Quark Stands Accused of Patent Infringement by RR Donnelly

Print services provider sues Quark and Eastman Kodak subsidiary Creo of substantial infringment in terse press release 

RR Donnelly, a print ser­vices provider with op­er­a­tions world­wide, has sued Denver-based Quark, Inc. and Eastman Kodak sub­sidiary Creo, Inc. over claims that Quark and Creo have in­fringed on a range of Donnelly-held patents in ar­eas of dig­i­tal print pro­duc­tion. The terse press re­lease, re­leased to­day, on­ly an­nounced the following:

CHICAGO, Jan. 17 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ — R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company (NYSE: RRD) an­nounced to­day that it has filed a law­suit in the Federal Court in Delaware against Quark, Inc. and Creo, Inc. (a sub­sidiary of the Eastman Kodak Company). The law­suit al­leges that prod­ucts man­u­fac­tured and sold by the de­fen­dants in­fringe an ex­ten­sive port­fo­lio of RR Donnelley patents in the area of dig­i­tal print process­es, which are cen­tral to a sig­nif­i­cant seg­ment of RR Donnelley’s ser­vice and prod­uct of­fer­ings. The com­plaint seeks mon­e­tary and in­junc­tive re­lief from both defendants. 

The en­tire press re­lease (which con­tains lit­tle more else than a cor­po­rate bio and a caveat on “forward-looking state­ments” can be viewed via this link which opens in a new window.

RR Donnelly’s home page is at http://​www​.rrdon​nel​ly​.com.

You may also like...

2 Responses

  1. hunter says:

    Quark has got­ten away with steal­ing a lo­go, now they’re try­ing to get away with steal­ing Donnelly’s patent­ed process­es. I think they took on some­one too big this time. Donnelly has the re­sources where­as the Scottish Arts Council didn’t. I’m not sure, but hasn’t Donnelly been a huge Quark cus­tomer and con­se­quent­ly wouldn’t Quark have been in a good po­si­tion to know (and steal) spe­cial process­es Donnelly has developed?

  2. Playing mod­er­a­tor here, it’s im­por­tant to think log­i­cal­ly and calm­ly about this news.

    Firstly, law­suits are of­ten a mat­ter of per­spec­tive. The fact that RR Donnelly al­leges in­fringe­ment of its patents does not nec­es­sar­i­ly mean that in­fringe­ment occured.

    Secondly, great minds re­al­ly do think alike. If Quark and Eastman-Kodak did, in fact, in­fringe on RR Donnelly’s patents, it may not have been in­ten­tion­al or with fore­knowl­edge of said patents. Most of­ten, tech­nol­o­gy patent in­fringe­ments are ac­ci­den­tal and the re­sult of two or more peo­ple com­ing with the same idea independently.

    To wit: A few years ago, Adobe and Macromedia trad­ed law­suits al­leg­ing in­fringe­ment of user in­ter­face el­e­ments de­vel­oped by each com­pa­ny. Adobe, for ex­am­ple, claimed that Macromedia had co-opted the tabbed palette idea and im­ple­men­ta­tion that had be­come a hall­mark of the Adobe prod­ucts’ in­ter­faces. Macromedia coun­ter­sued at the same time. Macromedia lost the suit be­cause it was proven that the com­pa­ny did in­fringe up­on rel­e­vant Adobe patents. However, that in­fringe­ment wasn’t will­ful; palettes and tabbed palettes was a log­i­cal next step in or­ga­ni­za­tion large amounts of in­for­ma­tion , tools, and op­tions in a soft­ware pro­gram. Macromedia reached that evo­lu­tion­ary step on its own, but af­ter Adobe.

    Lastly, it’s al­so im­por­tant to note that this is busi­ness. While no com­pa­ny wish­es to be sued, I doubt there were strong emo­tions go­ing around with­in the of­fices of any of the three par­ties. In all like­li­hood, the le­gal firms re­tained by Quark and Eastman-Kodak re­ceived the RR Donnelly no­tice, then calm­ly went to work gath­er­ing ev­i­dence to as­cer­tain if the al­le­ga­tion had mer­it. If they choose to fight the suit, it will be done civil­ly and with­out the in­tru­sion of “good guy” or “bad guy” la­bels. It’s just business.

    None of the par­ties in­volved in the RR Donnelly suit have as yet com­ment­ed on the suit. Thus the par­tic­u­lars are not known, and one should not make as­sump­tions or vil­li­fy one par­ty or the other.

%d bloggers like this: