Pivotal Question for Courts over Canon Gear

Pivotal Question for Courts over Canon Gear

Canon and the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) are at loggerheads over a decision made by the USITC in 2019. Oral arguments between Canon and the ITC were heard in a 35-minute-long teleconference hookup on April 10 before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

The USITC determined in May 2019, that aftermarket suppliers of certain printer cartridges, being Aster, Ninestar, Print-Rite, LD Products, and The Supplies Guys, “did not infringe Canon’s patents and there was no violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930.”

An aftermarket designed gear that does not swivel, but can contract inside the drum gear

On May 31, 2019, Canon appealed the U.S. International Trade Commission’s final determination terminating Investigation No. 337-TA-1106, which pertains to certain toner cartridges and photosensitive drum units sold for use in Canon and HP laser beam printers. Canon believes that the final determination was based on an overly narrow and legally erroneous construction of Canon’s patents, and through this appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will review the construction de novo, without deference to the ITC.”

According to Law360, Michael P. Sandonato (representing Canon) argued that despite the coupling on the cartridge having a patented pivoting tilt, which means it is able to “move axially”, the non-pivoting design used by aftermarket supplies in their compatible products should also be considered to be part of the patent. “The specification of the invention,” he said, “indicates the angle of the coupling member’s movement ‘should be small.’ Zero is an angle, and a ‘small-angle encompasses no angle,” he argued.

Canon’s patented gear is able to rotate radially

Sandonato added, “We’re asking [the circuit court] for a claim construction that would include a zero-degree angle, a type of movement in which the coupling member doesn’t tilt at all and only moved axially. That’s consistent with the plain meaning of the claims here.”