US9857764B2 | Patent Litigation Record

12 cases on record

Cases on record: 12
Asserted by: Canon · Canon U.S.A.
Asserted against: International Trade Commission · Apex Excel · Bluedog Distribution · World Class Ink Supply · Print After Print · Frontier Imaging · LD Products · Ink Technologies Printer Supplies · Master Print Supplies · Zinyaw · ACM Technologies · The Supplies Guys
Courts: Fed. Cir. · United States International Trade Commission · S.D. Fla. · D.N.J. · D. Ariz. · C.D. Cal. · S.D. Ohio · N.D. Cal. · S.D. Tex. · E.D. Pa.
Technology: electrography & electrophotography

Case no.	Parties	Court	Filed	Duration	Outcome
2019-1950	Canon, Inc. v. International Trade Commission	Fed. Cir.	31 May 2019	325 d	Closed
337-TA-1106	Canon U.S.A., Inc. v. Apex Excel Limited	United States International Trade Commission	29 Mar 2018	414 d	Closed
0:18-cv-60424	Canon, Inc. v. Bluedog Distribution, Inc.	S.D. Fla.	28 Feb 2018	50 d	Other
1:18-cv-02832	Canon, Inc. v. World Class Ink Supply, Inc.	D.N.J.	28 Feb 2018	93 d	Other
2:18-cv-00659	Canon Incorporated v. Print After Print Incorporated	D. Ariz.	28 Feb 2018	35 d	Other
2:18-cv-01679	Canon, Inc. v. Frontier Imaging, Inc.	C.D. Cal.	28 Feb 2018	54 d	Stayed
2:18-cv-01691	Canon, Inc. v. LD Products, Inc.	C.D. Cal.	28 Feb 2018	54 d	Stayed
3:18-cv-00058	Canon, Inc. v. Ink Technologies Printer Supplies, LLC	S.D. Ohio	28 Feb 2018	34 d	Stayed
3:18-cv-01307	Canon, Inc. v. Master Print Supplies, Inc.	N.D. Cal.	28 Feb 2018	62 d	Stayed
4:18-cv-00636	Canon, Inc. v. Zinyaw, LLC	S.D. Tex.	28 Feb 2018	36 d	Stayed
5:18-cv-00416	Canon, Inc. v. ACM Technologies, Inc.	C.D. Cal.	28 Feb 2018	54 d	Stayed
5:18-cv-00882	Canon, Inc. v. The Supplies Guys, LLC	E.D. Pa.	28 Feb 2018	41 d	Stayed

Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Cases asserting US9857764B2 in the current snapshot. Run this in Eureka

About this summary. This page summarises the litigation records within the coverage and snapshot dates stated here. Counts describe records in that dataset and do not, by themselves, establish the conduct, litigation success or legal position of any person or organisation.

Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.

No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed. The filing of a claim is not a court finding, and a docket marked “closed” does not by itself establish infringement, validity, settlement or a decision on the merits.

No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.

Third-party names and marks. Party, attorney, judge and company names appear for identification only. Company names may be trademarks of their owners; their appearance does not, by itself, imply affiliation with or endorsement by Patsnap.

Corrections and privacy requests. To report an inaccurate record or attribution, use the “Report an incorrect record” link on this page. For requests concerning your personal information, including, where applicable, the rights to access, rectify, erase, restrict or object to processing, use the “Privacy request” link. We assess requests under applicable law. See our Privacy Policy for details of this processing.

US9857764B2 Patent litigation record

12 cases on record

How strong is US9857764B2?