Defendant

MicroJet Technology Co., Ltd.

4 cases as defendant.

Cases
4
Active
1
3 closed
Filed
2010
Top venue
ITC
1 case

Company profile

MicroJet Technology Co., Ltd. (研能科技股份有限公司; commonly "MicroJet") is a privately held Taiwanese manufacturer founded August 10, 1996 and headquartered at 1F, No. 28, Yanfa 2nd Rd., Hsinchu Science Park, Hsinchu City, Taiwan. It is a company limited by shares, not publicly traded; Taiwan registry data lists paid-in capital of roughly NT$617 million (authorized NT$1.5 billion). Its own site and D&B-certified profile report 500+ employees (job-board listings cite figures around 450–680), and it states working capital of about US$21 million. No parent company is disclosed in the sources reviewed.

Products / operations. MicroJet is an operating manufacturer built on three stated core technologies: inkjet printing, piezoelectric micro fluidics, and additive-manufacturing inkjet 3D printing. Product lines include thermal-bubble inkjet printheads and ink cartridges, inkjet print engines, printers and multifunction devices, piezoelectric micropumps, atomizers and micro-coolers marketed under the CurieJet brand, full-color/ceramic 3D printers under the Cometrue brand, plus PM2.5 sensors and blood-pressure measurement devices. It operates a Hsinchu Science Park plant (front-end IC/nozzle processes) and a Guanyin, Taoyuan plant (assembly, packaging, R&D), and does own-brand as well as OEM/ODM work. The company claims more than 2,000 granted and pending patents worldwide and ranks among Taiwan's top-100 patent filers.

Patent-litigation posture. The tracked data show 0 cases as plaintiff and 1 as defendant, entirely at the U.S. International Trade Commission — the profile of an operating company defending imported-product allegations, not an NPE asserting an acquired portfolio. No Eastern District of Texas activity appears.

Notable cases. The tracked matter, Hewlett-Packard Company v. Microjet Technology Co., Ltd. et al. (filed December 22, 2000; Inv. No. 337-TA-446), alleged Section 337 infringement of six HP inkjet-cartridge patents; the Commission found a violation and issued a limited exclusion order against MicroJet plus cease-and-desist orders against other respondents (May 2002). External reporting also places MicroJet as a respondent in HP's later ITC action Certain Inkjet Cartridges with Printheads (337-TA-723), which ended in a general exclusion order in October 2011.

Hewlett-Packard Company et al. v. MicroJet Technology Co., Ltd. et al.

Violation found; general exclusion order issued; investigation terminated
Docket:
337-TA-723
Filed:
2010-05-25
Terminated:
2011-10-24

HP filed a Section 337 complaint against makers and sellers of HP-compatible inkjet cartridges and printheads. The ALJ found MicroJet and PTC directly infringed and APM contributorily infringed; the Commission affirmed the violation, found APM induced infringement, and issued a general exclusion order.

Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. et al. v. MicroJet Technology Co., Ltd. et al.

Filed; outcome unverified
Docket:
3:10-cv-02175
Filed:
2010-05-20
Patents:6481817

District-court counterpart to the ITC action, also docketed as 5:10-cv-02175. The Stanford NPE Litigation Database lists this case as involving US 6,481,817; a final judgment or termination order was not verified in the narrative.

Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. et al. v. MicroJet Technology Co., Ltd. et al.

listed in NPE database; disposition not confirmed
Docket:
3:10-cv-02175
Filed:
2010-05-20
Patents:6402279

District court action listed in the Stanford NPE Litigation Database as involving the '279 patent. The narrative did not find a confirmed disposition.

Hewlett-Packard Company v. MicroJet Technology Co., Ltd. et al.

Instituted; '817 inclusion probable but unverified
Docket:
337-TA-711
Filed:
2010-03-05

Earlier companion ITC Section 337 investigation naming HP as complainant and MicroJet, Mipo entities, Mextec, SinoTime, and PTC Holdings as respondents. The narrative states the '817 patent's inclusion is probable but not independently confirmed, while the 337-TA-723 opinion described 711 as accusing MicroJet of infringing the same patents.