Certain Toner Cartridges and Components Thereof, Inv. 337-TA-1106

U.S. International Trade Commission
Publication 5023 	February 2020
Washington, DC 20436
In the Matter of
337-TA-1106
CERTAIN TONER CARTRIDGES AND
COMPONENTS THEREOF

U.S. International Trade Commission
COMMISSIONERS
David S. Johanson, Chairman
Irving A. Williamson, Commissioner
Meredith M. Broadbent, Commissioner
Rhonda K. Schmidtlein, Commissioner
Jason E. Kearns, Commissioner
Address all communications to
Secretary to the Commission
United States International Trade Commission
Washington, DC 20436

U.S. International Trade Commission
Washington, DC 20436
www.usitc.gov
Publication 5023 	February 2020
In the Matter of
337-TA-1106
CERTAIN TONER CARTRIDGES AND
COMPONENTS THEREOF

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
In the Matter of
Investigation No. 337-TA-1106
CERTAIN TONER CARTRIDGES AND
COMPONENTS THEREOF
NOTICE OF A COMMISSION DETERMINATION TO AFFIRM AN INITIAL
DETERMINATION GRANTING RESPONDENTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY
DETERMINATION OF NON-INFRINGEMENT; FINDING OF NO VIOLATION OF
SECTION 337; TERMINATION OF THE INVESTIGATION
AGENCY: U.S. Intemational Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has
determined to affirm the initial detennination (“ID”) (Order No. 40) of the presiding
administrative law judge (“ALJ”) granting certain respondents’ respective motions for summary
determination of non-infringement. Accordingly, the Commission has detennined to find no
violation of section 337. The investigation is terminated.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clint Gerdine, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20436,
telephone (202) 708-2310. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in comtection with this
investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to
5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. lntemational Trade Corrnnission, 500 E Street,
SW., Washington, D.C. 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the
Corrnnission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at hn‘Qs://www.usitc.gov. The
public record for this investigation may be viewed on the C0mmission’s electronic docket
(EDIS) at hugs."//edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this
matter can be obtained by contacting the Com1nission’s TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation on
March 29, 2018, based on a complaint tiled on behalf of Canon Inc. of Tokyo, Japan; Canon
U.S.A. Inc. of Melville, New York; and Canon Virginia, Inc. of Newport News, Virginia
(collectively, “Canon”). 83 FR 13516-17. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (“section 337”), based upon the importation
into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after
importation of certain toner cartridges and components thereof by reason of infringement of
certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,746,826; 9,836,026; 9,841,727 (“the ’727 patent”);
9,841,728 (“the ’728 patent”); 9,841,729; 9,857,764; 9,857,765; 9,869,960; and 9,874,846. The

Commission’s notice of investigation named numerous respondents, including: Ninestar
Corporation and Ninestar Image Tech Limited, both of Guangdong, China; Ninestar Technology
Company, Ltd. of City of Industry, California; and Static Control Components, Inc. of Stanford,
North Carolina (collectively, “Ninestar”); Print-Rite N.A., Inc. of La Vergne, Tennessee; Union
Technology International (M.C.O.) Co. Ltd. of Rodrigues, Macau; Print-Rite Unicorn Image
Products Co. Ltd. of Zhuhai, China; The Supplies Guys, Inc. of Lancaster, Pennsylvania; and LD
Products, Inc. of Long Beach, California (collectively, “Print-Rite”); and Aster Graphics, Inc. of
Placentia, California; Aster Graphics Co., Ltd. of Guangdong, China; and Jiangxi Yibo E-tech
Co., Ltd. of Jiangxi, China (collectively, “Aster”; all collectively, “the active respondents”).
The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (“OUII”) is also a party to the investigation. The
’727 and ’728 patents have been terminated from the investigation. See Order No. 18 (June 28,
2018), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (July 23, 2018).
All other respondents have been found in default or terminated from the investigation
based on withdrawal of Canon’s allegations as to those respondents. See, e.g., Order No. 11
(May 2, 2018) (ID finding eleven respondents in default); unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (May
23, 2018); Order No. 30 (Oct. 22, 2018) (ID terminating the investigation as to a single
respondent); unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (Nov. 19, 2018). Specifically, the following thirty
five respondents have been found in default: Arlington Industries, Inc. of Waukegan, Illinois;
Ourway US Inc. of City of Industry, California; Print After Print, Inc. d/b/a OutOfToner.c0m of
Phoenix, Arizona; GPC Trading Co. Limited d/b/a GPC Image of Kowloon, Hong Kong; ACM
Technologies, Inc. of Corona, Califomia; Ourway Image Tech. Co., Ltd., Ourway Image Co.,
Ltd., and Zhuhai Aowei Electronics Co., Ltd., all of Zhuhai, China; Acecom, Inc. —San Antonio
d/b/a InkSell.com of San Antonio, Texas; Bluedog Distribution Inc. of Hollywood, Florida; I8
International, Inc. d/b/a Ink4Work.com of City of Industry, Califomia; Ink Technologies Printer
Supplies, LLC of Dayton, Ohio; Linkyo Corp. d/b/a SuperMediaStore.com of La Puente,
California; CLT Computers, Inc. d/b/a Multiwave and MWave of Walnut, California; Imaging
Supplies Investors, LLC d/b/a SuppliesOutlet.com, SuppliesWholesalers.com, and
OnlineTechStores.com of Reno, Nevada; Online Tech Stores, LLC d/b/a SuppliesOutlet.com,
SuppliesWholesalers.com, and OnlineTechStores.com of Grand Rapids, Michigan; Fairland,
LLC d/b/a ProPrint of Anaheim Hills, California; 9010-8077 Quebec Inc. d/b/a Zeetoner of
Quebec, Canada; World Class Ink Supply, Inc. of Woodbury, New Jersey; EIS Office Solutions,
Inc. and Zinyaw LLC d/b/a TonerPirate.com, both of Houston, Texas; eReplacements, LLC of
Grapevine, Texas; Garvey’s Office Products, Inc. of Niles, Illinois; Master Print Supplies, Inc.
d/b/a HQ Products of Burlingame, California; Reliable Imaging Computer Products, Inc. of
Northridge, California; Frontier Imaging Inc. of Compton, California; Hong Kong BoZe
Company Limited d/b/a Greensky of New Kowloon, Hong Kong; Apex Excel Limited d/b/a
ShopAt247 of Rowland Heights, California; Billiontree Technology USA Inc. d/b/a Toner
Kingdom of City of Industry, California; Kuhlmann Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Precision Roller of
Phoenix, Arizona; FTrade Inc. d/b/a ValueToner of Staten Island, New York; V4INK, Inc. of
Ontario, Califomia; Do It Wiser LLC d/b/a Image Toner of Alpharetta, Georgia; Global
Cartridges of Burlingame, California; and Kingway Image Co., Ltd. d/b/a Zhu Hai Kingway
Image Co., Ltd. of Zhuhai, China.
2

On November 28, 2018, Print-Rite and Aster each moved for summary determination that
their respective accused products do not infringe the asserted patents. On the same date,
Ninestar filed an unopposed motion for leave to file a motion for summary determination that its
accused products do not infringe the asserted patents. All of the active respondents’ motions
were contingent on the ALJ construing the asserted claims to require a pivotable coupling
member. Also, on the same date, Canon moved for summary determination of infringement
with respect to all of the respondents’ accused products, both active and defaulting. Canon’s
motion was contingent on the ALJ construing the asserted claims to require a coupling member
that does not need to pivot or incline. On December 10, 2018, Canon stated in its response to
the two pending summary determination motions that it would not oppose the motions if the ALJ
construed the asserted claims to require a pivotable coupling member. On the same date, OUII
filed a response supporting all of the motions for summary detemiination of non-infringement,
including Ninestar’s motion for leave to file its motion for summary determination of non
infringement.
On February 28, 2019, the ALJ issued her Markman Order (Order No. 38) construing the
asserted claims to require a pivotable coupling member. On March 6, 2019, Ninestar moved,
based on the Markman Order’s claim construction, for summary determination of non
infringement. On March 8, 2019, Canon stated in its response to Ninestar’s motion that it would
not oppose the motion based on the Markman Order.
On March 13, 2019, the ALJ issued the subject ID (Order No. 40) granting each motion
for summary determination of non-infringement. In the subject ID, the ALJ also denied
Canon’s motion for summary determination of infringement as moot. On March 25, 2019,
Canon and the Active Respondents each petitioned for review of the subject ID. On April 1,
2019, Canon and the Active Respondents each filed a response in opposition to the other pa1ty’s
petition for review. On the same date, OUII filed a response in opposition to each petition for
review.
On May 6, 2019, the Commission determined to review the ID and the tmderlying
Mar/(man Order in their entirety and requested the parties to respond to certain questions
conceming the issues under review. On May 14, 2019, Canon filed its written submission in
response to the Commission questions. Canon stated that it does not seek relief against the
defaulting respondents unless the Markman Order’s construction requiring a pivotable coupling
member is modified. 	I
Having reviewed the record of the investigation, including Order No. 40 and the
Markman Order, the parties’ briefing, and Canon’s response, the Commission has detennined to
affirm the subject ID. Accordingly, the Commission finds no violation of section 337. The
investigation is tenninated.
3

The authority for the Commission’s detennination is contained in section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and in Part 210 of the C0mmission’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR part 210.
By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton
Secretary to the Commission
Issued: May 20, 2019
4

CERTAIN TONER CARTRIDGES AND COMPONENTS 	Inv. No. 337-TA-1106
THEREOF
PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Lisa R. Barton, hereby certify that the attached NOTICE has been served by hand
upon the Commission Investigative Attorney, Monisha Deka, Esq.., and the following parties as
indicated, on 5/21/2019.
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary
U.S. Intemational Trade Commission
500 E Street, SW, Room 112
. 	Washington, DC 20436
On Behalf of Complainants Canon Inc.. Canon U.S.A.. and
Canon Virginia, Inc.:
Michael P. Sandonato, Esq. 	1:]Via Hand Delivery
VENEABLE LLP 	II] Via Express Delivery
1290 Avenue of the Americas 	- -
F l M 1
New York, NY 10104-3800 	E ggerlrst C ass 9‘
On Behalf of Respondents Ninestar Corporation. Ninestar
Image Tech Limited. Ninestar Technology Company, Ltd.,
and Static Control Components. Inc.
Gar)’ M- Hnfltha Esq- 	III Via Hand Delivery
MAYER BROWN LLP 	U Via Express Delivery
1999 K Street»NW 	Via First Class Mail
Washington, DC 20006 	D other
On Behalf of Respondents Print-Rite N.A.. Inc.. Union
TechnologyInternational (M.C.0.) Co. Ltd., Print-Rite
Unicorn Image Products Co. Ltd.. The Supplies Guyg, Inc.._
and LD Products, Inc.
Steven E- Adkins, E5q- ' 	Cl Via Hand Delivery
MCGUIRE WODDS LLP 	III Via Express Delivery
£093 IiO§)"@@‘=	NW 	Via First Class Mail	ul e 	_
Washington,	D.C.	20006 	UOthfii

CERTAIN TONER CARTRIDGES AND COMPONENTS 	Inv. N0. 337-TA-1106
THEREOF
Certificate of Service —Page 2
On Behalf of Respondents Aster Graphics, Inc.. Aster
Graphics Company, Ltd. and Jiangxi Yibo E-tech Co., Ltd,_,
Barbara A. Murphy, Esq. 	II] Via Hand Delivery
FOSTER, MURPHY, ALTMAN & NICKEL, PC 	[:1Via Express Delivery
1 SYIGGINW, Sllitfi 	First class
Washington, DC 20.036 ' 	U other

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
In the Matter of
Investigation No. 337-TA-1106
CERTAIN TONER CARTRIDGES AND
COMPONENTS THEREOF
NOTICE OF A COMMISSION DETERMINATION TO REVIEW AN INITIAL
DETERMINATION GRANTING RESPONDENTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY
DETERMINATION OF NON-INFRINGEMENT; REQUEST FOR WRITTEN
SUBMISSIONS
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has
determined to review the initial detennination (“ID”) (Order No. 40) of the presiding
administrative law judge (“ALJ”) granting certain respondents’ respective motions for summary
determination of non-infringement. The Commission is requesting written submissions from
the parties.
FOR FURTHER INFORIVIATIONCONTACT: Clint Gerdine, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20436,
telephone (202) 708-2310. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this
investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to
5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Intemational Trade Commission, 500 E Street,
SW., Washington, D.C. 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the
Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at httgs://www.usitc.g0v. The
public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket
(EDIS) at htgps://edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this
matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation on
March 29, 2018, based on a complaint filed on behalf of Canon Inc. of Tokyo, Japan; Canon
U.S.A. Inc. of Melville, New York; and Canon Virginia, I.nc.of Newport News, Virginia
(collectively, “Canon” or “Complainants”). 83 FR 13516-17. The complaint alleges violations
of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (“section 337”), based
upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the
United States after importation of certain toner cartridges and components thereof by reason of
infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,746,826; 9,836,026; 9,841,727 (“the ’727
patent”); 9,841,728 (“the ’728 patent”); 9,841,729; 9,857,764; 9,857,765; 9,869,960; and

9,874,846. The Commission’s notice of investigation named numerous respondents, including:
Ninestar Corporation and Ninestar Image Tech Limited, both of Guangdong, China; Ninestar
Technology Company, Ltd. of City of Industry, California; and Static Control Components, Inc.
of Stanford, North Carolina (collectively, “Ninestar”); Print-Rite N.A., Inc. of La Vergne,
Tennessee; Union Technology International (M.C.O.) Co. Ltd. of Rodrigues, Macau; Print-Rite
Unicorn Image Products Co. Ltd. of Zhuhai, China; The Supplies Guys, Inc. of of Lancaster,
Pennsylvania; and LD Products, Inc. of Long Beach, California (collectively, “Print-Rite”); and
Aster Graphics, Inc. of Placentia, California; Aster Graphics Co., Ltd. of Guangdong, China; and
Jiangxi Yibo E-tech Co., Ltd. of Jiangxi, China (collectively, “Aster”; all collectively, “the
Active Respondents”). The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (“OUII”) is also a party to
the investigation. The ’727 and ’728 patents have been terminated from the investigation. See
Order No. 18 (June 28, 2018), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (July 23, 2018).
All other respondents have been found in default or terminated from the investigation
based on withdrawal of Canon’s allegations as to those respondents. See, e.g., Order No. ll
(May 2, 2018) (ID finding eleven respondents in default); unreviewed by Comrn’n Notice (May
23, 2018); Order No. 30 (Oct. 22, 2018) (ID terminating the investigation as to a single
respondent); unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (Nov. 19, 2018). Specifically, the following thirty
five respondents have been found in default: Arlington Industries, Inc. of Waukegan, Illinois;
Ourway US Inc. of City of Industry, California; Print After Print, Inc. d/b/a OntOfFoner.com of
Phoenix, Arizona; GPC Trading Co. Limited d/b/a GPC Image of Kowloon, Hong Kong; ACM
Technologies, Inc. of Corona, California; Ourway Image Tech. Co., Ltd., Ourway Image Co.,
Ltd., and Zhuhai Aowei Electronics Co., Ltd., all of Zhuhai, China; Acecom, Inc. —San Antonio
d/b/a InkSell.co1n of San Antonio, Texas; Bluedog Distribution Inc. of Hollywood, Florida; i8
International, Inc. d/b/a Ink4Work.com of City of Industry, California; Ink Technologies Printer
Supplies, LLC of Dayton, Ohio; Linkyo Corp. d/b/a SuperMediaStore.com of La Puente,
California; CLT Computers, Inc. d/b/a Multiwave and MWave of Walnut, California; Imaging
Supplies Investors, LLC d/b/a SuppliesOutlet.com, SuppliesWholesalers.com, and
OnlineTechStores.com of Reno, Nevada; Online Tech Stores, LLC d/b/a SuppliesOutlet.com,
SuppliesWholcsalers.com, and OnlineTechStores.com of Grand Rapids, Michigan; Fairland,
LLC d/b/a ProPrint of Anaheim Hills, Califomia; 9010-8077 Quebec Inc. d/b/a Zeetoner of
Quebec, Canada; World Class Ink Supply, Inc. of Woodbury, New Jersey; EIS Office Solutions,
Inc. and Zinyaw LLC d/b/a TonerPirate.com, both of Houston, Texas; eReplacements, LLC of
Grapevine, Texas; Garvey’s Office Products, Inc. of Niles, Illinois; Master Print Supplies, Inc.
d/b/a HQ Products of Burlingame, California; Reliable Imaging Computer Products, Inc. of
Northridge, California; Frontier Imaging Inc. of Compton, California; Hong Kong BoZe
Company Limited d/b/a Greensky of New Kowloon, Hong Kong; Apex Excel Limited d/b/a
ShopAt247 of Rowland Heights, California; Billiontree Technology USA Inc. d/b/a Toner
Kingdom of City of Industry, Califomia; Kuhlmarm Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Precision Roller of
Phoenix, Arizona; FTrade Inc. d/b/a ValueToner of Staten Island, New York; V41NK, Inc. of
Ontario, California; Do It Wiser LLC d/b/a Image Toner of Alpharetta, Georgia; Global
Cartridges of Burlingame, California; and Kingway Image Co., Ltd. d/b/a Zhu Hai Kingway
Image Co., Ltd. of Zhuhai, China.
On November 28, 2018, Print-Rite and Aster each moved for summary determination that
their respective accused products do not infringe the asserted patents. On the same date,
2

Ninestar filed an unopposed motion for leave to file a motion for summary determination that its
accused products do not infringe the asserted patents. All motions were contingent on the ALJ
construing the asserted claims to require a pivotable coupling member. On December 10, 2018,
Canon stated in its response to the two pending summary detennination motions that it would not
oppose the motions for summary detemiination of nondnfiingement if the ALJ found such a
claim construction. On the same date, OUII filed a response supporting all of the motions for
summary determination of non-infringement, including Ninestar’s non-pending motion.
On February 28, 2019, the ALJ issued her Markman Order (Order No. 38) construing the
asserted claims to require a pivotable coupling member. On March 6, 2019, Ninestar moved,
based on the Markman Order’s claim construction, for summary determination of non
infiingement. On March 8, 2019, Canon stated in its response to Ninestar’s motion that it would
not oppose the motion based on the Markman Order. On the same day, Canon stated that it “is
not seeking any remedial orders under the ALJ ’s construction such that the ALJ may issue an
initial determination under [19 C.F.R. 2l0.42(c)] terminating the investigation in its entirety.”
See Joint Submission Regarding Pending Motions for Summary Determination (March 8, 2019).
On March 13, 2019, the ALJ issued the subject ID (Order No. 40) granting each motion
for summary determination of non-infringement. On March 25, 2019, Canon and the Active
Respondents each petitioned for review of the subject ID. On April '1,2019, Canon and the
Active Respondents each filed a response in opposition to the other party’s petition for review.
On the same date, OUII filed a response in opposition to each petition for review.
Having reviewed the record of the investigation, including the Marlcman Order and the
parties’ briefing, the Commission has detennined to review the subject ID and the underlying
Markman Order in the entirety.
As noted above, the Commission has found thirty-five respondents in default. Based on
language in Complainants’ motion for sinnmary determination of infiingement, however, it
appears that Canon’s allegations against all accused products (i.e., both active and defaulting
respondents) are contingent on the Commission adopting Canon’s proposed claim construction.
Accordingly, assuming the Commission affirms the Markman Order and the subject ID, the
Commission is interested in responses to the following questions:
(A) Is Canon still seeking relief against the defaulting respondents?
(B) If Canon is still seeking relief against the defaulting respondents, does, inter
alia, the statement that “The accused Type A-I products all have coupling
members that move in the axial direction . . . .” (see Mem. in Support of Canon’s
Mot. for Summary Det. at 1) (1) affect the Commission’s presumption of the facts
alleged in the complaint to be true and (2), if so, does this affect the
Commission’s authority to issue a remedy against the defaulting respondents?
The parties are requested to brief only the discrete questions presented above, with reference to
the applicable law and record. The parties are not to brief any other issues on review, which have
already been adequately presented in the parties’ previous filings.
3

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Parties are required file initial submissions in response to this
notice by no later than May 20, 2019. Response submissions are due by May 27, 2019. The
parties should limit their initial and response submissions to l5 pages each.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original docmnent electronically on or
before the deadlines stated above and submit eight tiue paper copies to the Office of the
Secretary pursuant to Section 2l0.4(i) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19
CFR 2l0.4(t)). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-l l06”)
in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook on Filing
Procedures, https://www.usitc.gov/documents/handb00k_0n_filing_pr0cedures.pd1_‘). Persons
with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary at (202) 205-2000.
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request
confidential treatment unless the information has ah-eadybeen granted such treatment during the
proceedings. All such requests should _bedirected to the Secretary of the Commission and must
include a full statement of the reasons Whythe Commission should grant such treatment. See l9
CFR 210.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is sought will be
treated accordingly. A redacted non-confidential version of the document must also be filed
simultaneously with any confidential filing. All information, including confidential business
information and documents for which confidential treatment is properly sought, submitted to the
Commission for purposes of this Investigation may be disclosed to and used: (i) by the
Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for developing or
maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in internal investigations, audits,
reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, persormel, and operations of the Commission
including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. goverrnnent employees and contract
personnel‘, solely for cybersecurity purposes. All non-confidential written submissions will be
available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and on EDIS.
The authority for the Commission’s determination is contained in section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and in Part 210 ofthe Commission’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR part 210.
By order of the Commission.
7%- 	Lisa R. Barton
Secretary to the Commission
Issued: May 6, 2019
1 All contract personnel will sign appropriate nondisclosure agreements.
4

CERTAIN TONER CARTRIDGES AND COMPONENTS 	Inv. No. 337-TA-1106
THEREOF
PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Lisa R. Barton, hereby certify that the attached NOTICE has been served by hand
upon the Commission Investigative Attorney, Monisha Deka, Esq.., and the following parties as
indicated, on 5/6/2019.
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary
U.S. International Trade Commission
500 E Street, SW, Room 112
Washington, DC 20436
On Behalf of Complainants Canon Inc...Canon U.S.A.. and
Canon Virginia, Inc.:
Michael P. Sandonato, Esq. 	I] Via Hand Delivery
VENEABLE LI-‘P 	l:\ Via Express Delivery
1290 Avenue of the Americas 	Via First Class Mail
New York, NY 10104-3800 	D Other: V
On Behalf of Respondents Ninestar Corporation. Ninestar
Image Tech Limited, Ninestar Technology Company. Ltd.,_
and Static Control Components. Inc.
Gar)’ M- Hnath! ESq- 	El Via Hand Delivery
MAYER BROWN LLP 	l:| Via Express Delivery
1999 K S“Yee‘>NW 	Via First Class Mail
Washington, DC 20006 	U Omar I
On Behalf of Respondents Print-Rite N.A., Inc., Union
Technology International (M.C.O.) Co. Ltd., Print-Rite
Unicorn Image Products Co. Ltd.. The Supplies Guyg, Inc..,_
and LD Products, Inc.
Steven E. Adkins, Esq. 	[I Via I-[andDelivmy
MCGUIRE WOODS LLP 	I1 Via Express Delivery
2°01 K Street’ NW 	Via First Class Mail
Suite 400 	El other
Washington,	D.C.20006 	i"———

CERTAIN TONER CARTRIDGES AND COMPONENTS 	Inv. N0. 337-TA-1106
THEREOF
Certificate of Service —Page 2
On Behalf of Respondents Aster Graphics. Inc.. Aster
Graphics Company, Ltd. and Jiangxj Yibo E-tech Co.. Ltd,_,
Barbara A. Murphy, Esq. 	E Via Hand Delivery
FOSTER, MURPHY, ALTMAN & NICKEL, PC 	|:| Via Express Delivery
StI‘€€tNW, Sllltfi 	E First Class
Washmgton, DC 20036 	U other

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
In the Matter of
CERTAIN TONER CARTRIDGES AND 	Inv. No. 337-TA-1106
COMPONENTS THEREOF
ORDER NO. 40: INITIAL DETERMINATION GRANTING MOTIONS FOR
SUMMARY DETERMINATION OF NON-INFRINGEMENT AND
TERMINATING INVESTIGATION IN ITS ENTIRETY
(March 13, 2019)
On November 28, 2018, the parties filed a several motions for summary determination.
These motions are contingent on particular claim constructions being adopted. Complainants
Canon Inc., Canon U.S.A., and Canon Virginia, Inc. (collectively, “Canon”) filed a motion for
stnnmary detennination that the accused Type A-Type I products infringe under its proposed
constructions of five disputed terms (Motion Docket No. 1106-020). Respondents Ninestar
Corporation, Ninestar Image Tech Limited, Ninestar Technology Company, Ltd., and Static
Control Components, Inc. (collectively, “Ninestar”) filed a motion for summary determination
that the asserted claims are invalid for failing to satisfy the written description requirement, if
certain of Canon’s proposed constructions Wereadopted such that the claims encompassed
“coupling members that are capable of axial-only movement with respect to the photosensitive
drum” (Motion Docket No. 1106-022). Ninestar Motion for Summary Determination of
Invalidity at 1.
Respondents Print-Rite N.A., Inc., Union Technology International (M.C.O.) Co. Ltd.,
Print-Rite Unicorn Image Products Co. Ltd., The Supplies Guys, Inc., and LD Products, Inc.
(collectively, “Print-Rite”), filed a motion for summary determination that the Type C, Type D,

and Type E accused products do not infringe the asserted patents (Motion Docket No. 1106-O21),
and Respondents Aster Graphics, lnc., Aster Graphics Co., Ltd, and Jiangxi Yibo E-tech Co.,
Ltd. (collectively, “Aster”) filed a motion for summary determination that the Type A and Type
B accused products do not infiinge the asserted patents (Motion Docket No. 1106-024). Along
with its motion for summary determination of invalidity, Ninestar filed an unopposed motion for
leave to file a motion for summary determination that the Type F, G, and H accused products do
not infringe the asserted patents (Motion Docket N0. 1106-023). On February 28, 2019,
Ninestar’s motion for leave was granted and Ninestar filed its summary motion for determination
of non-infringement on March 6, 2019 (Motion Docket No. 1106-027). Order No. 38 at iii n. 4.
Print-Rite’s, Aster’s, and Ninestar’s motions for non-infringement were contingent on the
asserted claims being construed to require a pivotable coupling member.
On December 10, 2018, Canon and the Office of Unfair Import Investigations (“Staff”)
filed responses to the pending motions for summary determination. On December 13, 2018,
Ninestar filed a reply in support of its motion for summary determination of invalidity.
On February 28, 2019, I issued Order No. 38, which construed several disputed terms.
On March 8, 2019, pursuant to Order No. 38, the parties filed “a joint submission (1) identifying
each motion for summary determination that has been rendered moot by the adopted claim
constructions and (2) for each motion that a party contends is still viable, indicating whether the
motion is ripe for adjudication or whether any party contends that supplemental briefing is
necessary to address the adopted claim constructions” (“Joint Submission”). On the same day,
Canon filed a response to Ninestar’s motion for summary determination of non-infringement
(“Canon Response to Ninestar Non-Infringement Motion”).
2

For the reasons set forth below, Ninestar’s, Aster’s, and Print-Rite’s motions for
summary determination of non-infringement are GRANTED. As the ruling on the motions for
summary determination of non-infringement is dispositive as to Ninestar, Aster, and Print-Rite
and the remaining respondents have been found in default, the investigation is terminated in its
entirety. Furthermore, Canon’s motion for summary determination of infringement and
Ninestar’s motion for summary detennination of invalidity are DENIED as moot. All remaining
deadlines in the procedural schedule are suspended.
I. BACKGROUND
This investigation was instituted to detennine whether there is a violation of section 337
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, in the importation into the United States, the sale for
importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain toner cartridges
and components thereof by reason of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,746,826 (“the ’826
patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,836,021 (“the ‘O21patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,841,729 (“the ’729
patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,857,764 (“the ’764 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,857,765 (“the ’765
patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,869,960 (“the ’960 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,874,846 (“the ’846
patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,841,727 (“the ’727 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 9,841,728 (“the
’728 patent”). Notice of Institution at 1 (Mar. 26, 2018); 83 Fed. Reg. 13156-517 (Mar. 29,
201 8).
In addition to Ninestar, Print-Rite, and Aster, the following entities identified as
respondents in the Notice of Investigation have been found to be in default: World Class Ink
Supply, Inc.; EIS Office Solutions, Inc.; eReplacements, LLC; Garvey’s Office Products, Inc.;
Master Print Supplies, Inc. d/b/a HQ Products; Reliable Imaging Computer Products, Inc.;
Zinyaw LLC d/b/a TonerPirate.com; Frontier Imaging Inc.; Hong Kong BoZe Co. Limited d/b/a
Greensky; Apex Excel Limited d/b/a ShopAt247; Billiontree Technology USA Inc. d/b/a Toner
3

Kingdom; Kuhlmann Enterprises, Inc.; Arlington Industries, Inc.; Arlington Industries, Inc. d/b/a
Precision Roller; V4lNK, Inc.; GPC Trading Co. Limited d/b/a GPC Image; ACM Technologies,
Inc.; Print After Print, Inc. d/b/a OuterOtT oner.com; iDo It Wiser LLC d/b/a Image Toner;
Global Cartridges; Kingway Image Co. Ltd. d/b/a Zhu Hai Kingway Image Co., Ltd.; Ourway
Image Tech. Co., Ltd.; Ourway Image Co., Ltd.; Zhu11aiAoWeiElectronics Co., Ltd.; Acecom,
Inc. - San Antonio d/b/a1nkSell.com; Bluedog Distribution Inc.; i8 Intemational, Inc. d/b/a
Ink4Work.com; Ink Technologies Printer Supplies, LLC; Linkyo Corp. d/b/a
SuperMediaStore.c0m; CLT Computers, Inc. d/b/a Multiwave and MWave; Imaging Supplies
Investors, LLC d/b/a SuppliesOut1et.com; SuppliesWholesa1ers.com; OnlineTechStores.com;
Online Tech Stores, LLC d/b/a SuppliesOutlet.c0m; SuppliesWholesalers.com;
OnlineTechStores.com; Print After Print, Inc. d/b/a OuterOtToner.com; Fairland, LLC d/b/a
ProPrint; 9010-8077 Quebec Inc. d/b/a Zeetoner; and Ourway US Inc. (collectively, “Non
Participating Respondents”). Notice of Investigation at 2-7; Order No. ll (May 2, 2018), not
reviewed by Comm’n Notice (corrected) (June 20, 2018); Order No. 12 (May 16, 2018), not
reviewed by Comm’n Notice (June 5, 2018); Order No. 14 (May 30, 2018), not reviewed by
Comm’n Notice (June 25, 2018); Order No. 15 (May 31, 2018), not reviewed by Comm’n Notice
(June 25, 2018); Order No. 19 (July 11, 2018), not reviewed by Comm’n Notice (Aug. 6, 2018);
Order No. 20 (July 26, 2018), not reviewed by Connn’n Notice (Aug. 15, 2018); Order No. 23
(Aug. 14, 2018), not reviewed by Comm’n Notice (Aug. 28, 2018); Order No. 25 (Sept. 5, 2018),
not reviewed by Comm’n Notice (Sept. 25, 2018); Order No. 26 (Sept. 14, 2018), not reviewed
by Comm’n Notice (Oct. 2, 2018); Order No. 39 (Mar. 6, 20l9).1
1The Notice of Investigation also named Apex Microtech Ltd. and Print-Rite Holdings Ltd. as
respondents. Both Apex Microtech Ltd. and Print-Rite Holdings Ltd. were terminated from the
' 	4

Canon withdrew its allegations with respect to the ’727 and ’728 patents and withdrew its
allegations with respect to certain claims of the ’826, ’021, ’729, ’764, ’765, ’960, and ’846
patents, and the investigation was terminated as to those patents and claims. Order No. 18 (June
28, 2018), n0t reviewed by Connn’n Notice (July 23, 2018); Order No. 21 (July 26, 2018), not
reviewed by Cornm’n Notice (Aug. 15, 2018); Order N0. 33 (Nov. 26, 2018), not reviewed by
Comm’n Notice (Dec. 12, 2018). Canon continues to assert the following claims against
Ninestar, Print-Rite, and Aster:
f Y 1 ’~Patent; x i"1kz~11~@~:=>n<Asse11ed:Clahns
826 patent 	Claims 1 and 6
’021 patent 	I Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8
’729 patent 	I Claim 1
’764 patent 	| Claim 7
1 ’765 patent 	| Claims 1, 3, 13, 16, and 19
1 960 patent 	| Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6
1 ’s46 patent 	| Claims 1 and 3
Complaint, 111.
The accused products are toner cartridges, which Canon places in the following
categories.
Aster 	| Type A and Type B
Print-Rite 	Type C, Type D, and Type E
Ninestar 	Type F, Type G, and Type H
Non-Participating Respondents 	Type I
investigation after Canon withdrew its allegations against them. Order N0. 28 (Oct. 1, 2018)
(terminating Apex Microtech Ltd), not reviewed by Cornm’n Notice (Oct. 25, 2018); Order No.
30 (Oct. 22, 2018) (terminating Print-Right Holdings Ltd.), not reviewed by Comm’n Notice
(Nov. 20, 2018).
5

II. LEGAL STANDARD
Commission Rule 210.18 governing summary determination states, in part:
The determination sought by the moving party shall be rendered if pleadings and
any depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with
the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact
and that the moving party is entitled to a summary determination as a matter of
law.
19 C.F.R. § 2lO.18(b). By analogy to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 (a), in deciding whether to grant
summary determination, the evidence “must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party
opposing the motion .. .with doubts resolved in favor of the nomnovant.” Crown Operations
Int ’l,Ltd. v. Solutia, Inc., 289 F.3d 1367, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citations omitted); see also
Xerox Corp. v. 3Com C0rp., 267 F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“When ruling on a motion
for summary judgment, all of the nomnovant’s evidence is to be credited, and all justifiable
inferences are to be drawn in the nonmovant’s favor”). The cotnt should “assure itself that there
is no reasonable version of the facts, on the summary judgment record, whereby the nonmovant
could prevail, recognizing that the purpose of summary judgment is not to deprive a litigant of a
fair hearing, but to avoid an umiecessary trial.” EM] Group N. Am., Inc. v. Intel Corp, 157 F.3d
887, 891 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (citations omitted). “In other words, ‘[s]umma1yjudgment is
authorized when it is quite clear what the truth is’ . . . and the law requires judgment in favor of
the movant based upon facts not in genuine dispute.” Paragon Podiatry Lab, Inc. v. KLMLabs.,
Ina, 984 F.2d 1182, 1185 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citations omitted).
III. ANALYSIS
The “movable” limitation requiring a coupling member that is “movable between (i) a
first position in which a tip of the at least one projection is a first distance away from the
photosensitive drum as measured in the direction of the axis L1 and (ii) a second position in
which the tip of the at least one projection is a second distance away from the photosensitive
6

drum as measured in the direction of the axis Ll ” is recited in all of the asserted independent
claims. ’826 patent, col. 84:20-28 (claim 1), col. 85:8-15 (claim 6); ’02l patent, col. 84:29-37
(claim 1), col. 85:34-43 (claim 8); ’729 patent, col. 84:44-52 (claim 1), col. 88:24-31 (claim
27); ’764 patent, col. 85:30-38 (claim 7), col. 87:8-16 (claim 20); ’765 patent, col. 83:50-54
(claim 1), col. 86:17-25 (claim 13); ’960 patent, col. 83:53-61 (claim 1); ’846 patent, col. 84:30
38 (claim 1). Order No. 38 found that the patentees had disavowed claim scope so that the
“movable” limitation requires a coupling member that is “movable between (i) a first angular
position in which a tip of the at least one projection is a first distance away from the
photosensitive drum as measured in the direction of the axis Ll and (ii) a second angular
position in which the tip of the at least one projection is a second distance away from the
photosensitive drum as measured in the direction of the axis Ll.” Order No. 38 at 40. With the
“movable” limitation so construed, “every claim asserted against the [Type A-H] Products
requires the claimed coupling member to be capable of pivoting or inclining with respect to the
photosensitive drum.” Joint Submission at 2 (quoting Joint Stipulation (Sept. 27, 2018) at 1111	3
5) (alterations in original) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Under the construction of the “moveable” limitation adopted in Order No. 38, there is no
dispute that the accused Ninestar, Print-Rite, and Aster products do not infringe the asserted
claims. Joint Submission at 2-3 (“As such, the Participating Respondents’ Type A-H Products
do not infringe any of the claims asserted against them under that CO11S’[I‘L1CtlO1’1.”);	Canon
Response to Ninestar Non-Infringement Motion at 2 (“Canon therefore does not oppose
summary determination that Ninestar’s Type F, G, and H Products do not infringe any of the
claims asserted against them under that construction”); see also Joint Stipulation (Sept. 27,
7

2018) at 1[1l3-5.2 Accordingly, I find that Ninestar, Print-Rite, and Aster are entitled to sunnnary
determination of non-infringement as to the Type A-Type H products.
Granting Ninestar’s, Print-Rite’s, and Aster’s motions for summary determination of non
infringement is “dispositive with respect to all of the Participating Respondents” and the
remaining respondents have been found in default. Joint Submission at 4. Accordingly, because
Canon has not shown a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, with
respect to the only participating respondents, I hereby terminate the investigation in its entirety
under 19 C.F.R. § 2l0.42(c). See also Joint Submission at 4 (agreeing “that the AL] may issue
an initial termination under 19 C.F.R. § 210.42(c) terminating the investigation in its entirety”).
With respect to Canon’s motion for summary determination of infringement and
Ninestar’s motion for summary determination of invalidity, these motions were premised on the
claims being construed so as to not require a coupling member that can pivot between two
angular positions. Canon and Ninestar agree that these motions have been rendered moot by the
construction of the “movable” limitation adopted in Order No. 38. Joint Submission at 3.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, I find that Ninestar, Print-Rite, and Aster are entitled to
summary determination of non-infringement and hereby GRANT Motion Docket No. 1106-021,
Motion Docket No. 1106-024, and Motion Docket No. 1106-O27. Because Canon has not shown
a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, with respect to Ninestar, Print
Rite, and Aster and the other named respondents have been found in default, I hereby terminate
2 In addition to the Type A-H products, Canon had accused remanufactured cartridges of
Ninestar of infringing the asserted patents. Canon Response to Ninestar Non-Infringement
Motion at 2 n. 1. Canon and Ninestar filed a joint stipulation withdrawing the cartridges from
the investigation. Id.
8

the investigation in its entirety pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 2l0.42(c). Further, Canon’s motion for
summary detennination of infringement (Motion Docket No. 1106-20) and Ninestar’s motion for
summary detennination of invalidity (Motion Docket No. 1106-22) are hereby DENIED as
moot. All remaining deadlines in the procedural schedule are hereby suspended.
I hereby certify the record in this investigation to the Commission with my final initial
determination. Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.38, the record further comprises the
Complaint and exhibits thereto filed with the Secretary, the Markman order, and the exhibits
attached to the parties’ summary determination motions and the responses thereto. 19 C.F.R.
§ 210.3 8(a).
Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.42(c), this initial determination shall become the
determination of the Commission 45 days after the service thereof, unless a party files a petition
for review pursuant to Commission Rule 210.43(a), the Commission orders its own review
pursuant to Commission Rule 210.44, or the Commission changes the effective date of the initial
determination. 19 C.F.R. § 210.42(h)(6).
SO ORDERED.
Dee Lord
Administrative Law Judge
9

CERTAIN TONER CARTRIDGES AND COMPONENTS 	Inv. No. 337-TA-1106
THEREOF
PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Lisa R. Barton, hereby certify that the attached ORDER has been served by hand upon
the Commission Investigative Attorney, Monisha Deka, Esq., and the following parties as
indicated, on 3/13/2019 	7 _- - _‘“',',;s»»~*" ,_ _
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary
U.S. Intemational Trade Commission
500 E Street, SW, Room 112
Washington, DC 20436
On Behalf of Complainants Canon Inc.. Canon U.S.A.. and
Michael P. Sandonato, Esq.
VENABLE LLP
1290 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10104-3800
I] Via Hand Delivery
|Q’Via Express Delivery
El Via First Class Mail
II Other:
On Behalf of Respondents Ninestar Corporation. Ninestar
Image Tech Limited. Ninestar Technolog Company, Ltd“,
Apex Microtech Ltd.. and Static Control Components. Inc.:
Gary M. Hnath, Esq.
MAYER BROVVNLLP
1999 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
III Via Hand Delivery
IE/Via Express Delivery
El Via First Class Mail
III Other:
On Behalf of Respondents Print-Rite Holdings Ltd.. Print
Rite N.A..,Inc.. Union Technology International (M.C.O.) Co.
Ltd.. Print-Rite Unicorn Image Products Co. Ltd.. The
Supplies Guys, LLC, and LD Products. Inc.:
Steven E. Adkins, Esq.
MCGUIRE WOODS LLP
20001 K Street, NW
Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 20006
U Via Hand Delivery
E4/ia ExpressDelivery
III Via First Class Mail
III Other:

CERTAIN TONER CARTRIDGES AND COMPONENTS
THEREOF
Certificate of Service —Page 2
On Behalf of Respondents Aster Graphics. Inc., Aster
Graphics C0...Ltd. and Jiangxi Yibo E-tech C0.. Ltd.:
Barbara A. Murphy, Esq. 	Y
FOSTER, MURPHY, ALTMAN & NICKEL, PC
1150 18th Street NW, Suite 775
Washington, DC 20036
Respondents:
Ourway US Inc.
17800 Castleton Street, Suite 412
City of Industry, CA 91748
Inv. N0. 337-TA-1106
El Via Hand Delivery
E4/ia ExpressDelivery
III Via First Class Mail
U Other:
III Via Hand Delivery
E/Via Express Delivery
U Via First Class Mail
CI Other:

UNITED STATES WTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
In the Matter of
Investigation No. 337-TA-1106
CERTAIN TONER CARTRIDGES AND
COMPONENTS THEREOF
NOTICE OF A COMMISSION DETERMINATION NOT TO REVIEW AN INITIAL
DETERMINATION FINDING A SINGLE RESPONDENT IN DEFAULT
AGENCY: U.S. Intemational Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has
determined not to review the initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 39) of the presiding
administrative law judge (“ALI”) finding respondent Ourway US Inc. (“Ourway”) of City of
Industry, California in default.
FOR FURTHER INFORIVIATION CONTACT: Clint Gerdine, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20436,
telephone (202) 708-2310. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this
investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to
5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Inteniational Trade Commission, 500 E Street,
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the
Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at httgs."//www.usitc.gov. The
public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS)
at httgs://edis. usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter
can be obtained by contacting the Com1nission’s TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.
SUPPLElV[ENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation on
March 29, 2018, based on a complaint filed on behalf of Canon Inc. of Tokyo, Japan; Canon
U.S.A. Inc. of Melville, New York; and Canon Virginia, Inc. of Newport News, Virginia
(collectively, “Canon”). 83 FR 13516-17. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, by reason of infringement of certain claims
0fU.S. Patent Nos. 9,746,826; 9,836,026; 9,841,727; 9,841,728; 9,841,729; 9,857,764;
9,857,765; 9,869,960; and 9,874,846. The Commission’s notice of investigation named
numerous respondents, including Ourway. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations is also a
party to the investigation. The complaint and notice of investigation were served on Ourway.
See Order No. 39 at 1. Ourway failed to respond to the complaint and notice of investigation.

On February 7, 2019, Canon filed a motion, pursuant to Commission Rule 210.16 (19
CFR 210.16), for the following: (1) an order directing Ourway to show cause why it should not
be found in default for failure to respond to the complaint and notice of investigation as required
by Commission Rule 210.13 (19 CFR 210.13); and (2) the issuance of an ID finding Ourway in
default upon its failure to show cause. No party opposed the motion and Ourway did not
respond to the motion.
On February 21, 2019, the AL] issued Order N0. 37 which required Ourway to show
cause no later than March 4, 2019, as to why it should not be held in default and have judgment
rendered against it pursuant to Commission Rule 210.16 (19 CFR 210.16). Ouwvay did not file
any response to Order No. 37.
The AL] issued the subject ID (Order No. 39) on March 6, 2019, finding Ourway in
default, pursuant to Commission Rule 210.16 (19 CFR 210.16), because it did not respond to the
complaint and notice of investigation and Order No. 37. No party petitioned for review.
The Commission has determined not to review the subject ID. Accordingly, Ourway has
been found in default.
The authority for the Commission’s detennination is contained in section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and in Part 210 of the Commission’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR part 210.
By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton
Secretary to the Commission
Issued: March 28, 2019
2

CERTAIN TONER CARTRIDGES AND COMPONENTS 	Inv. No. 337-TA-1106
THEREOF
PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Lisa R. Barton, hereby certify that the attached NOTICE has been served by hand
upon the Commission Investigative Attorney, Monisha Deka, Esq.., and the following parties as
indicated, on 3/28/2019
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary
U.S. International Trade Commission
500 E Street, SW, Room 112
Washington, DC 20436
On Behalf of Complainants Canon Inc.,,Canon U.S.A., and
Canon Virginia, Inc.:
Michael P. Sandonato, Esq. 	[I] Via Hand Delivery
VENEABLE LLP
1290 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10104-3800
Cl Via Express Delivery
E Via First Class Mail
U Other:
On Behalf of Respondents Ninestar Corporation, Ninestar
Image Tech Limited. Ninestar Technology Company, Ltd.._
and Static Control Components. Inc.
Gary M. Hnath, Esq. 	U Via Hand Delivery
MAYER BROWN LLP 	III Via Express Delivery
1999 K SUCH»NW 	Via First Class Mail
Washington, DC 20006 	U other
On Behalf of Respondents Print-Rite N.A.. Inc., Union
Technology International (M.C.O.) Co. Ltd.. Print-Rite
Unicorn Image Products Co. Ltd... The Supplies Guys, Inc..
and LD Products, Inc.
Steven E. Adkins, Esq. 	U Via Hand Delivery
MCGUIRE WOODS LLP 	U Via Express Delivery
2°91 K Street»NW 	lXlVia First Class Mail
Suite 400 	U other
Washington,	D.C.	20006 	{{

CERTAIN TONER CARTRIDGES AND COMPONENTS
THEREOF
Certificate of Service —Page 2
On Behalf of Respondents Aster Graphics. Inc.. Aster
Graphics Company. Ltd. and Jiangxi Yibo E-tech C0., Ltd,_,
Barbara A. Murphy, Esq.
FOSTER, MURPHY, ALTMAN & NICKEL, PC
1150 18th Street NW, Suite 775
Washington, DC 20036
Respondents:
Ourway US Inc.
17800 Castleton Street, Suite 412
City of Industry, CA 91748
Inv. N0. 337-TA-1106
U Via Hand Delivery
El Via Express Delivery
Via First Class Mail
III Other:
El Via Hand Delivery
El Via Express Delivery
Via First Class Mail
U Other:

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
In the Matter of
CERTAIN TONER CARTRIDGES AND 	Inv. N0. 337-TA-1106
COMPONENTS THEREOF
ORDER NO. 39 INITIAL DETERMINATION FINDING RESPONDENT
OURWAY US INC. IN DEFAULT
(March 6, 2019)
Pursuant to Order No. 37, Respondent Ourway US Inc. was ordered to show cause why it
should not be held in default for failing to respond to the complaint and notice of investigation
no later than the close of business on Monday, March 4, 2019. Order No. 37 at 2 (Feb. 21,
2019). This order to show cause was issued upon a motion (l\/lotionDocket No. 1106-026) filed
by Complainants Canon Inc., Canon U.S.A., Inc., and Canon Virginia, Inc. (“Canon”) pursuant
to Commission Rule 2l0.16(b)(l)(i). Ourway US Inc. did not file any response to the order to
show cause.
Service of the complaint and notice of investigation on Ourway US Inc. was effected on
November 30, 2018, pursuant to Order No. 32 (Nov. 14, 2018). See Letter to Secretary (Nov.
27, 2018, EDIS Doc. 662651). Despite being served, Ourway US Inc. has not answered the
complaint and notice of investigation or entered any appearance. After being ordered to do so,
Ourway US Inc. did not attempt to show cause why it should not be held in default. In similar
circumstances, other respondents in this investigation have been found in default pursuant to
Commission Rule 210.16(a)(l), and an initial determination was issued pursuant to Commission

Rule 210.16(b)(1)(ii). See Order No. 26 (Sept. 14, 2018) (defaulting three respondents), nut
reviewed by Con1m’nNotice (October 3, 2018).
Accordingly, it is my initial determination that Respondent OurvvayUS Inc. is in default
Ourway US Inc. has therefore waived its right to appear, to be served with documents, and to
contest the allegations at issue in this investigation. See 19 C.F.R. § 210.16(b)(4).
Pursuant to Commission Rule 21O.42(h),this initial detennination shall become the
determination of the Commission unless a party files a petition for review of the initial
determination pursuant to Commission Rule 210.43(a), or the Commission, pursuant to
Commission Rule 210.44, orders, on its own motion, a review of the initial determination or
certain issues contained herein. 19 C.F.R. § 210.42(d).
SO ORDERED.
1366 I/m//1/*
Dee Lord
Administrative Law Judge
2

CERTAIN TONER CARTRIDGES AND COMPONENTS
THEREOF
Inv. No. 337-TA-1106
PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Lisa R. Barton, hereby certifil that the attached ORDER has been served by hand upon
the Commission Investigative Attorney, Monisha Deka, Esq., and the following parties as
indicated, on 3/6/2019
“CW Lisa R. Ba111hn:E‘SecTiietar)7"’ M —
U.S. International Trade Commission
500 E Street, SW, Room 112
Washington, DC 20436
On Behalf of Complainants Canon Inc.. Canon U.S.A., and
Canon Virginia, Inc.:
Michael P. Sandonato, Esq.
VENABLE LLP
1290 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10104-3800
On Behalf of Respondents Ninestar Corporation. Ninestar
Image Tech Limited. Ninestar Technology Company, Ltd.,
Apex Microtech Ltd... and Static Control Components. Inc.:
Gary M. Hnath, Esq.
MAYER BROVVNLLP
1999 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
On Behalf of Respondents Print-Rite Holdings Ltd.. Print
Rite N.A., Inc., Union Technology International (M.C.O.) Co.
Ltd.. Print-Rite Unicorn Image Products Co. Ltd.. The
Supplies Guys, LLC. and LD Products. Inc.:
Steven E. Adkins, Esq.
MCGUIRE WOODS LLP
20001 K Street, NW
Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 20006
U Via Hand Delivery
Q/Via Express Delivery
Cl Via First Class Mail
II Other:
III Via Hand Delivery
Q/Via Express Delivery
III Via First Class Mail
|:| Other: ~
Ill?)/ia Hand Delivery	Via Express Delivery
El Via First Class Mail
El Other:

CERTAIN TONER CARTRIDGES AND COMPONENTS
THEREOF
Certificate of Service —Page 2
On Behalf of Respondents Aster Graphics. Inc.. Aster
Graphics Co.. Ltd, and Jiangxi Yibo E-tech Co.. Ltd.:
Barbara A. Murphy, Esq.
FOSTER, MURPHY, ALTMAN & NICKEL, PC
1150 18th Street NW, Suite 775
Washington, DC 20036
Respondents:
Ourway US Inc.
17800 Castleton Street, Suite 412
City of Industry, CA 91748
Inv. N0. 337-TA-1106
U Via Hand Delivery
[Z/Via Express Delivery
[:1Via First Class Mail
III Other:
U Via Hand Delivery
lZ(Via Express Delivery
I1 Via First Class Mail
Cl Other:

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
In the Matter of
CERTAIN TONER CARTRIDGES AND 	Inv. No. 337-TA-1106
COMPONENTS THEREOF
ORDER NO. 38: IIIARKIMANORDER AND ORDER ADDRESSING MOTIONS FOR
SUMMARY DETERMINATION AND PREHEARING BRIEFS
(February 28, 2019)
A Markman hearing was held in this investigation on August 30, 2018. Counsel for
Complainants Canon Inc., Canon U.S.A., and Canon Virginia, Inc. (collectively, “Canon”),
counsel for Respondents Ninestar Corporation, Ninestar Image Tech Limited, Ninestar
Technology Company, Ltd., Apex Microtech Ltd., and Static Control Components, Inc.
(collectively, “Ninestar”), counsel for Respondents Print-Rite Holdings Ltd., Print-Rite N.A.,
Inc., Union Teclmology International (M.C.O.) Co. Ltd., Print-Rite Unicom Image Products Co.
Ltd., The Supplies Guys, Inc., and LD Products, Inc. (collectively, “Print-Rite”), counsel for
Respondents Aster Graphics, Inc., Aster Graphics Co., Ltd, and Jiangxi Yibo E-tech Co., Ltd.
(collectively, “Aster”) (Ninestar, Print-Rite, and iAster, collectively, “Respondents”) and counsel

for the Office of Unfair Import Investigations (“Staff”) appeared at the hearing.‘ In advance of
the hearing, Canon, Respondents, and Staff filed initial and rebuttal Markman briefs?
On November 28, 2018, the parties filed a number of motions for summary
determination. These motions are contingent on particular claim constructions being adopted.
Canon’s motion for summary determination sought a finding that the accused Type A-Type I
products infringe, under its proposed constructions of the disputed tenns (Motion Docket No.
1106-20). Ninestar’s motion for summary determination sought a finding that the patents were
invalid for failing to satisfy the written description requirement, if the claims were to encompass
“coupling members that are capable of axial-only movement with respect to the photosensitive
drum” (Motion Docket No. 1106-022). Ninestar Motion for Summary Determination at l.
Print-Rite filed a motion for summary determination that the Type C, Type D, and Type E
accused products do not infringe the asserted patents (Motion Docket No. l 106-021), and Aster
filed a motion for summary determination that the Type A and Type B accused products do not
infringe the asserted patents (Motion Docket No. 1106-024).3 Along with its motion for
1After the hearing, Canon withdrew its allegations as to Print-Right Holdings Ltd. and Apex
Microtech Ltd. and the investigation was terminated as to those respondents. Order No. 28 (Oct.
1, 2018) (terminating Apex Microtech Ltd.), not reviewed by Comm’n Notice (Oct. 25, 2018);
Order No. 30 (Oct. 22, 2018) (terminating Print-Right Holdings Ltd.), not reviewed by Comm’n
Notice (Nov. 20, 2018).
2 Canon’s initial and rebuttal briefs are referenced herein as “CIB” and “CRB,” respectively;
Respondents’ initial and rebuttal briefs are referenced herein as “RIB” and “RRB,” respectively;
and Staffs initial and rebuttal briefs are referenced herein as “SIB” and “SRB,” respectively. On
August 31, 2018, Respondents filed a corrected initial brief. Unless otherwise noted, all
references to Respondents’ initial brief are to the corrected version.
3 In some instances, Respondents categorize the accused products differently than Canon. See,
e.g., Print-Rite Memorandum in Support of Motion at 3 n. 4 (explaining that Print-Rite refers to
the accused Type C, Type D, and Type E products as PR2 products). Although this order uses
Canon’s nomenclature to refer to the accused products, it makes no determination regarding
whether Canon has correctly grouped the accused products.
ii

summary determination of invalidity, Ninestar filed an unopposed motion for leave to file a
motion for summary determination that the Type F, G, and H accused products do not infringe
the asserted patents (Motion Docket No. 1106-023).4 Respondents’ motions for non
infringement were contingent on the assened claims being construed to require a pivotable
coupling member.
4Ninestar’s motion for leave is hereby GRANTED.
iii

Table of Contents
I. Procedural History ........................................... .. 	1
A. Current Investigation 	.............. .. 1
B. The 918 Investigation .................................................................................................... .. 3
II. The Asserted Patents ............................................................................................................ .. 4
A. Spec_ification.................................................................................................................. .. 4
III. Claims at Issue ................................................................................................................... .. 10
A. ‘S26 Patent ................................................................................................................... .. 10
B. p ‘O21Patent ................................................................................................................... .. 11
C. ’729 Patent ................................................................................................................... .. 13
D. ’764 Patent .................................................................................... .. 	15
E. ’765 Patent......... 	................... .. 16
F. ’960 Patent ................................................................................................................... .. 17
G. ‘ ’846 Patent ................................................................................................................... .. 19
IV. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ...................................................................................... .. 20
V. Legal Standard ................................................................................................................... .. 21
VI. Claim Construction ............................ .. 	24
A. “movable” limitati0n........ 	............................................................. .. 25
B. “axis L2” ...................................................................................................................... .. 40
C. “connected” .................................................................................................................. .. 43
D. “[a coupling member having/including] a first end [portion] at least a part of which is
positioned within the drum flange” .......................................................................... .. 45
E. “at least one projection that is open to the axis L2” .................................................... .. 47
VII. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... .. 51
A. Claim Constructions ............................................................... 	51
B. Motions for Summary Determination and Prehearing Briefs ...................................... .. 53
iv

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. Current Investigation
This investigation was instituted to determine whether there is a violation of section 337
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, in the importation into the United States, the sale for
importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain toner cartridges
and components thereof by reason of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,746,826 (“the ’826
patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,836,021 (“the ’02l patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,841,729 (“the ’729
patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,857,764 (“the ’764 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,857,765 (“the ’765
patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,869,960 (“the ’960 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,874,846 (“the ’846
patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,841,727 (“the ’727 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 9,841,728 (“the
’728 patent”). Notice of Institution at 1 (Mar. 26, 2018); 83 Fed. Reg. 13156-517 (Mar. 29,
2018). 	I
In addition to the respondents who appeared at the Markman hearing, the following
entities were identified as respondents in the Notice of Investigation and have beenpfoundto be
in default: World Class Ink Supply, Inc.; EIS Office Solutions, Inc.; eReplacements, LLC;
Garvey’s Office Products, Inc.; Master Print Supplies, Inc. d/b/a HQ Products; Reliable Imaging
Computer Products, Inc.; Zinyaw LLC d/b/a TonerPirate.com; Frontier Imaging Inc.; Hong
Kong BoZe Co. Limited d/b/a Greensky; Apex Excel Limited d/b/a ShopAt247; Billiontree
Technology USA Inc. d/b/a Toner Kingdom; Kuhlmann Enterprises, Inc.; Arlington Industries,
Inc.; Arlington Industries, Inc. d/b/a Precision Roller; V4INK, Inc.; GPC Trading Co. Limited
d/b/a GPC Image; ACM Technologies, Inc.; Print After Print, Inc. d/b/a OuterOtToner.com; Do
It Wiser LLC d/b/a Image Toner; Global Cartridges; Kingway Image Co. Ltd. d/b/a Zhu Hai
Kingway Image Co., Ltd.; Ourway Image Tech. Co., Ltd.; Ourway Image Co., Ltd.; Zhuhai
Aowei Electronics Co., Ltd.; Acecom, Inc. - San Antonio d/b/a InkSell.com; Bluedog
1

Distribution Inc.; i8 International, Inc. d/b/a Ink4Work.com; Ink Technologies Printer Supplies,
LLC; Linkyo Corp. d/b/a SuperMediaStore.com; CLT Computers, Inc. d/b/a Multiwave and
MWave; Imaging Supplies Investors, LLC d/b/a SuppliesOut1et.com; SuppliesWholesa1ers.com;
OnlineTechStores.com; Online Tech Stores, LLC d/b/a SuppliesOutlet.com;
SuppliesWholesalers.com; OnlineTechStores.com; Print After Print, Inc. d/b/a
OuterOfToner.com; Fairland, LLC d/b/a ProPrint; and 9010-8077 Quebec Inc. d/b/a Zeetoner.
Notice of Investigation at 2-7; Order No. 11 (May 2, 2018), not reviewed by Comm’n Notice
(corrected) (June 20, 2018); Order No. 12 (May 16, 2018), not reviewed by Comm’n Notice
(June 5, 2018); Order No. 14 (May 30, 2018), not reviewed by Comm’n Notice (June 25, 2018);
Order No. 15 (May 31, 2018), not reviewed by Comm’n Notice (June 25, 2018); Order No. 19
(July 11, 2018), not reviewed by Comm’n Notice (Aug. 6, 2018); Order No. 20 (July 26, 2018),
not reviewed by Comm’n Notice (Aug. 15, 2018); Order No. 23 (Aug. 14, 2018), not reviewed by
Comm’n Notice (Aug. 28, 2018); Order No. 25 (Sept. 5, 2018), not reviewed by Comm’n Notice
(Sept. 25, 2018); Order No. 26 (Sept. 14, 2018), not reviewed by Comm’n Notice (Oct. 2, 2018).
Ourway US Inc. was also identified as a respondent in the notice of investigation and has been
ordered to show cause why it should not be found in default. Order No. 37 (Feb. 21, 2019).
1 Canon withdrew its allegations with respect to the ’727 and ’728 patents and withdrew its
allegations with respect to certain claims of the ’826,.’02l, ’729, ’764, ’765, ’960, and ’846
patents, and the investigation was tenninated as to those patents and claims. Order No. 18 (June
28, 2018), not reviewed by Comm’n Notice (July 23, 2018); Order No. 21 (July 26, 2018), not
reviewed by Comm’n Notice (Aug. 15, 2018); Order No. 33 (Nov. 26,2018), not reviewed by
Comm’n Notice (Dec. 12, 2018). Canon continues to assert the following claims against
Respondents:
2

Patent 	Asserted Claims
’826 patent 	Claims 1 and 6
’O2l patent 	Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8
’729 patent 	Claim 1
’764 patent 	Claim 7
’765 patent 	Claims 1, 3, 13, 16, and 19
’96Opatent 	Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6
’846 patent 	Claims 1 and 3
Complaint, 1]1.
In addition, Canon asserts that its domestic industry products practice the following
claims:
Y 	i Patent 	Domestic Industry Claims
’826 patent 	Claims 1 and 5
’021 patent‘ 	Claims 1 and 6
’729 patent 	Claims 27 and 31
’764 patent 	Claims 20 and 22
’765 patent 	Claims 13 and 18
’96Opatent 	Claims 1 and 8
’846_patent 	Claims 1 and 4
14.41291.
B. The 918 Investigation
In Certain Toner Cartridges and Components Thereofi Inv. No. 337-TA-918 (“the 918
investigation”), Canon asserted three patents from the ‘samefamily as the patents asserted in this
investigation: U.S. Patent No. 8,280,278 (“the ’278 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,630,564 (“the
’564 patent”); and U.S. Patent N0. 8,682,215 (“the ’215 patent”). Complaint, 1]295. Some of
the respondents in the current investigation were also respondents in the 918 investigation.
Notice of Investigation (918 Investigation) at 2-6 (naming Ninestar Image Tech Limited,
Ninestar Technology Company, Ltd., Print-Rite Holdings Ltd., Print-Rite N.A., Inc., Aster
Graphics, Inc., and Aster Graphics Co., Ltd. as respondents). After a hearing, the presiding
3

administrative law judge issued a final initial detennination finding that certain of the accused
products infringed the ’278, ’564, and "215 patents. Final Initial Determination (981
Investigation) at 67 (June 8, 2015). The Commission adopted the administrative 1awjudge’s
infringement findings. Comm’n Notice (918 Investigation) at 3 (June 24, 2015).
II. THE ASSERTED PATENTS
All seven asserted patents are closely related to each other, sharing a common
specification and named inventors. Complaint, 1]99 (“The Asserted Patents are all part of the
same patent family and disclose the same subject matter (i.e., their specifications and drawings
are the same), but claim different aspects of the inventions disclosed therein and claiming
priority to the same ancestors”). In addition, the asserted patents share a common specification
with the ’278, ’564, and ’215 patents asserted in the 918 investigation and claim priority to the
’278 patent. ’826 patent at 1-2; ’021 patent at 1-2; ’729 patent at 1-2; ’764 patent at 1-2; ’765
patent at 1-2; ’846 patent at 1-2; ’96Opatent at 1-2.5 The applications that led to the asserted
patents were filed on December 13, 2016 (’826, ’021, ’729, ’764, and ’765 patents) or on March
10, 2017 (’846 and ’96Opatents). Id. The asserted patents identify Takahito Ueno, Shigeo
Miyabe, and Masanari Morioka as inventors. Id.
A. Specification
The asserted patents are directed to the “process cartridge” of a laser printer or other type
of “electrophotographic image forming apparatus,” ’826 patent, col. 1:11-18. The process
cartridge—commonly known as a “toner ca1'tridge”—consistsof a photosensitive drum and one
or more “process means.” 1d., col. 1:19:39, col. 1:46-50. The “process means” can be a
5Copies of the asserted patents are attached to the complaint as Exhibits 1 (’826 patent), 2 (’021
patent), 5 (’729 patent), 6 (’764 patent), 7 (’765 patent), 8 (’96O patent), and 9 (’846 patent).
4

“developing means,” “charging means,” or “cleaning means.” Id., col. 1:19:39. The “process
cartridge” can be mounted and removedpby an end user. Id., col. 1:40-45. In the mounted
position, the ca1tridge’s photosensitive drum’s shafl and the printer’s driver shaft are brought
into engagement with each other by a “coupling member.” Id., col. 1:46-50. Once they are
engaged, the printer’s driver shafi can rotate the drum. Id.
In prior art systems, in order to disengage the drum shaft from the printer’s drive shaft, so
that the process cartridge can be removed, the drive shafl is moved horizontally (i.e., axially)
away from the process cartridge. Id., col. l:51- col. 2:5-19. Once the new cartridge is inserted
the drive shaft is moved axially towards the process cartridge, bringing the drive shafi into
engagement with the drum shaft. Id. These systems require that the printer have a mechanism
for moving the drive shaft axially. 1d., col. 2:20-24. In contrast to these prior art systems, the
specification describes various embodiments of a process cartridge that can be mounted and
demounted without moving the printer’s drive shaft axially. Id., col. 2:43-49. The disclosed
process cartridge has a “coupling member” that is located on the photosensitive drum’s shalt.
The coupling member pivots to engage or disengage from the printer’s drive shaft in mounting
and demounting operations.
One example of how the process ca11ridge’scoupling member comes into engagement
with the printer’s drive shaft during a mounting operation is shown in Figures 23(a)-(d). During
a mounting operation, the process cartridge is moved in direction X4, which is substantially
perpendicular to the axis of the printer’s drive shaft 180. Id., col. 26:9-17. As shown in Figure
22(a), prior to becoming in engaged with drive shaft 180, the process ca11;ridge’scoupling
member 150 is inclined in relation to the drum shaft’s axis (Ll) so that the tip of the downstream
5

projection 150Al on the end of coupling member 150 is closer to the photosensitive drum (not
shown) than the tip of upstream projection l50A2.6
(a) 42> its
1 0
8\‘ mgfaoa
150A2150Z
150a \ 1? 1&2
1sQ<3:\ \_
15°b"*ij“‘ . i- WK}-waob
1so"""*~ ' 180b3
156 ix \\150A1
2 5 iso sod	! s 	8
L2{
1d., Fig. 22(a), see also, id., col. 26:59-63 (“In the pre-engagement angular position, the axis
L2 (FIG. 22 a) of the coupling 150 inclines toward downstream with respect to the mounting
direction X4 beforehand relative to the axis L1 (FIG. 22(a) of the drum shaft 153 (FIG.
21 a and FIG. 22(a).”). So inclined, the downstream projection passes by the end of drive shafl
180 allowing the upstream projection to come into contact with the drive shafl. Id., col. 27:1-22.
6 The terms “upstream” and “downstream” are used in reference to the direction that the process
cartridge moves in mounting and demounting operations. A projection that is upstream during a
mounting operation will be downstream during a demounting operation, or vice versa, because
the direction in which the cartridge is moving changes.
6

(b) 	5L3
5/ /180
152
%g/
15Qm~_.._____‘ :§;:;;.!
150“-’ -~
.,150A1
153'”-~
Id., Fig. 22(b). As the process cartridge continues to move in direction X4 during the mounting
operation, contact between the drive shafi and the upstream projection causes the coupling
member to pivot until its axis (axis L2) is brought into alignment with those of the drive shaft
(axis L3) and the photosensitive drum’s shaft (axis Ll). Id., col. 27:15-39.
5L3
(<1) 	F_
x ~_.1B0
150A1 	~-~15°k
150f ‘F?§‘\»/ 1s0r““"
150//<
153/
! 	.
L2
Id., Figures 22(c) & (d).
Figure 25 shows the disengagement process when the process cartridge is demounted.
7

xs
(a) 	1 L3 	(b) 	, L3
E
180b “M180 	5 ‘‘‘‘"'80
1
l
15°“ 	2 	15{!A3
"' 150:» '_ »~»»/
/__, »\,15o 	\ . 7;\_15o
150: "L2
’ \
_n 153 	‘ 153
no 	(<11 0 	"LE3
3"’ 	120 §]_;s-ma	3 	X 	i
180 	15OA3
189D 	150a 	'
182 1 43282 15oi\‘1\\ I	a 	150b 	. 	'
11;?“ * / \ \\\\M ; 1 \1a0b	./=\ I a
.. 150/* 180113150::
\ 150/ta 	150i 	150%
/ 180b3 7,
15:1 	'53 1 3b
As shown in Figures 25(a)-(d), in order to demount the process cartridge, the process cartridge is
pulled away from the printer in direction X6. ’826 patent, col. 30:18-20. This movement results
in downstream projection 150A3 of coupling member 150 coming into contact with drive shaft
180. Id. , col. 30:24-29; FIG. 22(A). This contact results in coupling member 150 inclining
downstream with respect to the demounting direction. Id., col. 30:24-29, Figs. 22(b) and (c). So
inclined, the coupling member is able to pass by drive shaft 180. Id., col. 30:45-47; Fig. 25(d).
The specification teaches that the degree that the coupling member needs to incline for
mounting and demounting operations can be reduced by configuring the coupling member to
move axially, i.e., towards and away from the process cartridge. This is shown in Embodiment
8

No. 13. As shown in Figure 88(b), coupling member 10150 is comiected to urging member
10634, which pushes coupling member 10150 towards the drive shaft. Id., col. 62:55-59.
1D150
(D) 	) 101 50l
X“ I A . . . ll K“ p.
1 	V 	‘El semi“ 	ii‘
L »~»<-nwn	...».,.c.,............._....,..,........_	L .............
Br £L~——»»J10150A1
/"M" 	- M/-1o15or
10634 "'_m““'“:“'l W
L6 80b L180
Pushing coupling member 10150 towards drive shaft 180 leaves a gap between coupling member
10150 and drum shaft 153 (highlighted). As the process cartridge is pushed in direction X4
during the mounting process, contact between driveshaft 180 and downstream projection
10150A1 of the coupling member results in the coupling member moving in two directions.
10150 P1
(c) 	101531:
\ lf t 101501
ml q l / !|_§_M,z
mr;13mn£~¢~ ’~ "
.'.':{_......’.l$id_Ef.O_£......_.._T	/I 	I‘ X 	‘" 	lav 	w*;_~"<
;_~-- llxlklllllllfilg/-»/]l‘m{lid 	106
10153 /1oss4““£ /‘ ' '3
1Q15OA1_/"(/ I '130113 180
'»
1O15Or180b
Id., Fig. 88(c). Compressing urging member 10634, coupling member moves in direction X11,
so that the coupling member moves towards the tip of drum shaft 10153 closing the gap between
coupling member 10150 and drum shaft 10153. Id., col. 63:22-30. At the same time, coupling
10150 rotates so that it is inclined downstream. Id. With the coupling member so positioned,
downstream projection l0l50A1 of coupling member 10150 passes by the end of drive shaft
9

180. Id., col. 62:30-32. When drive shaft 180 is substantially coaxial to drum shaft 10153 and
no longer in contact with downstream projection l0150A1, urging member 10634 pushes
coupling member 10150 towards drive shaft 180. Id., col. 62:32-36.
By combining axial movement with pivoting movement, the angle that the coupling
member needs to incline prior to engagement can be reduced, thereby reducing “the space
required by the pivoting motion of the coupling 10150.” Ia'., col. 63:43-48. This is illustrated in
Figures 88(a) (on the lefl) and 88(c) (on the right).
(3) 	,.__“_15Q 	(c) 	101501? 10153b
.;::7.";:";t:;':":?‘:?:..v.. 	X4 	x 3L5 19150‘
/0:104 	l 	‘MM
150M /‘jg? _’f.i':ll_O.1:5_0.1._.__.{.	_,___ 	i 	~ ~w~»~"*~\“MMW__wM 	-~ 	‘y 	_:._.:.:~ 	.
""""""""""	"i1:i;i';;l'"' 	f"“"jLlE® i1 / musL55 \ 	1063 W“, " \	10153 4
139 	1015QA1_./’/ 18Db3‘"18U
1O150r180b
The coupling member shown in Figure 88(a) does not exhibit any axial movement, whereas the
coupling member in Figure 88(0) combines pivoting with axial movement. As a result, coupling
member 150 in Figure 88(a) requires a larger of angle of inclination (a 104) prior to engagement
than is needed by coupling member 10150 in Figure 88(0) ((1106). Id., col. 63:43-48.
Ill. CLAIMS AT ISSUE
A. ’826 Patent
Canon is asserting claims l and 6 of the ’826 patent against Respondents and is relying
on claims 1 and 5 to satisfy the domestic industry requirement. Claims 1 and 6 are independent.
Claim 1 recites:
A process cartridge comprising:
a casing including an opening and an arc-shaped protrusion on an
extemal portion of the casing adjacent to the opening;
10

a photosensitive drum having an axis L1, the photosensitive drum being
rotatably supported in the casing to permit rotation about the axis L1;
and
a coupling member having an axis L2, the coupling member having (i) a
first end portion connected to the photosensitive drum, (ii) a second end
portion including at least one projection that is open to the axis L2, and
(iii) a connecting portion connecting the first end portion and the second
end portion, wherein a maximum distance as measured from the axis L2,
in a direction perpendicular to the axis L2, of at least part of the
connecting portion is shorter than a distance between the at least one
projection and the axis L2, and wherein at least part of the second end
portion extends beyond the opening in the direction of the axis Ll,
wherein the coupling member is movable between (i) a first position in
which a tip of the at least one projection is a first distance away from the
photosensitive drum as measured in the direction of the axis L1 and (ii) a
second position in which the tip of the at least one projection is a second
distance away from the photosensitive dmm as measured in the direction
of the axis L1, with the first distance being greater than the second
distance, and
wherein the arc-shaped protrusion extends only partway around the
coupling member.
’826 patent, col. 84:2-30. Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and requires that the coupling member
be capable of moving from a position that is coaxial to the axis of the photosensitive drum to an
inclined position, wherein the maximmn angle of inclination is about 20 degrees to about 60
degrees. Id., col. 84:45-53. Independent claim 6 requires that the casing have a protrusion
adjacent to the coupling member and that the cartridge have a developing roller, but is otherwise
similar in scope to claim 1. Id., col. 84:54-col. 85:22.
B. ’02l Patent
Canon is asserting claims 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8 of the ’021 patent against Respondents and is
relying on claims 1 and 6 to satisfy the domestic industry requirement. Claims l and 8 are
independent. Claim 1 recites:
ll

A process cartridge comprising:
a casing;
developer contained within the casing;
a photosensitive drum having an axis Ll, the photosensitive drum being
rotatably supported in the casing about the axis L1;
a developing roller having an axis Ll ', the developing roller being
configured to develop a latent image formed on the photosensitive dmm
with the developer, and the developing roller being rotatably supported
in the casing to permit rotation about the axis L1’;
a dnun flange provided at an end of the ‘photosensitive drum, the drum
flange being rotatable with the photosensitive drum about the axis L1,
and a part of the drum flange being positioned within the photosensitive
drum; and
a coupling member having an axis L2 and including (i) a first end
portion at least a part of which is positioned within the drum flange, the
first end portion being operatively connected to the photosensitive drum
and the developing roller, (ii) a second end portion including (ii-i) a
surface recessed in the second end portion and facing away from the first
end portion and (ii-ii) at least one projection projecting from a surface
adjacent to the recessed stuface, and (iii) a cormecting portion
connecting the first end portion and the second end portion,
wherein the coupling member is movable between (i) a first position in
which a tip of the at least one projection is a first distance away from the
photosensitive drum as measured in the direction of the axis Ll and (ii) a
second position in which the tip of the at least one projection is a second
distance away from the photosensitive dmm as measured in the direction
of the axis L1, with the first distance being greater than the second
distance, and
wherein a maximum distance as measured from the axis L2, in a
direction perpendicular to the axis L2, of at least a part of the connecting
portion is shorter than a distance between the at least one projection and
the axis L2.
12

’O2l patent, col. 84:2-42. Independent claim 8 does not require that the photosensitive drum
have a drmn flange and requires that the tip of the coupling member have “wing portions,” but is
otherwise similar in scope to claim 1. Id., col. 85:13-43.
Claims 2, 4, 6, and 7 depend directly from claim 1. Claim 2 requires that “for at least
part of the second end portion [of the coupling member], a maximum distance from the axis L2
to an outermost surface of the second end portion along a line perpendicular to the axis L2
increases as the distance along the axis L2 from the connecting portion increases.” 1d., col.
84:43-48. Claim 4 requires the casing have “an opening and at least one protrusion on an
external portion . . . adjacent to the opening.” Id., col. 84:55-57. Claim 6 requires that the
coupling member be capable of moving from a position that is coaxial to the axis of the
photosensitive drum to an inclined position, wherein the maximum angle of inclination is about
20 degrees to about 60 degrees. Id., col. 84:65-col. 85:6. Claim 7 requires that the coupling
member be “operatively connected to the photosensitive drum via the drum flange” and that the
developing roller be operatively connected to the coupling member “via a gear on the drum
flange.” Id., col. 85:8-12.
C. ’729 Patent
Canon is asserting claim 1 of the ’729 patent against Respondents and is relying on
claims 27 and 31 to satisfy the domestic industry requirement. Claims 1 and 27 are independent.
Claim 1 recites:
A process cartridge comprising:
a casing;
developer contained within the casing;
a photosensitive drum having an axis Ll, the photosensitive drum being
rotatably supported in the casing to permit rotation about the axis L1;
13

a developing roller having an axis L1’, the developing roller being
configured to develop a latent image formed on the photosensitive drum
with the developer, and the developing roller being rotatably supported
in the casing to pennit rotation about the axis Ll ’;and
a coupling member having an axis L2, the coupling member including (i)
a first end portion operatively connected to the photosensitive drum and
the developing roller and (ii) a second end portion, the second end
portion including at least one projection that is open to the axis L2 and
an outer surface that faces away from the first end portion, wherein for at
least part of the outer surface, a maximum distance from the axis L2 to
the outer surface along a line perpendicular to the axis L2 decreases as
the distance along the axis L2 from the first end portion increases, and
wherein the coupling member is movable between (i) a first position in
which a tip of the at least one projection is a first distance away from the
photosensitive drum as measured in the direction of the axis L1 and (ii) a
second position in which the tip of the at least one projection is a second
distance away from the photosensitive drum as measured in the direction
of the axis Ll, with the first distance being greater than the second
distance.
’729 patent, col. 84:22-52. 	I
Claim 27 requires that the photosensitive drum have a drum flange that contains and
restrains a portion of the coupling member and that the coupling member be longer than it is
thick. Id., col. 87:56-col. 88:31. Otherwise claim 27 is similar in scope to claim 1. Claim 31
depends directly from claim 27 and requires that the coupling member be capable of moving
from a position that is coaxial to the axis of the photosensitive drum to an inclined position,
wherein the maximum angle of inclination is about 20 degrees to about 60 degrees. Id., col.
88:49-57.
l4

D. ’764 Patent
Canon is asserting claim 7 of the ’764 patent against Respondents and is relying on
claims 20 and 22 to satisfy the domestic industry requirement. Claims 1, 7, and 20 are
independent. Claim l recites:
A drum unit usable in a process cartridge, the drum unit comprising:
a photosensitive drum having an axis L1; and
a coupling member having an axis L2, the coupling member including a
first end portion operatively connected to the photosensitive drum and a
second end portion, the second end portion including at least one
projection that is open to the axis L2 and an outer surface that faces away
from the first end portion, wherein, for at least part of the outer surface, a
maximmn distance from the axis L2 to the outer surface along a line
perpendicular to the axis L2 decreases as the distance along the axis
L2 from the first end portion increases, 	V
wherein the coupling member is movable between (i) a first position in
which a tip of the at least one projection is a first distance away from the
photosensitive drum as measured in the direction of the axis L1 and (ii) a
second position in which the tip of the at least one projection is a second
distance away from the photosensitive drum as measured in the direction
of the axis L1, wherein the first distance is greater than the second
distance, and 	l
wherein the difference between the first distance and the second distance
is equal to or greater than a length of the at least one projection as
measured in a direction of the axis L2. V
’764 patent, col. 34-56.
Claim 7 does not require that “the difference between the first distance and the second
distance [be] equal to or greater than a length of the at least one projection as measured in a
direction of the axis L2,” but is otherwise the same in scope as claim 1. Id., col. 85:l6-42.
Claim 20 requires that the photosensitive drum have a drum flange that contains and restrains a
portion of the coupling member and that the coupling member be longer than it is thick. Id., col
15

86:55-col. 87:16. Otherwise claim 20 is similar in scope to claim 1. Claim 22 depends directly
from claim 20 and requires that the coupling member be capable of moving from a position that
is coaxial to the axis of the photosensitive drum to an inclined position, wherein the maximtun
angle of inclination is about 20 degrees to about 60 degrees. Id., col. 87:22-30.
E. ’765 Patent
Canon is asserting claims 1, 3, 13, 16, and 19 of the ’765 patent against Respondents and
is relying on claims l3 and 18 to satisfy the domestic industry requirement. Claims 1 and 13 are
independent. Claim 1 recites:
A process cartridge comprising:
a casing;
developer contained within the casing;
a photosensitive drum having an axis Ll, the photosensitive drum being
rotatably supported in the casing to permit rotation about the axis Ll;
a developing roller having an axis Ll ', the developing roller being
configured to develop a latent image formed on the photosensitive drum
with the developer, and the developing roller being rotatably supported
in the casing to permit rotation about the axis Ll ’; and
a coupling member having an axis L2 and including (i) a first end
portion operatively connected to the photosensitive drum and the
developing roller, (ii) a second end portion having an outermost surface,
(iii) an axle portion comiecting the first end portion and the second end
portion to each other, and (iv) at least one projection extending fi"0mthe
second end portion,
wherein, for at least part of the outermost surface of the second end
portion, a maximum distance from the axis L2 to the outermost surface
along a line perpendicular to the axis L2 increases as the distance along
the axis L2 from the axle portion increases, and
wherein the coupling member is movable between (i) a first position in
which a tip of the at least one projection is a first distance away from the
16

photosensitive drum as measured in the direction of the axis Ll and (ii) a
second position in which the tip of the at least one projection is a second
distance away from the photosensitive drum as measured in the direction
of the axis L1, with the first distance being greater than the second
distance.
’765 patent, col. 83:32-63. Claim 13 requires that the first end and second end of the coupling
member be connected by an “axle portion,” but is otherwise similar in scope to claim 1.
Claim 3 depends directly from claim 1 and requires that the coupling member be
“operatively comiected to the photosensitive drum via the drum flange” and that the developing
roller be operatively connected to the coupling member “via a gear on the drum flange.” Id., col.
84:6-10. Claims l6, 18, and 19 dependdirectly from claim l3. Claim 16 requires that the casing
have “an opening and at least one protrusion on an extemal portion . . . adjacent to the opening.”
Id. , col. 86:35-37. Claim 18 requires that the coupling member be capable of moving from a
position that is coaxial to the axis of the photosensitive drmn to an inclined position, wherein the
maximum angle of inclination is about 20 degrees to about 60 degrees. Id., col. 86:45-53. Claim
l9 requires that the coupling member be “operatively connected to the photosensitive drum via
the drum flange” and that the developing roller be operatively connected to the coupling member
“via a gear on the drum flange.” Id., col. 84:54-58.
F. ’960 Patent
Canon is asserting claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 of the ’96Opatent against Respondents and is
relying on claims l and 8 to satisfy the domestic industry requirement. Claim l is the sole
independent claim. Claim 1 recites:
A process cartridge comprising:
a casing;
developer contained within the casing;
17

a photosensitive drum having an axis L1, the photosensitive drum being
rotatably supported in the casing about the axis L1;
a drum flange provided at an end of the photosensitive drum, the drtun
flange being rotatable with the photosensitive drum about the axis L1;
and
a coupling member having an axis L2 and having (i) a first end at least a
part of which is positioned within the drum flange, and (ii) a second end
including at least one projection,
wherein the coupling member is movable between (i) a first position in
which a tip of the at least one projection is a first distance away from the
photosensitive drum as measured in the direction of the axis Ll and (ii) a
second position in which the tip of the at least one projection is a second
distance away from the photosensitive drum as measured in the direction
of the axis L1, with the first distance being greater than the second
distance,
wherein the coupling member includes a first part, a second part, and a
third part, with the second part being between the first part and the third
part in a direction of the axis L2, and
wherein, for each of the first part, the second part, and the third part, a
maximum distance from the axis L2 to an outermost surface of the
coupling member as measured along a line perpendicular to the axis
L2 is (i) D1 in the first part of the coupling member, (ii) D2 in the
second part of the coupling member, and (iii) D3 in the third part of the
~coupling member, with the distances D1 and D3 being greater than the
distance D2.
’960 patent, col. 83:4-col. 84:6.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8 depend directly from claim 1. Claim 2 requires that a portion of
the dmm flange be positioned within the photosensitive drum. Id., col. 84:7-9. Claim 4 requires
that a “maximum distance from the axis L2 to an outermost surface of at least a part of the
second end [of the coupling member] as measured along a line perpendicular to the axis L2
increase[] as the distance along the axis L2 from the first end increases.” Id., col. 84:14-18.
18

Claim 5 requires that the process cartridge have a developing roller that is rotatably mounted in
the cartridge and operatively connected to the coupling member. Id., col. 84:19-26. Claim 6
requires that the casing have “an opening and at least one protrusion on an extemal portion . . .
adjacent to the opening.” Ia'., col. 84:27-29. Claim 8 requires that the coupling member be
capable of moving from a position that is coaxial to the axis of the photosensitive drum to an
inclined position, wherein the maximum angle of inclination is about 20 degrees to about 60
degrees. Id., col. 84:37-45.
G. ’846 Patent
Canon is asserting claims 1 and 3 of the ’96Opatent against Respondents and is relying
on claims 1 and 4 to satisfy the domestic industry requirement. Claim 1 is the sole independent
claim. Claim 1 recites: ,
A drum tmit usable in a process cartridge, the drum unit comprising:
a photosensitive dI11II1having an axis Ll;
a drum flange provided at an end of the photosensitive drum, a part of
the drum flange being positioned within the photosensitive drum; and
a coupling member having an axis L2 and having (i) a first end at least a
part of which is positioned within the drum flange and (ii) a second end
including at least one projection,
wherein the coupling member is movable between (i) a first position in
which a tip of the at least one projection is a first distance away from the
photosensitive drum as measured in the direction of the axis L1 and (ii) a
second position in which the tip of the at least one projection is a second
distance away from the photosensitive drum as measured in the direction
of the axis Ll, with the first distance being greater than the second
distance,
wherein the coupling member includes a first part, a second part, and a
third part, with the second part being between the first part and the third
part in a direction ofthe axis L2, and
l9

wherein, for each of the first part, the second part, and third part, a
maximum distance from the axis L2 to an outermost surface of the
coupling member as measured along a line perpendicular to the axis
L2 is (i) D1 in the first part of the coupling member, (ii) D2 in the
second part of the coupling member, and (iii) D3 in the third part of the
coupling member, with the distances D1 and D3 being greater than the
distance D2.
’846 patent, col. 84:20-50.
Claims 3 and 4 depend directly from claim 1. Claim 3 requires that a “maximum
distance from the axis L2 to an outermost surface of at least a part of the second end [of the
coupling member] as measured along a line perpendicular to the axis L2 increase[] as the
distance along the axis L2 from the first end increases.” Id., col. 84:54-58. Claim 4 requires that
the coupling member be capable of moving from a position that is coaxial to the axis of the
photosensitive drum to an inclined position, wherein the maximum angle of inclination is about
20 degrees to about 60 degrees. Id., col. 84:58-67.
IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
Canon contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a level of
knowledge roughly equivalent to that of a person holding a bachelor’s degree in mechanical
engineering and would have had a general understanding of mechanical design principles.” CIB
at l4. Canon further contends that the “person [of ordinary skill] also would have had about two
years of experience in design work related to toner cartridges for laser printers, or would have
had persons with such experience available to work with him,” Id. Respondents argue that a
person of ordinary skill “would have had either (1) a Bachelors degree in Mechanical
Engineering or an equivalent degree, and 1-2 years of experience in design work related to
technology involving the transmission of forces between components to maintain a consistent
velocity, or (2) at least a Masters degree in Mechanical Engineering or an equivalent degree, and
20

a general understanding of mechanical design principles.” RIB at 6-7. Staff counters that a
person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a level of knowledge roughly equivalent to at least
a Bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering and/or an equivalent degree, and at least 2 years’
experience in the field of designing, replacing, or repairing detachable cartridges for printers or
similar apparatus.” SIB at 3. 	r
Although the parties have articulated different definitions of ordinary skill, they
acknowledge that “none of the claim construction disputes depend upon the specific articulation of
the level of skill in the art, and that . . . addressing the differences between the parties’ proposals is
not necessary at this time.” SIB at 4; see also CIB at 15; RIB at 7. Accordingly, this order does not
address the appropriate level of ordinary skill.
V. LEGAL STANDARD
“The construction of claims is simply a way of elaborating the nonnally terse claim
1anguage[] in order to understand and explain, but not to change, the scope of the claims.”
Embrex, Inc. v. Serv. Eng ’g Corp, 216 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (alterations in original)
(quoting Scripps Clinic v. Genentech, Inc, 927 F.2d 1565, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). “[O]nly those
[claim] terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to
resolve the controversy.” Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng ’g, 1nc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed.
Cir. 1999).
Claim construction focuses mainly on the intrinsic evidence, which consists of the claims
themselves, the specification, and the prosecution history. See generally Phillips v. AWH C0rp.,
415 F.3d 1303, 1313-17 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). The words of a claim “‘are generally given
their ordinary and customary meaning,”’ which is “the meaning that the term would have to a
person of ordinary skill in art” as of the date that the patent application was filed. Id. at 1312-13
(quoting Vilronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). A person
21

of ordinary skill in the art “is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the
particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent,
including the specification.” Id. In some cases, “the ordinary meaning of claim language as
understood by a person of skill in the art may be readily apparent even to lay judges.” Id. at
1314. Often, however, “determining the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim requires
examination of terms that have a particular meaning in a field of art.” Id. “[T]he court looks to
‘those sources available to the public that show what a person of skill in the art would have
understood disputed claim language to mean.” Id. (quoting Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari
Water Filtration Sys., 38,1F.3d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Those sources include “the words
of the claims themselves, the remainder of the specification, the prosecution history, and
extrinsic evidence concerning relevant scientific principles, the meaning of technical terms, and
the state of the art.” Id.
“It is a ‘bedrock principle’ of patent law that ‘the claims of a patent define the invention
to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.’” Id. at 1312 (quoting Innova/Pure Water,
381 F.3d. at 1115). “Quite apart from the written description and the prosecution history, the
claims themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claim terms.” Id.
at 1314. For example, “the context in which a term is used in the asserted claim can be highly
instructive,” and “[0]ther claims of the patent in question, both asserted and unasserted, can also
be valuable sources of enlightenment as to the meaning of a claim term.” Id
“[T]he specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis.
Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.”’ Id. at
1315 (quoting Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582). “The longstanding difficulty is the contrasting nature
of the axioms that (a) a claim must be read in view of the specification and (b) a court may not
22

read a limitation into a claim from the specification.” Innova/Pure Water, 381 F.3d at 1117.
In addition to the claims and the specification, the prosecution history should be
examined if in evidence. “The prosecution history . . . consists of the complete record of the
proceedings before the PTO and includes the prior art cited during the examination of the patent.
Like the specification, the prosecution history provides evidence of how the PTO and the
inventor understood the patent.” Id at 1317. “[T]he prosecution history can often inform the
meaning of the claim language by demonstrating how the inventor understood the invention and
whether the inventor limited the invention in the course of prosecution, making the claim scope
narrower than it would otherwise be.” Id
If the intrinsic evidence does not establish the meaning of a claim, then extrinsic evidence
may be considered. Extrinsic evidence “consists of all evidence external to the patent and the
prosecution history, including inventor and expert testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises.”
Id at 1317. Extrinsic evidence is generally viewed “as less reliable than the patent and its
prosecution history in determining how to read claim terms.” Id. at 1318. “The court may
receive extrinsic evidence to educate itself about the invention and the relevant technology, but
the court may not use extrinsic evidence to arrive at a claim construction that is clearly at odds
with the construction mandated by the intrinsic evidence.” Elkay Mfg. C0. v. Ebco Mfg. C0., 192
F.3d 973, 977 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
The cotut departs from the plain and ordinary meaning in only two instances. Hill-Rom
Servs., Inc. v. Srryker Corp. , 755 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The first is when a patentee
acts as its own lexicographer. Id “To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must ‘clearly set
forth a definition of the disputed claim term.”’ Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm ’tAm., 669 F.3d
1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick C0rp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366
23

(Fed. Cir. 2002)). The second is when the patentee disavows the fullscope of the claim term.
Id. Disavowal can be effectuated by language in the specification or the prosecution history. See
Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316-17. “In either case, the standard for disavowal is exacting, requiring
clear and unequivocal evidence that the claimed invention includes or does not include a
particular feature.” Poly-America, L.P. v. APIIndus., Inc., 839 F.3d 1131, 1136 (Fed. Cir.
2017).
VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
The parties have agreed to constructions for the following terms:
lClaimTern1 	u it Agreed-Upon Construction _ - g
“as measured in the direction of the axis L1” “as measured along an imaginary extension of
(claims 1 and 6 of the ’826 patent; claims 1 axis L1 or an imaginary line parallel thereto”
and 8 of the ’021 patent; claims 1 and 27 of
the ’729 patent; claims 7 and 20 of the ’764
patent; claims 1 and 13 of the ’765 patent;
claim l of the ’960 patent; and claim 1 of the
’846 patent)
“when the coupling member takes the first “when the coupling member is in the first
position” (claim 6 of the ’826 patent) 	position, wherein “first position’ has the same
meaning that it has in term 1”
CIB at 14-15. The parties, however, dispute the constructions of the following five terms: (1)
“wherein the coupling member is movable between (i) a first position in which a tip of the at
least one projection is a first distance away from the photosensitive drum as measured in the
direction of the axis Ll and (ii) a second position in which the tip of the at least one projection is
a second distance away from the photosensitive drum as measured in the direction of the axis
Ll” (“‘movable’ limitation”); (2) “axis L2;” (3) “connected;” (4) “[a coupling member i
having/including] a first end [portion] at least a part of which is positioned within the drum
flange;” and (5) “at least one projection that is open to the axis L2.” The parties’ disputes
regarding these terms are addressed below.
24

A. “movable” limitation
Canon’s Proposed
Construction Respondents’ Proposed
Construction Staff’s Proposed
Construction
This term has its plain and
ordinary meaning and no
construction is necessary.
The plain and ordinary
meaning does not require the
coupling member to pivot or
incline when moving between
the first and second positions.
The plain and ordinary
meaning also does not require
the claimed “first position” to
be “a substantially co-axial
engaged position” and the
claimed “second position” to
be “an inclined pre
engagement position or
disengagement position.”
wherein the coupling member
is pivotable between (i) a
substantially co-axial
engaged position in which a
tip of the at least one
projection is a first distance
away from the photosensitive
drum (as measured along L2
which is substantially in line
with Ll) and (ii) one of an
inclined pre-engagement
position or disengagement
position in which the tip of
the at least one projection is a
second distance away from
the photosensitive drum (as
measured along imaginary
extended Ll because L2 is no
longer coaxial)
wherein the coupling member
is movable between (i) a
substantially co-axial
engaged position in which a
tip of the at least one
projection is a first distance
away from the photosensitive
drum (e.g. measure along L2
which is substantially in line
with Ll) and (ii) one of an
inclined pre-engagement
position or disengagement
position, in which a tip of the
at least one projection is a
second distance away from
the photosensitive drum (e.g.
measure along imaginary
extended Ll because L2 no
longer co-axial)
The asserted independent claims require a coupling member that is “movable” between
“a first position in which a tip of the at least one projection is a first distance away from the
photosensitive drum as measured in the direction of the axis L1” and “a second position in which
the tip of the at least one projection is a second distance away from the photosensitive drum as
measured in the direction of the axis Ll.” ’826 patent, col. 84:20-28 (claim 1), col. 85:8-15
(claim 6); ’02l patent, col. 84:29-37 (claim 1), col. 85:34-43 (claim 8); ’729 patent, col. 84:44
52 (claim 1), col. 88:24-31 (claim 27); ’764 patent, col. 85:30-38 (claim 7), col. 87:8-16 (claim
20); ’765 patent, col. 83:50-54 (claim 1), col. 86:17-25 (claim 13); ’96Opatent, col. 83:53-61
(claim 1); ’846 patent, col. 84:30-38 (claim 1). The “movable” limitation fi.lI‘Il‘l61'	requires that
the “first distance” be greater than the “second distance.” Ia’. Under the proposed constructions
advanced by Respondents and Staff the “first position” is “a substantially co-axial engaged
25

position,” and the second positon is “one of an inclined pre-engagement position or
disengagement position.” Respondents’ proposed construction also replaces the word “movable”
with “pivotable.” While Staffs proposed construction retains the word “movable,” Staff
acknowledges that its proposed construction “inherently captures the notion of a pivoting
coupling member.” SIB at 44. Canon argues that the claim language is clear on its face and
Respondents’ and Staffs proposed constructions improperly import limitations from the
preferred embodiments into the claim language.
Respondents and Staff offer two arguments in support of their proposed constructions.
The first argument is that their proposed constructions reflect the plain and ordinary meaning of
the terms “movable” (Respondents) and “first position” and “second position” (Respondents and
Staff) in the context of the specification. The second argument is that the patentees limited the
scope ofthe claims through disavowal or disclaimer. Respondents’ and Staffs arguments are
addressed below.
1. The plain and ordinary meaning of the terms “first position,” “second position,”
and “movable” do not support Respondents’ and Staffs proposed constructions.
a. “first position” and “second position”
The claims require a coupling member that is “movable” between two positions: a “first
position” and a “second position.” The only restriction that the claim language places on the first
and second positions relates to the distance between the tip of a projection on the coupling
member’s end and the photosensitive drum. When the coupling member is in the “first
position,” the tip of the projection must be a “first distance” from the photosensitive drum and
when the coupling member is in the second position, the tip of the projection must be a “second
distance” from the photosensitive drum, wherein the “first distance” is greater than the “second
distance.” In contrast, Respondents’ and Staffs proposed constructions seek to further limit the
26

“first position” to an “engaged position” in which the coupling member’s axis is “substantially
co-axial” to the drum shaft’s axis and the “second position” to a “pre-engagement position or
disengagement position” in which the coupling member’s axis is inclined with respect to the
drum shaft’s axis.
Respondents’ and Staff’s argument that their proposed constructions of “first position”
and “second position” reflect the tenns’ plain and ordinary meaning in the context of the
specification is unpersuasive. The terms do not even appear in the specification. Instead of
using the term “first position” to refer to the engagement position, the specification uses the tenn
“rotational force transmitting angular position.” ’826 patent, col. 16:39-44. Similarly, instead
using of the term “second position” to refer to the “pre-engagement position” or the
“disengagement position,” the specification uses the terms “pre-engagement angular position”
and “disengaging angular position.” Id.
b. The plain and ordinary meaning of “movable” is not limited to “pivotable.”
Respondents’ proposed construction construes “movable” to mean “pivotable.” This
construction of “movable” does not reflect the term’s plain and ordinary meaning. “When given
its plain and ordinary meaning, “movable” only requires that the coupling member be capable of
moving. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (9th ed. 1984) at 776 (defining “movable” as
“capable of being moved”). This usage is consistent with the claim language. The claims
require that the coupling member be movable between a “first position” and “second position,”
wherein the distance between the tip of a projection on the end of the coupling member and the
drum is greater when the coupling member is in the first position. ’826 patent, col. 84:20-28.
The express claim langiage can be satisfied by a coupling member that moves coaxial to the
drum shaft’s axis, as well as by a coupling member that moves between a position coaxial to the
drum shafi’s axis and a position inclined with respect to the drum shaft’s axis.
27

Nor does the specification suggest that “movable” carries a different plain and ordinary
meaning. Consistent the term’s plain and ordinary meaning, “movable” is used in the
specification to refer to non-pivoting movement. In particular, the specification uses “movable”
to describe locking member 6159 used in Embodiment No. 8. Embodiment No. 8 has a drmn
bearing member 6157, locking member 6159, and spring member 6158. ’826 patent, col. 52:54
56.
5157
5 50
5159* 	50
51 1/51558615D ‘
'-'-~ 	’/ x4
,»-~-‘Ea’ .
if
Id., Fig. 63. In order to lock the coupling member in an inclined position when the process
cartridge is not mounted in the printer, spring member 6158 pushes locking member 6159
against drum flange member 6157. Id., col. 53:15-18. Pressed against drum flange member
6157, locking member 6159 engages with an opening in drum flange member 6157 so that a
portion 6159a1 of locking member 6159 projects into space portion 6157b of the drum flange
member 6157. Id., col. 52:59-53:19.
28

(3) 	6150} 615011/.515De
e1s7q_ 	6150
6159c~~\g15§ta;\
.,..__.._ . \\ 	_ _ 	.
W 	Wtff J
6157m/I WWW?‘ i \ _M_
61€i5o;2"/ '
T2’ 	\6&E§§;i **** 153
Id, Fig. 65(a). So engaged, the locking member prevents the coupling member from pivoting
from its inclined position. Id., col. 53:19-24.
As the process cartridge is inserted in the printer, locking member 6159 retracts in
direction X12 so that it no longer projects into the space portion of drum flange member 6157.
Id., col. 53:60-64.
(bl 	6151 615pz
	X12 _,/
6159 <2?‘ ,6159a2 ‘ .. /-~e15oe
'"‘ -6150
1 	rrrrrr	6
3 	615981
6157 M ' 153
awn» T2
61501
Id, Fig. 68b. With locking member 6159 no longer projecting into the space of drum flange
6157, coupling member 6150 is able to pivot and come into alignment with drum shaft 153. Id.,
col. 53:64-67. According to the specification, locking member 6159 is “movable” in the
mounting direction X4 so that it can engage with dnnn flange 6157 and “moves” in the direction
29

X12 in order to retract from drum flange 6157. Id, col. 53:3-6, col. 53:22-24. As shown in
Figures 64a-d, “movable” locking member 6159 does not pivot, but rather slides axially towards
and away from the dnun flange member 6157.
In contrast to its description of locking member 6159, the specification does not use the
term “movable” to describe the coupling member’s ability to move to or from an inclined
position. Rather, the specification describes the coupling member using such words as
“pivotable,” “slantable,” “inclinable,” “revolvable,” and “swingable.” See, e.g., ’826 patent, col.
19:31-32 (“It has been mentioned that the axis L2 [of the coupling member] is slantable or
inclinable in any direction relative to the axis L1 [of the photosensitive drtnn’s shaft].”), col.
19:44-49 (“In this manner, the coupling 150 is revolvable or swingable over the full
circumference substantially relative to drum shaft (rotational force receiving member) 153.
More particularly, the coupling 150 is pivotable over the full circumference thereof substantially
relative to the drum shaft 153.”), col. 28:33-35 (“In addition, as shown in FIG. 22, the gap is
provided between the drum shaft 153 and the coupling 150, so that the coupling is swingable
(revolvable, pivotable).”), col. 29:29-30 (“The coupling 150 is swingable (pivotable) relative to
the photosensitivedrum 107.”). Similarly, the specification does not describe the coupling
member as simply moving to or from an inclined position, but rather as “pivoting” or “swinging”
to or from an inclined position. See, e.gr, ’826 patent, col. 29:60-64 (“By this, the coupling can
receive the force of the shaking direction (pivoting direction), and it can also be made to swing
so that the axis L2 becomes substantially co-axial with the axis L3 (the pivoting).”); col 54:34-37
(“More particularly, the coupling 6150 is pivoted to the disengaging angular position from the
rotational force transmitting angular position (swinging).”).
30

2. The patentees disavowed claim scope.
Although “[t]he words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary
meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read in the context of the
specification and prosecution history,” there are two exceptions: lexicography and disavowal.
Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365 (citing Phillips v. AWH Corp, 415 F.3d 1303, 1313-14 (Fed. Cir.
2005) (en banc)). Respondents and Staff do not argue that the patentees redefined claim tenns to
mean something other than their plain and ordinary meaning, as is required for lexicography, but
argue that the patentees’ disavowed claim scope. If a “patentee disavows the full scope of a
claim term either in the specification or during prosecution,” the disavowed feature is “‘deemed
to be outside the reach of the claims of the patent, even though the language of the claims, read
without reference to the specification, might be considered broad enough to encompass the
feature in question.”’ Id. (quoting SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys.,
1nc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). Claim scope can be disavowed implicitly, as well as
explicitly. Trustees of Columbia Univ. in City of New Yorkv. Symantec Corp, 811 F.3d 1359,
1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Our case law does not require explicit redefinition or disavowa1.”).
Whether implicit or explicit, the disavowal must be clear and unmistakable. Aventis Pharma
S.A. v. Hospira, Inc., 675 F.3d 1324, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]o disavow claim scope, ‘[t]he
patentee may demonstrate intent to deviate from the ordinary and accustomed meaning of a
claim term by including in the specification expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction,
representing a clear disavowal of claim scope.”’ (quoting Thomer, 669 F.3d at 1366).
The specification describes the “present invention” as having a coupling member that can
pivot: “As has been described hereinbefore, in the present invention, the axis of the drum
coupling member can take the different angular positions relative to the axis of the
photosensitive drum.” ’826 patent, col. 83:43-47. Descriptions of the “present invention” have
31

been found to constitute disavowals of claim scope. For instance, the Federal Circuit has found
disavowal where a patentee uses language “such as ‘the present invention requires . . .’ or ‘the
present invention is . . .’ or ‘all embodiments of the present invention are . . .”’ to describe the
disclosed invention. Hill-Rom, 755 F.3d at 1372 (citing Regents of Univ. of Minn. v. AGA Med.
Corp, 717 F.3d 929, 936 (Fed. Cir. 2013)); Honeywell Int ’l,Inc. v. ITTIndus., Inc., 452 F.3d
I312, 1316-19 (Fed. Cir. 2006); SciMed, 242 F.3d at 1343-44; AstraZeneca AB v. Hanmi USA,
1nc., 554 Fed. Appx. 912, 915 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (nonprecedential)). Statements clearly indicating
that a feature is an important or necessary part of the “present invention” also have been found to
constitute disclaimer. Id. (“We found disclaimer when the specification indicated that the
invention operated by ‘pushing (as opposed to pulling) forces,’ and then characterized the
‘pushing forces’ as ‘an important feature of the present invention.’”) (quoting SafeTCare Mfg.,
Inc. v. TeIe—Made,Inc., 497 F.3d 1262, 1269-70 (Fed.Cir.2007)).7
7As Canon notes, the description of the “present invention” as containing a particular feature
does not always constitute a clear statement of disavowal. For instance, in Rambus Inc. v.
Infineon Tech. AG, the Federal Circuit fotmd that two statements describing the “present
invention” as having a multiplexed bus did not disclaim non-multiplexing buses. 318 F.3d 1081.
1094-95 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Rambus, however, is readily distinguishable from the instant case. In
Rambus, the Federal Circuit noted that while the descriptions of the “present invention” “may
suggest some limitation of ‘bus’ to multiplexing bus, the remainder of the specification and
prosecution history shows that Rambus did not clearly disclaim or disavow claim scope in this
case.” Id The Federal Circuit placed particular emphasis on the prosecution histories of the
’898 application, the original application to which the asserted patents claimed priority, and the
’580 patent, a grandparent to two of the asserted patents. Id at 1095. One of the original claims
of the ’898 application did not require a multiplexing bus, whereas other original claims did. Id.
In addition, during the prosecution of the ’580 patent, the examiner issued a restriction
requirement requiring the patentees to limit prosecution to one of two groups of claims: a
multiplexing bus group and a “latency invention group.” Id. According to the examiner, the
latency invention group of claims did not require a multiplexing bus, whereas the multiplexing
bus group of claims did. Id. In response to the restriction requirement, the patentees elected to
limit prosecution to the latency invention group of clams. Id With the prosecution limited to
the latency invention group of claims, the ’580 patent eventually issued with claims reciting a
“bus.” Id. Unlike Rambus, Canon has not pointed to anything in the prosecutions of the priority
32

Canon argues that the statement describing the “present invention” should be interpreted
to mean that “the angular position of the coupling member axis can be different across the many
disclosed embodiments,” not that the coupling member of the disclosed invention is pivotable.
CRB at 7-8. This argument is unpersuasive. The specification discloses 19 embodiments, and in
the context of Embodiment No. 19 provides a clear description of the coupling members used in
all of the embodiments. Teaching that the “couplings of the embodiments described above [i.e.,
Embodiment Nos. 1-18]” can be used in Embodiment No. 19, the specification describes the
coupling members in the previously described embodiments accordingly:
The coupling is pivoted from the pre-engagement angular position to the
rotational force transmitting angular position in response to moving the
cartridge B in the direction substantially perpendicular to the axis L1. . .
i: * i:
When the process cartridge is dismounted from the main assembly of the
electrophotographic image forming apparatus, the coupling member
pivots from the rotational force transmitting angular position to the
disengaging angular position . . . .
’826 patent, col 78:63-79:35; see also id., col. 78:40-59. The specification’s statement that, “in
the present invention, the axis of the drum coupling member can take the different angular
positions relative to the axis of the photosensitive drum” is a clear reference to the disclosed
coupling members, which can pivot between different angular positions. ’826 patent, col. 83:43
47.
applications that would support finding that the patentees’ description of the “present invention”
was not a disavowal of claim scope. Id. With regard to the specification in Rambus, the Federal
Circuit found that, other than the two descriptions of the “present invention,” the specification
used the term “bus” consistent with its plain and ordinary meaning, a meaning which
encompassed both non-multiplexing buses and multiplexing buses. Id. In contrast, in the instant
case, every coupling member disclosed in the specification is a pivotable coupling member.
33

In support of its interpretation of the specification’s description of the “present
invention,” Canon argues that “[i]n some embodiments (e.g., Embodiment 1) the angular
position of the coupling member axis is different than it is in other embodiments (e.g.,
Embodiment 13). CRB at 7-8 (citing ’765 patent at 62:41-63:24, FIG. 88(a), (c)). Canon’s
argument is based on an inaccurate description of the disclosed embodiments. Each of the
coupling members disclosed in the specification is capable of moving between different angular
positions: a rotational force transmitting angular position, a pre-engagement angular position,
and a disengaging angular position. See, e.g., ’826 patent, col. 78:63-79:35. Although the
specification teaches that different embodiments of the coupling member can have different pre
engagement angular positions or different disengagement angular positions, all of the
embodiments have the same engaged position (“rotational transmitting angular position”). In the
engaged position, the coupling member’s axis is substantially coaxial to the drum shaft’s axis.
See, e.g., ’826 patent, col. 80:12-14 (“When the coupling is in the rotational force transmitting
angular position, the axis L2 and the axis Ll are substantially coaxial.”). Therefore, if the
patentees intended to describe the “present invention” as having coupling members with different
pre-engagement angular positions and disengagement angular positions, they would not have
described the couplings as having “different angular positions,” but as having “different inclined
angular positions.”
Canon also argues that the use of the word “can” in the description of the “present
invention” indicates that the coupling members’ ability to pivot between different angular
positions is an optional feature rather than a mandatory feature. CRB at 8. Although Canon is
correct that in certain contexts the word “can” indicates that a feature is optional, in the context
of these patents it is clear that the phrase “can take the different angular positions relative to the
34

axis of the photosensitive drum” refers to coupling men1ber’s ability to pivot, not that the ability
to pivot is an optional feature. In particular, afier describing 19 embodiments, each of which
employs a coupling member that can pivot to different angular positions, in a section entitled
“Other Embodiments,” the specification discusses other ways of potentially implementing the
claimed invention. In this section, the specification describes possible variations to the disclosed
embodiments that would fall within the confines of the invention. Such variations include
cartridges that have mounting and demounting paths that do not “extend[] in slanted or non
slanted up-down direction relative to the drive shaft” of the printer and cartridges capable of
printing in color. Id., col. 80:31-49. With regard to the coupling member, the specification not
only does not teach that a non-pivoting coupling member can be used in the cartridge, it
expressly states that the ca1tridge’s coupling member has to be capable of pivoting: “[I]n the
present invention, the axis of the drum coupling member can take the different angular positions
relative to the axis of the photosensitive drum.” Id., col. 83:43-47.
Canon further argues that the weight given to the specification’s description of the
“present invention” should be discounted because the description does not appear in the
“Summary of the Invention” section of the specification. Tr. at 27:20-28:2. Canon has not
pointed to any legal support for this argument. If anything, the description’s location in the
specification gives it greater weight, not less. As discussed above, the description of the present
invention is recited immediately after the specification’s detailed disclosure of 19 embodiments,
each of which has a pivotable coupling member that allows the process cartridge to be mounted
and demounted from the printer. That the description of the “present invention” occurs
immediately after the descriptions of the 19 embodiments, in a section entitled “Other
35

Embodiments,” emphasizes that the description is not a description of a particular embodiment,
but of the invention as a whole.
Interpreting the specification as disavowing non-pivoting coupling members is consistent
with the statements of Canon’s own expert in the 918 investigation concerning the patentees’
invention. As discussed above, supra § lI(B), three of the patents asserted by Canon in the 918
investigation—the ’278, ’564, and ’215 patents—have the same specification as the patents
asserted in this investigation. Moreover, all of the asserted patents in this investigation claim
priority to the ’278 patent. In his rebuttal expert report in the 918 investigation, Canon’s expert
describes the patentees’ invention as a pivotable coupling member located on the process
cartridge:
The Canon inventors were looking for a way to engage a cartridge with a
printer drive shaft in a direction perpendicular to the drive shaft’s axis of
rotation, without having to provide a mechanism in the printer for
moving the printer drive shaft toward the cartridge when the printer
cover is opened and closed, or, in the case of color printers, when a
cartridge in a carousel is rotated into position. Their solution was a
coupling member that is maximally inclinedjust prior to engagement
with the printer drive shaft, and that pivots to be coaxial with the drive
shaft as the coupling member and drive shaft becomefully engaged.
To my knowledge, and based on my review of the prior art, no one
before Canon had used a pivotable coupling on a cartridge to engage a
printer drive shaft . . . .
918 investigation, Rebuttal Report of Dr. Lux (Nov. 7, 2014), 1[5 (emphasis added).
Canon argues that its expert’s statements from the 918 investigation are not relevant
because the claims at issue in the 918 investigation explicitly required a coupling member that
pivots, whereas the independent claims at issue in this investigation do not. Tr. at 32: 17-33:4.
Canon’s expert, however, is not discussing a particular claim, but rather is describing what was
actually invented, as described in the specification. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc., 323
36

F.3d 956, 975 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“The description of the invention has always been the foundation
of the patent specification. It sets forth what has been invented, and sets boundaries of what can
be claimed.”) (Newman, concurring). Extending a patent “monopoly beyond the invention
disclosed” is an “impermissible result.” Medicines C0. v. Mylan, Inc., 853 F.3d 1296, 1305
(Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting General Elec. Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp., 304 U.S. 364, 371
(1938)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
3. Resp0ndent’s and Staffs proposed constructions are unduly narrow.
Although I find that the patentees disavowed non-pivoting coupling members,
Respondents’ and Staffs proposed constructions are unduly narrow because they require the
“first position” to be the “substantially co-axial engaged position” and the “second position” to
be “one of an inclined pre-engagement position or disengagement position.” These requirements
are inconsistent with the dependent claims and the prosecution histories of the ’02l, ’729, and
’765 patents.
Under Respondents’ and Staffs proposed constructions, the coupling member is required
to be able to move between a position where its axis is coaxial to that of the drum shaft and a
position where the coupling member’s axis is inclined with respect to the dnnn shaft’s axis.
These very limitations, however, are recited in dependent claims, not the independent claims.
The dependent claims require that the coupling member be “movable between (i) a position in
which the axis L2 of the coupling member is coaxial with the axis L1 of the photosensitive drum
and (ii) an inclined position in which the axis L2 of the coupling member is inclined with respect
to the axis L1 of the photosensitive drum.” ’826 patent, col. 84:45-53 (claim 5); see also ’02l
patent, col. 84:6-col. 85:6 (claim 6); ’729 patent, col. 85:14-22 (claim 7), col. 88:49-58 (claim
31); ’764 patent, col. 85:58-67 (claim 12), col. 88:22-30 (claim 22); ’765 patent, col. 86:45-53
(claim 18); ’960 patent, col. 37-45 (claim 8); ’846 patent, col. 84:59-67 (claim 4). The
37

limitations in the dependent claims are rendered superfluous by the Respondents’ and Staffs
proposed construction, which is a disfavored result. See Merck & C0., Inc. v. Teva Pharm. USA,
Inc., 395 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“A claim construction that gives meaning to all the terms
of the claim is preferred over one that does not do so.”).
Furthermore, the prosecution histories of the ’02l, ’729, and ’765 patents shows that the
“first position” can be the position in which the coupling member is inclined with respect to the
drum’s axis and the “second position” can be the position in which the coupling member’s axis is
co-axial to the drum shaft’s axis. During the prosecutions of the patents, the examiner rejected
pending claims as being anticipated by Japanese Patent Application 2006-163232 to Ohashi et al.
(“Ohashi”). Among the rejected application claims were claims that would eventually mature
into claims asserted in this investigation. Ex. 8 at CAN(l003937-38 (rejecting application claim
184, which eventually issued as claim 1 of the ’02l patent), CAN00O3939-40 (rejecting
application claim 191, which eventually issued as claim 8 of the ’02l patent), and CANOO03941
42 (rejecting application claim 199, which eventually issued as claim 18 of the ’02l patent); Ex.
9 at CAN0008855-56 (rejecting application claim 184, which eventually issued as claim 1 of the
’729 patent) and CANOO08856-57(rejecting application claim 198, which eventually issued as
claim 18 of the ’729 patent); Ex. 10 at CAN0012273-74 (rejecting application claim 184, which
eventually issued as claim 1 of the ’765 patent), CAN0012275-76 (rejecting application claim
186, which eventually issued as claim 4 of the ’765 patent), and CANO012277-78 (rejecting
application claim 194, which eventually issued as claim 13 of the ’765 patent).8
8 Relevant portions of the prosecution histories of the ‘O21, ’729, and ’765 patents are attached to
Canon’s initial brief as exhibits 8, 9, and 10, respectively.
38

The examiner rejected application claims containing the “movable” limitation finding that
the limitation was disclosed by joint J in Figure 3 of Ohashi.
omk "\ U L‘ D H /17 21 11 OR:
"5
Q : 	/1	J	\_ /.I"\ é
': 	¢ ‘I 	*~\§§»* \! 	._
1“ .49
1/. 13 21
" 	: 	- 	1:. 13
Ti
CIB Ex 8 at CANOO4l01 (annotated) To determine whether Ohashi satisfied the “first osition”	P
and “second position” requirements, the examiner relied on the ball-shaped projection B circled in
red as the “at least one projection.” Because the distance between the end of projection B and the
photosensitive dmm is greater when joint J is inclined with respect to the drum shaft’s axis than it
is whenjoint J is co-axial to the drum shafl’s axis, id. at CAN003938; CIB, Ex. 9 at CAN0008855
56; CIB, Ex. 10 at CAN0012274, the examiner could not find that the coupling member was in the
“first position” when its axis was co-axial to that of the drum shaft. Instead, the examiner found
that joint J was in the “first position” when its axis was inclined with respect to the drum shaft’s
axis and was in the “second position” when its axis was co-axial to the drum shaft’s axis. CIB,
Ex. 8 at CAN003938; CIB, Ex. 9 at CAN0008855-56 (same); CIB, Ex. 10 at CAN0012274 (same).
Accordingly, Respondents’ and Staffs proposed constructions requiring the “first
position” to be the “substantially co-axial engaged position” and the “second position” to be “one
of an inclined pre-engagement position or disengagement position” must be rejected. The
patentees’ disavowal only requires that the first position and second position be different angular
positions. ’826 patent, col. 83:43-47 (“[I]n the present invention, the axis of the drum coupling
39

member can take the different angular positions relative to the axis of the photosensitive drum.”).
Accordingly, I find that the term “wherein the coupling member is movable between (i) a first
position in which a tip of the at least one projection is a first distance away from the photosensitive
drum as measured in the direction of the axis Ll and (ii) a second position in which the tip of the
at least one projection is a second distance away from the photosensitive drum as measured in the
direction of the axis Ll” requires a coupling member that is “movable between (i) a first angular
position in which a tip of the at least one projection is a first distance away from the photosensitive
drum as measured in the direction of the axis Ll and (ii) a second angular position in which the
tip of the at least one projection is a second distance away from the photosensitive drum as
measured in the direction of the axis Ll.” This construction is consistent with the scope of the
patentees’ disavowal, as well as the language of the dependent claims and prosecution histories of
the ’02l, ’729, and ’765 patents.
B. “axis L2”
Canon’s Proposed 	Respondents’ Proposed 	Staff’s Proposed
Construction 	Construction 	Construction
This tenn has its plain and axis along the center of the axis along center of the
ordinary meaning and no coupling member that 	coupling member that
construction is necessary. inclines in relation to Ll inclines in relation to Ll
The plain and ordinary 	during pre-engagement and during pre-engagement and
meaning does not require axis disengagement 	disengagement
L2 to be inclinable relative to
axis Ll.
Altematively: an imaginary
line about which the coupling
member is rotatable 	'
The asserted independent claims require that the coupling member have an “axis
L2.” ’826 patent, col. 84:9-19 (claim 1), col. 84:63-col. 85:7 (claim 6); ’021 patent, col. 84:18
28 (claim 1), col. 85:24-30 (claim 8); ’729 patent, col. 84:34-44 (claim 1), col. 88:6-17 (claim
40

27); ’764 patent, col. 85: 19-29 (claim 7), col. 86:61-col. 87:2 (claim 20); ’765 patent, col. 83:43
49 (claim 1), col. 86:6-12 (claim 13); ’960 patent, col. 83:49-52 (claim 1); ’846 patent, col.
9
.84:26-29 (claim 1). The claims do not expressly place any requirements on “axis L2” other than
that it be the axis of the coupling member. The term “L2” is used in the claims to distinguish the
axis of the coupling member from the drum’s axis (axis L1). See, e.g., RIB at 16 (“The “asserted
claims plainly distinguish between axis L1 and axis L2: L1 is the axis of a photosensitive drum,
while L2 is the axis of the coupling member.”).
In contrast to the clear claim language, Respondents’ and Staff’s proposed constructions
require axis L2 to “incline[] in relation to [axis] L1 during pre-engagement and disengagement.”
In support of their construction, Respondents advance the same disavowal argument that they
advanced with respect to the “movable” limitation: all of the disclosed embodiments use a
pivoting coupling member and the patentees described the “present invention” as having a
pivotable coupling member. Although I found that the claims require a pivotable coupling
member as a result of the patentees’ disavowal of claim scope, this disavowal is captured in my
construction of the first tenn and does not need to be added to the construction of “axis L2.”
In support of its construction, Staff argues that the patentees acted as their own
lexicographers and defined the axis L2 to be the axis that inclines relative to the photosensitive
drum’s axis (axis L1). According to Staff, the patentees so defined axis L2 in this section of the
specification:
The axis L1is an axis of rotation of the photosensitive drum.
9 The term “axis L2” also appears in certain of the asserted dependent claims. ’826 patent, col.
84:45-53 (claim 5); ’02llpatent, col. 84:6-col. 85:6 (claim 6); ‘729 patent, col. 85:14-22 (claim
7), col. 88:49-58 (claim 31); ’764 patent, col. 85:58-67 (claim 12), col. 88:22-30 (claim 22); ’765
patent, col. 86:45-53 (claim 18); ’960 patent, col. 37-45 (claim 8); ’846 patent, col. 84:59-67
(claim 4).
41

The axis L2 is an axis of rotation of the coupling.
The axis L3 is an axis of rotation of the driving shaft.
The whirling motion is not a motion with which the coupling itself
rotates about the axis L2, but the inclined axis L2 rotates about the axis
Ll of the photosensitive drum, although the whirling here does not
preclude the rotation of the coupling per se about the axis L2 of the
coupling 150.
’826 patent, col. 82:20-28.
The portion of the specification relied upon by Staff expressly defines “axis L2” as “an
axis of rotation of the coupling.” This definition is fully consistent with the express claim
language and does not require axis L2 to incline during pre-engagement or disengagement
operations. Staff argues that “axis L2” is further defined in the description of the “whirling
motion:” “The whirling motion is not a motion with which the coupling itself rotates about the
axis L2, but the inclined axis L2 rotates about the axis Ll of the photosensitive drum . . . .” 1d.,
col. 82:24-28. The claims, however, do not require that the coupling member be capable of
performing a “whirling motion.” The description of the “whirling motion” does not mention the
coupling member’s pre-engagement position or disengagement position, and there is no
indication that the “whirling motion” has any relationship to the coupling member’s pre
engagement position or disengagement position.
Accordingly, I reject Respondents’ and Staffs proposed constructions and find,
consistent with the claim language and the specification, that “axis L2” means “an axis of
rotation of the coupling [member]." ’826 patent, col. 82:22.
42

C. “connected”
Canon’s Proposed 	Respondents’ Proposed 	Staff’s Proposed
Construction 	Construction 	Construction
This term has its plain and connected [to the drum] in a Plain and ordinary meaning,
ordinary meaning and no manner that enables the which here is “connected in a
construction is necessary. claimed movement between manner that enables the
The plain and ordinary 	co-axial and inclined 	claimed movement between
meaning does not require the positions 	co-axial and inclined
coupling member to be 	positions.”
connected to the
photosensitive drmn in a
manner that allows the
coupling member to incline
relative to the drum.
The asserted independent claims of the ’826 patent require that the coupling member’s
“first end portion [be] connected to the photosensitive drum.” ’826 patent, col. 84:9-11 (claim
1); see also id., col. 84:63-65 (claim 6). The asserted independent claims of the ’02l, ’729, and
’765 patents and claim 7 of the 764 patent require that the coupling member be “operatively
connected” either to the photosensitive drum (’729 patent, ’764 patent) or to both the
photosensitive drum and the developing roller (’02l patent.” ’02l patent, col. 84:18-22 (claim
1), col. 85:24-26 (claim 8); ’729 patent, col. 84:34-36 (claim l), col. 88:6-ll (claim 27); ’764
patent, col. 85: 19-21 (claim 7); ’765 patent, col. 83:43-45 (claim 1); col. 84:22-24 (claim 4), col
86:6-9 (claim 13). Both Canon and Staff argue that the term “connected” has a plain and
ordinary meaning and that no construction is necessary. CIB at 24-26; SIB at 47 n. 16.
Respondents argue that the term “connected” should be interpreted to mean “connected [to the
drum] in a manner that enables the claimed movement between co-axial and inclined positions.”
In support of their construction, Respondents argue that “[a] connection that allows the
coupling to incline between the first and second positions is required in order to accomplish the
pivoting motion that is at the heart of Canon’s alleged invention which, as described, is a
43

coupling member that is pivotable.” CIB at 19. In other words, because the claims require a
pivoting coupling member, the connection between the coupling member and the photosensitive
drum must allow the coupling member to pivot. As discussed above, the “movable” limitation
in view of the patentees’ disavowal of claim scope——requiresa coupling member that can move
between a first angular position and a second angular position, i.e., to pivot between two
positions. A connection that does not allow the coupling member to move between a first
angular position and a second angular position would result in an apparatus that does not satisfy
the “movable” limitation. It therefore would be inappropriate to import the requirement of a
pivotable coupling member into the word “connected.” SIB at 47 n. 16 (“While the Respondents
and Staff agree as to this terminology, the Staff is of the view that this temiinology reflects the
plain and ordinary meaning of the term in the context of the claim, which including Staff’s
proposed construction for Disputed Term l. Thus, the Staff does not believe that the word
‘comected’ requires a construction”). Moreover, in their initial brief, Respondents
acknowledge that “connected” only requires that the coupling member be “joined, either directly
or indirectly, to a photosensitive dnun.” RIB at 20.
Based on the foregoing, I find that the term “connected” does not need to be constmed
and that it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning.
44

D. “[a coupling member having/including] a first end [portion] at least a part of which
is positioned within the drum flange”
Canon’s Proposed
Construction
Respondents’ Proposed
Construction Staffs Proposed
Construction
This term has its plain and
ordinary meaning and no
construction is necessary.
The reference to “axis L2” in
Respondents’ and Staff’s
proposed constructions is not
appropriate.
[a coupling member
having/including] a first end
[portion] where at least a part
of the first end portion of the
coupling member, which has
an axis L2 (as defined above)
is positioned within the drum
flange
9
plain and ordinary meaning
(e.g. [a coupling member
having/including] a first end
[portion] where at least a part
of the first end portion of the
coupling member, which has
an axis L2 (as defined above),
is positioned within the drum
flange)
Claim 1 of the ’02l patent, claim 27 of the ’729 patent, claim 20 of the ’764 patent, claim
1 of the ’960 patent, and claim 1 of the ’846 patent require that “at least a part of’ the coupling
member’s “first end” or “first end portion “ be “positioned within the drum flange.” ’02l patent,
col. 84:1-8-20(claim 1); ’729 patent, col. 88:6-8 (claim 27); ’764 patent, col. 86:61-63 (claim
20); ’960 patent, col. 83:49-S1 (claim 1); ’846 patent, col. 84:26-28 (claim 1). On its face, the
meaning of this claim language is clear and its meaning is “readily apparent even to layjudges:”
a portion of the first end of the coupling member has to be within the dnlm flange. Phillips, 415
F.3d at 1314. The parties’ dispute, however, does not relate to the identified claim language but
relates to the claim lang1age“a coupling member having an axis L2.” ’02l patent, col. 84:18-20
(claim 1); ‘729 patent, col. 88:6-8 (claim 27); ’764 patent, col. 86:61-63 (claim 20); ’960 patent,
col. 83:49-51 (claim 1); ’846 patent, col. 84:26-28 (claim 1). According to Respondents and
Staff, “axis L2 is an imaginary line that runs through the entire coupling member, including the
first end.” RRB at 22; see also SIB at 48 (“Complainant’s proposal of a generic plain and ordinary
meaning, in which the first end portion of the coupling member does not also have the coupling
member’s axis L2, is not supported by the specification and introduces ambiguityf’).
45

At issue is whether the claim language reads on “a multipiece coupling member with
multiple axes.” Tr. at 99:1-7 (Respondents’ counsel). The claims clearly state that the coupling
member has “axis L2.” As discussed above, axis L2 is “an axis of rotation of the coupling
member.” Supra, VI(B). Whether one of ordinary skill in the art would consider “a multipiece
coupling member with multiple axes” to have an axis of rotation satisfying the claim limitation is
a question of infringement, not claim construction. PPG Indus. v. Guardian Indus. C0rp., 156
F.3d 1351, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (holding that courts cannot “under the rubric of claim
construction . . . give a claim whatever additional precision or specificity is necessary to facilitate
a comparison between the claim and the accused product,” but must instead “define[] the claim
with whatever specificity and precision is warranted by the language of the claim and the
evidence bearing on the proper construction”).
Based on the foregoing, I find that the tenn “[a coupling member having/including] a first
end [portion] at least a part of which is positioned within the drum flange” does not need to be
construed and should be given its plain and ordinary meaning.
46

E. “at least one projection that is-open to the axis L2”
Canon’s Proposed
Construction Respondents’ Proposed
Construction Staffs Proposed
Construction
This tenn has its plain and
ordinary meaning and no
construction is necessary.
The plain and ordinary
meaning does not require t
an inner surface of the
projection be a uniform
parallel to L2.
Altematively: no portion o
the coupling member lies
between the at least one
projection and the axis L2
distance from L2 and exten
hat
d
f
At least one projection that
has an inner surface that is a
uniform distance from L2 and
extends parallel to L2
at least one projection that
has an inner surface that is a
uniform distance from L2 and
extends parallel to L2
Claims l and 6 of th e’8 26 patent, claim 1 of the ’729 patent, claim 7 of the ’764 patent,
and claim 13 of the ’765 patent require the coupling member’s second end have “at least one
projection that is open to the axis L2.” ’826 patent, col. 84:10-12 (claim 1), col. 85:55-67 (claim
6);’729 patent, col. 84:36-38 (claim 1); ’764 patent, col. 85:22-24 (claim 7); ’765 patent, col.
~
86:9-l0 (claim 13). Canon argues that the term does not need to be construed, but if it is, it
should be construed to mean “no portion of the coupling member lies between the at least one
projection and the axis L2.” Respondents and Staff argue that the term requires “at least one
projection that has an inner surface that is a uniform distance from L2 and extends parallel to
L2.”
There is no support in the claim for construing the term to require that the inner surface
of the “at least one projection” be “a uniform distance from L2 and extend[] parallel to L2.”
While Staff asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the term “at least
$9 66
one projection that is open to the axis L2 to mean that the projection has an inner surface that
is a uniform distance from L2 that extends parallel to L2,” it cites no evidence in support of its
47

assertion. SIB at 50. Respondents argue that their proposed construction is supported by “the
specification’s depiction and description of the claimed projections.” RIB at 25. In support of
this assertion, Respondents point to Figure 86, which depicts the coupling member 10150 in
Embodiment No. 13.
10150k
‘ ‘ . 1 . //'”" 1015Dr
101505	-~____“,,¢»-'“	g ..-'.;,/\
_w_:__“_":j~»-. R >
- ~' 	’lO150d
/101506
10150 	.
According to Respondents, projection l015d on the bottom right “visually exhibits a shape where the
inner surface is a unifonn distance from axis L2 and extends parallel to axis L2.” RIB at 25-26.
Respondents’ argument suffers from two flaws, either of which is fatal.
First, Respondents’ argument depends on ascertaining the precise relationship between
the inner surface of the projection l0150d and axis L2 from a patent figure. There is no
indication from the figure or the specification that the patent figure is drawn to scale and, in such
cases, “patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be
relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue.” Source
Vagabond Sys. Ltd. V.Hydrapak, Inc., 753 F.3d 1291, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting
Hockerson-Halberstadr, Inc. v. Avia Group Int ’l,Inc., 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000))
(internal quotation marks omitted); see also Nystrom v. Trex C0., 424 F.3d 1136, 1149 (Fed. Cir.
2005) (“The district court erred in not properly applying the principles set forth in our prior
48

precedents that arguments based on drawings not explicitly made to scale in issued patents are
unavailing. Hockerson-Halberstadt indicated our disfavor in reading precise proportions into
patent drawings which do not expressly provide such proportions . . . .”); H0ckers0n
Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Grp. Int’l, Inc., 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Accordingly, there
is no basis for finding that projection l0l5d on the bottom right of Figure 86 is intended to represent
a structure having an “inner surface [that] is a 11I1lf0ITl’l	distance from axis L2 and extends parallel
to axis L2.” RIB at 25-26. .
Second, even if Respondents’ interpretation of Figure 86 were correct, limitations from
preferred embodiments cannot be imported into the claim language. See, e.g., Phillips, 415 F.3d
at 1323 (noting that it is improper to read limitations from embodiments into claims “because
section 112 of the Patent Act requires that the claims themselves set forth the limits of the patent
grant” and “because persons of ordinary skill in the art rarely would confine their definitions of
terms to the exact representations depicted in the embodiments”). There is no indication that the
patentees intended to limit the “projection that is open to the axis L2” to one of the projections
disclosed in Figure 86. Tr. at 1l1:l8-21 (counsel for Respondents) (admitting that “this isn’t
whether there was disavowal, whether there was a redefinition here”). Although Respondents
argue that the specification teaches that the shape of the projections and the shape of the inner
surface of the projections are important in determining whether rotational force is correctly
transmitted from the drive shaft to the drum shaft, the specification does not teach that it is
important that the distance between the inner surface of the projection and axis L2 be unifonn
and that the inner surface of the projection extend parallel to axis L2. RIB at 26.
Respondents’ and Staff‘s proposed construction is also contradicted by the prosecution
history of the ’729 patent. As discussed above, during the prosecution of the ’729 patent, the
49

examiner rejected pending claims as being anticipated by Ohashi. Some of the rejected claims
contained the disputed claim term. The examiner found that ball B shown on the right-hand side
of Figure 3 of Ohashi was a projection “open to the axis L2.”
OR.‘ || |U Ll U ll 	11
" ' @114! 16 	/
,2 	it 	1 Marlins;
/I‘ \_\_\ 	‘ ’
1 	a - 	~ 	.- ll
4 	~‘-ara---‘VA
J 	: 13
IV’
CIB, Ex. 9 at CAN008855 (rejecting application claim 184, which eventually issued as claim 1)
(“the second end portion (at OR2) including at least one projection (arm 21 and ball B) that is
open to the axis L2 (arm 21 and ball B of joint J are open to the axis of joint J)”); see also id. at
CAN0008856 (rejecting application claim 198, which eventually issued as claim 18).
Respondents and Staff do not contest that ball B’s inner surface is not a unifoml distance from
the axis of the coupling member and does not extend parallel to the axis of coupling member.
See, e,g., RRB at 24-25; SRB at 1-26.10
‘OStaff does not address the issue at all and Respondents do not directly address the issue but
instead point out that the examiner also identified arm 21 as a projection that is open to the axis
of joint J. RRB at 24-25. According to Respondents, arm 21 in Figure 3 of Ohashi is consistent
with their proposed construction because it has an inner surface that is a uniform distance from
joint J’s axis and extends parallel to joint J’s axis. As discussed above, absent some indication
that the drawing is to scale, a patent drawing cannot be relied on to define the precise proportions
of an element. See, e.g., Source Vagabond, 753 F.3d at 1300; Nystrom, 424 F.3d at 1149;
Hockerson-Halberstadl, 222 F.3d 951 at 956. Moreover, the examiner’s identification of arm 21
as a projection open to the axis ofjoint J does not negate her identification of ball B as a
projection open to the axis of joint J.
50

In contrast to Respondents’ and Staff s proposed constructions, Canon’s alternative
construction—“no portion of the coupling member lies between the at least one projection and
the axis L2”—reflects the claim tenn’s scope and is consistent with the prosecution history. This
is implicitly acknowledged by Staff. In support of its proposed construction, Staff admits that
“the limitation requires the projection have an inner surface facing the center of the coupling
member, such as the structure of battlements on a castle turret.” SIB at 50. Such a structure is
captured by Canon’s proposed construction. The only argument raised by Respondents against
Canon’s proposed construction is that it is “meaningless” because “[o]f course no part of the
coupling can lie between the projection and the axis in any embodiment; otherwise, the coupling
would be unable to engage with a printer drive shafi.” RRB at 23.“ This argtnnent is not
persuasive. As acknowledged by Respondents’ counsel during the Markman hearing, it is
possible to implement a coupling member that does not satisfy the limitation under Canon’s
proposed construction. Tr. at 113:6-8 (“Now, maybe there’s an example of a driveshaft with a
hole in it that can come and interact with this coupling that had some weird pitchfork design.”).
Based on the foregoing, I find that term “at least one projection that is open to the axis L2”
means that “no portion of the coupling member lies between the at least one projection and the axis
L2.”
VII. CONCLUSION
A. Claim Constructions
For the reasons discussed above, I construe the disputed terms as follows:
1' In their initial brief, Respondents argued that Can0n’s construction was inconsistent with the
prosecution history of the ’826 patent. RIB at 27-28. Respondents appear to have abandoned
this argument as they do not refer to it in their rebuttal brief and did not raise it at the Markman
hearing. Tr. at lll:17-1 13:19; RRB at 23-25.
S51

The term “wherein the coupling member is movable between (i) a first position in which
a tip of the at least one projection is a first distance away from the photosensitive drum as
measured in the direction of the axis Ll and (ii) a second position in which the tip of the at least
one projection is a second distance away from the photosensitive drum as measured in the
direction of the axis L1” recited in claims 1 and 6 of the ’826 patent, claims 1 and 8 of the ’021
patent, claims 1 and 27 ofthe ’729 patent, claims 7 and 20 of the ’764 patent, claims 1 and 13 of
the ’765 patent, claim 1 of the ’96Opatent, and claim 1 of the ’846 patent requires a coupling
member that is “movable between (i) a first angular position in which a tip of the at least one
projection is a first distance away from the photosensitive drum as measured in the direction of
the axis L1 and (ii) a second angular position in which the tip of the at least one projection is a
second distance away from the photosensitive drum as measured in the direction of the axis L1.”
The term “axis L2” recited in claims 1, 5, and 6 of the ’826 patent, claims 1, 6, and 8 of
the ’021 patent, claims 1, 7, 27, and 31 of the ’729 patent, claims 7, 12, 20, and of the ’764
patent, 1, 13, and 18 of the ’765 patent, claims 1 and 8 of the ’96Opatent, and claims 1 and 4 of
the ’846 patent means “an axis of rotation of the coupling member.”
I find that the term “connected” recited in claims 1 and 6 of the ’826 patent, claims 1 and
8 of the ’O21patent, claim 7 of the ’764 patent, and claims 1, 4, and 13 of the ’765 patent does
not need to be construed and should be given its plain and ordinary meaning.
The term “[a coupling member having/including] a first end [portion] at least a part of
which is positioned within the drum flange” recited in claim l of the ’021 patent, claim 27 of the
’729 patent, claim 20 of the ’764 patent, claim 1 of the ’96Opatent, and claim 1 of the ’846
patent does not need to be construed and should be given its plain and ordinary meaning.
52

The term “at least one projection that is open to the axis L2” recited in claims l and 6 of
the ’826 patent, claim 1 of the ’729 patent, claim 7 of the ’764 patent, and claim 13 of the ’765
patent means that “no portion of the coupling member lies between the at least one projection and
the axis L2.”
Hereafter, discovery and briefing in this Investigation shall be governed by the
construction of the claim tenns in this Order.
B. Motions for Summary Determination and Prehearing Briefs
The parties shall meet and confer conceming the effect of the adopted constructions on
the pending motions for summary determination and the hearing in this investigation. N0 later
than March 8, 2019, the parties shall file a joint submission (1) identifying each motion for
summary detennination that has been rendered moot by the adopted claim constructions and (2)
for each motion that a party contends is still viable, indicating whether the motion is ripe for
adjudication or whether any party contends that supplemental briefing is necessary to address the
adopted claim constructions. Any such supplemental briefing shall be filed no later than March
15, 2019. In addition, the deadline for the private parties to file pre-hearing statements and briefs
is hereby extended to March 15, 2019, and these submissions shall reflect the adopted claim
constructions.
SO ORDERED.
Dee Lord
Administrative Law Judge
53

CERTAIN TONER CARTRIDGES AND COMPONENTS
THEREOF
Inv. No. 337-“TA-1106
PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Lisa R. Barton, hereby certify that the attached ORDER has been served by hand upon
the Commission Investigative Attorney, Monisha Deka, Esq., and the following parties as
indicated, on 2/28/2019 	__ ,
r 	.. ..
Lisa R.'Bartori‘, Secretary
U.S. International Trade Commission
500 E Street, SW, Room 112
Washington, DC 20436
On Behalf of Complainants Canon Ine.. Canon U.S.A., and
Canon Virginia, Inc.:
Michael P. Sandonato, Esq.
VENABLE LLP
1290 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10104-3800
On Behalf of Respondents Ninestar Corporation, Ninestar
Image Tech Limited. Ninestar Technology Company, L_td.,
Apex Microtech Ltd., and Static Control Components, Inc.:
Gary M. Hnath, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
1999 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
On Behalf of Respondents Print-Rite Holdings Ltd., Print
Rite N.A., Inc.. Union Technology International (M.C.O.) Co.
Ltd.. Print-Rite Unicorn Image Products Co. Ltd.. The
Supplies Guys, LLC, and LD Products, Inc.:
Steven E. Adkins, Esq.
MCGUIRE WOODS LLP
20001 K Street, NW
Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 20006
El Via Hand Delivery
El Via Express Delivery
|E’Via First Class Mail
I Other:
El Via Hand Delivery
E] Via Express Delivery
IE4/ia First Class Mail
El Other:
U Via Hand Delivery
III Via Express Delivery
E/fia First ClassMail
El Other:

CERTAIN TONER CARTRIDGES AND COMPONENTS
THEREOF
Certificate of Service —Page 2
On Behalf of Respondents Aster Graphics, Inc., Aster
Graphics C0., Ltd, and Jiangxi Yibo E-tech C0., Ltd.:
Barbara A. Murphy, Esq.
FOSTER, MURPHY, ALTMAN & NICKEL, PC
1150 18th Street NW, Suite 775
Washington, DC 20036
Respondents:
Ourway US Inc.
17800 Castleton Street, Suite 412
City of Industry, CA 91748 '
Inv. N0. 337-TA-1106
III Via Hand Delivery
El Via Express Delivery
E(Via First Class Mail
[:1 Other:
Cl Via Hand Delivery
El Via Express Delivery
Z/Via First Class Mail
II] Other:

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
In the Matter of
CERTAIN TONER CARTRIDGES AND
COMPONENTS THEREOF
Investigation No. 337-TA-1106
NOTICE OF COMMISSION DECISION NOT TO REVIEW AN INITIAL
DETERMINATION GRANTING-IN-PART COMPLAINANTS' MOTION FOR
SUMMARY DETERMINATION AS TO THE ECONOMIC PRONG OF THE
DOMESTIC INDUSTRY REQUIREMENT
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has
determined not to review an initial determination ("ID") (Order No. 31) of the presiding
administrative law judge ("ALJ") granting-in-part Complainants' motion for summary
determination as to the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Houda Morad, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436,
telephone (202) 708-4716. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this
investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to
5: 15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street
SW., Washington, D.C. 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the
Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at https:llwww.usitc.gov. The
public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket
(EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this
matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation on
March 29, 2018, based on a complaint filed by Canon Inc. of Japan; Canon U.S.A. Inc. of
Melville, New York; and Canon Virginia, Inc. of Newport News, Virginia (collectively,
"Complainants" or "Canon"). See 83 FR 13516-17 (Mar. 29, 2018). The complaint alleges
violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337) ("section 337"),
based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within
the United States after importation of certain toner cartridges and components thereof by reason
of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,746,826; U.S. Patent No. 9,836,021; U.S. Patent No.
9,841,727; U.S. Patent No. 9,841,728; U.S. Patent No. 9,841,729; U.S. Patent No. 9,857,764;
U.S. Patent No. 9,857,765; U.S. Patent No. 9,869,960; and U.S. Patent No. 9,874,846. See id.
The notice of investigation identifies 49 respondents, only 12 of which are presently active in the

investigation, namely: Ninestar Corporation; Ninestar Image Tech Limited; Ninestar Technology
Company, Ltd.; Static Control Components, Inc.; Aster Graphics, Inc.; Jiangxi Yibo E-tech Co.,
Ltd.; Aster Graphics Company Ltd.; Print-Rite N.A., Inc.; Union Technology Jnt'l (M.C.O.) Co.
Ltd.; Print-Rite Unicom Image Products Co. Ltd.; LD Products, Inc.; and The Supplies Guys,
Inc. (collectively, "the Active Respondents"). See id. The Office of Unfair Import
Investigations ("OUII") is also a party to this investigation. See id.
On August 16, 2018, Complainants filed an unopposed motion for summary
determination as to the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement (Motion). On
August 27, 2018, OUII filed a response in support of the Motion. On October 26, 2018, the ALJ
issued the subject ID (Order No. 31) granting-in-part Complainants' Motion. Specifically, the ID
finds that Complainants satisfy the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement under
subsections (A) and (B) of section 337(a)(3) but not under subsection (C). See ID at 5-7. In
particular, the ID finds that Complainants "identifiy] . . . expenditures related to engineering for
the domestic industry products" but "do[] not present evidence . . . that these expenditures satisfy
the additional requirement of subprong (C), which requires that the investments constitute an
exploitation of the asserted patents." See id. at 6-7 (citing Certain Integrated Circuit Chips and
Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-859, Comm'n Op. at 48 (Aug. 22, 2014)).
No petition for review of the subject ID was filed. The Commission has determined not
to review the subject ID.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton
Secretary to the Commission
Issued: November 27, 2018
2

CERTAIN TONER CARTRIDGES AND COMPONENTS
THEREOF
Inv. No. 337-TA-1106
PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Lisa R. Barton, hereby certify that the attached NOTICE has been served by hand
upon the Commission Investigative Attorney, Monisha Deka, Esq .. , and the following parties as
indicated, on 11/27/2018
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary
U.S. International Trade Commission
500 E Street, SW, Room 112
Washington, DC 20436
On Behalf of Complainants Canon Inc., Canon U.S.A., and
Canon Virginia, Inc.:
Michael P. Sandonato, Esq.
VENEABLE LLP
1290 A venue of the Americas
New York, NY 10104-3800
On Behalf of Respondents Ninestar Corporation, Ninestar
Image Tech Limited, Ninestar Technology Company, Ltd.,
and Static Control Components, Inc.
Gary M. Hnath, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
1999 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
On Behalf of Respondents Print-Rite N.A., Inc., Union
Technology International (M.C.O.) Co. Ltd., Print-Rite
Unicorn Image Products Co. Ltd., The Supplies Guys, Inc.,
and LD Products, Inc.
Steven E. Adkins, Esq.
MCGUIRE WOODS LLP
2001 K Street, NW
Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 20006
D Via Hand Delivery
D Via Express Delivery
!81 Via First Class Mail
□ Other:- -	----
D Via Hand Delivery
D Via Express Delivery
C8l Via First Class Mail
D Other:------
□ Via Hand Delivery
D Via Express Delivery
IZI Via First Class Mail
□ Other:------

CERTAIN TONER CARTRIDGES AND COMPONENTS
THEREOF
Certificate of Service - Page 2
On Behalf of Respondents Aster Graphics, Inc., Aster
Graphics Company, Ltd, and Jiangxi Yibo E-tecb Co., Ltd,,
Barbara A. Murphy, Esq.
FOSTER, MURPHY, ALTMAN & NICKEL, PC
1150 18th Street NW, Suite 775
Washington, DC 20036
Respondents:
Ourway US Inc.
17800 Castleton Street, Suite 412
City of Industry, CA 91748
Inv. No. 337-TA-1106
D Via Hand Delivery
□ Via Express Delivery
� Via First Class Mail
□ Other: ------
D Via Hand Delivery
D Via Express Delivery
� Via First Class Mail
D Other: ------

PUBLIC VERSION
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
In the Matter of
CERTAIN TONER CARTRIDGES AND 	Inv. N0. 337-TA-1106
COMPONENTS THEREOF
ORDER NO. 31 INITIAL DETERMINATION GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION
FOR SUMMARY DETERMINATION THAT COMPLAINANTS
HAVE SATISFIED THE ECONOMIC PRONG OF THE
DOMESTIC INDUSTRY REQUIREMENT
(October 26, 2018)
On August 16, 2018, Complainants Canon Inc., Canon U.S.A., Inc., and Canon Virginia,
Inc. (collectively, “Canon”) filed a motion for summary determination that they have satisfied
the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement (Motion Docket No. 1106-O12).
Respondents Ninestar Corporation, Ninestar Image Tech Limited, Ninestar Technology
Company, Ltd., and Static Control Components, Inc. (the “Ninestar Respondents”); Aster
Graphics, Inc., Jiangxi Yibo E-tech Co., Ltd., and Aster Graphics Company Ltd. (the “Aster
Respondents”); and Print-Rite Holdings Ltd,‘ Print-Rite N.A., Inc., Union Technology Int’l
(M.C.O.) Co. Ltd., and Print-Rite Unicom Image Products Co. Ltd. (the “Print-Rite
Respondents”) indicated that they do not oppose the motion. There were no responses to the
motion filed by any other respondents or the Commission Investigative Staff. 	A
I. LEGAL STANDARD
Commission Rule 210.18 provides that smnmary determination shall be granted when
“there is no genuine issue as to any material fact” and “the moving party is entitled to summary
‘ Print-Rite Holdings Ltd. was terminated from the investigation pursuant to Order No. 30 (Oct.
22, 2018).

PUBLIC VERSION
determination as a matter of law.” 19 C.F.R. § 2lO.18(b). Summary determination in section
337 proceedings is analogous to a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Products, Inv. No. 337-TA-1002,
lnitial Detennination, 2017 WL 5167413 at *11, not reviewed by Commission Notice, 2017 WL
6434923 (Nov. 1, 2017). Commission Rule 2lO.18(a) provides that a party may move “upon all
or any part ofthe issues to be detennined,” 19 C.F.R. 210.18(1), which is similar to'the
provision in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) allowing for summary judgment upon “all or
part” ofa claim. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a).
The domestic industry requirement under section 337 arises from the statutory language
governing intellectual property-based proceedings in subsection 337(a)(2), which requires that a
complainant establish that “an industry in the United States, relating to the articles protected by
the patent, copyright, trademark, mask work, or design concerned, exists or is in the process of
being established.” 19 U.S.C. § l337(a)(2). Paragraph (3) of section 337(a) provides:
For purposes of paragraph (2), an industry in the United States shall be
considered to exist if there is in the United States, with respect to the
articles protected by the patent, copyright, trademark, mask work, or
design concerned — 	p
(A) significant investment in plant and equipment;
(B) significant employment of labor or capital; or
(C) substantial investment in its exploitation, including engineering,
research and development, or licensing.
19 U.S.C. § l337(a)(3). The domestic industry requirement consists of an “economic prong” and
a “technical prong.” Certain Stringed Musical Instruments, lnv. No. 337-TA-586, Comm’n Op.
at 13, 2009 WL 5134139, at *l0 (May 16, 2008). The “economic prong” ofthe domestic
industry requirement is satisfied when it is determined that the economic activities and
investments set forth in one of the subprongs of subsection 337(a)(3) has taken place. Certain
2

PUBLIC VERSION I
Variable Speed Wind Turbines & Components Thereofl Inv. No. 337-TA-376, USl'l‘C Pub. No.
3003, Comm’n Op. at 21 (Nov. 1996). Under section 337, summary determination can be
granted as to the economic prong even where disputes remain concerning the technical prong.
E.g., Certain CompositeAerogel Insulation Materials and Methodsfor Manufacturing the Same,
Inv. No. 337-TA-1003, Order No. l9 at 2-3 (Nov. l5, 2016), not reviewed in relevantpart by
Comm’n Notice (Dec. 2, 2016) at l-2.
II. BACKGROUND
Canon contends that it satisfies the economic prong of the domestic industiy requirement
through its manufacture of certain products in the United States and through additional
investments in engineering and quality assurance. Motion Memo. at l. Canon maintains that
these investments demonstrate significant investments in plant and equipment under subprong
(A) of section 337(a)(3), significant employment of labor or capital under subprong (B), and
substantial investment in the exploitation of the asserted patents under subprong (C). Id.
Canon’s motion relies on a declaration submitted by Thomas E. Keegan, the Vice
President of the Manufacturing Engineering Group at Canon Virginia, Inc. (“CV1”), which was
filed with the complaint in this investigation. Motion Exhibit 8; Complaint Exhibit 11 (the
“Keegan Decl.”). Mr. Kccgan explains that CVI manufacttues twelve Canon toner cartridge
models, - of which are alleged to practice one of the asserted patents. Keegan Decl. 1]4. In
2017,morethan— 	tonercartridgesweremanufactured	by CVI,with- ofthose
cartridges asserted to practice the asserted patents in this investigation. Id. 1]6. The total market
value of this subset of cartridges was 	Id. 1]8.
With respect to Canon’s investments in plant and equipment, Mr. Keegan identifies three
primary facilities at CVl’s main campus in Newport News, Virginia. Ia’.1]9. The assessed value
3

PUBLIC VERSION
ofthese	facilities	is—, 	and	they	total	_ 	square	feet.Id.About
- 	squarefeetis dedicatedto manufacturingtonercartridges,andapplyingthe2
proportionofasserteddomesticindustrycartridgesresultsin— 	squarefeetof
manufacturing facilities that can be attributed to Canon’s domestic industry. Id. 1]13. The
facilitiesinclude— 	Worthofequipment	relatedtocartridgeproduction,	and
allocatingthis amountto the- of cartridgesassertedin this investigationresultsin I
- 	worthof equipmentthat can be attributedto Canon’sdomesticindustry. 1d.W 9-ll.
In additionto CVI’smanufacturingfacilities,Mr. Keeganidentifies- 	squarefeet
of Warehousespace, of which_ can be allocatedto the asserteddomesticindustryproducts
Id. 1|28. Mr. Keegan also identifies a workforce development center, where CVI conducts
employee training related to the asserted toner cartridges. Id. 1[1]‘30-3l.
Mr. Keegan further identifies 	dedicated to
CVl’smanufacture	oftonercartridges.Id.Tl18. CVI’slaborcostsfor—
— 	is— 	peryear,	andapplying	theK discount	rateresults	in
2 per year of labor expensesthat can be attributedto Canon’sdomesticindustry. Id. ll l9.
CV1also conducts product engineering and manufacturing engineering related to CVI
cartridges,	totaling— 	armually.	la’.fl20. About— 	ofthisexpenditure	can
be attributed to Canon’s domestic industry. Id. The chemical product engineering division
employs 	personnel
Id. W 21-22. The manufacturing
engineering division employs
Id. 11123-24.
4

PUBLIC VERSION
Separately, a chemical quality management division employs
— 	atacost	of‘ 	peryear.	Id.1]25.About	— 	ofthisexpenditure
can be attributed to Canon’s domestic industry. Id. The work of this division includes
- 	1d~	11	26III. DISCUSSION
There is no evidence to contradict Mr. Keegan’s reported financial data, and Canon’s
motion attaches additional corroborating cvidence. See Motion Exhibits 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14.
Canon further submits that similar investments at CVI were considered on summary
determination in two previous investigations. Motion Memo. at 16-18 (citing Certain Toner
Cartridges and Components Thereofi Inv. No. 337-TA-829, Order No. 24 (Feb. 26, 2013)
(granting summary determination on economic prong), not re viewed by Comm’n Notice (Mar.
27, 2013); Certain Toner Cartridges and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-918, Order
No. 22 (Jan. 16, 2015) (granting summary detennination on economic prong), not reviewed by
Comm’n Notice (Feb. 19, 2015)).
Based on the investments identified by Mr. Keegan, I find that there has been a
significant investment in plant and equipment Withrespect to the cartridges alleged to practice
theassertedpatents.Thesecartridgesaremanufacturedin theUnitedStates,and_
squarefeetof manufacturing	facilitiesand_ 	worthof equipmentcanbeattributedto
Canon’s domestic industry? The cartridges alleged to practice the asserted patents are a
significant (-) fraction of the cartridges manufacturedby CVI at their Newport News facility,
ZCanon’s application of a sales-based allocation appears to be a reliable way to identify the
expenditures attributable to its domestic industry. See Certain Collapsible Socketsfor Mobile
Electronics Devices and Components Thereofi Inv. No. 337-TA-1056, Comm’n Op. at 16 (July
9, 2018) (“A sales-based allocation may be applied to determine, under each subsection, the
investments ‘relating to the articles protect by the patent.”’).
5

PUBLIC VERSION
andthe cartridgesare significantin value,with— 	worthof cartridgesproducedin
2017. There can be no genuine dispute that this scale of investment in plant and equipment for
domestic manufacturing is significant under subprong (A) of section 337(a)(3). See, e.g.,
Certain Ink Cartridges and Components Thereoj’,Inv. No. 337-TA-946, Order No. 12 at 66-73
(Oct. 28, 2015) (finding significant domestic industry in the domestic manufacture of ink
cartridges), not reviewed in relevant part by Comrn’n Notice (Dec. 14, 2015).
In addition, I find that Canon has shown a significant employment of labor in its domestic
industry.Canonidentifies_ 	inannuallaborexpenditures	thatcanbeattributed
to the engineering and manufacture of cartridges alleged to practice the asserted patents. These
are large recurring investments supporting the manufacture of products in the United States, and
as discussed above, the domestic industry products are a significant portion of CVl’s
manufacturing operation at the Newport News facility. There can be no genuine dispute that this
employment of labor is significant under subprong (B) of section 337(a)(3). See, e.g., Certain
Industrial Automation Systems and Components Thereof including Control Systems, Controllers,
Visualization Hardware, Motion Control Systems, Networking Equipment, SafiztyDevices, and
Power Supplies, lnv. No. 337-TA-1074, Order No. 39 at 9-11 (July 12, 2018) (finding significant
domestic industry in the domestic manufacturing and engineering of industrial components), not
reviewed by Comm’n Notice (Aug. 14, 2018). i
With respect to investments under subprong (C) of section 337(a)(3), Canon identifies
— 	inannuallaborexpenditures	relatedto engineering	forthedomesticindustry
products. Canon’s motion does not present evidence, however, that these expenditures satisfy
the additional requirement of subprong (C), which requires that the investments constitute an
exploitation of the asserted patents. Certain Integrated Circuit Chips and Products Containing
6

PUBLIC VERSION
the Same, lnv. No. 337-TA-859, Comm’n Op. at 48 (Aug. 22, 2014). Canon’s motion describes
the patents as relating to a coupling member for the photosensitive drtnn unit in the toner
cartridges, but there is no evidence for how any of the claimed engineering activity relates to or
exploits this part of the asserted domestic industry products. Moreover, the amount of
engineering investment claimed by Canon is small in comparison to the manufacturing
expenditures discussed above in the context of subprongs (A) and (B).3 Accordingly, summary
determination cannot be granted with respect to subprong (C) on this record.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, Motion Docket No. l 106-O12is hereby GRANTED-IN
PART and DENIED-IN-PART. Accordingly, it is my initial determination that Canon has
satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement tmder subprongs (A) and (B)
of section 337(a)(3).
Pursuant to Commission Rule 2l0.42(h), this initial determination shall become the
determination of the Commission unless a party files a petition for review of the initial
determination pursuant to Commission Rule 210.43(a), or the Commission, pursuant to
Commission Rule 210.44, orders, on its own motion, a review of the initial determination or
certain issues contained herein. l9 C.F.R. § 2l0.42(d).
SO ORDERED.
by 	L9Wt./
Dee Lord
Administrative Law Judge
3 Canon’s engineering labor expenditures were included as part of its domestic industry under
subprong (B), supra. See Certain Solid State Storage Drives, Stacked Electronics Components,
and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1097, Comm’n Op. at 14 (Jun. 29, 2018)
(holding that subprongs (A) and (B) include “non-manufacturing activities, such as investments
in engineering and research and development”).
7

CERTAIN TONER CARTRIDGES AND COMPONENTS 	Inv. No. 337-TA-1106
THEREOF
PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Lisa R. Barton, hereby certify that the attached ORDER has been served by hand upon
the Commission Investigative Attorney, Monisha Deka, Esq.., and the following parties as
indicated, on 11/14/2018
c .
t 	‘7Z@
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary
U.S. International Trade Cormnission
500 E Street, SW, Room 112
Washington, DC 20436
On Behalf of Complainants Canon Inc., Canon U.S.A..and
Canon Virginia, Inc.:
Michael P. Sandonato, Esq.
VENEABLE LLP
1290 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10104-3800
El Via Hand Delivery
[E Via Express Delivery
III Via First Class Mail
III Other:
On Behalf of Respondents Ninestar Corporation. Ninestar
Image Tech Limited. Ninestar Technology Company, Ltd.,
and Static Control Components. Inc.
Gary M. Hnath, Esq.
MAYER BROVVNLLP
1999 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
III Via Hand Delivery
@ Via Express Delivery
U Via First Class Mail
El Other:
On Behalf of Respondents Print-Rite Holdings Ltd.. Print
Rite N.A., Inc., Union Technology International (M.C.O.) Co.
Ltd., Print-Rite Unicorn Image Products Co. Ltd..,The
Supplies Guv_s_,	Inc., and LD Products, Inc.
Steven E. Adkins, Esq.
MCGUIRE WOODS LLP
2001 K Street, NW
Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 20006
Cl Via Hand Delivery
E Via Express Delivery
U Via First Class Mail
El Other:

CERTAIN TONER CARTRIDGES AND COMPONENTS
THEREOF
Certificate of Service —Page 2
On Behalf of Respondents Aster Graphics. Inc., Aster
Graphics Company, Ltd, and Jianaxi Yibo E-tech C0.. Ltd,_,
Barbara A. Murphy, Esq.
FOSTER, MURPHY, ALTMAN & NICKEL, PC
1150 18th Street NW, Suite 775
Washington, DC 20036
Respondents:
Ourway US Inc.
17800 Castleton Street, Suite 412
City of Industry, CA 91748
Inv. N0. 337-TA-1106
III Via Hand Delivery
fi Via Express Delivery
III Via First Class Mail
El Other:
1:]Via Hand Delivery
Via Express Delivery
U Via First Class Mail
III Other: