Seiko Epson v. Burkwitz Solutions: Consent Judgment on Ink Cartridge IP
Seiko Epson brought a patent and trademark infringement action against Burkwitz Solutions in the Central District of California over aftermarket ink cartridges bearing infringing circuit boards and Epson marks. The case resolved via consent judgment in just 153 days, with Burkwitz permanently enjoined from making, selling, or importing the accused products and required to scrub all Epson branding from its platforms within seven days.
Epson moves swiftly to shut down aftermarket cartridge infringer
Seiko Epson Corp. filed this action on 22 November 2024 in the Central District of California against Burkwitz Solutions Inc., a distributor of aftermarket ink cartridges. The complaint alleged infringement of two Epson patents — US8794749B2 and US8454116B2 — both directed at circuit board technology used in ink cartridges, as well as misappropriation of the Epson Marks. The accused products included cartridges bearing model numbers T252120, T252120XL, T252220, T252320, T252420, T127220, T127320, T502120, T502220, T5402320, and T502420.
The case closed on 24 April 2025 via a Consent Judgment — a court-entered order reflecting terms negotiated by the parties and backed by the court’s enforcement jurisdiction. Burkwitz received a permanent injunction prohibiting it from making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the accused products, and was compelled to remove all Epson branding from physical and digital platforms within seven days. Crucially, the consent judgment does not constitute an admission of liability by Burkwitz, and all claims were dismissed with prejudice.
Resolution in 153 days is notably rapid for a multi-patent infringement case in C.D. California, suggesting Burkwitz lacked resources or legal representation to mount a sustained defence — no defendant agents or law firms appear on the docket. The absence of a damages figure in the public record is consistent with a confidential settlement agreement referenced in the judgment. The ‘with prejudice’ disposal and express appeal waiver make this resolution final and strategically clean for Epson.
Filing to Consent Judgment in 153 days
153 days — faster than the median C.D. Cal. patent case, suggesting swift negotiated resolution
Consent judgment entered: what the permanent injunction means for both parties
Consent judgment is a court order, not just a settlement
A consent judgment combines a privately negotiated resolution with judicial enforcement power. Unlike a simple settlement agreement, it is entered by the court and carries contempt-of-court consequences for non-compliance. Here, the court retains exclusive jurisdiction to enforce the terms, meaning Epson can return to court without filing a new lawsuit if Burkwitz violates the injunction — a significant enforcement advantage.
Court-enforceable injunctionEpson secures permanent injunction and brand clean-up
Epson achieves its primary commercial objective: Burkwitz is permanently barred from distributing the accused cartridge models and any colorably similar products. The mandatory seven-day brand removal obligation extends to websites, social media, marketing materials, and product packaging. A confidential settlement agreement runs alongside the judgment, suggesting financial terms that are not visible in the public record. All claims are disposed of with prejudice, eliminating any risk of re-litigation.
Injunction + confidential settlementBurkwitz enjoined but avoids an admission of liability
The consent judgment expressly preserves Burkwitz’s position that it does not concede liability. While this is a standard negotiating concession in consent judgments, the practical effect is total: Burkwitz cannot sell, market, or import the named cartridge models. The express waiver of appeal rights and the with-prejudice disposal foreclose any future challenge to these terms. No defendant legal representation is visible on the docket, which typically signals limited litigation resources.
No admission; appeal rights waivedOEM circuit board patents remain a live enforcement lever
This case reinforces that Epson actively enforces its cartridge circuit board IP against aftermarket distributors, not just manufacturers. The dual assertion of patent and trademark rights — and the speed of resolution — suggests a well-practised enforcement programme. Aftermarket cartridge suppliers using third-party circuit boards compatible with Epson models should treat US8794749B2 and US8454116B2 as active enforcement risk, particularly for the T252, T127, and T502 series product lines.
Active OEM enforcement programmeFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Seiko Epson, Corp. | Company | Printer and imaging OEM — holder of US8794749B2 and US8454116B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Burkwitz Solutions Inc. | Company | Aftermarket ink cartridge distributor accused of selling infringing circuit board cartridgesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Richard H. Doss | Attorney | Counsel for Seiko Epson, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Seiko Epson, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Central District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The consent judgment operates as a final court order, not merely a private agreement. The language permanently enjoining products ‘no more than colorably different’ from the accused models is significant — it extends the injunction’s reach to future product variants, not just the named SKUs. The express retention of court jurisdiction for compliance enforcement, combined with the waiver of appeal rights, gives Epson an unusually strong post-judgment enforcement posture. The absence of any admission of liability by Burkwitz is a standard consent judgment feature and carries no practical import given the with-prejudice disposal.
US8794749B2 & US8454116B2 — Ink cartridge circuit board technology
US8794749B2 (application no. US13/902171) and US8454116B2 (application no. US13/608658) both relate to circuit board technology integrated into ink cartridges. These patents protect the electronic interface between Epson cartridges and printers — covering how the cartridge identifies itself, communicates ink level data, and authenticates with the printing system. This class of patent is strategically critical for OEMs because it positions the cartridge’s electronic component, rather than the ink chemistry itself, as the protectable IP barrier against aftermarket competition.
For Epson, these two patents form part of a wider IP moat around its consumables business, where aftermarket substitution represents a significant revenue threat. Circuit board IP is particularly potent because aftermarket manufacturers must either design around the authentication protocol — which risks compatibility loss — or risk direct infringement. The assertion against Burkwitz’s T252, T127, and T502 series cartridges confirms these patents remain in active enforcement posture and have not been successfully designed around by at least this segment of the aftermarket.
Should you run an FTO against US8794749B2 and US8454116B2?
Any company developing, sourcing, importing, or distributing aftermarket ink cartridges compatible with Epson printers — particularly those in the T252, T127, or T502 product families — should treat these two patents as live FTO risks. The consent judgment confirms Epson is willing to enforce them against distributors, not just manufacturers, meaning exposure exists across the supply chain. If your cartridges use a circuit board that communicates with Epson printer firmware, a freedom-to-operate analysis is warranted before expanding into US markets.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US8794749B2 and US8454116B2 against your specific product architecture, surface prior art that could inform design-around strategies, and identify whether related continuation or family patents extend the risk profile. Given that both patents are granted with active enforcement history, a full claim-by-claim analysis — rather than a high-level clearance — is the appropriate standard of diligence here.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8794749B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar ink cartridge circuit board patent cases in C.D. California
Explore other patent infringement actions in the Central District of California involving OEM ink cartridge circuit board and aftermarket consumables IP disputes.
What this case signals for the aftermarket ink cartridge IP landscape
Epson’s rapid consent judgment against Burkwitz is consistent with a targeted, scalable enforcement strategy against smaller aftermarket distributors.
OEM circuit board patents extend well beyond the printer itself
US8794749B2 and US8454116B2 cover circuit board technology embedded in cartridges — meaning any aftermarket cartridge that authenticates with Epson printers may be within scope. Distributors who source third-party chip-compatible cartridges should not assume they are insulated from OEM patent exposure simply because they do not manufacture the chips.
Trademark claims amplify the injunction’s reach into digital channels
By pairing patent claims with trademark infringement, Epson obtained an injunction that explicitly covers websites, social media, and digital marketing — not just physical product. This dual-track approach is increasingly common in OEM enforcement actions and extends the practical scope of the remedy far beyond what a patent-only claim would achieve.
Seiko v Burkwitz — key questions answered
The consent judgment permanently enjoined Burkwitz from making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing the accused aftermarket ink cartridges and any colorably similar products. Burkwitz was also required to remove all Epson branding from all physical and digital platforms — including websites, social media, and product packaging — within seven days of the judgment date.
Epson asserted two patents: US8794749B2 (application US13/902171) and US8454116B2 (application US13/608658). Both relate to circuit board technology used in ink cartridges. The accused products included aftermarket cartridges with model numbers in the T252, T127, and T502 series.
No. The consent judgment expressly states that it shall not be construed as an admission of liability by Burkwitz, and that Burkwitz does not concede liability. This is a standard negotiating term in consent judgments. However, all claims were disposed of with prejudice and both parties waived their right to appeal, making the resolution final.
The injunction covers not only the specifically named accused products but also any products ‘no more than colorably different’ from them. This standard, drawn from contempt-of-court doctrine, means Burkwitz cannot circumvent the injunction by making minor, superficial modifications to the accused cartridges. Any substantive design-around would need to be genuinely distinct from the patented technology to fall outside the injunction’s scope.
The case closed in 153 days from filing, which is rapid for a multi-patent infringement action in C.D. California. The public docket shows no defendant legal representation, which typically signals limited litigation resources on the defendant’s side. The consent judgment references a confidential settlement agreement, suggesting financial terms were negotiated. These factors are consistent with Burkwitz electing to resolve quickly rather than mount a contested defence.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.