Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
Canon v. Print-Rite: Patent Injunction on Toner Cartridges | PatSnap
Patent Litigation

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.

Resolution time
191days
191 days — resolved at pleading stage, well before trial or discovery disputes
Patents asserted
1
US11169483 — process cartridge and electrophotographic image forming apparatus
Outcome
Injunction Granted
Permanent injunction entered by court on consent; defendants barred from importing or selling accused toner cartridges for remaining patent term
Cost ruling
Each side pays own costs
Consent judgment expressly provides that plaintiff and defendants each bear their own costs and attorney fees
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

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 →
Case at a glance
PlaintiffCanon, Inc.
CourtDelaware District Court
JudgeMaryellen Noreika
FiledJanuary 31, 2023
ClosedAugust 10, 2023
Duration191 days
OutcomeInjunction Granted
Verdict causeInfringement Action
BasisInjunction Granted
Prior Art Intelligence
See what prior art exists on this patent.
Eureka scans millions of patents and papers to surface prior art that may have invalidated these claims before costly litigation begins.
Check Prior Art
Case data sourced from PACER / Delaware District Court via PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore similar cases ↗
Case timeline

Filing to Injunction Granted in 191 days

191 days — resolved at pleading stage, well before trial or discovery disputes

Case timeline: Complaint filed JAN 31 2023 — 191 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in Canon, Inc. v Print-Rite Imaging Technology, Inc. from filing to resolution. Source: PACER, Delaware District Court. JAN 31 2023 Complaint filed Pre-trial proceedings AUG 10 2023 Injunction Granted 191 DAYS TOTAL
Patent at issue

US11169483 — Process Cartridge and Electrophotographic Image Forming Apparatus

Publication No.US11169483B2
Application No.US16/219207
Patent details
ProductProcess cartridge and electrophotographic image forming apparatus
Cited in actionJanuary 31, 2023
Technical brief · sourced from PatSnap patent database
Patent figurePatent figure
Representative claim (1 of 5 independent)
1. A process cartridge comprising: a frame; a photosensitive drum supported by the frame, the photosensitive drum being rotatable about an axis thereof, the photosensitive including (i) a first end and (ii) a second end opposite to the first end; a developing roller supported by the frame, the developing roller being rotatable about an axis thereof; a coupling operatively connected to the photosensitive drum, the coupling being rotatable about an axis thereof, the coupling being positioned (i) at the first end of the photosensitive drum, (ii) coaxial with the photosensitive drum, and (iii) at a side of the proces…
Technical background
TECHNICAL FIELD The present invention relates to a process cartridge and an electrophotographic image forming apparatus using the same. Here, the process cartridge is a cartridge which is integrally formed with a photosensitive member and a process means actable on the photosensitive member so as to be dismountably mounted to a main assembly of the electrophotographic image forming apparatus. For example, a photosensitive member and at least one of a developing means, a charging means and a cleaning means as the pr…
Patent family
219 family members across 32 jurisdictions (TW, US, HK, KR, ES, CA, CN, VN, DE, CL, AU, IN)
PatSnap Eureka · FTO Search Agent
Should you run an FTO against US11169483?

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.

Run FTO in Eureka
Patent data sourced from USPTO via PatSnap Eureka patent database Search patent records in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Official order — verbatim text

WHEREAS, Plaintiff brought this suit against Defendants for infringement of Plaintiff’s U.S. Patent No. 11,169,483 (“Asserted Patent”) based on Defendants’ unauthorized importation, sale, and/or offer for sale of certain toner cartridges having the design depicted in Plaintiff’s complaint (“Accused Products”); WHEREAS, without admitting any wrongdoing, Defendants wish to conclude this litigation at Plaintiff’s initial pleading stage without contesting infringement, validity, or enforceability of any claims of the Asserted Patent; and WHEREAS, Plaintiff and Defendants, through their respective counsel, hereby agree to entry of this Stipulation, Consent Judgment, and Permanent Injunction (“Consent Judgment”), subject to the approval of the Court; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, ORDERED, AND ADJUDGED: 1. This is an action for patent infringement under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United States Code. This Court has jurisdiction over Defendants and the subject matter of this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1400(b) as to Defendant Print-Rite Imaging Technology Inc. and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c) as to Defendant Union Technology International (MCO) Co. Ltd.Plaintiff is the owner of all right, title, and interest in and to the Asserted Patent. 4. Defendants have imported, sold, and/or offered for sale in the United States the Accused Products. 5. Defendants do not contest that all of asserted claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-10, 12-15, 17-19, 21-24, 33-35, 37, and 38 of the Asserted Patent are valid, enforceable, and infringed by the Accused Products. 6. Judgment is entered for Plaintiff and against Defendants on the claims asserted in Plaintiff’s complaint. 7. Effective as of the date this Consent Judgment is entered by the Court, Defendants and their subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, successors, and assigns, and all other persons and organizations in active concert or participation with any of the foregoing, are hereby permanently enjoined and restrained from engaging in any of the following activities: (a) making, using, selling, or offering for sale in the United States, or importing into the United States, during the remaining term of the Asserted Patent any of the Accused Products and any other toner cartridge that is not more than colorably different from the Accused Products and falls within the scope of at least one claim of the Asserted Patent; otherwise directly infringing, contributorily infringing, or inducing infringement of any of the claims of the Asserted Patent with respect to any of the Accused Products and any other toner cartridge that is not more than colorably different from the Accused Products and falls within the scope of at least one claim of the Asserted Patent; and assisting, aiding, or abetting any other person or business entity in engaging in or performing any of the activities referred to in subparagraphs (a) and (b) above. Defendants and Plaintiff shall bear their own costs and attorney fees. 9. This Consent Judgment constitutes a final judgment concerning the subject matter of this action. 10. Defendants waive any right to appeal from this Consent Judgment. 11. Upon entry of this Consent Judgment, this action is dismissed with prejudice, provided, however, that this Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms and provisions of this Consent Judgment
Source: PACER Docket, Case 1:23-cv-00116, Delaware District Court

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.

PACER case 1:23-cv-00116 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Judgment terms

Consent judgment: what the agreed resolution means for both parties

Legal mechanism

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 appeal
Patent holder outcome

Canon 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 secured
Defendant outcome

Defendants 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 rights
Commercial implications

Aftermarket 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 scope
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 1:23-cv-00116 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffCanon, Inc.Company/Search in Eureka ↗
DefendantPrint-Rite Imaging Technology, Inc.Company/Search in Eureka ↗
Co-DefendantUnion Technology International (MCO) Co., Ltd.CompanySearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJack B. BlumenfeldAttorneyCounsel for Canon, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselRodger Dallery Smith , IIAttorneyCounsel for Canon, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmMorris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Canon, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselChad S.C. StoverAttorneyCounsel for Print-Rite Imaging Technology, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmBarnes & Thornburg, LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Print-Rite Imaging Technology, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge Maryellen NoreikaJudgeDelaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗
R&D signals

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.

Patent portfolio

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 depth
Technology landscape

Toner 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 trends
Competitor IP posture

Print-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 posture
White-space opportunity

Design-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 opportunity
Related litigation

Similar 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.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
Canon, Inc. patent enforcement history, Delaware District Court case history, Canon, Inc.'s full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
Canon v. compatible cartridge makersElectrophotographic imaging patent suitsDelaware District consent judgmentsAftermarket consumables injunctions
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What 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.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Unlock Canon's full enforcement strategy and FTO risk signals across the aftermarket toner cartridge sector, based on this Delaware District Court consent judgment.
Injunction scope analysisCanon portfolio mappingAftermarket cartridge FTO risk
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

Canon v Print-Rite — key questions answered

Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them instantly from patent and litigation data. Ask Eureka ↗
PatSnap Eureka

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.

Disclaimer

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.

Ask anything about this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.