The social network is making the 15-second ads available to a select group of advertisers. The videos start playing without sound. When a consumer ...
Vistaprint wins a patent infringement fight
A Texas court says Vistaprint didn’t violate ColorQuick’s patent.
Vistaprint Ltd., an online retailer of digital printing and related services for consumers and small businesses, is the winner of a two-year old patent infringement suit.
In June 2009, ColorQuick LLC, a digital printing and documents management company headquartered in Pennsauken, NJ, sued Vistaprint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas for intellectual property infringement related systems and methods for preparing production data for a print job online.
But after a five-day trial, a jury ruled in favor of Vistaprint and decided that Vistaprint, No. 144 in the Internet Retailer Top 500 Guide, didn’t have to pay compensatory damages or cease using any of its existing technologies.
U.S. Judge Leonard Davis gave both sides until July 15 to file any follow-up motions, including motions for a dismissal of verdict or a retrial, and will rule on any new motions Aug. 30, according to court documents. ColorQuick hasn’t said if it will appeal the decision.
"We are very pleased with this important trial victory," says Vistaprint CEO Robert Keane. "We take allegations involving intellectual property and our technology very seriously and will vigorously defend ourselves in the event of such allegations. The jury's decision validated our position that Vistaprint's innovative technology in no way infringed ColorQuick's patent.”
In its original complaint, ColorQuick alleged that Vistaprint violated its patent related to systems and methods for processing files and directed to preparing production data for a print job. The company was seeking unspecified damages and a permanent injunction against Vistaprint's web service, which allows customers to design business cards, postcards and other documents using various templates.
“Vistaprint is ready to bear the expense of litigation when necessary to defend and enforce our innovation and proprietary rights,” says Keane.