VistaPrint and OfficeMax are being being accused of patent infringement by ColorQuick, LLC. ColorQuick acusses both VistaPrint and OfficeMax of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,839,149, a patent issued in 2005 that describes the “Preparation of production data for a print job using a still image proxy of a page description language image file.” The patent abstract describes the process:
A process is provided to prepare production data for a print job. In one embodiment of the present invention, the production data includes an electronic document defined by a page description language (PDL). The electronic document is stored in a PDL image file, such as a Postscript file, a PDF file, or the like. A still image proxy, which may be a JPEG file, a GIF file, a PNG file, or the like, is created of the PDL image file. An image display of the still image proxy is electronically manipulated. Information about the manipulations are recorded and subsequently used to revise the PDL image file so as to match the PDL image file to the manipulations made to the image display of the still image proxy.
ColorQuick is seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction against defendants from using the process as well as compensation.
VistaPrint and OfficeMax announced a retail, in-store strategic partnership in August 2007. In May 2009 VistaPrint formed a similar alliance FedEx Office (Kinkos). FedEx Office was not named in ColorQuick's infringement suit.
In 2007 a German Court found print24 and unitedprint.com Infringed VistaPrint Patent. Update: George Alexander points out in the comments that the European Patent Office later nullified the patent after Print24 appealed the decision. Also in 2007 VistaPrint accused Taylor Corporation subsidiaries, 123Print, Inc., and Drawing Board Inc., of patent infringement. That case has not been settled.
Discussion
By George Alexander on Jul 24, 2009
I assume that this case will be settled out of court and we won’t hear anything more about it. VistaPrint is known for using its daunting portfolio of patents to threaten its competitors, and it looks like ColorQuick is trying to turn the tables. But my sense is that most cases of this kind are settled with some cross-licensing agreements and royalty payments, out of court.
Although it is correct that “a German court found print24 and unitedprint.com infringed VistaPrint patents” in 2007, that wasn’t the end of the story. Print24 appealed the decision to the European Patent Office, and won. The VistaPrint patent was declared invalid. For details, see:
http://beyond-print.de/site/content/en/channel_news/news_0005.html
By Kirk Swain on Jul 24, 2009
It's been a while since I last browsed some of the VistaPrint patents, but I remember shaking my head in disbelief that someone in the USPTO had actually granted a patent covering a process that most of us in the printing business had been doing for years--ganging jobs from different clients onto the same press sheet. Maybe I missed some of the "finer details" in their process, but it seemed to me at the time that the patents would prove unenforceable.
By Rodger Cosgrove on Jul 24, 2009
Any "prior art" cannot be legitimately patented. If it can be shown that the essence of the patent was already known then the patent would be invalidated. However, even new technologies build on older ones, so there could easily be some subtle but valuable and not obvious aspects of a patent on technology that otherwise seems to be either prior art or obvious.
By WB on Jul 28, 2009
Whatever happened with that Gindlesperger Method patent? Anyone know if they hit Innerworkings with a claim?
Discussion
Join the discussion Sign In or Become a Member, doing so is simple and free