Pricing and AvailabilityThe Epson Stylus NX625 (around $149.99)

will be available in September through major

computer, office and electronics superstores, a

variety of retail stores nationwide and Epson's

retail site, www.epsonstore.com. For more

information, please see the Epson Stylus NX625

fact sheet.

N ew research commissioned by HP and conducted by Buyers

Laboratory Inc (BLI) has found that printing with paper

stock that meets the ColorLok quality standard can maximize

the lifespan of laser printers up to nine times longer than using papers

below the standard.

The BLI study identified that the papers not meeting the ColorLok

standard are often manufactured in Asia and distributed mainly in China

and India.

For both laser and inkjet printers, ColorLok-compliant papers

should be considered the standard for worry-free printing. The study

demonstrated that using ColorLok papers protects critical laser engine

parts, keeps the unit clean on the inside and maintains consistent and

reliable performance and quality.

The BLI study also showed that using ColorLok paper in laser printers

reduces faults fourfold with paper path obstructions that require user

intervention occurring even less often.

"HP LaserJet printers, original HP toner cartridges and great-quality

paper work together to deliver the best possible customer experience,"

said Ron Coughlin, senior vice president, LaserJet and Enterprise

Solutions, Imaging and Printing Group, HP.

HP has announced Domtar Corporation’s plan to adopt the ColorLok

quality standard for its entire line of mill-brand papers starting this fall.

C anon India, a wholly owned subsidiary of Canon Singapore

Pty Ltd expects its foray into managed print services

(MPS) to produce 25% year-on-year revenue growth.

The company has entered the MPS sector as part of its document

management and consultancy business.

Fifteen companies have subscribed to Canon’s MPS services this

year, including big names like MindTree. MPS is one of the three

areas Canon operates in India and currently contributes about 30%

to the overall revenues from the country.

Under MPS, Canon also works on the overall infrastructure needs

of a company, especially on documentation.

“We have some of the big corporates subscribing to our services and

one of them is MindTree. A B2B approach is more profitable that a

B2C business because of the involvement of service and consultancy,”

says Alok Bharadwaj, senior vice president, Canon India.

Bharadwaj expects revenue to touch Rs 1,200 crore (about US $ 258.9

million) by December 2010, a growth of 43% year-on-year. In India, the

company has a large distribution network, but has not yet explored

retailing their products through their 4,000 Canon stores which

currently focus on products like cameras and printers. In 2009, Canon

India clocked up Rs 840 crore (about US $ 181.2 million) in revenue.

Epson announces Stylus NX625 printer

ColorLok standard maximizesprinter performance

Canon India eyes 25% growth in MPS

Issue7--1-48-.indd 13 2010-9-17 14:10:50

Issue7--1-48-.indd 14 2010-9-17 14:10:52

FeaturesRecycling Times Magazine


A summary of OEM legal activities against

aftermarket manufacturers regarding patents

Epson vs aftermarket industryEpson is a definite “fighter” for intellectual property rights

among all OEMs. It’s been estimated that Epson has engaged

in some 20 lawsuits since 2000, a number well above other

OEMs. In 2006, Epson initiated the highest number of cases in

comparison to its competitors.

Against ST Sangyo and Elecom

On September 5, 2000, Epson filed a lawsuit against ST Sangyo

and Elecom in Japan alleging that the two companies infringed

Epson’s ink composition patent JP 2696828. ST Sangyo then

requested Japanese Patent Office to invalidate the patent. The

case concluded on 21st January 2001 with a result that Epson

withdrew the complaint.

Against Multi-Union Trading

In April 2001, Epson filed a patent infringement lawsuit with US

District Court against Multi-Union Trading Company Ltd.

In June 2005, Epson and Multi-Union Trading Company Ltd

resolved the patent infringement lawsuit with a settlement

agreement.

Against Armor Group

In April 2005, Epson filed a patent

infringement lawsuit in the US District

Court in Portland, Oregon, against

the Armor Group. The lawsuit alleged

that at least 30 models of replacement

inkjet cartridges for Epson Stylus

printers, manufactured by subsidiary

Artech GmbH, infringed Epson’s

patents.

Against Environmental Business

Products

In June 2005, Epson reached an

out-of-court settlement with Britain’s

Environmental Business Products Ltd.

(EBPL) over the patent infringement lawsuit. EBPL agrees to

cease importing and supplying Epson compatible cartridges and

compensate Epson inspect of damages.

Against Shanghai ConsumMall

In May 2005, Epson and Shanghai ConsumMall reached

a settlement agreement that the latter agrees to cease the

production and sales of the infringing products.

Against Mills Computer Products

In September 2005, Epson started High Court proceedings in

England against Mills Computer Products (International) Limited.

Against CybaHouse

In October 2005, Epson agreed to settle the case out of Court,

based on undertakings from CybaHouse, their sister company

Nutronic Limited and their directors that they will cease trading

in the Epson compatible cartridges. The settlement terms also

include the payment by CybaHouse Limited of Epson's legal

costs plus an undisclosed sum in respect of damages.

Against Medea International

In February 2006, Epson started patent infringement

proceedings in the English High Court against Medea

International Limited alleging that ink cartridges compatible with

Epson printers imported by Medea International under a number

OEMs vs Aftermarket: Reports from the front-lineTo offer our readers a better general idea about the recent patent disputes between OEMs and the aftermarket industry, we specially worked out this summary of recent OEM legal activities against aftermarket manufacturers regarding patents and a summary of successful defenses against OEM patent suits.

Issue7--1-48-.indd 15 2010-9-17 14:10:53



of brands, including Inkrite PhotoPLUS, infringe a number of

Epson’s patents including Epson’s "Smart Valve Technology".

Against 24 companies

In February 2006, Epson filed a complaint over alleged patent

infringements with the USITC against 24 companies. Major

manufacturers that settled included Armor SA of France, Ink

Lab Co. Ltd. of Hong Kong and InkTec Co. of Korea. Major US

distributors that settled include Inkjet Warehouse.com Inc.,

Rhinotek Computer Products Inc., and Nectron International

Ltd.

Three companies agreed to USITC Consent Orders that

committed them to cease imports of accused cartridges

including Master Ink Co. Ltd. of Hong Kong, Ribbon Tree (USA)

Ltd. dba CanaPacific Ribbons Inc. of Washington State, and Apex

Distributing Inc.

Numerous companies failed to file responses and defaulted

including Acujet USA Inc. of California, Butterfly Print Image

Corp. of Hong Kong, Glory South Software Manufacturing Inc. of

California, Mipo International Ltd. of Hong Kong, Tully Imaging

Supplies Ltd. of Hong Kong, Well Ink Trading Co. Ltd. of Macao

and Ribbon Tree Trading Co. Ltd. of Macau.

Against U-Bar in Taiwan

In April 2006, Epson resolved the lawsuit filed in the Taichung

District Court in Taiwan alleging that U-Bar's "Continuous Ink

Supply Systems" (CISS) infringed on Epson's ROC (Taiwan)

Utility Model Patents. Subject to the Execution Order issued by

Taichung in June 2006, U-Bar can no longer directly or indirectly

manufacture, import or sell the CISS for Epson printers.

Against 4 online retail companies

On August 28, 2006, Epson announced that it has agreed an

out-of-court settlement with four online retail companies (GEPOC

Gesellschaft für Polymerchemie GmbH, Aachen; BWD Computer,

Arnsdorf, Tintenshop Löhne, Bielefeld and Tinten-Toner Vertrieb,

Bochum) that the latter will cease trading in compatible printer

cartridges that were infringing a number of intellectual property

rights belonging exclusively to Epson.

Against Bentham

In August 2006, Epson entered a settlement agreement with

Britain’s Bentham Ltd therefore solved the suit claiming ink

cartridge patent infringement of Epson’s by Bentham Ltd. Subject

to the agreement, Bentham Ltd. agrees halt of import and sales

and payment of compensatory damages to Epson.

Against Ecorica

In October 2006，Tokyo District Court turned down a petition

by Seiko Epson Corp. which accused Ecorica Inc. of patent

infringement and sought an injunction against its sale of

remanufactured ink cartridges. Japan's Intellectual Property

High Court (IPHC) turned down Epson’s appeal in June 2007.

The disputed patent is for an ink cartridge structure designed to

prevent leaks.

Against Shenzhen Wenyi

In December 2006, Epson entered a settlement agreement

with Shenzhen Wenyi that the latter agrees halt of production

and sales of the products that infringed Epson’s ink cartridge

patent.

Against Plusjet

In January 2007, Epson entered a settlement agreement with

Korea based Plusjet that the latter agrees halt of production and

sales of the products that infringed Epson’s ink cartridge patent.

Against 4 US companies

On June 20, 2007, Epson filed a patent infringement lawsuit in

the US District Court in Portland, against Cartridges Are Us Inc.

dba cartridgesareus.com, E-Babylon Corp. dba 123inkjets.com, a

subsidiary of Valueclick Inc; Linkyo Corp. dba supermediastore.

com; and PrintPal Inc. dba printpal.com. The complaint alleges

that these four companies infringe a total of 18 patents that cover

cartridges for Epson’s desktop and large format inkjet printers.

On October 19, 2007, USITC issued a Final Determination that

all the ink cartridges accused by Epson infringe one or more of its

patents and issued a General Exclusion Order, Limited Exclusion

Order, and Cease and Desist Orders in the investigation.

Canon vs aftermarket industryCanon has a reputation of going easy in the battle against the

aftermarket inkjet cartridge industry. The chosen battlefields are

usually Germany and Japan. Although the cases Canon has filed

are not many in number, they were well-fought.

When going up against aftermarket toner cartridge

manufacturers, however, Canon has a reputation of being very

aggressive.

Against Pelikan Harcopy

On December 18, 2002, Canon Inc. filed a lawsuit with

the District Court of Düsseldorf against Pelikan Hardcopy

Deutschland GmbH and Pelikan Hardcopy European Logistics

Issue7--1-48-.indd 16 2010-9-17 14:10:54



& Services GmbH, alleging that Pelikan Hardcopy’s marketing

of several inkjet printer cartridges for use in Canon-brand inkjet

printers infringed a Canon patent (European patent no. 0 879

703) in Germany. In June 2003, Pelikan Hardcopy companies

lodged an opposition to European patent no. 0 879 703 at

the European Patent Office but the opposition division of the

European Patent Office maintained that the patent was valid with

the decision of July 1, 2005. On November 20, 2003, the Court

issued a first-instance ruling in favor of Canon Inc. on November

17, 2005, the Higher District Court of Düsseldorf dismissed the

appeal filed by Pelikan Hardcopy companies.

Against Recycle Assist

In April 2004, Canon filed a lawsuit against Recycle Assist Co.

Ltd alleging that the remanufactured inkjet cartridges imported

and sold by the latter infringed Canon’s patent JP3278410. In

December 2004, Tokyo District Court dismissed Canon’s claim of

patent infringement against Recycle Assist. Later, Canon continued

to appeal to the Japanese Intellectual Property High Court. On

January 31, 2006 Japanese Intellectual Property High Court issued

a reversal of an earlier judgment ruled by Tokyo District Court.

Later in February of the same year, Recycle Assist appealed to the

Supreme Court of Japan. On November 8, 2007, this 43-month

legal wrestling had a final result. The Supreme Court of Japan ruled

that Recycle Assist did infringe on Canon’s patent.

Against GCC

In May 2006, Canon formally filed a lawsuit against various

companies of the GCC Group, alleging that GCC has infringed

upon a patent filed by Canon in the USA, and directly touched

some models of GCC’s 100% brand new compatible toner

cartridges produced and sold under the company’s Q-Print and

Q-Fax brand names.

Against five companies in Japan

In October 31, 2008, Canon initiated patent infringement suits

for preliminary and permanent injunctions before the Tokyo

District Court, against five companies, namely Ohm Electric Inc.,

Color Creation Inc, Ninestar Japan Co., Ltd., Futurewell Holding

Limited and REV Corporation, alleging that the five companies

infringed Canon's patent by marketing non-genuine cartridges

for use with Canon-manufactured inkjet printers.

Subsequently, the court issued a recommendation for

settlement, under which the five companies agreed to no longer

import, sell, deliver or display for sales purposes the products in

question. Canon decided to conclude such favorable settlement,

and the settlement became in effect on December 17, 2009.

Against Ninestar et al (20 companies)

On June 28, 2010, Canon Inc., Canon USA, Inc. and Canon

Virginia, Inc. filed a complaint requesting that the USITC

commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.

Canon alleges infringement of certain claims of two of its

US patents, 5,903,803 and 6,128,454 which both relate to a

projection on photosensitive toner cartridge drums that allow

users, rather than technicians, to remove and replace the drum.

In the complaint, Canon separates the Respondents into two

categories. The first group is the so-called “Ninestar Respondents

(Ninestar Image-China, Ninestar Tech-China, Ninestar Mgt.,

Zhuhai Seine, Seine Image, Ninestar Image-Hong Kong, Ziprint,

Nano Pacific, Ninestar-LA and Town Sky) which, according to

Canon, are all under common ownership and control. The

Ninestar Group is alleged to infringe by manufacturing toner

cartridges and importing them into the United States. The

second group – the “Retailer Respondents” (ACM Technologies,

Inc., LD Products, Inc., Printer Essentials.com, Inc., XSE Group,

Inc. d/b/a Image Star, Copy Technologies, Inc. d/b/a ITM

Corporation, Red Powers, Inc. d/b/a LaptopTraveller.com, Direct

Billing International, Inc. d/b/a OfficeSupplyOutfitters.com,

Compu-Imaging, Inc., EIS Office Solutions, Inc., and 123 Refills,

Inc.) – allegedly infringe through sales of the toner cartridges

manufactured by the Ninestar Respondents.

On July 26, 2010, USITC has voted to institute an investigation

of certain toner cartridges and components thereof. The

products at issue in this investigation are replaceable toner

cartridges and components thereof, including photosensitive

drums.

HP vs aftermarket industry HP is clearly the number one presence in terms of market

share. When protecting intellectual property rights against

aftermarket players, HP tends to end disputes with resolution

agreements.

Against InkCycle

In July 2005, HP and InkCycle announced that they have

resolved their patent infringement lawsuit filed by HP in March

2005 regarding the inks InkCycle had used in the refilling of

certain HP inkjet cartridges.

Issue7--1-48-.indd 17 2010-9-17 14:10:54



Against Cartridge World

In October 2005, HP asked Cartridge World to stop using inks

with the same chemical composition that’s found in its patented

brand of Vivera inks.

Against Walgreen & OfficeMax

In June 2006, HP announced that in the US it was working

with retailers Walgreen Co. and OfficeMax to resolve ink patent

infringements found in multiple US stores of both companies.

Against Ninestar et al

In July 2006, HP filed complaints over alleged patent

infringements with USITC against Ninestar Technology of China

and California, butterflyinkjet.com, iowaink.com, PrintMicro.com

and Inkandbeyond.com. On March 6, 2007, HP announced that

it has resolved ink cartridge patent violation issues with Ninestar,

and as part of the settlement, Ninestar acknowledges the validity

of HP's patents and has agreed to stop selling the cartridges in

question in the United States and certain other countries where

such patents are held.

Against InkTec & PCE Group

In October 2006, HP filed suit against InkTec GmbH Zentrale

and the PCE Group in the District Court of Düsseldorf, Germany,

alleging that certain ink refill kits sold under the InkTec brand and

distributed by InkTec and PCE Group infringed HP’s two patents

relating to ink formulations. In July 2007, HP announced it has

resolved the patent infringement lawsuit. As part of the settlement,

both InkTec companies and the PCE Group have confirmed the

validity of the HP patents in suit and admitted to infringement, and

agreed to pay HP an undisclosed sum and to stop selling infringing

inks in Germany and other countries where such patents are held.

Against Pelikan

In May 2007, HP filed a lawsuit in Düsseldorf Regional Court

in Germany alleging that Pelikan infringed multiple HP patents

related to the print cartridges and the ink formulation found

in Pelikan H06 and H08 color cartridges which are especially

compatible with HP No. 28 and No. 57 inkjet cartridges. In

August 2007, announced that Pelikan Hardcopy admitted patent

infringement and the court issued a judgment ordering Pelikan

to stop importing and distributing the infringing cartridges and

to pay damages to HP. Pelikan also was ordered to recall all

infringing products that might still be in the distribution channel

Against Pelikan

In June 2007, HP filed a second lawsuit in Cologne District

Court against Pelikan Hardcopy in which it alleges misleading

advertising. HP asserted that the packaging for Pelikan

H06 and H08 color cartridges describes the cartridges as

"remanufactured.", but tests by HP indicate that certain of the

products sold in this packaging are apparently new.

Against LexJet

On May 22, 2008, HP filed a lawsuit against Florida-based LexJet

Corporation and LexJet Southern California, LLC, regarding inks

used in certain remanufactured HP large-format ink cartridges in

the US Federal Court for the Northern District of California.

On November 13, 2008, HP and the ink manufacturer supplying

ink to LexJet have developed a solution to avoid legal action.

LexJet’s ink manufacturer has agreed to reformulate the inks in

question and pay HP an undisclosed amount of money.


On September 23, 2009, HP filed a complaint requesting that

the USITC commence an investigation pursuant to section 337

and cease and desist orders to all respondents.

The complaint alleges that the following proposed respondents

unlawfully import into the US, sell for importation, and sell

within the US after importation certain inkjet ink supplies and

components thereof, which allegedly infringe HP’s US Patent

Nos. 6,959,985; 7,104,630; 6,089,687; and 6,264,301:

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

• InkPlusToner.com of Canoga Park, California

• Mipo International Ltd. of Hong Kong

• Mipo America of Miami, Florida

• Shanghai Angel Printer Supplies Co. Ltd. of China

• SmartOne of Hayward, California

• Shenzhen Print Media Co., Ltd. of China

• Comptree of City of Industry, California

• Zhuhai National Resources & Jingjie Imaging Products Co.,

Ltd. of China

• Tatrix International of China

• Ourway Image Co., Ltd. of China

According to the complaint, the asserted patents relate to

specialized printing fluid containers. In particular, the inventions

relate to printing fluid containers that have enhanced alignment

and latching features, the ability to hold different volumes of ink,

and the ability to electronically communicate with the overall

printing system regarding the amount of ink remaining in the

container.

As of March 18, 2009, HP announced that it had reached

settlement agreements with InkPlusToner, Comptree Ink,

SmartOne Service and Zhuhai Gree Magneto-Electric Co., Ltd.

of China. The Administrative Law Judge has entered default

judgment against the remaining seven respondents.

On April 1, 2010, HP announced it has reached a settlement

agreement with Hong Kong based Print-Rite Holdings Ltd.

relating to HP 02 inkjet cartridges. As part of the settlement,

Print-Rite acknowledges that HP’s patents are valid and in effect.

In consideration of the parties’ mutual respect for intellectual

Issue7--1-48-.indd 18 2010-9-17 14:10:55

Issue7--1-48-.indd 19 2010-9-17 14:10:56



property, Print-Rite also has agreed to withdraw the products

involved in the dispute from the United States and other

countries having corresponding patent filings. In March, HP

settled similar patent disputes with three other tech companies.

HP is also working to settle a number of other complaints

involving other companies that sell similar types of inkjet

cartridges.

On May 20, 2010, HP added an additional defendant, Asia

Pacific Microsystems Inc. (APM) of Taiwan, an affiliated company

of Taiwan-based UMC Group to the suit. The refiled case also

adds Hewlett-Packard Development Company, a subsidiary of

HP, as a plaintiff in the case.

Against Mipo et al.

On March 5, 2010, HP sued Mipo Technology Limited of

Hong Kong, Mipo Science & Technology Co. Ltd. of China,

Mextec Group Inc. dba Mipo America Ltd. of Florida, Sinotime

Technologies Inc. dba All Colors of Florida, and PTC Holdings

Limited of Hong Kong. HP alleged that the respondents have

engaged in violations of Section 337 through the unlicensed

importation into the United States, the sale for importation,

and/or the sale within the United States after importation of the

accused products that infringe one or more claims of United

States Patent Nos. 6,234,598, 6,309,053, 6,398,347, 6,412,917,

6,481,817, and 6,402,279. HP sought a court order blocking

infringement plus unspecified damages.

Turbon vs HP

On June 9, 2010, Turbon International filed a complaint against

HP in a New York Manhattanfederal court that claims that HP

committed fraud, misappropriated trade secrets about Turbon’s

collection of empties and competed unfairly in its dealings with

Turbon. Turbon is seeking both money damages and injunctive

relief.

Against Mipo et al.

On June 25, 2010, Hewlett-Packard Company of Palo Alto,

California and Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.

of Houston, Texas filed a complaint requesting that the USITC

commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.

The complaint alleges that Mipo International Ltd. of Hong

Kong; Mextec Group Inc. d/b/a Mipo America Ltd. of Miami,

Florida; Shanghai Angel Printer Supplies Co. Ltd. of China;

Shenzhen Print Media Co., Ltd. of China; Zhuhai National

Resources & Jingjie Imaging Products Co., Ltd. of China; Tatrix

International of China; and Ourway Image Co., Ltd. of China

have engaged in violations of Section 337 through unlicensed

importation into the US, sale for importation, and/or sale within

the US after importation of certain inkjet ink supplies and

components thereof that infringe one or more claims of US

Patent Nos. 6,959,985 (the ‘985 patent) and 7,104,630 (the ‘630

patent).

According to the complaint, both the ‘985 patent and the ‘630

patent generally relate to printing-fluid containers, such as ink

cartridges.

Complainants allege that each of the Proposed Respondents

manufactures or purchases black and/or color ink cartridges

compatible with the “HP 02” product line in China and sells

such cartridges for importation into the US According to the

complaint, the accused “HP 02” compatible cartridges infringe

several claims of both the ‘985 and ‘630 patents.

Lexmark vs aftermarket industryLexmark doesn’t have many patent cases against aftermarket

manufacturers. However, the lawsuits it has had were devastating,

with the potential to take down the aftermarket printer supplies

industry as a whole.

Against Static Control

On December 30, 2002, Lexmark filed suit against Static

Control in a federal court in Kentucky. Lexmark claimed that

Static Control’s chips, sold for use on remanufactured Lexmark

cartridges, violated their copyright using the Digital Millennium

Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998.

Lexmark filed for an injunction, preventing Static Control from

making or selling chips. On March 3, 2003, this was subsequently

granted by the court. Static Control was prohibited from making

and selling Lexmark replacement chips for more a year as a result.

After losing the DMCA claim, Lexmark sued Static Control in

2004 for patent infringement relating to the use of prebate in

order to stop rechargers from remanufacturing Lexmark prebate

cartridges. Millions of documents were provided to lawyers

to defend our position. Lexmark sued Static Control for $ 92

million. In March 2003, Static Control filed an antitrust lawsuit

against Lexmark International, charging it with attempting to

monopolize the printer market.

In June 2007, the US District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky

ruled that Lexmark’s patents were valid, covered Lexmark’s toner

Issue7--1-48-.indd 20 2010-9-17 14:11:02



cartridges and that Lexmark’s patent license under the Lexmark

Return Program was valid and enforceable. Although the jury

found that Lexmark had failed to prove that Static Control had

induced its customers to infringe Lexmark’s patents, the court

found that Static Control engaged in direct patent infringement

and that certain third parties who engaged in the remanufacture

of Lexmark’s Return Program laser printer toner cartridges

were in direct violation of Lexmark’s patent rights. Three

remanufacturers who were parties in the lawsuit earlier, NER

Data Inc., Pendl Companies Inc. and Micro Solutions Enterprises

(MSE)/Wazana Brothers International Inc., settled and admitted

the validity and enforceability of the Lexmark patents and the

Lexmark Return Program. In addition, Static Control’s antitrust

and false advertisement allegations against Lexmark were

dismissed by the court.

On March 31, 2009, a Federal Judge concluded that “the

Prebate Program is invalid under patent law” in the case of Static

Control vs Lexmark.


On August 20, 2010, Lexmark International Inc. filled complaint

with the USITC against 24 manufacturers, importers, distributor

and retailers of replacement toner cartridge, claiming they

infringed 21 US patents held by Lexmark.

Lexmark requests the USITC to issue a permanent general

exclusion order, or in the alternative, a limited exclusion order

forbidding entry into the United States of all toner cartridges

infringing the Asserted Patents, and a permanent cease-and-

desist order directed to each Respondent.

Lexmark also filed a patent-infringement complaint in the US

District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against the same

defendants. The District Court complaint contains allegations

similar to those in the USITC complaint and seeks injunctive

relief, monetary damages and attorneys’ fees.

The complaint named these defendants:

1. Ink Technologies Printer Supplies LLC (doing business as Ink

Technologies LLC);

2. Ninestar Image Co. Ltd (also known as Ninestar Technology

Co. Ltd);

3. Ninestar Image Int’l Ltd;

4. Seine Image International Co. Ltd;

5. Ninestar Technology Co. Ltd;

6. Ziprint Image Corp.;

7. Nano Pacific Corp., IJSS Inc. (doing business as Tonerzone.

com Inc. and Inkjet Superstore);

8. Chung Pal Shin (doing business as Ink Master);

9. Nectron International Inc.;

10. Quality Cartridges Inc.;

11. Direct Billing International Inc. (doing business as Office

Supply Outfitters);

12. Ribbon Connection;

13. E-Toner Mart Inc.;

14. Alpha Image Tech;

15. ACM Technologies Inc.;

16. Virtual Imaging Products Inc.;

17. Acecom Inc.-San Antonio (doing business as Inksell.com);

18. Jahwa Electronics Co. Ltd.;

19. Huizhou Jahwa Electronics Co. Ltd.;

20. Laser Toner Technology Inc.;

21. C&R Services Inc. (doing business as C&R Distributors and

C&R Distributing);

22. Union Technology Int’l (M.C.O.) Co. Ltd.;

23. Print-Rite Holdings Ltd.;

24. Copy Technologies Inc.

Lexmark also claimed that another 20 companies might have

infringed their patents, but these 20 companies are not named

specifically in the lawsuit

Brother vs aftermarket inudstryAgainst Dynamic Supplies

In 2004, Brother notified Dynamic Supplies that it was

infringing Brother's trade marks by selling OEM printer drum

units (which has different specification than that of Brother-

branded printer drum units) as Brother-branded printer drum

units.

Dynamic Supplies rejected Brother's allegations and the matter

was then taken to court.

In September 2007, Brother Industries Ltd and its wholly

owned Australian subsidiary applied for injunctive relief

claiming that Dynamic Supplies Pty Ltd, one of Australia's largest

distributors of computer consumables, had infringed registered

Australian trade marks and engaged in misleading and deceptive

conduct in contravention of sections 52 and 53 of the Trade

Practices Act 1974 and the tort of passing off.

The Federal Court found that Dynamic Supplies imported

Issue7--1-48-.indd 21 2010-9-17 14:11:04



and sold unbranded, OEM printer drum units in counterfeit

Brother packaging. Those printer drum units were sold by

Dynamic Supplies as Brother-branded DR200 printer drum units.

The Court made two significant rulings in this case.

1. A reseller is not permitted to apply a manufacturer's trade

mark to OEM goods that the manufacturer did not intend to be

sold under its trade mark.

2. If OEM goods pass through the supply chain of a subsidiary of a

trade mark owner as branded goods but without the authorization

of the trade mark owner itself, it does not follow that the trade

mark owner will be deemed to have authorized the use of its trade

mark on those goods by virtue of the conduct of its subsidiary. For

the use of the trade mark to be authorized, it must be applied with

the direct authority of the trade mark owner itself.

Against Pelikan, Gaha

In June 2008, Brother sent warning letters to four companies,

including Pelikan and Geha who were selling such compatible

ink cartridges for Brother devices. The letters were based on an

alleged infringement of two utility models which were in effect

in Germany for Brother from June 19, 2008 on. Two companies

responded to the letters confirming they had stopped sales

of the respective cartridges. However, Pelikan and Geha did

not. In July 2008, Brother filed for corresponding preliminary

injunctions in Düsseldorf District Court against Pelikan and Geha.

Against Pelikan

On September 17, 2008, Brother Industries, Ltd. announced

that Brother obtained in Germany two of four preliminary

injunctions based on alleged intellectual property infringements.

The injunctions were issued in summary proceedings by

the Düsseldorf District Court in Germany against Pelikan

Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG and German Hardcopy

AG, who sell compatible ink cartridges for Brother devices.

Brother filed for four preliminary injunctions in the Düsseldorf

District Court claiming that Pelikan and Geha infringed Brother's

intellectual property rights with a part of their compatible ink

cartridges. Brother requested Pelikan and Geha to be prevented

by a preliminary injunction from selling such compatible ink

cartridges for Brother multifunction devices. The Court held

in two cases in favour of Brother. Pelikan and Geha have the

possibility to appeal.

A summary of successful oppositions against

OEM’s patentsThe OEMs are fighting for patent protection against the

aftermarket. The aftermarket also fights back for announcements

of invalidations of OEM-owned patents. Here are some examples

of patent invalidations.

Against EpsonOn June 14, 2006, the Opposition Division of the State

Intellectual Property Office of the P.R. China issued an

announcement that Epson’s Patent ZL95117800.8 is invalidated.

In November 2007, the Opposition Division of the State

Intellectual Property Office of the P.R. China announced that six

claims of Epson’s 00129671.X patent were invalidated.

On December 20, 2010, the Beijing First Intermediate People's

Court sustained the original ruling of merits made by the

Opposition Division of the State Intellectual Property Office of

the P.R. China. That is, the 40 claims on the 00131800.4 patent

owned by Epson were invalidated. This is the third time Epson’s

patents have been invalidated in three years.

Against CanonThe European Patent Office has decided to revoke a Europe-wide

toner remanufacturing patent EP 0632 342 because it lacks the key

element of innovation. EPO granted the patent to Canon in 2005.

SummaryMore than 50 lawsuits have been mentioned in the paragraphs

above. However, the total number of patent infringement cases

is much higher. For years it’s seemed like patent lawsuits are

a game the OEMs are fond of. The agenda behind the suits is

to block the development of the aftermarket printer supplies

industry and protect market share.

In order to survive, the aftermarket is continuing to fight back

with no indication of surrendering the battle. But the aftermarket

must innovate and regulate its operation activities. Aftermarket

companies that focus on quality and respect intellectual property

rights can go a long way in the market. For OEMs, patents are

the means to protect their technology rather than weapons to

contain the aftermarket. The OEMs and the aftermarket should

work together to better serve consumers.

If you have any information about lawsuits between OEMs and

the aftermarket, or you have any views to share, please send an

email to [email protected].

Issue7--1-48-.indd 22 2010-9-17 14:11:05

Issue7--1-48-.indd 23 2010-9-17 14:11:07

Market DataRecycling Times Magazine


Worldwide hardcopy peripherals recorded double-digit year-on-year growth in Q2 2010

T h e w o r l d w i d e h a r d c o p y p e r i p h e r a l s m a r k e t

experienced double-digit growth in both units and

shipment value in the second quarter of 2010 (2Q10).

According to the International Data Corporation (IDC)

Worldwide Quarterly Hardcopy Peripherals Tracker,

the total market grew 20% year over year in 2Q10 to 29

million units while shipment value increased 14% year

over year to $13.3 billion. This is the third consecutive

quarter of year-over-year unit growth and the first double-

digit growth for both units and shipment value since early

2000.

"We expect the market will continue to bounce back

throughout 2010 but competition will remain strong

and emerging markets will fare better than others," said

Phuong Hang, program manager for IDC's

Worldwide Quarterly Hardcopy Peripherals

Tracker.

Unlike previous quarters, where color

l a s e r m u l t i f u n c t i o n p r i n t e r s ( M F P s )

exhibited the highest year-over-year growth,

2Q10 marked the f i rs t quarter where

monochrome laser MFPs posted a higher

year-over-year growth than color laser

MFPs, 39.7% and 33.0%, respectively. While

HP dominates the total laser market with 2.8

million units shipped in the second quarter,

Samsung is the leader in both monochrome

and color laser MFPs. On a year-to-year

basis, Samsung's monochrome laser MFP

shipments increased 54% to 500,777 and

color laser MFP shipments grew 55% to

108,731 units over the same period.

Technology highlights• Inkjet remains the dominant technology

with 66% share in the overall hardcopy

peripherals market. The segment grew

14% year-over-year, the highest growth

since 4Q03, to more than 19 million units in 2Q10, 78% of

which were inkjet MFPs.

• The laser market increased 35%, the highest year-

over-year growth among all technologies, to more than

9 mil l ion units in the second quarter The segment

continues to be dominated by the top 5 vendors with

more than 85% market share.

• Monochrome laser devices accounted for 83% share of

the total laser space, gaining 1 point from a year ago. The

MFP penetration rate within the monochrome laser space

has been oscillating around 37% for the past 5 quarters,

the lowest rate of MFP penetration of all segments.

• Losing one point to monochrome, color laser finished

the quarter with 17.1% market share in the total laser

Issue7--1-48-.indd 28 2010-9-17 14:11:08

Issue7--1-48-.indd 29 2010-9-17 14:11:09



space. The segment posted a 25.4% growth, the best year-

over-year trend since 1Q07. Trailing printers by 8 points,

MFP devices represent 46% of the color laser sector.

Regional highlights• United States In 2Q10, the US posted double-digit year-over-year

shipment growth of 14.4%. This is the second consecutive

quarter of positive year-over-year unit growth for the

region. Compared to 1Q10, the US gained 1 point share

to 23% (approx. 6.6 million units) of the overall market.

• Western EuropeOverall, the region recorded a 12.3% year-over-year

growth in 2Q10, the first positive trend since 3Q07. There

were 5.6 million units shipped in the region. Western

Europe is the third largest region, accounting for 19%

share in the total market. Shipment levels are still lower

than in 2007 and 2008, as the market will take some time

to fully recover.

• CEMA(Central Europe, East Europe,

Middle East and Africa)The region experienced significant year-over-

year growth in the overall market in the second

quarter, increasing 23.1% to 3.4 million units.

CEMA represents 12% of the worldwide market

share.

• Asia/Pacific (excluding Japan)APeJ continues to rank number 1 in unit

shipments with 7.9 million units in 2Q10. With

31.8% year-over-year unit shipment growth, the

highest increase among all regions, the region

has expanded its market share by 2 points to

27.3% from a year ago.

• JapanW i t h a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 . 6 m i l l i o n u n i t s

shipped in Q210, Japan accounts for 5% of the

worldwide market share. While posting a 1.4%

year-over-year growth, the lowest trend among

all regions, Japan experienced a loss of 1.5

point share from a year ago.

Vendor highlights• HP HP remains the number 1 hardcopy peripheral

vendor in terms of worldwide shipments (11.9

million units), with 41.0% market share and

22.3% year-over-year growth. HP's strongest

region in 2Q10 was APeJ, with 39.5% year-over-year growth,

compared to 22.1% and 12.4% shipment growth in the

Americas and EMEA (Europe, the Middle East And Africa)

respectively. On a worldwide basis, the vendor's MFP

segment grew 26.1% and printer 15.7% year-over-year.

• Canon Canon continues to be the number 2 ranked vendor in

2Q10 with worldwide market share of 19.3% and 13.5%

year-over-year growth. The EMEA region was strongest for

Canon in 2Q10, with 17.5% year-over-year unit growth,

followed by APeJ and the Americas, with 15.4% and 6.4%

growth, respectively. Canon posted a stronger growth

in the worldwide MFP market, 21.6% versus 1.8% for

printers.

• EpsonEpson mainta ined i t s pos i t ion as the number 3

vendor worldwide. While its market share has remained

unchanged at 14.0%, compared to a year ago, the vendor

posted 20.1% year-over-year shipment growth in 2Q10.

The vendor experienced the highest year-over-year growth

Issue7--1-48-.indd 30 2010-9-17 14:11:13



Vendors2Q10 UnitShipments

2Q10 MarketShare

2Q09 UnitShipments

2Q09 MarketShare

2Q10/2Q09Growth

HP 11,934,950 41.00% 9,757,118 40.20% 22.30%

Canon 5,608,371 19.30% 4,942,090 20.40% 13.50%

Epson 4,083,638 14.00% 3,399,607 14.00% 20.10%

Samsung 1,667,671 5.70% 1,094,660 4.50% 52.30%

Brother 1,553,425 5.30% 1,319,257 5.40% 17.70%

Others 4,247,879 14.60% 3,731,497 15.40% 13.80%

Total 29,095,934 100.00% 24,244,229 100.00% 20.00%

▲ Worldwide Hardcopy Peripherals Market Share and Year-Over-Year Growth, Second Quarter 2010Source: IDC Worldwide Quarterly Hardcopy Peripherals Tracker, August 2010

Vendors2Q10 UnitShipments

2Q10 MarketShare

2Q09 UnitShipments

2Q09 MarketShare

2Q10/2Q09Growth

HP 3,502,509 53.40% 2,856,188 49.90% 22.60%

Canon 932,561 14.20% 874,763 15.30% 6.60%

Epson 481,173 7.30% 407,037 7.10% 18.20%

Samsung 456,935 7.00% 510,522 8.90% -10.50%

Brother 364,558 5.60% 343,612 6.00% 6.10%

Others 817,140 12.50% 736,537 12.90% 10.90%

Total 6,554,876 100.00% 5,728,659 100.00% 14.40%

▲ US Hardcopy Peripherals Market Share and Year-Over-Year Growth, Second Quarter 2010Source: IDC Worldwide Quarterly Hardcopy Peripherals Tracker, August 2010

in the Americas with 50.0%, followed by 14.2% in APeJ and

7.6% in EMEA. Epson achieved growth in both the MFP

and printer markets, with strongest showing from laser

MFPs, which experienced 90.1% year-over-year growth.

• Samsung

Samsung strengthened its position as the number 4

vendor, gaining more than 1 point from the previous year

to 5.7% share in the overall hardcopy market in 2Q10.

The vendor posted the strongest year-over-year shipment

growth among the top 5 vendors, with 52.3%. Samsung

enjoyed significant growth (more than 50%) across APeJ,

EMEA, and the Americas. On a year-over-year basis, the

vendor grew 44.5% to nearly 742,000 MFP units, and

59.3% to more than 926,000 printer units worldwide.

• Brother Brother accounted for 5.3% of the total hardcopy

market in 2Q10. The vendor posted 17.7% year-over-year

growth on a worldwide basis. Unlike the previous quarter,

where the Americas posted the highest year-over-year

shipment growth, 2Q10 saw APeJ as the best performance

region with 29.9% year-over-year growth, followed by the

Americas (13.7%) and EMEA (11.6%). The vendor's printer

segment recorded a higher year-over-year shipment

growth than MFP, 33.4% vs. 13.6%, respectively.

Notes:• IDC tracks A2-A4 devices in the Quarterly Hardcopy

Peripherals

• Hardcopy Peripherals include single-function printers,

printer-based multifunctional systems (MFPs), and single-

function digital copiers (SF DC). Data for all vendors are

reported for calendar periods.

For more information about IDC's Worldwide Quarterly

Hardcopy Peripherals Tracker, please visit www.idc.com.

Issue7--1-48-.indd 31 2010-9-17 14:11:13



MethodologyIn September 2009, InfoTrends deployed a Web-based

survey among office workers across the United States. Survey

participants were asked about their usage habits in relation

to printer- and copier-based multifunctional peripherals as

well as product requirements and applications. To qualify for

participation in this survey, respondents were required to be

involved in the management or purchasing of office equipment

and supplies for their companies. Based on these criteria, a total

of 319 qualified responses were received. These respondents

represented a variety of vertical markets and company sizes.

This document is a subset of a larger study and analyzes the

supplies-related findings from the InfoTrends’ 2009 Future of the

Office Document survey for the DPS Service. In conducting this

survey, InfoTrends hoped to gain a greater understanding of the

changing role of office documents, customer requirements, and

usage patterns in relation to printing, copying, scanning, and

page volumes in the office environment.

Company sizeOur survey participants reported working for companies

of all sizes. On average, respondents reported a total of 2,516

employees, but the median was only

150. This is a case where the mean

was clearly skewed by the presence

of very large companies within our

survey sample. The greatest share

of survey participants (27%) worked

for companies with fewer than 10

employees.

For the purposes of this report,

companies will be segmented into

five size categories. The Table below

provides the breakdown for each

category (see table 1).

Primary BusinessIn terms of primar y business,

the greatest percentage of survey

participants cited “other,” suggesting

that our respondents come from a wide

variety of industries. The most common

specific businesses included education/

training and government/public administration.

Change in print/copy volume in past yearWhen survey participants were asked how their printing/

copying volumes had changed over the past year, the highest

percentage of respondents believed that their volumes had

remained the same for all types of devices. That said, the

percentage of respondents who reported a decrease in volumes

surpassed the share of respondents who reported an increase in

print/copy volumes.

For most types of devices, the percentage of respondents

that anticipated a decline in print/copy volumes in the future

surpassed the share of respondents that anticipated an increase

in volumes. Figure 1 shows the response of participants. The

only exception to this rule was workgroup color printers, where

respondents were slightly more likely to expect an increase than

a decrease.

InfoTrends does expect paper usage to shrink in the future.

In an effort to curb costs and become more environmentally

conscious, some companies will more closely regulate printing/

copying volumes and/or encourage duplex printing. Figure 2

shows the changes of printing volumn of next year.

The future of the office document

▲ Table 1: Breakdown by company size category

Size Category Number of Employees Percentage of Total

Micro 1-49 38.6%

Small 50-249 19.4%

Medium 250-999 10.3%

Large 1,000-4,999 11.0%

Very Large 5,000+ 20.7%

▲ Figure 1 How have your printing/copying volumes changed over the past year?

Issue7--1-48-.indd 32 2010-9-17 14:11:13



Strongest barrier to widespread color useSurvey participants were also asked what they considered to be

the strongest barrier to widespread use of color. Over half of total

respondents believed that the costs of maintaining a color device

(e.g., purchasing toner, ink, etc.) were too high. As outlined in

the Figure below, this was particularly the case for micro and

very large companies. Meanwhile, only 16% of total respondents

believed that color equipment itself was too expensive. Prices for

color devices have certainly dropped

over the past few years, but cost of

ownership remains a concern for many

companies. Furthermore, businesses

are becoming increasingly aware of

the “true cost” of color devices in

terms of maintenance and supplies

consumption. Supplies costs will

likely need to come down before

some businesses will truly embrace

color equipment. This can also

represent an important opportunity

for the aftermarket provided that

the color supplies products available

have adequate quality. This has

been a problem that has plagued

the aftermarket in the past but is

something that is a priority for many

companies in this space recognizing

that it can add positively to their

bottom line.

Environmental featuresDue to the growing focus on

the environment and increased

government initiatives to embrace

green practices, businesses are

taking more steps to become environmentally friendly. As a

result, it is not surprising that survey participants placed a

high degree of importance on many environmental features

when making their purchasing decisions (see figure 3).

Recycling programs, print saver mode, and ENERGY

STAR certification received the highest rating values. The

respondents to this study may show a high interest in

recycling programs for supplies but time has shown that a

▲ Figure 2 How do you expect your company’s printing/copying volumes to change in the coming year?

▲ Figure 3 Which of the following do you consider to be the strongest barrier to widespread use of color printers and copiers in your office? (Segmented by company size)

As a primary contributor of written deliverables for InfoTrends'

Communication Supplies Consulting Service, Cathy Martin covers a wide

range of topics, including new products, trends, and distribution channels.

Ms. Martin conducts in-depth research for many topics regarding the

supplies industry, relying on her extensive network of contacts as well as

past experience. Prior to her current position, Ms. Martin was the Founder

and Editor of Communication Supplies Weekly. Before joining InfoTrends,

she served as an Analyst at BIS Strategic Decisions. Ms. Martin received a B.S. Degree (Magna Cum

Laude) in Business from the University of Massachusetts.

Cathy Martin

Issue7--1-48-.indd 33 2010-9-17 14:11:16



very low percentage actually participate in these programs.

The aftermarket may be playing an important role here for

some print users especially if they are offering rebates or

other benefits for returning their empty cartridges to them.

However, participation in the OEM programs has been

slowly increasing over the years and will likely continue

as the emphasis on the environment and greening up

businesses continues to gain momentum.

Equipment brandsRespondents were first asked to gauge their awareness of

various black & white office equipment brands. Hewlett-

Packard was the most popular brand by far, with over 66%

using it and over 99% having heard of it. On the other side

of the coin, over 60% of respondents had never heard of

TallyGenicom and Xanté (see figure 4).

As was the case for black & white equipment, Hewlett-

Packard was also the most well-known brand of color

office equipment. Canon and Xerox rounded out the top

three. As was also the case for black & white equipment,

TallyGenicom and Xanté were the brands that respondents

reported the least amount of familiarity with.

As was the case for black & white equipment and color

laser equipment, HP emerged as the clear favorite for

color inkjet equipment, and Canon followed in second

place.

ConclusionInfoTrends’ forecast data suggests a series of shifts within

the office equipment market. The market is moving from

single-function devices to multifunctionality, from A3 to A4,

and from black & white to color. Color is very attractive as

a communication tool, and speed/quality improvements

have been paired with decreasing acquisition costs. At the

same time, however, color adoption has been slow in many

businesses. Over 30% of total survey participants report

that their companies are slowly increasing their color use,

but they remain concerned with

cost and speed penalties. Nearly

as many respondents report that

color is strongly controlled within

their organizations. Although the

acquisition costs for color devices

have come down, some lingering

concerns remain. Furthermore,

over half of all respondents believe

that supplies costs for color devices

are too high. These issues will likely

need to be resolved before more

businesses fully embrace color.

John Shane is a leading industry expert on marking materials such as

toner, OPC, inkjet ink, and cartridges. As a Director for the Communication

Supplies Consulting Service, Mr. Shane is responsible for all forecasts,

research reports, consulting, and client care concerning those topics. He is a

well-known authority on all-in-one toner cartridges, the cartridge recycling

industry, and the world toner industry. In addition, he has conducted

extensive research following similar trends related to inkjet cartridges,

refills, and compatibles. Having consulted on these markets since 1988, Mr. Shane is a frequent

expert presenter at industry conferences and trade events.

Prior to joining InfoTrends, Mr. Shane spent seven years at BIS Strategic Decisions, where he served

as an Analyst as well as Director of the company's Hard Copy Supplies Service. He also served as a

Consultant for International Data Corp. (IDC) and a Site Manager of a consumer research center

within the US Testing Company. Mr. Shane holds a B.A. Degree in Marketing and an M.B.A.

Degree from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

John Shane

▲ Figure 4 How important are each of the following environmental features when deciding to purchase printing products for your business?

Issue7--1-48-.indd 34 2010-9-17 14:11:17

Issue7--1-48-.indd 35 2010-9-17 14:11:18

ProfilesRecycling Times Magazine


As Partner of the

p r e s t i g i o u s T h e

E c l i p s e G r o u p

LLP, Ed O’Connor

s e r v e s a s c h a i r

o f T h e E c l i p s e

Group’s l i t igation

d e p a r t m e n t . H i s

e x p a n s i v e c a r e e r

includes serving as

a public defender in

Palm Beach County,

Florida; serving with Air Force J.A.G., where he wrote patent

applications in computer technology, space exploration and

advanced weapons systems; and working in the capacity of

senior intellectual property and litigation attorney with Intel

where he was responsible for managing the organization’s

worldwide litigation.

O’Connor has won cases before the United States Courts of

Appeal for the Federal Circuit, the Second Circuit, the Fourth

Circuit, the Fifth Circuit, the Seventh Circuit, the Ninth

Circuit, and the Eleventh Circuit. He has also served as lead

attorney in complex cases before the Panel on Multidistrict

Litigation.

He has represented clients before the United States

Supreme Court and the International Trade Commission and

has won patent infringement, antitrust and other intellectual

property cases throughout the United States. As an

internationally recognized expert on intellectual property law,

O’Connor has been on the lecture circuit, touring New York,

Los Angeles, Zurich, Dusseldorf, Rome, Prague, Shanghai,

Zhuhai and Singapore.

The list of his specializations is endles. What will this legal

giant bring to the first Global Remanufacturing Industry

General Assembly on September 25 in Zhuhai, China?

Recycling Times interviews Ed O'Connor to find out more.

1 You have represented aftermarket printer suppliers

in the USITC and US Supreme Court. Can you reveal

some of these cases to our readers?

I have represented Independent Ink before the Court of

Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) and before the United

States Supreme Court in their antitrust case against ITW. I’ve

also represented Ninestar Technologies at USITC and the

CAFC, and Repeat-O-Type Stencil Manufacturing Inc. in their

case against Hewlett Packard Company. I represented Repeat-

O-Type in the US District Court for the Northern District of

California as well as before the CAFC.

2 The Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Repeat-O-Type Stencil

Mfg case has become quite famous, hasn’t it?

It’s considered one of the leading cases of the repair/

reconstruction doctrine. Can you share with our readers

some more information about this case and why it’s

significant to the cartridge remanufacturing industry?

In the Repeat-O-Type case, Repeat-O-Type was purchasing,

at full value, Hewlett-Packard cartridges. It then removed

the black ink from those cartridges and replaced them with

Repeat-O-Type color ink. It then resold those products as

Repeat-O-Type products, making clear that they were original

Hewlett-Packard cartridges but that they were modified by

the insertion of Repeat-O-Type color ink.

HP sued Repeat-O-Type for patent infringement on a

number of patents, I believe the number was 12. Repeat-

O-Type defended on a number of grounds. One of those

grounds was that, because Repeat-O-Type had purchased the

cartridges, HP’s patent rights were extinguished and Repeat-

O-Type had the right to modify and sell those cartridges.

Both the District Court and the CAFC agreed with Repeat-

O-Type. The District Court entered summary judgment in

favor of Repeat-O-Type and the CAFC affirmed that decision.

In its decision, the CAFC said that Repeat-O-Type’s conduct

was essentially the same as permissible repair under the

repair-reconstruction doctrine and therefore Repeat-O-

Type had every right to engage in the conduct about which

Hewlett-Packard was complaining.

3 Can you tell our readers, in the US, what is the legal

status of the cartridge remanufacturing industry?

Companies have the right to purchase cartr idges

which were originally sold in the United States and then

remanufacture those cartridges by replacing ink. If those

cartridges were first sold outside of the United States,

however, under the Jazz Photo decision, those cartridge sales

would not be allowed. Under Jazz Photo the extinguishment

of patent rights under the permissible repair doctrine only

An interview with Ed O'Connor

Issue7--1-48-.indd 36 2010-9-17 14:11:20

ProfilesRecycling Times Magazine


occurs if the products are first sold in the United States. It is

the burden on the remanufacturer to show that the cartridges

were first sold in the United States.

4 In recent years, almost every printer OEM used

“Section 337” to bring aftermarket printer supplies

manufacturers under USITC investigation. Do you see any

common elements in these “337 cases”? Do you have any

advice for those companies who are defendants in complaints

filed by the OEMs?

The common theme is that the OEMs have brought actions

against the after-market companies, alleging infringement of

their patents. OEMs have patented, in a number of instances,

the mating patterns between cartridges and printers. They

have then used the patents to essentially monopolize, or

attempt to monopolize, the aftermarket industry.

The Jazz Photo case has given OEMs additional ammunition

to use against people who are importing remanufactured

cartridges. Often these remanufactured cartridges were first

sold in foreign countries, or the remanufacturers have no

method of identifying the country of first sale.

The government (the ITC itself ) has to approve the filing

of any such cases. Accordingly, once the cases have been

filed, it is very difficult for the respondent to win. This is the

latest technique used by OEMs to avoid competition in the

aftermarket.

5 From your perspective, what impact will these OEM

vs Aftermarket legal cases bring to the aftermarket

industry?

These cases can have a devastating effect on the

aftermarket. At a minimum it is going to require much greater

effort by those who sell products in the aftermarket to either

make sure that remanufactured cartridges were first sold in

the United States or to ensure that any compatible cartridges

manufactured by them avoid infringing any OEM patents.

In addition, those in the aftermarket need to be aware of

possible weaknesses in OEM patents and be prepared to

attack their validity when necessary and appropriate.

6 Is it possible that you can explain from your

perspective about the Lexmark and Static Control’s

case over “Prebate”? How does this case impact our industry?

The court in the Lexmark cases determined that prebates

could not give rise to patent infringement. The court also

invalidated prebate contracts as being contracts of “adhesion”,

which means that they are invalid as being forced upon

consumers. This essentially eliminates, in my opinion,

Lexmark’s attempts to monopolize the market in its products

by use of the prebate technique.

7 You’ve come to China/Asia many times and you’ve

dealt with a number of Chinese companies. Can you

give some advice on how Chinese/Asian companies should

handle legal case in the US? How should they deal with

attorneys?

They should consult with their attorneys early and often.

All aspects of their businesses which could be impacted

negatively by OEMs should be thoroughly investigated and

analyzed before any commercial activities are undertaken.

There is often an understandable tension between business

motivation and legal motivation. Lawyers tend to be a lot

more conservative, but those involved in the business end of

things need to be aware of the long term difficult road that

could be followed if they do not consult carefully with their

attorneys and follow their attorneys’ advice throughout the

process.

8 On the IP issues, what suggestions would you give to

the aftermarket supplies industry?

Carefully analyze all patents which could be possibly

used against you. As far as remanufactured products are

concerned, be sure to determine the country of first sale.

This can often be addressed by purchasing empty cartridges

from the United States, instead of outside of the United

States. When making new products for use in OEM printers,

the aftermarket suppliers should be very careful to design

around patents whenever possible and/or to investigate

possible patents which could be used against them to

determine if those patents can survive attacks on their

validity.

9 What is the most fulfilling part of your job?

Successfully defending a member of the aftermarket

industry against those who would put them out of business.

In my opinion the aftermarket suppliers industry not only

provides an extremely valuable benefit to the public in terms

of reduced prices, but also provides an important service in

terms of dealing with the problem caused by the pollution of

plastic products in the oceans in this planet.

10 Do you have any further comments? I am looking forward to expanding on my

remarks at the RemaxAsia Expo 2010.

Issue7--1-48-.indd 37 2010-9-17 14:11:20

Issue7--1-48-.indd 38 2010-9-17 14:11:24

Legal IssuesRecycling Times Magazine


IntroductionIn a world where obtaining value for money has become

even more important than in the past it may be useful to

look for alternatives to the traditional way of doing things.

For some types of invention, use of a petty patent or utility

model as a means of protection may be a useful alternative to

patent protection in many countries. Obtaining protection this

way is often much less expensive than proceeding through

the traditional patent route and, as noted below, in several

countries has an advantage in its own right. Such protection

can be obtained either by direct filing or by use of the Patent

Cooperation Treaty. In many cases, as noted in the Tables at

the end of this paper, protection may be obtained without the

need for substantive examination and often a lower standard

of inventiveness is required for valid protection than is the case

for patents.

The term "petty patent" is no longer used anywhere in the

world, its use in Australia having been superseded by the term

“innovation patent” in 2001. Recently, however, the term has

acquired a secondary meaning, namely any type of protection

that is provided for inventions that do not qualify for full

patent protection. By far, the best known of these are utility

models, although other terms such as utility innovations, utility

solutions and short term patents are used in some countries.

Until the 1990's utility model protection was regarded as

being something of a curiosity in the intellectual property

world. It is true that the Washington revision of the Paris

Convention in 1910 had recognized utility models as a species

of industrial property right, but in his 1975 book on National

and International Protection of Patents, Trademarks and

Related Rights, Dr. Stephen Ladas listed as having this form of

protection only Brazil, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Philippines,

Poland, Portugal, South Korea, Spain and Taiwan. Since then,

however, many countries have adopted protection of this type

or some other form of "second tier" protection for useful

articles or other inventions.

Historical backgroundBefore looking at the current situation, it is worthwhile briefly

reviewing the historical background of this type of protection.

The history of utility model protection must be regarded

as starting with the German Law of June 1, 1891. German

Patent Law at the time (and indeed up till 1978) required that

for patent protection an invention must not only be new but

also represent a technical step forward in the art [technischer

Fortschritt]. This requirement left minor inventions such as

those relating to tools and implements, which were practical

and useful, but did not represent a technical step forward in

the art, without protection. Hence the need for a new law,

which provided limited protection for simple devices but

did not protect methods or compositions. Within fifteen

years, Japan, whose Intellectual Property Laws, and indeed

whose entire Civil Law System, was largely modeled on that

of Germany, followed suit. There were, however, from the

beginning significant differences between the German and

Japanese laws. In Germany, protection was initially relatively

short (three years) and rights were granted fairly promptly

without examination whereas in Japan protection was always

for a longer period than in Germany but, until the end of 1993,

examination was required as to whether the application for

protection met the standards required by the law. Another

difference was that for most of the century the German

By John Richards, Ladas & Parry LLP

Utility model protection

Issue7--1-48-.indd 39 2010-9-17 14:11:24



Patent Law contained no specific requirement for an inventive

step for patentability, the Patent Office and courts simply

inferring that such a step was required by the fact the patents

were to be granted for "inventions". Thus, as a practical matter,

it was possible for different standards of inventiveness to be

applied to consideration of protection for patentable inventions

and those protected only by a utility model. It was thought

that this difference had been codified when different terms

were used in the Patent and Utility Model statutes when these

were modified after Germany joined the European patent

Convention and a reuirement for inventiveness expressed

formally in the statutes for the first time. In 2008, however, in

Demonstrationsschrank the German Supreme Court ignored

the difference in language and prior case law of the Federal

Patent Court to hold that the level of inventiveness required for

a utility model was the same as that required for a patent.

In Japan the statute itself spelled out the difference in that to

be patentable something had to be a "highly advanced creation

of technical ideas", whereas for protection as a utility model all

that is required is "creation of a technical idea utilizing natural

laws". Thus, the determining factor as to whether something

was capable of protection by a patent or rather than by a

utility model was whether the idea was "highly advanced".

The Japanese Patent Office therefore examined utility model

applications looking for a measure of inventiveness, but a lower

one than was required for patents. This led to the possibility

that if one failed to convince the examiner that a sufficient

degree of inventiveness had been demonstrated to permit

patent protection, the application might, in cases where the

subject matter was appropriate, be converted into one for a

utility model. This feature was copied in other systems where

different degrees of inventiveness were required for patent and

utility model protection.

One of the raisons d'etre of the German Law, namely the

fact that utility models did not have to show technical advance,

became moot with the adoption of the European Patent

Convention in 1978. In harmonizing its patent law with those

of the rest of Europe, Germany gave up its requirement for

technical advance. This harmonization also required Germany

to give up a feature that was regarded as being important by

many in the German profession and industry, namely the six-

month grace period in respect of publications by an inventor.

However, no European harmonization existed for utility

models and Germany was therefore permitted to retain a grace

period for this form of protection. The existence of this grace

period gave utility model protection in Germany a new lease

on life and lead to a broadening of the concept of what could

be protected by utility models from articles having a defined

shape or structure to all tangible items including chemicals

and electrical circuits. Thus, today the only form of invention

which is not protectable by a utility model in Germany is one

which is a process or method. Even this limitation was cut

back in 2005 when the German Supreme Court held that use

claims, including second medical use claims, were permitted

in utility model applications. Many of the new laws which have

come into effect during the 1990's borrowed this concept from

Germany.

The current situation worldwideTable 1 sets out some basic facts about secondary protection

in most countries that have such laws, including indications

as to how long the countries have had such laws, the name

given to the protection (not all countries use the term "utility

model"), the duration of protection and, as an indication of the

usefulness of such protection, the number of applications filed

in 1999, the most recent year for which statistics are available

from WIPO. A summary of the most important features of the

substantive laws in these countries is set out in Table 2.

A comparison of Tables 1 and 2 shows that the countries in

which the most widespread use of utility model protection

is made are countries where there are significant differences

between the standards of invention required for patents

and utility models namely: Japan, China, Korea, Taiwan and

Germany. In Germany there are additional differences between

patents and utility models, namely the grace period as noted

above and secondly, that for utility models prior to public

use outside Germany does not constitute a bar to protection.

Furthermore, in Germany procedures for enforcement of

utility models and patents differ. In the case of an infringement

action, the defendant can plead that the utility model is invalid

and the courts can in effect amend the scope of protection in

the light of the art cited by the defendant.

As can be seen from the tables, countries where there is a

Issue7--1-48-.indd 40 2010-9-17 14:11:25



lesser distinction between requirements for patent protection

and for utility model protection have tended to result in few

utility model applications being filed. It is, however, noticeable

from the statistics compiled by WIPO, that in all countries utility

models, unlike patents in most countries, are much more

utilized by local residents than by foreigners. One reason for

this is that costs for utility models tend to be less than those

for patent applications because in many countries (although

as shown by the table not all by any means) no substantive

examination is carried out for utility model applications.

Dispensing with examination seems to be an increasing trend,

although Korea at one point abolished this requirement but

has now re-introduced it. This lack of examination also has the

potential advantage of accelerating the grant of an enforceable

intellectual property right. One consequence of a lack of

examination, however, is a feeling that protection should not

be granted for the full term normally granted for patents and

so utility model protection is generally for a shorter period

than that granted for a normal patent.

In many countries, but not for example China, it is possible

to convert a patent application into a utility model application

at any time during pendency of the patent application, for

example, if one encounters an obviousness objection where

a lower standard required for protection as a utility model

would be met even though one cannot satisfy the Examiner

as to patentability. In France, failure to request examination of

a patent application will automatically convert the application

into one for a utility certificate. In general, it is not possible

to secure protection for the same invention by both patent

and utility model rights (Germany is an exception). Many

countries, including Japan, Korea (if examination has no

already been carried out), France and China require that a

report on the novelty of the model must be carried out before

an infringement action can proceed. In Germany, this is not

obligatory but can be requested by the right holder or a third

party. As noted above, however, in Germany issues of the valid

scope of protection can be considered by the court hearing the

infringement action.

Typically therefore utility models differ

from patents in one or more of the following

respects:• Standard of invention required.

• The basis on which novelty is assessed.

• Whether examination is required (and consequent speed

of grant of an enforceable right).

• Costs;

• Duration of protection.

• Superimposed upon this is the fact that the classes of

subject matter which may be protectable by a utility model

or other form of secondary protection may in many cases be

much narrower than the definition of patentable subject matter

for normal patents.

ConclusionThe fifteen years up to 2000 saw the introduction of utility

model protection in at least twenty-five jurisdictions which did

not have them previously. Since then, however, the pace has

slackened. Whether the current economic morass will lead

to renewed interest in creating such protection by countries

that do not currently have this type of protection remains to

be seen. Whereas the early trend seems to have been to have

different standards for novelty between patents and utility

models, particularly in countries having an absolute novelty

standard for patents, the current trend seems to be away from

this and towards only requiring a reduced level of inventiveness

for utility model protection.

From the applicant’s point of view, however, in many

countries utility model protection provides a relatively low-cost

means for obtaining protection for some types of invention in a

large number of countries. Other countries providing for utility

model protection include: Armenia, Belize, Ecuador, Estonia,

El Salvador, Honduras, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Macao,

Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, Uzbekistan and Venezuela.

Typically protection is for the same types of invention as are

patent-eligible (although in Honduras, Kenya and Macao at

least protection is confined to tangible things) and does not

require that there be any inventive step involved.

If you have any questions about this article, please contact

John Richards at Ladas & Parry LLP.

Issue7--1-48-.indd 41 2010-9-17 14:11:32



Country DATE OF FIRST LAW

DURATION OF PROTECTION NAME SUBSTANTIVE

EXAMINATION NUMBER OF

APPLICATIONS FILED 2006

Andean community 1992 10 years Utility Model Yes

Argentina 1996 10 years Utility Model Yes - deferred

Australia 1979/2001 8 years Innovation Patent No 1076

Austria 1994 10 years Utility Model No - but there is a search 1019

Belgium 1987 6 years Short Term Patent No

Belarus 1997 8 years Utility Model No 141

Brazil 1945* 10 years Utility Model Yes 2984

Bulgaria 1993 10 years Utility Model Yes 96

Colombia 1992 10 years Utility Model 171

Chile 1991 10 years Utility Model Yes

China 1985 10 years Utility Model No 161,366

Czech republic 1992 10 years Utility Model No 1082

Denmark 1991 10 years Utility Model No 335

Finland 1993 10 years Utility Model 520

France 1968 6 years Utility Certificate No 381

Georgia 118

Germany 1891 10 years Gebrauchsmuster No 19766

Greece 1988 7 years Utility Model No 581

Guatemala 1986 10 years Utility Model Yes 17

Hungary 1992 10 years Utility Model 285

Indonesia 1991 5 years Simple Patent Yes 268

Ireland 1992 10 years Short Term Patent No

Italy 1934 10 years Utility Model No

Japan 1905 10 years Utility Model No 10965

Korea 1961 10 years Utility Model Yes 32908

Malaysia 1986 15 years Utility Innovation Yes

Mexico 1991 10 years Utility Model Yes 396

Netherlands 1995 6 years Short Term Patent No

Oapi 1977 10 years Utility Model Limited

Panama 1996 10 years Utility Model Published for opposition

Peru 1992 10 years Utility Model No 58

Philippines 1947 15 years Utility Model Yes

Poland 1924 10 years Utility Model Yes 678

Portugal 1940 15 years Utility Model Yes 101

Russia 1992 8 years Utility Model No 9699

Slovakia 1992 10 years Utility Model No 343

Spain 1929 10 years Utility Model No 2824

Taiwan 1944 12 years Utility Model Yes Substantial use

Thailand 1999 10 years Petty patent Yes 3011

Turkey 1995 10 years Utility Model No

Ukraine 1993 8 years Utility Model No 8171

Uruguay 1976 10 years Utility Model No

Viet nam 1995 10 years Utility Solution Yes

▲ Table 1 Other countries providing for utility model protection include: Armenia, Belize, Ecuador, Estonia, El Salvador, Honduras, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Macao, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, Uzbekistan and Venezuela. Typically protection is for the same types of invention as are patent-eligible (although in Honduras, Kenya and Macao at least protection is confined to tangible things) and does not require that there be any inventive step involved.

Issue7--1-48-.indd 42 2010-9-17 14:11:32



Country NOVELTY REQUIREMENT SUBJECT FOR PROTECTION COMMENTSAndean community Same as patents Device, tool, implement, mechanism, or

other object or part thereof etc.

Argentina6-Month grave period for inventor’s disclosure outside argentina

Tools, working instruments, devices, objects used for practical work.

Lower standard of inventiveness than foe patents

Australia Same as patents Same as for patents Llower standard of “innovation” than regular patents

Austria 6-Month grace period Products, devices, machines, processes, and programming logic, therapy for animals

Lower standard of inventiveness than foe patents

Belgium Same as patents Same as for patents Same as for patentsBrazil Same as patents Tool, working instruments, utensils, etc.

Bulgaria Same as patents Shape, etc. Of products, tools, apparatus, etc. Inventive step not required

Chile Same as patents Instruments, apparatus, tools, devices, parts

Apparently a lower standard of inventiveness than for patents

China Same as patents Shape or structure of product Lower standard of inventiveness than foe patents

Czech republic

6-Month grace period for own publications All tangible items including chemicals

Denmark Same as patents All tangible items including chemicalsLower standard of inventiveness than foe patents, cumulative protection possible.

Finland Same as patents Shape or design of a device Lower standard of inventiveness than foe patents

France Same as patents Same as for patents No coexistance with full patents

GermanyUse outside germany not a bar; 6-month grace period for all prior art

All inventions except processes and methods (note new uses are covered) Lcumulative protection possible.

Greece Same as patents 3D object with definite shape or form Lack of design law leads to use of utility model law as substitute

Guatemala Same as patents Device, tool, implement, mechanism, etc.Hungary Use outside hungary not a bar Form, structure, etc. Of an objectIndonesia Same as patents Same as for patents Novely exam required before suit

Ireland Same as patents Same as for patentsNovelty exam required before suit; lower standard of inventiveness than for patents

Italy Same as patents Machines, machine parts, tools, etc.

Japan Same as patents Shape, construction, etc. Of an article Lower standard of inventiveness than foe patents

Korea Same as patents Shape, construction, etc. Of an article Inventive step requiredMalaysia Similar to patentsMexico Same as patents Objects, utensils, apparatus or tools No requirement of inventive step

Netherlands Same as patents Same as for patents Novelty exam required before suit can be brought

Philippines Local novelty only required Non-inventive new form, etc. Of tools or products

Poland Same as patents Shape, construction, etc. Of an object

Portugal Same as patents Tools, utensils, containers, etc. Lower standard of inventiveness than foe patents

Russia Use outside russia not bar Construction of production means/articles No requirement of inventive step

Slovakia 6-Month grace period for own publications All tangible items including chemicals

Spain Unlike patents; local novelty only Utensils, instruments, tools, apparatus, etc. Inventive step required

Taiwan Same as patents Shape, structure or construction of article Lower standard of inventiveness than foe patents

Thailand Same as patents Similar to patenrts No need for inventive step

Turkey Twelve month grace period Anything patentable except for processes and chemical products. No need for inventive step

Ukraine Same as patents DevicesUruguay Similar to patents Tools, working instruments, utensils, etc.Vietnam Same as patents Anything patentable

▲ Table 2

Issue7--1-48-.indd 43 2010-9-17 14:11:32

Tech ZoneRecycling Times Magazine


First released in June 2008 the Okidata MB-200 series of machines are

based on a 22ppm, 600 dpi MFP engine that has a first page out in less than

13 seconds. These machines can print, copy, fax and scan (600 dpi Color and

Monochrome scanner). The printers come with a starter cartridge rated for

2,000 pages and the standard cartridge is rated for 3,000 pages at 5% coverage.

There is also a HY cartridge rated for 5,500 pages. These machines use a fairly

new method of telling the printer a new cartridge has been installed. Instead

of a chip on the cartridge they use a Key Card that is inserted separately into

the printer (see the figure on the right). These reset cards must be replaced

each cycle. When packaging the cartridge it is a good idea to tape the card to

the top of the bag so the user does not forget they have to insert the card for

the cartridge to work (just like the OEM does)

An interesting item about this system is that the cartridge does not have a

toner end detection system. It is all controlled by the reset card (Page counts).

Remanufacturing the Okidata MB-260 MFP series toner cartridge

By Mike Josiah and the Technical Staff at Uninet Imaging

Remove the 2 silver pins, one from each side of the cartridge. Pry them

out with a small jeweler’s screwdriver and then grab them with wire cutters to remove them. Remove the Torx screws and plate

from both sides of the cartridge. 2step

> T h e To r x s c r e w s u s e d i n t h e s e cartridges are size T-7.3st

ep >

1step

>

Required Tools

• Toner approved vacuum.

• A small Common screwdriver

• A Phillips head screwdriver

• Needle nose pliers • Size T-7 Torx driver

Required Supplies

• Dedicated Okidata MB-200 Toner

• Dedicated Okidata MB-200 Reset Card

• Conductive grease • Soft, lint free wipes

• 99% pure isopropyl alcohol • Cotton swabs

The machines based on this engine are as follows:

• Okidata MB260 MFP • Okidata MB280 MFP

• Okidata MB290 MFP

The cartridges used in this series are as follows:

• 56123401 3,000 Pages* $123.75 List**

• 56123402 5,500 Pages* $186.25 List**

These cartridges are fairly easy to do, and with a retail

cost of $186.00** very profitable too!

* Yield based on ISO 19752

** Pricing as of August 2010

Issue7--1-48-.indd 44 2010-9-17 14:11:38



Re-install the two screws and the wiper blade.8st

ep >

Install the cleaned PCR. 10step

>

Install the drum into the cartridge.11step

> Remove the four loose gears from the hopper.14st

ep >

From the gear side of the drum half take a small punch (1/4”) or screwdriver

and drive the metal axle pin out. This axle is fairly tight. Make sure you do it from the gear side, (the keyed Side), if you try and drive the axle out from the opposite side, the axle will not move and you may damage the drum ground contact inside the drum. Remove the drum.

5step

>

Lift off the roller cover.9step

>

On the toner hopper, note the location of all the gears. 13st

ep >

Install the drum axle from the hub side. Make sure the keyed end of the axle is

installed first. It is easier if you mark the keyed end with a marker so you know how to orientate it when installing it. The side marks in Figure 13 show the orientation of the flat or keyed edge, the top mark in Figure 14 shows the keyed edge location.

12step

>

Remove the PCR and clean with you preferred cleaner. 6st

ep >

Remove the two screws on the wiper blade, and the blade. Clean out the

waste chamber. NOTE: Be very careful not to damage or distort the thin Mylar Recovery Blade next to the wiper blade. If this blade is bent or damaged in any way, it should be replaced.

7step

>

Pry out one of the side panels, and separate the two halves.4st

ep >

Issue7--1-48-.indd 45 2010-9-17 14:11:47



Remove the screw, holder and contact from the contact side of the developer

roller. Press in on the plastic tabs on the back side of the holder to remove it. Be careful not to lose the contact!

21step

>

Remove the developer roller.23step

>

Pry off the metal bushings from both sides of the developer roller shaft.23st

ep >

Remove the fill plug and dump out any remaining toner from the hopper. 16st

ep >

Remove the screw and holder from the gear side of the developer roller. Press

in on the plastic tabs on the back side of the holder to remove it.

17step

>

Remove the two screws from the doctor blade.

NOTE: The doctor blade in these cartridges actually consists of three parts. An upper metal brace, the doctor blade itself which is a very thin sheet of metal and the lower metal brace. Be very careful when handling the dr. blade as it is very easily bent.

24step

>

Remove the upper metal brace, being careful not to damage the alignment

pins. The pin on the left side is normally tight so more care should be taken there.

25step

>

Remove the Dr. Blade. Lift it out from the slot on the left side of the hopper.

Again, be very careful not to damage it. Clean the blade with a cotton swan and alcohol.

27step

>

Remove the lower metal brace.28step

>

Remove the gear from the fill plug area by pressing in on the tab.15st

ep >

Issue7--1-48-.indd 46 2010-9-17 14:12:00



Replace the upper metal brace and the two screws.33st

ep >

Clean the developer roller with a clean lint free dry cloth. We do not

recommend any chemicals be used at this time. Replace the developer roller into the cartridge. The long metal shaft side goes to the gear side of the hopper.

33step

>

Replace the metal bushings on both sides of the developer roller shaft.36st

ep >

Replace the metal bushings on both sides of the developer roller shaft.37st

ep >

Replace the screw and holder on the gear side of the developer roller shaft.38st

ep >

Replace the screw, holder, and contact on the contact side of the developer

roller shaft.39st

ep >

Clean out any remaining toner from the hopper. Make sure to get the feed roller

and foam seals clean. It is not necessary to remove the roller, just make sure it is clean.

32step

>

Install the Doctor Blade next making sure the lip is facing down and the blade fits

over the alignment pins correctly.32st

ep >

Replace the cleaned Dr. Blade assembly in the hopper. Install the lower brace

first inserting the tail through the cartridge wall and under the copper contact.

28step

>

Lift it out from the left side as the right side has a tail that runs through

the cartridge wall. See Figures29st

ep >

Issue7--1-48-.indd 47 2010-9-17 14:12:10



Replace all the gears on the hopper as shown.42st

ep >

Install the metal plates and screws.42step

>

Install the metal plates and screws.42step

>

After the cartridge has been tested and bagged, tape the Key card to the

top of the bag so the user will see it. This key card is installed into the printer separately from the cartridge.

42step

>

Place the two halves together and install the two metal pins. 42st

ep >

Fill the hopper with the Okidata MB-200 series toner. Replace the fill plug.41st

ep >

Clean and replace the conductive grease on the developer roller and

the feed roller shafts.Note that the feed roller contacts also run to the Dr. Blade. This helps ensure that the toner is properly charged throughout the hopper.

40step

>

Install the drum cover if available. It needs to be taped in place. Use a

brightly colored tape so the user will notice it.42st

ep >

Mike Josiah is the East Coast Technical Director at Uninet Imaging, a global distributor of toner,

OPC drums, wiper blades and other supplies. An industry veteran since 1987, Mike is a member of

ASTM committee F.05, the STMC Technician Certification Committee as well as an STMC trainer.

He regularly contributes articles and teaches seminars at association meetings and trade shows.

Mike Josiah

Printing a Test page:The simplest way to test a cartridge is to make a copy. To do this place the original face

down in the feeder. Press the copy key, number of copies desired and the start key.

Cleaning the Scanner:If copied and transmitted pages come out with marks on the pages, but the

reports are clean, the scanner is dirty. To clean the scanner, open the scanner cover.

Wipe the scanner window down with a lint free cloth moistened with Isopropyl alcohol.

Repetitive Defect ChartOPC Drum 75mm

Developer roller 50mm

PCR 37.7mm

Issue7--1-48-.indd 48 2010-9-17 14:12:22

issue7en1010

Documents

Transcript of issue7en1010