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.rrdonnelly.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.