Litigation

Epson Portland Inc. et al. v. Dongguan Ocbestjet Digital Technology Co., Ltd. d/b/a Ocbestjet et al.

terminated; violation found

337-TA-1452

Court: U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, D.C. (Section 337, 19 U.S.C. § 1337)
Filed: 2025-05-13
Terminated: 2026-08-13

Patents at issue (5)

Plaintiffs (3)

Defendants (20)

Summary

Section 337 investigation into certain ink cartridges and components, also identified by complaint docket DN 3828 and styled in some sources as 337-TA-3828. Complainants Epson Portland Inc., Epson America, Inc., and Seiko Epson Corporation asserted US 8,764,172; US 9,370,934; US 11,535,038; US 12,240,248; and US 12,240,249 against twenty respondents. The Commission found a violation as to claims 1 and 7 of the asserted patents, issued a general exclusion order and cease and desist orders, set a 100% bond, and terminated the investigation on August 13, 2026, with publication on August 18, 2026.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

Save related patent research

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

Save related patent research

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

In the news

What the press has reported about this case, summarized with links to the source articles.

Save related patent research

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Save related patent research

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Save related patent research

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Record id: 11535038-337-ta-1452 · edit in Admin

Further reading

The Patent Scam (2017): a documentary on the patent troll industry
Most people learn about patent trolls only when they get sued by one. The Patent Scam does the work of making the problem concrete before that happens.
Cost of Inter Partes Review (IPR): a 2026 breakdown
An IPR ends most cases when the prior art is real. The all-in cost is roughly a tenth of full litigation — but only if you stage it right.
How patent trolls operate (and why the business model works)
A junk patent generates settlement income exactly the same way as a strong one, because nobody pays $1M to test a $200k demand. The mechanics matter because the failure modes — what makes assertion campaigns expensive or risky for the troll — are exactly where defendants find leverage.
Anatomy of a shakedown: how a patent troll campaign actually works
A patent troll demand letter isn't a lawsuit. It's the output of an industrial process designed to extract money at scale, calibrated to your defense costs, and dependent on you not coordinating with the other 199 targets in the same campaign.
Obviousness under § 103
Most patented inventions are combinations of existing ideas. The modern KSR standard makes those combinations easier to attack than they used to be.

All resources →