FREE View on Demand Webinars 6LPSOH DV :DWFKLQJ 79 60
*HW IUHH WHFKQLFDO WUDLQLQJ WR KHOS \RX PDNH PRUH PRQH\
Go to www.scc-inc.com to Register Static Control Zhuhai Telephone: +86 756 3320300 800 630 0700 Fax: +86 756 3321700 E-Mail: info@scc-china.com Static Control Hong Kong Telephone: +852 2427 6011 Fax: +852 2427 6677 E-Mail: info@scchongkong.hk
VIEW ON DEMAND
3URGXFWV 1RZ 6KLS 4XLFNO\ IURP 2XU =KXKDL 'LVWULEXWLRQ &HQWHU
webinars
www.scc-inc.com
Over 14,000 Products
:RUOG OHDGHU LQ SULQWHU FDUWULGJH UHPDQXIDFWXULQJ WHFKQRORJ\ DQG H[SHUW WUDLQLQJ Š2010 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.
Issue7--1-48-.indd 1
2010-9-17 14:10:27
Recycling Times Magazine
RecyclingTimes The magazine by the industry, for the industry.
Publisher & Managing Director Tony Lee tony@therecycler.com.cn
Directors
David Gibbons david.gibbons@therecycler.com.cn Sabrina Lo sabrina@therecycler.com.cn
Editorial Editors
Johanna Breen Cherry Xu translator@therecycler.com.cn Jessica Yin magazine@therecycler.com.cn Sophia Jiang editor@therecycler.com.cn Emily Ou magazine02@therecycler.com.cn
Designer
Adam Lin design@therecycler.com.cn
Sales Sales Manager
Anna Leung anna@therecycler.com.cn
Account Manager
Kevin Zhu kevin@therecycler.com.cn
Sales Executives
Joy He mktas@therecycler.com.cn Sally He sales@therecycler.com.cn Susi Guo Sales02@therecycler.com.cn
Operations and Marketing Operations Manager Charles Lee charles@therecycler.com.cn
Operations Assistant
William Feng operation@therecycler.com.cn
Marketing Manager
Morrow Miao morrow@therecycler.com.cn
Marketing Assistant
Eugenia Zhai marketing@therecycler.com.cn
Accounting
Feng Li account@therecycler.com.cn
Published by
editorial editorial www.recyclingtimes.com.cn
I
n the last few months, both Canon and Lexmark have taken legal action against manufacturers of replacement toner cartridges, drawing 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 yearover-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!
Recycling Times Media Corporation
Address
5F Pacific Insurance Building, Jiuzhou Ave, Zhuhai, China
RecyclingTimes
Tel：+86 (0)756 3220716 Fax：+86 (0)756 3220717 Email：info@therecycler.com.cn Website：www.recyclingtimes.com.cn
2
Tony Lee Publisher & Managing Director 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.
October 2010 | www.recyclingtimes.com.cn
Issue7--1-48-.indd 2
2010-9-17 14:10:29
Recycling Times Magazine
contents contents
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.
www.recyclingtimes.com.cn
Just a Minute with David Gibbons
4
US printer import and export by country in 2010
Fight for market shares
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.
Industry Updates
5
E-Cycle Wisconsin in effect Katun Corporation partners with Print Management Solutions Group for MPS
6
An interview with Ed O'Connor
As 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.
Armor to partner with S.T. Sangyo Lexon/INTEK merger still on track
7
Eco Service strengthens its position in China Print-Rite wins HK MAKE Award
Product Release
8
MIS Computer launches MIS Deluxe Basic
Features
15
Coates Toners releases HP LaserJet P2055 MICR type toner Metrofuser introduces LaserJet P3015 fuser
9
Faroudja offers bulk toner for Xerox DocuColor 30 and dust collector
OEMs vs Aftermarket: Reports from the front-line
Market Data
24
US printer import and export by country in 2010
28
Worldwide hardcopy peripherals recorded double-digit
32
The future of the office document
year-on-year growth in Q2 2010
Green Project releases toner cartridges for Dell 3130 Apex releases chip for Samsung SCX-5635/5835 series printers
10
Jadi offers fixing toner for HP and Samsung machines
Profiles OEM news
12
36
Kodak releases ESP 9250 multifunction printer
Legal Issues
HP and Dell expands to services Global Imaging Systems acquires Georgia Duplicating Products
13
An interview with Ed O'Connor
39
Epson announces Stylus NX625 printer
Tech Zone
Canon India eyes 25% growth in MPS ColorLok standard maximizes printer performance
Utility model protection
44
Remanufacturing the Okidata MB-260 MFP series toner cartridge www.recyclingtimes.com.cn | October 2010
Issue7--1-48-.indd 3
3
2010-9-17 14:10:31
Recycling Times Magazine
Just a Minute with David Gibbons
Fight for market shares The 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.
4
October 2010 | www.recyclingtimes.com.cn
Recycling Times Magazine
Industry Updates
E-Cycle Wisconsin in effect
W
isconsin's new electronics recycling law took effect 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.
Katun Corporation partners with Print Management Solutions Group for MPS
K
atun Corporation announces the formation of a unique and strategic alliance with Print Management Solutions Group (PMSG). Print Management Solutions Group is a wellrespected 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 training and consulting capabilities to the benefit of our loyal customer base,” says Joseph C. Wagner, vice president of marketing. “It 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 to providing exceptional 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-ofthe-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 initiatives 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.” www.recyclingtimes.com.cn | October 2010
Issue7--1-48-.indd 5
5
2010-9-17 14:10:39
Recycling Times Magazine
Industry Updates
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 part of our ongoing development drive, which begun in May with the acquisition o f We c a r e 4 i n t h e Netherlands. By exchanging information, both companies can grow stronger in our respective 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 with INTEK America Inc (“INTEK”), Lexon has now completed the due diligence of INTEK. Discussions have also occurred to address concerns around the poor performance of Lexon's toner manufacturing operation (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.
6
• 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.
October 2010 | www.recyclingtimes.com.cn
Issue7--1-48-.indd 6
2010-9-17 14:10:39
Recycling Times Magazine
Industry Updates
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 position on the global market. First shipments of cartridges from Europe are being delivered to the Chinese branch of the company. The broker estimates 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 first deliveries from Europe. L ocating the logistics centre in Hong Kong has streamlined transportation of inkjet 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 welltried 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.
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. Print-Rite has also been featured in Transformation and Upgrade files prepared by the Hong Kong Productivity Council for “transforming creativity into value-added products”. Cost reductions and technological 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 first introduced in 2008 and hosted 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.
www.recyclingtimes.com.cn | October 2010
Issue7--1-48-.indd 7
7
2010-9-17 14:10:41
Recycling Times Magazine
Product Release
MIS Computer launches MIS Deluxe Basic
R
efill machine manufacturer MIS Computer has launched a new kit to refill all black and color cartridges, adding to its Deluxe family. The MIS Deluxe Basic is a compact 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.
• Contact MIS Tel: +90 5552 4313 39 Website: www.miscomputer.com Website: www.misrefillmachine.com
Coates Toners releases HP LaserJet P2055 MICR type toner
C
oates Toners, a leading global manufacturer of color and 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 critical objectives - average signal strength readings of 135 and excellent yield.
The product will be packaged in 100kg drums.
• Contact Coates Toners Tel: +1 570 675 1131 ext.30 Email: john.myers@coatestoners.com Website: www.coatestoners.com.
Metrofuser introduces LaserJet P3015 fuser
M
etrofuser has introduced remanufactured fusers for the Hewlett Packard LaserJet P3010 and P3015 printers (RM16274). “Reliable laser printer parts solutions are in high demand with the advent of more feature-rich laser printers in the marketplace - particularly for Hewlett Packard LaserJet printers,” says Will DeMuth, Chief Operating Officer. “Our customers require the most precise 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
8
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 continuous 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 printers offer brilliantly 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 Metrofuser Metrofuser 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.
October 2010 | www.recyclingtimes.com.cn
Issue7--1-48-.indd 8
2010-9-17 14:10:41
Recycling Times Magazine
Product Release
Faroudja offers bulk toner for Xerox DocuColor 30 and dust collector
F
aroudja Toner has released color toner in bags for the Xerox 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 collector. At approximately 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 airflow) 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
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 landfills. Our research and development department has created an extensive 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 ultimately 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.
Apex releases chip for Samsung SCX-5635/5835 series printers
I
n September 2010, Apex Microelectronics Co Ltd announced the release of the first compatible chip for Samsung SCX-5635/5835 series printers. The chips for this series of printers utilized tremendously Apex Product code ALS-D208S ALS-D208L ALS-P208A ALS-D208S/XIL ALS-D208L/XIL ALS-D2082S ALS-D2082L ALS-P2082A
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 Description the jump on its competitors SamsungRSCX-5635FNK；SCXwith this release. Apex claims 5835FN the result is comparable with SamsungRML-3475D/ND;MLOEM products in function 3475D/GOV;ML-3475ND/GOV SamsungRSCX-5635FN/5835FN and quality. The series products SamsungRSCX-5635FN/5635HN are segmented into four SamsungRSCX-5635FN/5835 regions: Europe, US, Korea and China.
For more information, log on to www.apexmic. com or contact your account manager.
• Contact Apex Tel: +86 756 3333768 Website: www.apexmic.com
www.recyclingtimes.com.cn | October 2010
Issue7--1-48-.indd 9
9
2010-9-17 14:10:42
Recycling Times Magazine
Product Release
Jadi offers fixing toner for HP and Samsung machines
J
adi 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
10
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 JLT035SF 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 ecoconscious technology recently introduced by Samsung, Jadi has developed a universal JLT035SF 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.
October 2010 | www.recyclingtimes.com.cn
Issue7--1-48-.indd 10
2010-9-17 14:10:47
Issue7--1-48-.indd 11
2010-9-17 14:10:50
Recycling Times Magazine
OEM News
Kodak releases ESP 9250 multifunction printer
K
odak has just released 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.
HP and Dell expands to services
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: HP September 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 Corporation, 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. Dell July 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 startup 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.
Global Imaging Systems acquires Georgia Duplicating Products
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.
12
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.”
October 2010 | www.recyclingtimes.com.cn
Issue7--1-48-.indd 12
2010-9-17 14:10:50
Recycling Times Magazine
OEM News
Epson announces Stylus NX625 printer
E
pson America, Inc. has just introduced the Epson Stylus NX625, a powerful allin-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
Canon India eyes 25% growth in MPS
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.
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 Availability The 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.
ColorLok standard maximizes printer performance
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. www.recyclingtimes.com.cn | October 2010
Issue7--1-48-.indd 13
13
2010-9-17 14:10:50
Issue7--1-48-.indd 14
2010-9-17 14:10:52
Recycling Times Magazine
Features
OEMs vs Aftermarket: Reports from the front-line To 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. A summary of OEM legal activities against aftermarket manufacturers regarding patents Epson vs aftermarket industry Epson 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
(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.
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.
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
www.recyclingtimes.com.cn | October 2010
Issue7--1-48-.indd 15
15
2010-9-17 14:10:53
Recycling Times Magazine
Features
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.
16
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 industry Canon 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
October 2010 | www.recyclingtimes.com.cn
Issue7--1-48-.indd 16
2010-9-17 14:10:54
Recycling Times Magazine
Features
& 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. www.recyclingtimes.com.cn | October 2010
Issue7--1-48-.indd 17
17
2010-9-17 14:10:54
Recycling Times Magazine
Features
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.
18
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. Against 11 companies 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
October 2010 | www.recyclingtimes.com.cn
Issue7--1-48-.indd 18
2010-9-17 14:10:55
Issue7--1-48-.indd 19
2010-9-17 14:10:56
Recycling Times Magazine
Features
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
20
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 industry Lexmark 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
October 2010 | www.recyclingtimes.com.cn
Issue7--1-48-.indd 20
2010-9-17 14:11:02
Recycling Times Magazine
Features
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. Against 24 companies 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-anddesist 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 inudstry Against 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 Brotherbranded 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 www.recyclingtimes.com.cn | October 2010
Issue7--1-48-.indd 21
21
2010-9-17 14:11:04
Recycling Times Magazine
Features
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
22
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 patents The 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 Epson On 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 Canon The 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. Summary More 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 translator@therecycler.com.cn.
October 2010 | www.recyclingtimes.com.cn
Issue7--1-48-.indd 22
2010-9-17 14:11:05
Issue7--1-48-.indd 23
2010-9-17 14:11:07
Recycling Times Magazine
Market Data
Worldwide hardcopy peripherals recorded double-digit year-onyear growth in Q2 2010 The worldwide hardcopy peripherals market 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 doubledigit 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 laser multifunction printers (MFPs) exhibited the highest year-over-year growth, 2Q10 marked the first 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.
since 4Q03, to more than 19 million units in 2Q10, 78% of which were inkjet MFPs. • The laser market increased 35%, the highest yearover-year growth among all technologies, to more than 9 million 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
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
28
October 2010 | www.recyclingtimes.com.cn
Issue7--1-48-.indd 28
2010-9-17 14:11:08
Issue7--1-48-.indd 29
2010-9-17 14:11:09
Recycling Times Magazine
Market Data
space. The segment posted a 25.4% growth, the best yearover-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 Europe Overall, 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,
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. • Epson Epson maintained its position 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
Middle East and Africa) The region experienced significant year-overyear 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. • Japan With approximately 1.6 million units 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
30
October 2010 | www.recyclingtimes.com.cn
Issue7--1-48-.indd 30
2010-9-17 14:11:13
Recycling Times Magazine
Market Data
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 singlefunction 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.
Vendors
2Q10 Unit Shipments
2Q10 Market Share
2Q09 Unit Shipments
2Q09 Market Share
2Q10/2Q09 Growth
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 2010 Source: IDC Worldwide Quarterly Hardcopy Peripherals Tracker, August 2010
Vendors
2Q10 Unit Shipments
2Q10 Market Share
2Q09 Unit Shipments
2Q09 Market Share
2Q10/2Q09 Growth
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 2010 Source: IDC Worldwide Quarterly Hardcopy Peripherals Tracker, August 2010
www.recyclingtimes.com.cn | October 2010
Issue7--1-48-.indd 31
31
2010-9-17 14:11:13
Recycling Times Magazine
Market Data
The future of the office document Methodology In 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
training and government/public administration.
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.
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.
Company size Our survey participants reported working for companies of all sizes. On average, respondents reported a total of 2,516 employees, but the median was only Size Category 150. This is a case where the mean Micro was clearly skewed by the presence Small of very large companies within our Medium survey sample. The greatest share Large of survey participants (27%) worked Very Large 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 Business In 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/
32
Change in print/copy volume in past year When 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
Number of Employees
Percentage of Total
1-49
38.6%
50-249
19.4%
250-999
10.3%
1,000-4,999
11.0%
5,000+
20.7%
Table 1: Breakdown by company size category
▲ Figure 1 How have your printing/copying volumes changed over the past year?
October 2010 | www.recyclingtimes.com.cn
Issue7--1-48-.indd 32
2010-9-17 14:11:13
Recycling Times Magazine
Market Data
Strongest barrier to widespread color use Survey 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 features Due 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)
Cathy Martin 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.
www.recyclingtimes.com.cn | October 2010
Issue7--1-48-.indd 33
33
2010-9-17 14:11:16
Recycling Times Magazine
Market Data
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.
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.
Conclusion InfoTrends’ 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 Figure 4 How important are each of the following environmental features businesses fully embrace color. when deciding to purchase printing products for your business?
Equipment brands Respondents were first asked to gauge their awareness of various black & white office equipment brands. HewlettPackard 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, HewlettPackard was also the most well-known brand of color
▲
John Shane 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.
34
October 2010 | www.recyclingtimes.com.cn
Issue7--1-48-.indd 34
2010-9-17 14:11:17
Issue7--1-48-.indd 35
2010-9-17 14:11:18
Recycling Times Magazine
Profiles
An interview with Ed O'Connor As Partner of the prestigious The Eclipse Group LLP, Ed O’Connor serves as chair of The Eclipse Group’s litigation department. His expansive career 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
36
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 RepeatO-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. RepeatO-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 RepeatO-Type had the right to modify and sell those cartridges. Both the District Court and the CAFC agreed with RepeatO-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-OType 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 cartridges 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
October 2010 | www.recyclingtimes.com.cn
Issue7--1-48-.indd 36
2010-9-17 14:11:20
Recycling Times Magazine
Profiles
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. www.recyclingtimes.com.cn | October 2010
Issue7--1-48-.indd 37
37
2010-9-17 14:11:20
Issue7--1-48-.indd 38
2010-9-17 14:11:24
Recycling Times Magazine
Legal Issues
Utility model protection By John Richards, Ladas & Parry LLP Introduction In 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
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
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.
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
Historical background Before 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 www.recyclingtimes.com.cn | October 2010
Issue7--1-48-.indd 39
39
2010-9-17 14:11:24
Recycling Times Magazine
Legal Issues
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
40
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 sixmonth 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 worldwide Table 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
October 2010 | www.recyclingtimes.com.cn
Issue7--1-48-.indd 40
2010-9-17 14:11:25
Recycling Times Magazine
Legal Issues
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. Conclusion The 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. www.recyclingtimes.com.cn | October 2010
Issue7--1-48-.indd 41
41
2010-9-17 14:11:32
Recycling Times Magazine
Legal Issues
DATE OF DURATION OF FIRST LAW PROTECTION Andean community 1992 10 years
Utility Model
SUBSTANTIVE EXAMINATION Yes
10 years
Utility Model
Yes - deferred
Country
NAME
NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS FILED 2006
Argentina
1996
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
Chile
1991
10 years
Utility Model
171 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
France
1968
6 years
Utility Certificate
520 No
381 118
Georgia 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
Indonesia
1991
5 years
Simple Patent
Yes
Ireland
1992
10 years
Short Term Patent
No
Italy
1934
10 years
Utility Model
No
Japan
1905
10 years
Utility Model
No
10965 32908
285 268
Korea
1961
10 years
Utility Model
Yes
Malaysia
1986
15 years
Utility Innovation
Yes
Mexico
1991
10 years
Utility Model
Yes
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
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
Uruguay
1976
10 years
Utility Model
No
Viet nam
1995
10 years
Utility Solution
Yes
396
58
8171
â–˛ 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.
42
October 2010 | www.recyclingtimes.com.cn
Issue7--1-48-.indd 42
2010-9-17 14:11:32
Recycling Times Magazine
Legal Issues
Country Andean community
NOVELTY REQUIREMENT Same as patents
SUBJECT FOR PROTECTION Device, tool, implement, mechanism, or other object or part thereof etc.
Argentina
6-Month grave period for inventor’s disclosure outside argentina
Tools, working instruments, devices, objects used for practical work.
Australia
Same as patents
Same as for patents
Austria
6-Month grace period
Belgium Brazil
Same as patents Same as patents
Bulgaria
Same as patents
Chile
Same as patents
China
Same as patents
Czech republic
6-Month grace period for own publications
All tangible items including chemicals
Denmark
Same as patents
All tangible items including chemicals
Finland
Same as patents
Shape or design of a device
France
Same as patents Same as for patents Use outside germany not a All inventions except processes and bar; 6-month grace period for methods (note new uses are covered) all prior art
Germany Greece
Same as patents
COMMENTS
Lower standard of inventiveness than foe patents
Llower standard of “innovation” than regular patents Products, devices, machines, processes, Lower standard of inventiveness than and programming logic, therapy for animals foe patents Same as for patents Same as for patents Tool, working instruments, utensils, etc. Shape, etc. Of products, tools, apparatus, Inventive step not required etc. Instruments, apparatus, tools, devices, Apparently a lower standard of parts inventiveness than for patents Lower standard of inventiveness than Shape or structure of product foe patents
3D object with definite shape or form
Guatemala Hungary Indonesia
Lower standard of inventiveness than foe patents, cumulative protection possible. Lower standard of inventiveness than foe patents No coexistance with full patents Lcumulative protection possible. Lack of design law leads to use of utility model law as substitute
Same as patents Device, tool, implement, mechanism, etc. Use outside hungary not a bar Form, structure, etc. Of an object Same as patents Same as for patents Novely exam required before suit Novelty exam required before suit; Ireland Same as patents Same as for patents lower standard of inventiveness than for patents Italy Same as patents Machines, machine parts, tools, etc. Lower standard of inventiveness than Japan Same as patents Shape, construction, etc. Of an article foe patents Korea Same as patents Shape, construction, etc. Of an article Inventive step required Malaysia Similar to patents Mexico Same as patents Objects, utensils, apparatus or tools No requirement of inventive step Novelty exam required before suit can Netherlands Same as patents Same as for patents be brought Non-inventive new form, etc. Of tools or Philippines Local novelty only required products Poland Same as patents Shape, construction, etc. Of an object Lower standard of inventiveness than Portugal Same as patents Tools, utensils, containers, etc. foe patents Russia Use outside russia not bar Construction of production means/articles No requirement of inventive step 6-Month grace period for own Slovakia All tangible items including chemicals publications Spain Unlike patents; local novelty only Utensils, instruments, tools, apparatus, etc. Inventive step required Lower standard of inventiveness than Taiwan Same as patents Shape, structure or construction of article foe patents Thailand Same as patents Similar to patenrts No need for inventive step Anything patentable except for processes Turkey Twelve month grace period No need for inventive step and chemical products. Ukraine Same as patents Devices Uruguay Similar to patents Tools, working instruments, utensils, etc. Vietnam Same as patents Anything patentable ▲ Table 2
www.recyclingtimes.com.cn | October 2010
Issue7--1-48-.indd 43
43
2010-9-17 14:11:32
Recycling Times Magazine
Tech Zone
Remanufacturing the Okidata MB-260 MFP series toner cartridge By Mike Josiah and the Technical Staff at Uninet Imaging 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). The machines based on this engine are as follows:
Required Tools
• Okidata MB260 MFP
• Toner approved vacuum.
• Okidata MB280 MFP
• Okidata MB290 MFP
• A small Common screwdriver
The cartridges used in this series are as follows: • 56123401
3,000 Pages*
$123.75 List**
• 56123402
5,500 Pages*
$186.25 List**
• Size T-7 Torx driver
Required Supplies • Dedicated Okidata MB-200 Toner
cost of $186.00** very profitable too!
• Dedicated Okidata MB-200 Reset Card
* Yield based on ISO 19752
• Conductive grease
• Soft, lint free wipes
** Pricing as of August 2010
• 99% pure isopropyl alcohol
• Cotton swabs
2
Remove the Torx screws and plate from both sides of the cartridge.
step >
1
step >
step >
• Needle nose pliers
These cartridges are fairly easy to do, and with a retail
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.
44
• A Phillips head screwdriver
3
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.
October 2010 | www.recyclingtimes.com.cn
Issue7--1-48-.indd 44
2010-9-17 14:11:38
Recycling Times Magazine
Lift off the roller cover.
10
Install the cleaned PCR.
step >
9
12
step >
6
Remove the PCR and clean with you preferred cleaner.
step >
5
step >
step >
step >
Re-install the two screws and the wiper blade.
Pry out one of the side panels, and separate the two halves.
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.
13
On the toner hopper, note the location of all the gears.
14
Remove the four loose gears from the hopper.
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.
7
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.
step >
8
step >
4
step >
step >
step >
Tech Zone
11
Install the drum into the cartridge.
www.recyclingtimes.com.cn | October 2010
Issue7--1-48-.indd 45
45
2010-9-17 14:11:47
Recycling Times Magazine
Tech Zone
step >
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.
Remove the fill plug and dump out any remaining toner from the hopper.
21
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!
step >
Pry off the metal bushings from both sides of the developer roller shaft.
27
step >
step >
23
25
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.
step >
16
Remove the gear from the fill plug area by pressing in on the tab.
step >
step > step >
15
24
28
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.
step >
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.
46
step >
17
23
Remove the developer roller.
Remove the lower metal brace.
October 2010 | www.recyclingtimes.com.cn
Issue7--1-48-.indd 46
2010-9-17 14:12:00
Recycling Times Magazine
step >
33
step >
step >
37
Replace the metal bushings on both sides of the developer roller shaft.
38
Replace the screw and holder on the gear side of the developer roller shaft.
Replace the upper metal brace and the two screws.
36
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.
28
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.
Replace the metal bushings on both sides of the developer roller shaft.
39
Replace the screw, holder, and contact on the contact side of the developer roller shaft.
step >
step >
33
Install the Doctor Blade next making sure the lip is facing down and the blade fits over the alignment pins correctly.
32
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.
step >
32
step >
step >
Lift it out from the left side as the right side has a tail that runs through the cartridge wall. See Figures
step >
29
step >
Tech Zone
www.recyclingtimes.com.cn | October 2010
Issue7--1-48-.indd 47
47
2010-9-17 14:12:10
Recycling Times Magazine
step >
step >
Tech Zone
40
42
42
Install the metal plates and screws.
Replace all the gears on the hopper as shown.
Place the two halves together and install the two metal pins.
Fill the hopper with the Okidata MB200 series toner. Replace the fill plug.
step >
step >
41
42
Install the metal plates and screws.
42
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.
step >
step >
42
42
Install the drum cover if available. It needs to be taped in place. Use a brightly colored tape so the user will notice it.
step >
step >
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.
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 Chart OPC Drum Developer roller PCR
75mm 50mm 37.7mm
Mike Josiah 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.
48
October 2010 | www.recyclingtimes.com.cn
Issue7--1-48-.indd 48
2010-9-17 14:12:22