Join our Premium Membership now and save with Xpres, Listawood, Ink Experts, Ink Express and more! Just £10 per year.....Click the Membership link above.....

User Tag List

Similar Threads

  1. Sawgrass ICC versus Sawgrass Powerdrive
    By Marcelle in forum Printing Problems/Issues
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 29-04-2014, 10:50 AM
  2. big up to BMS and sawgrass
    By Lornem in forum Printers
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-03-2013, 07:38 PM
  3. Sawgrass Patent Discussion
    By pisquee in forum General Dye-Sub Chit Chat
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 01-12-2011, 09:32 PM
  4. Sawgrass
    By silvia95 in forum General Dye-Sub Chit Chat
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 16-08-2010, 08:35 PM
  5. D88 AND SAWGRASS
    By AJLA in forum Printers
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 22-01-2010, 10:08 AM
Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    Premium Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Bishop Auckland, County Durham
    Posts
    4,280
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Sawgrass Patent Expirations

    I've tried quickly to do some research, but thought some others on here may know quicker where to get the information.


    I am trying to compile a list of the legal battles Sawgrass has been in in the past to do with sublimation inks, and specifically which patents were involved.


    for example, the TOG case (settled in March 2007) was the 5488907, which has just expired.
    it has been claimed that although that patent has expired, that Sawgrass have other patents which mean that effectively nothing has changed, so I am trying to work out what patents these are, what they are for, and when they were granted/expire etc.


    I can't find details of which patent the BASF case was disputing (but assume the '907 patent too), and can't remember which other cases have been in the past.


    Any help appreciated.

  2. #2
    Administrator Justin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Derbyshire
    Posts
    10,253
    Downloads
    7
    Uploads
    1
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)
    Can't help with finding specific cases. I did speak with Sawgrass at Fespa and to cut a long story short I am told there are 100's of patents backing this up so in theory the stranglehold will never end.
    Membership scheme now available - Just £10 per year - Regular Supplier Discounts and Special Offers!

  3. #3
    Premium Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Bishop Auckland, County Durham
    Posts
    4,280
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    They have lots of patents, not all for sublimation though, and the sublimation ones can't all be infringed by other manufacturers formulations of sublimation inks.
    In the TOG case, at the Marksman hearing, the scope of the '907 patent was shown to be for a formulation of sublimation inks to be used in bubble jet printers, rather than Epson's piezo-electric technology which hadn't been released at the time. Even so, Sawgrass have always made out that all sublimation ink infringes this patent - so my feeling if that wasn't true then what else isn't- if they've been lying all this time to protect their profits, then what other lies will they tell to keep the status quo?
    It seems so many people accept what Sawgrass say as being the truth without question.

    Sawgrass, set the price, or at least affect it to a degree for all sublimation inks, and thus all the profit margins for each business involved in sublimation and obviously therefore on this forum.

  4. #4
    Premium Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Bishop Auckland, County Durham
    Posts
    4,280
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    I posed the same question over on T-Shirt forums, and got the following reply ... (for anyone else interested)

    The last 2 litigations only the '907 patent was considered. All I know about the other cases is that the '907 patent was in the press releases at the time.

    Most of the cases never went to any kind of a technical trial, the plaintiffs gave up after they got served with injunctions. NO case was ever taken to a final judgment by the court, they were all settled out of court.

    Pressing Matters - Sawgrass vs TOG lawsuit

    Cases that I know of would be:

    BASF (US sublimation)
    TOG
    Artanium
    Colorstar
    Cashen Marketing (Subli King inks)
    Stephen Sauter dba Shop Dye Sub and Ink Mizer et al, Corporate Copy
    SUBLIMATION RESOURCES INC

    I pulled these from the Pacer website a while back, anyone wanting to know the cases, their history, and the docs can search here.

    https://www.pacer.gov

    It's free but if you want to download docs there is a small per page charge.

    See the attached pic of the Ricoh carts, here are the patents listed on the box. One is for a Leg exerciser patent and most likely is a typo on the box.

    US 5488907
    Patent US5488907 - Permanent heat activated transfer printing process and composition - Google Patents



    US 5734396
    Patent US5734396 - Permanent heat activated transfer printing process and composition - Google Patents

    This application is a continuation-in-part of application Ser. No. 08/299,736 filed Sep. 1, 1994.

    US 5601023
    Patent US5601023 - Permanent heat activated transfer printing process and composition - Google Patents

    This application is a continuation-in-part of application Ser. No. 08/506,894, Jul. 25, 1995, which is a continuation-in-part of Ser. No. 08/299,736, Sept. 1, 1994, Pat. No. 5,488,907

    US 5643141
    Patent US5643141 - Leg exerciser - Google Patents
    Leg exerciser patent !!!

    US 5830263
    Patent US5830263 - Low energy heat activated transfer printing process - Google Patents
    This application is a divisional of U.S. Ser. No. 08/710,171, filed Sep. 12, 1996, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,640,180, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Ser. No. 08/695,121, filed Aug. 5, 1996, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,642,141, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Ser. No. 08/565,999, filed Dec. 1, 1995, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,601,023, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Ser. No. 08/207,756, filed Mar. 8, 1994, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,487,614, and a continuation-in-part of U.S. Ser. No. 08/506,894, filed Jul. 25, 1995, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Ser. No. 08/299,736, filed Sep. 1, 1994, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,488,907.

    The last and newest patent on the carts is dated 1997.

    The obvious question is if those other patents are still able to be used or remotely relevant then why were they not used in the TOG or Artainium cases?

    The answer is that all but the '263 patent are dependent on '907, in other words they are just further dependent claims on '907. They cannot stand alone without '907. This is the case with most continuation or continuation in part patents.

    If you read carefully the patents other than the '263 (and the leg exerciser patent LOL) are just finding other and new ways to make the "emulsifying enforcing agents" which is the item in question in the last 2 litigations.

    The '263 patent is unique but relates to a very narrow and specific formulation of ink that would allow lower temps and/or dwell times to be used and not even remotely relevant to the other inks that Sawgrass was contesting. It has to do with being able to sublimate at lower temps and/or dwell times.

    Marvel Press has licensed that '263 patent (low temperature sublimation inks) and uses it for "3D sublimation" applications. It doesn't state patent number '263 explicitly on their website

    3D Sublimation Technology by Sublideck

    but I found this out a while back and the '263 patent was stated specifically before on their old Octi-Tech website.

    Since these patents have been around going back to 1997 it would make sense that if Sawgrass could use other patents that are not dependent on '907 against Artainium or TOG, then it would have been to SG's benefit to do so. It would improve their odds of success, if one patent is not found infringing then there is always the possibility of another that could be infringing ... if the other patents are unique, and not dependent on each other.

    It would be a poor legal strategy to not throw all the patents out there if they were all unique and could be argued on their own merits outside of the '907 patent.

    As I mentioned before only the '907 patent was considered in the TOG and Artainium litigation.

    See the attached docs.

    The language is clear that in TOG the only patent that could be considered is the '907 patent and then with that only the 1st claim, all the other claims were dependent on the 1st claim.

    This is Tropical Graphics announcement that they were increasing ink prices do to the litigation. In the text Paul Hirst mentions only a single patent and it's "scope".

    DyeSub.org - Tropical Graphics Price Increase

    This doesn't prove anything, but Cobra has been playing "chicken" with SG for over 3 years now and has sublimation inks now are prominently displayed on their website. My money says they have well researched this and came to the same conclusions

    Attached Thumbnails
    Attached Files[table]
    [TR]
    [TD][/TD]
    [TD]17711722614.pdf (54.7 KB, 0 views)[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [/table]

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •