Seiko Epson v. Creek Manufacturing: Printing Patent Case Settled

📄 View Full Report 📥 Export PDF 🔗 Share ⭐ Save

📋 Case Summary

Case Name Seiko Epson Corporation v. Creek Manufacturing, LLC
Case Number 1:23-cv-00570
Court California Eastern District Court
Duration Apr 2023 – Aug 2025 2 years 4 months
Outcome Settled/Dismissed – Plaintiff Win (Implied)
Patents at Issue
Accused Products Printing material containers, ink tanks, and related components

Case Overview

The Parties

⚖️ Plaintiff

One of the world’s largest manufacturers of printing technology, headquartered in Japan with substantial operations and IP assets in the United States.

🛡️ Defendant

Smaller domestic entity operating in the printer consumables market, involved in manufacturing or distribution of compatible printing material containers.

The Patent at Issue

This case centered on U.S. Patent No. 8,454,116 B2, covering technology fundamental to the global inkjet printer supply chain.

  • US 8,454,116 B2 — Printing material container and a board mounted on a printing material container
🔍

Designing a similar product?

Check if your printing material container design might infringe this or related patents.

Run FTO Check →

Litigation Timeline & Legal Analysis

Outcome

The case was resolved through a combination of voluntary dismissals and consent judgments. No publicly disclosed jury verdict, damages award, or court-determined liability finding was entered, but Seiko Epson secured a favorable resolution. The specific financial terms of any settlement arrangement were not disclosed.

Litigation Timeline

Milestone Date
Complaint Filed April 11, 2023
Voluntary Dismissals & Consent Judgments By January 4, 2024
Court Status Inquiry Issued August 1, 2025
Plaintiff Status Report Filed August 8, 2025
Case Officially Closed August 12, 2025
✍️

Filing a patent for printing technology?

Learn from this case. Use AI to draft stronger claims that can withstand litigation.

Try Patent Drafting →

Power Your Patent Strategy with Eureka IP

From novelty searches to patent drafting, Eureka’s AI-powered tools help you navigate the patent landscape with confidence.

⚠️ Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis & Strategic Takeaways

This case highlights critical IP risks in printing material container design. Choose your next step:

📋 Understand This Case’s Impact

Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.

  • View the asserted patent: US 8,454,116 B2
  • See how dominant OEMs enforce their patent portfolios
  • Understand the use of consent judgments as resolution tools
📊 View Patent Landscape
⚠️
High Risk Area

Printing material containers with embedded boards

📋
1 Related Patent

US 8,454,116 B2

Untested Validity

Patent validity remains judicially unchallenged

✅ Key Takeaways

For Patent Attorneys & Litigators

Consent judgments combined with voluntary dismissals provide flexible, enforceable resolution mechanisms in multi-defendant patent cases.

Search related case law →

Early resolution (within ~9 months) did not prevent administrative docket delays exceeding 19 months — proactive status reporting to courts is essential.

Explore litigation best practices →

Engaging top-tier IP litigation counsel (Quinn Emanuel) signals enforcement seriousness and may itself accelerate defendant settlement decisions.

Analyze counsel track records →

For R&D Teams & IP Professionals

U.S. 8,454,116 B2 remains judicially unchallenged on validity — an active risk for companies in the printing consumables supply chain.

View patent validity analysis →

Conduct FTO analysis on printing material container designs with embedded communication boards before market entry.

Start FTO analysis for my product →

Consent judgment outcomes in competitor cases do not establish safe harbors for design-arounds; continuous FTO is critical.

Explore design-around strategies →

Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?

Join thousands of IP professionals using Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyze competitive landscapes.

⚖️ Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The analysis presented reflects publicly available case information and general legal principles. For specific advice regarding patent litigation, FTO analysis, or IP strategy, please consult a qualified patent attorney.