Lexmark Responds to Court Filings of John Doe Defendants

Lexmark responded to some John Doe Defendants’ attempts to combat its lawsuit which alleges that 36 companies sold or remanufactured toner cartridges that infringe its patents. Lexmark named FBA Holding, Blue Trading and IJSS in its original complaint and in the first amended complaint. But both FBA Holding and Blue Trading have filed motions seeking declarations of non-infringement in California and Florida, while IJSS filed a motion to strike Lexmark’s first amended complaint.

For FBA Holding and Blue Trading, Lexmark has asked the district courts to issue orders transferring the matters to the Southern District of Ohio for consolidation with the Lexmark v. Ink Technologies Printer Supplies et al law suit. It claims that the transfer is warranted under the first-to-file rule and 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a section of the U.S. code stating a district court “may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented.”

For IJSS, Lexmark says it is misinterpreting the federal rules of civil procedure on amended and supplemental pleadings which “provides that a party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f) .”

Lexmark urges the court to deny the motion to strike or to grant it leave to file an amended complaint.

While we are still awaiting the result of Lexmark’s motion on Micro Solutions Enterprises (MSE), Lexmark withdrew its motion before a Nevada district court seeking to force Printer Essentials to comply.