Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Ass'n v. Lexmark International, Inc.

Good Law
290 F. Supp. 2d 1034·2003 WL 22475561·68 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1786·2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20668
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaSeptember 30, 2003C 01-4626 SBACalifornia7,374 words

Opinion

Opinion

Armstrong, J.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This matter comes before the Court on the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Plaintiff Arizona Cartridge Remanufac-turers Association (“ACRA”) and the Motion for Summary Judgment of Lexmark International, Inc (“Lexmark”).

Having read and considered the arguments presented by the parties in the papers submitted to the Court, and the arguments presented by counsel at the September 9, 2003 hearing, the Court hereby DENIES ACRA’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and GRANTS Lexmark’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

This is not a patent case. At least, that is what ACRA would have this Court believe. This is a case about deceptive advertising; about how Lexmark has deceived customers into believing that they are subject to a post-sale condition that, as a matter of law, is unenforceable. Whether or not it is, however, hinges' on whether or not it falls within Lexmark’s patent rights. This may not be a patent case, but to determine whether or not Lexmark has engaged in deceptive and unfair business practices the Court must analyze this case under the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.