Sawgrass response to patent expiry query

[Justin]

I recently emailed Sawgrass to ask about the recent patent expiry, this was their response:

For more than 25 years, Sawgrass has been the leader in the dye sublimation and digital ink industry, holding more than 160 patents to-date. Sawgrass patents cover the manufacture, printing, and application of sublimation inks used with inkjet printers and has invested over $10 million into the development of this proprietary technology. The Sawgrass patent portfolio has expanded considerably in the last decade in depth and breadth.

No companies are authorized to produce sublimation inks for printers less than 42.” Sawgrass has licensed the following companies to produce sublimation inks for printers 42” and larger; BASF, Huntsman (formerly Ciba Specialty Chemical), Inktec, J-Teck, Kiian Group, Kiwa Chemical Industry Co., Mimaki Engineering Company, Nazdar, Sensient Technologies, Seiko and Epson.

There are companies currently selling sublimation inks into the market that are believed to infringe on Sawgrass patents. The companies supplying these inks are aware of Sawgrass patent claims and of their products patent infringement. They willfully choose to sell them for their financial gain in disregard of existing patents.

Sawgrass always seeks a business solution to this type of conflict but must ultimately rely on Federal Courts to enforce the patent law and force such suppliers to stop selling patent infringing inks into the marketplace.

More Information
http://www.sawgrassink.com/About.aspx
http://www.sawgrassink.com/About/Licensees.aspx
http://www.sawgrassink.com/About/FAQ.aspx
http://www.sawgrassink.com/search-resul ... chfilter=0

Recent Press Releases
http://www.sawgrassink.com/About/News/S ... e-Agr.aspx
http://www.sawgrassink.com/About/News/S ... -Sign.aspx
[url]http://www.sawgrassink.com/About/News/Sawgrass-Technologies-Kiian-Group-Sign-New-License.aspx[/url]

[pisquee]

So, as mentioned, it is restating what they have said over and over, without any actual specifics.
The '907 patent expired a year ago, and this was the one challenged in legal battles, with the biggest case (which iirc was with BASF) as part of the procedings coming to the conclusion that the patent scope was for a sublimation ink which both was formulated for anti-congealing at the same time as being protected from the heat used in the printer itself, i.e. to stop it from sublimating in a bubble jet type printer. This patent being for an ink formulated before Epson brought piezo headed printers to the market. An ink formulated specifically for a piezo headded printer therefore does not infringe this patent. They have other patents for subimation, one of which is for ribbon printers. They may have lots of patents, and the 907 one was for a good invention, but one that was quickly redundant, despite SG making claims outside its scope for most of the time it was valid. The important thing to work out is if any of the current valid SG patents are actually anything to do with the type of sublimation printing we do.
A starting point may be for a list of patent numbers printed on SG ink cart boxes - Epson and Ricoh - are they the same or different lists - i.e. have they patented something specific to Ricoh gelsprinters that isn't used in the Epsons for instance?

[JetStreamDigital]

I'd be interested on people's thoughts...

http://shop.photomart.co.uk/catalogsear ... mation+ink


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Justin]

Are we looking at the SubliMugs inks or the 20% off expired inks? Are the SubliMugs inks another brand name or something different? Eirther way, they aint cheap! Requires infinity RIP software??

This appears to be a photgraphy specialist company dabbling in Sublimation. A local company here bought from them, they supplied 100% cotton shirts specifically for sublimation

[JetStreamDigital]

Yes, SubliMugs inks. 50ml carts. Not Sawgrass inks.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Justin]

Obviosuly in breach of the 160 patents.....well, I guess so but not having seen the patents list yet!! Why would you use non SG inks if they aren't much cheaper? Of course, it's highly possible they're better.

[JetStreamDigital]

Well when you consider the RIP is a one off purchase, and the ink cap is double on CMY...it's substantial over time.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[pisquee]

You don't need the RIP software, if you print from Photoshop and make your own ICC profiles, or get someone like Paul to make one for you.
They (SG) may have 160 patents, but their scope can't all be for the same thing, they need to be for specific things, ad unique things with no prior art - so there is no reason another company couldn't develop a sublimation ink in a different way from Sawgrass and not infringe their patents, to just assume that SG patents cover every conceivable and possible formulation of sublimation ink and their uses, or to just take SG at their word seems niave, especially when looking through their legal history court notes, and the actual patents (which are all visible through google's patent search)

[mags1892]

One of sawgrases patents is for the SUBLIMATION PROCESS hence noone else can use the term sublimation without a license.

http://www.google.com/patents/US8628185

[pisquee]

But they cite prior art for sublimation patents going back to 1974!
Their patent can only be for A sublimation process - sublimation ink and dysperse dyes have existed longer than Sawgrass.