Oosterhout, 19th March 2013 - Approximately two weeks ago, Quad/Tech announced in a Court filing that it is dropping its infringement case against QIPC for alleged infringement of Quad/Tech's '577 patent by QIPC's IDS, the image-based Intelligent Density System. QIPC filed its response on March 14 and expressed its interest in seeking recovery of costs and attorney's fees in connection with having to defend Quad/Tech's lawsuit.

The IDS is a colour control system. It is not a colour register system, which is what Quad/Tech's '577 patent describes. As a result, QIPC has always taken the position that Quad/Tech's infringement claim is without any merit at all. In its recent filing, QIPC has informed the Court that Quad/Tech's request to dismiss its own patent infringement claim against the IDS is an attempt to evade QIPC's investigation into what Quad/Tech knew before it filed its infringement case. In QIPC's opinion, Quad/Tech never conducted an adequate pre-filing investigation before it filed the case, and then, in the context of the case, never provided any information to show that there was any real basis for the lawsuit in the first place. All of this is stated in QIPC's recent filing.

QIPC agrees that the Court should dismiss Quad/Tech's infringement claim, and QIPC is pleased that Quad/Tech has come to its senses. But QIPC has also requested that the Court allow the discovery QIPC has sought, so that QIPC can uncover what Quad/Tech knew, before it filed the case. To the extent the law and facts allow costs and attorney’s fees against Quad/Tech, QIPC will seek them.

In its press release of approximately two weeks ago, Quad/Tech also implied that QIPC falsely advertised its own mRC markless register control system, first presented by QIPC as a prototype applied on a press simulator during Drupa 2008. Quad/Tech suggested that QIPC's markless register system may not exist at all. QIPC's response to such statements is that they are without any merit. QIPC intends to prevail and will vigorously defend itself in court.

Comments
Add Comment