Canon v. Print-Rite: Permanent Injunction Granted on Toner Cartridge Patent
Canon, Inc. filed suit in the Delaware District Court against Print-Rite Imaging Technology and Union Technology International for infringement of US11169483, covering process cartridges for electrophotographic imaging. Defendants accepted a permanent injunction and consent judgment without contesting validity or infringement, concluding the case in just 191 days.
Canon wins permanent injunction against aftermarket toner cartridge suppliers
On 31 January 2023, Canon, Inc. filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Print-Rite Imaging Technology, Inc. and Union Technology International (MCO) Co., Ltd., alleging infringement of US11169483 — a patent covering process cartridges and electrophotographic image forming apparatus. Canon alleged the defendants had unauthorisedly imported, sold, and offered for sale toner cartridges whose design fell within claims of the asserted patent.
The case closed on 10 August 2023, 191 days after filing, through a stipulated consent judgment and permanent injunction entered by Judge Maryellen Noreika. The recorded basis of termination is Injunction Granted. The consent judgment order states that defendants do not contest that asserted claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8–10, 12–15, 17–19, 21–24, 33–35, 37, and 38 of US11169483 are valid, enforceable, and infringed, and that judgment is entered for Canon. The defendants are permanently enjoined from making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the accused products or any toner cartridge not more than colorably different from them for the remaining patent term. Defendants also waive any right to appeal.
Resolution at the initial pleading stage — without contesting infringement, validity, or enforceability — suggests the defendants assessed litigation exposure and opted to conclude proceedings early. Each side bears its own costs. The court retains jurisdiction to enforce the consent judgment. The specific commercial terms, if any, beyond those recorded in the public order, are not disclosed in the available record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Injunction Granted in 191 days
191 days — resolved at pleading stage, well before trial or discovery disputes
US11169483 — Process Cartridge and Electrophotographic Image Forming Apparatus


Any company manufacturing, importing, or distributing toner cartridges or process cartridges compatible with Canon electrophotographic printers should treat US11169483 as a live enforcement risk. The consent judgment's injunction extends to products 'not more than colorably different' from the accused items — meaning the risk is not limited to identical SKUs. OEM-compatible cartridge suppliers, remanufacturers, and importers of aftermarket imaging consumables targeting the US market should prioritise FTO review against this patent.
Official order — verbatim text
The consent judgment records that defendants do not contest that asserted claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8–10, 12–15, 17–19, 21–24, 33–35, 37, and 38 of US11169483 are valid, enforceable, and infringed. Judgment is entered for Canon with a permanent injunction. Defendants waived appellate rights and the action is dismissed with prejudice, while the court retains jurisdiction to enforce the judgment. The recorded basis of termination is Injunction Granted.
Consent judgment: what the agreed resolution means for both parties
Consent judgment with permanent injunction — court-entered and binding
A consent judgment is a binding court order entered on terms agreed by the parties. Here, Judge Noreika entered both a judgment for Canon and a permanent injunction against the defendants. The court retains jurisdiction to enforce its terms. Defendants expressly waived any right to appeal, making this disposition final and immediately enforceable for the remaining term of US11169483.
Final, court-entered, no appealCanon secures injunction without contesting validity — strong enforcement signal
Canon obtained a permanent injunction barring the defendants and their affiliates, agents, and successors from importing, selling, or offering for sale the accused toner cartridges or any colorably similar products. The defendants did not contest validity or enforceability of any asserted claim, leaving US11169483 unchallenged and enforceable against the market for the patent's remaining term.
Permanent injunction securedDefendants exit without admitting wrongdoing but accept full injunctive bar
Print-Rite and Union Technology accepted the consent judgment without admitting wrongdoing and without contesting infringement, validity, or enforceability. In practice, however, they are permanently enjoined from the accused product line and have waived appellate rights. The no-contest posture at the pleading stage suggests a strategic decision to minimise further litigation costs and exposure.
Enjoined; no appeal rightsAftermarket cartridge suppliers face a strengthened Canon enforcement precedent
This consent judgment reinforces Canon's willingness to pursue and rapidly resolve infringement claims against aftermarket toner cartridge importers in Delaware. The broad injunction — covering products 'not more than colorably different' from the accused items — extends beyond the specific SKUs named in the complaint. Other suppliers of compatible or remanufactured cartridges falling within US11169483's claims face meaningful litigation risk.
Broad injunction scopeFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Canon, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Print-Rite Imaging Technology, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Union Technology International (MCO) Co., Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jack B. Blumenfeld | Attorney | Counsel for Canon, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Rodger Dallery Smith , II | Attorney | Counsel for Canon, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP | Law Firm | Representing Canon, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Chad S.C. Stover | Attorney | Counsel for Print-Rite Imaging Technology, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Barnes & Thornburg, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Print-Rite Imaging Technology, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Maryellen Noreika | Judge | Delaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the electrophotographic process cartridge space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence for teams operating in the toner cartridge and electrophotographic imaging consumables market, drawn from Canon v. Print-Rite.
Canon's process cartridge patent activity in electrophotographic imaging
US11169483 is one data point in what is likely a broader Canon patent family covering process cartridge design and electrophotographic apparatus integration. Mapping Canon's filing activity around application US16/219207 and related continuations can surface the full scope of its IP fence in this consumable category — valuable intelligence for any aftermarket supplier assessing design-around options.
Canon portfolio depthToner cartridge design innovation: filing trends and white space
The toner and process cartridge space has seen sustained patent activity from OEMs seeking to differentiate consumables and restrict aftermarket access. Analysing filing trends in cartridge design, chip integration, and photosensitive drum assembly can identify white-space opportunities for engineers developing next-generation compatible cartridge architectures that avoid key claim elements.
Landscape filing trendsPrint-Rite and Union Technology's own patent holdings in imaging consumables
Print-Rite Imaging Technology and Union Technology International are active aftermarket imaging consumable suppliers. Reviewing their own patent filings — if any — in the process cartridge and electrophotographic device space can reveal whether they are investing in design-around IP or remain largely unlicensed in this domain, informing competitive intelligence for OEMs and other aftermarket players.
Defendant IP postureDesign-around space in process cartridge architecture for aftermarket suppliers
The injunction in this case covers cartridges 'not more than colorably different' from the accused products. Identifying claim elements in US11169483 that are not present in alternative cartridge architectures — such as different drum assembly geometries, toner delivery mechanisms, or chip-based authentication bypass designs — can define a viable design-around space for aftermarket R&D teams.
Design-around opportunitySimilar patent infringement cases: toner cartridge and imaging consumables
Explore comparable patent infringement actions in the toner cartridge and electrophotographic imaging space filed in the Delaware District Court and related venues.
Related patent case — similar technology
Comparable case in the same technology domain. Patent holder and defendant reached resolution after proceedings.
SettledRelated infringement action — same court
Comparable Process cartridge and electrophotographic image forming apparatus-adjacent infringement action. Patent enforcement dynamics analysed in depth.
Active · District CourtRelated invalidity challenge — appellate outcome
Combined invalidity and infringement action in the same technology space. Decided after substantive proceedings.
DecidedCanon, Inc.'s broader IP enforcement history
Canon, Inc.'s full litigation history covering prior enforcement, licensing activity, and inter partes review proceedings.
Portfolio viewWhat this case signals for the imaging consumables IP landscape
Canon's swift injunction against two aftermarket suppliers signals active, structured patent enforcement in the toner cartridge market.
Delaware is Canon's preferred venue for rapid cartridge patent enforcement
This case resolved in 191 days at the pleading stage — far faster than a typical patent trial timeline. Aftermarket cartridge suppliers should assess their exposure in Delaware specifically, where Canon has demonstrated it can obtain a consent judgment and permanent injunction quickly and without contested proceedings.
Unchallenged claims strengthen US11169483 for future enforcement
Because the defendants did not contest validity or enforceability, the asserted claims of US11169483 emerge from this case without any IPR, prior art, or §101 challenge on the record. That untested posture makes the patent a stronger enforcement tool against the next potential infringer in the aftermarket imaging consumables space.
The 'colorably different' injunction language extends Canon's reach beyond these defendants
The consent judgment enjoins not just the named accused products but any toner cartridge 'not more than colorably different' that falls within US11169483's claims. Competitors and OEM-compatible cartridge makers should run FTO analysis to determine whether their current designs are captured by this expansive injunction language.
Canon's portfolio likely contains additional process cartridge patents — monitor filing activity
US11169483 is one of Canon's patents in the process cartridge and electrophotographic imaging space. Canon's broader portfolio in this domain suggests that other patents may be asserted in future actions. IP teams at aftermarket consumables companies should monitor Canon's patent prosecution and litigation filings for early warning signals.
Canon v Print-Rite — key questions answered
The case was resolved by a consent judgment and permanent injunction entered by the Delaware District Court. The recorded basis of termination is Injunction Granted. Defendants did not contest that the asserted claims of US11169483 are valid, enforceable, and infringed, and judgment was entered for Canon. Defendants were permanently enjoined from importing, selling, or offering for sale the accused toner cartridges or colorably similar products.
Canon asserted US11169483 (application number US16/219207), covering a process cartridge and electrophotographic image forming apparatus. The asserted claims were 1–3, 5, 6, 8–10, 12–15, 17–19, 21–24, 33–35, 37, and 38. The defendants did not contest the validity or enforceability of those claims.
The injunction permanently bars the defendants, their subsidiaries, affiliates, agents, employees, successors, and assigns from making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing into the United States the accused toner cartridges, and any other toner cartridge not more than colorably different from the accused products that falls within any claim of US11169483. It also prohibits aiding or abetting others in doing so.
The case was filed on 31 January 2023 and closed on 10 August 2023 — 191 days. The consent judgment states that defendants chose to conclude the litigation at the initial pleading stage without contesting infringement, validity, or enforceability. The specific reasons for that decision are not disclosed in the available public record.
The consent judgment expressly provides that plaintiff Canon and defendants Print-Rite and Union Technology shall each bear their own costs and attorney fees. No damages award or fee-shifting is recorded in the available public order.
Track Canon's cartridge IP enforcement — before it reaches your product line
Use PatSnap Eureka to run FTO analysis against US11169483, monitor Canon's prosecution pipeline for new cartridge patents, and identify design-around white space in the electrophotographic imaging consumables space.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.