TOG Throws Down the Gauntlet - Engraving Etc. Forum

<body> <h1>Full Version: <a href="https://www.engravingetc.org:443/archive/index.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.22">TOG Throws Down the Gauntlet</a></h1><a name="a1477_22"></a><p><b>From: Stunt Engraver (DGL)</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.22">#22</a>]<br /> 29 Nov 2005<br /><b>To: ALL</b></p> <p>A recent message from Texas Original Graphics (TOG), on the DSSI forum, says they're expecting a ruling on their case, within the next few weeks.</p> <p>Current price for 125 ml of TOG ink = $89</p> <p>Current price for 125 ml of ArTainium ink = $129</p> <p>Sawgrass' Sublijet ink is not sold in 125 ml increments. 110 ml cartridge for Epson 3000 printer = 137.25</p> <p>TOG says, when the ruling comes down, they'll announce the outcome on their web page.</p> <p><a href="http://www.sublimation.info/lawsuit/">http://www.sublimation.info/lawsuit/</a></p> <p><a href="http://www.texasoriginalgraphics.com">www.texasoriginalgraphics.com</a></p><p class="edit_text">EDITED: 29 Nov 2005 by DGL</p> <hr /><a name="a1477_23"></a><p><b>From: Pedaler (ROYBREWER)</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.23">#23</a>]<br /> 30 Nov 2005<br /><b>To: Stunt Engraver (DGL)</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.22">#22</a>] 30 Nov 2005</p> <p>David,</p> <p>You have no idea how much I appreciate you staying on top of this. I believe, possibly stronger than you, that this case is incredibly important to the entire industry.</p> <hr /><a name="a1477_24"></a><p><b>From: Stunt Engraver (DGL)</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.24">#24</a>]<br /> 1 Dec 2005<br /><b>To: Pedaler (ROYBREWER)</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.23">#23</a>] 1 Dec 2005</p> Roy,<br /> <br /> Important indeed. When you see the price of sublimation ink from overseas, (the origin of most sublimation ink), even TOG's pricing, (the lowest in the U.S.A.), is astronomical.<br /> <br /> The phrase, "You get what you pay for" doesn't hold true for sublimation ink. In general, sublimation ink is no more expensive than OEM ink.<br /> <br /> Now, we sublimators are operating in an atmosphere of, "You pay for what you get."<br /> <br /> Price aside, what's hugely important, is that we have a choice of inks. Some excellent ink has been removed from the market, due to Sawgrass Technologies' pursuit of patent infringers.<br /> <br /> We're paying top dollar for ink, which, in some cases, is inferior to ink which was available to us, less than a year ago.<br /> <br /> By bringing lawsuits against competitors, Sawgrass has quite literally held the "Home Court" advantage. The cases have been held and ruled upon in South Carolina.<br /> <br /> TOG's pre-emptive strike against Sawgrass, which rests upon "prior art" <b>should</b> see the final ruling come down in a Texas court, although I'm told by someone "in-the-know" not to count those chickens yet.<br /> <br /> Logically speaking, prior art should be enough to see TOG prevail, though, sadly, in this battle over CMYK, the color of justice is green, and for those that Sawgrass hasn't been able to intimidate from the U.S. market, they've been able to outspend in court.<br /> <br /> TOG's efforts represent the "last gasp" for freedom of choice and reasonable pricing of sublimation ink in the U.S.A.<br /> <br /> I remain "guardedly" optimistic.<p class="edit_text">EDITED: 13 Dec 2005 by DGL</p> <hr /><a name="a1477_25"></a><p><b>From: Stunt Engraver (DGL)</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.25">#25</a>]<br /> 13 Dec 2005<br /><b>To: UncleSteve</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.12">#12</a>] 14 Dec 2005</p> <p>Steve,</p> <p>I hear that the TOG vs. SG case "will" be heard in a Texas court.</p> <p><a href="http://www.texasoriginalgraphics.com/id40.html">http://www.texasoriginalgraphics.com/id40.html</a></p> <p>That's a major development.</p> <p>I also hear that SG will be going after US Sublimation, (Florida) who used to be the master American distributor of Rotech ink. SG now owns Rotech.</p> <p>I don't know many details on that one, but I'll provide updates as they become available.</p><p class="edit_text">EDITED: 13 Dec 2005 by DGL</p> <hr /><a name="a1477_26"></a><p><b>From: UncleSteve</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.26">#26</a>]<br /> 14 Dec 2005<br /><b>To: Stunt Engraver (DGL)</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.25">#25</a>] 14 Dec 2005</p> Yes, it is a major development and I don't understand how SG can go after a "legal" distributor after the fact.....<br /> <br /> I don't remember seeing any releases on an SG vs US Sublimation case. This all may just become "moot" if TOG wins their case in Texas. It is too late for Rotech and TG, but if TOG wins, that should put a stop to all the SG cases since they won't have the patent to stand on.<br /> <br /> Now, TOG didn't patent their process as I understand it, so they couldn't sue either but they will be able to continue selling their superior (IMHO) inks at a more reasonable price and that may just take a big bite out of SG's income. I think many have stayed away from TOG for now since they didn't want to have to change inks again.<br /> <br /> Take TOG's inks and combine that with a very fast evolving laser sublimation industry (and cost effective, too) and South Carolina may be looking for a new company to keep their courts busy.<br /> <br /> <hr /><a name="a1477_27"></a><p><b>From: Linda (LINDAG)</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.27">#27</a>]<br /> 14 Dec 2005<br /><b>To: ALL</b></p> Does anyone know when the patent is set to expire? <hr /><a name="a1477_28"></a><p><b>From: UncleSteve</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.28">#28</a>]<br /> 14 Dec 2005<br /><b>To: Linda (LINDAG)</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.27">#27</a>] 21 Jan 2006</p> Linda, I am NOT a lawyer but from what I have seen there are numerous patents that were filed as the process evolved so the expiration dates will vary.<br /> <br /> If only TOG had filed a patent back in the 80's, none of this would be happening.... <span class="e_cry" title=":'-("><span class="e__">:'-(</span> </span><br /> <br /> <hr /><a name="a1477_29"></a><p><b>From: Stunt Engraver (DGL)</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.29">#29</a>]<br /> 14 Dec 2005<br /><b>To: UncleSteve</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.26">#26</a>] 14 Dec 2005</p> <p>Steve,</p> <p>As you say, if TOG prevails, the US Sublimation case may never see the light of day. Other than the usual patent infringement claims, it's alleged that US Sublimation is using an ink, other than Rotech, but continuing to use the name.</p> <p>Now, the questions are:</p> <p>1) If possible, does TOG go all the way and break the SG patents, which would open the floodgates of inexpensive ink, from many competitors?</p> <p>2) Do they simply establish, they aren't infringing on the SG patents and continue to sell their ink at current prices?</p> <p>#1 would make them heroes, to those who have been following the ink wars.</p> <p>#2 stands to make them wealthy.</p> <p>Hmmm...which way will it go?</p> <p>We should know in 2006.</p><p class="edit_text">EDITED: 14 Dec 2005 by DGL</p> <hr /><a name="a1477_30"></a><p><b>From: Stunt Engraver (DGL)</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.30">#30</a>]<br /> 14 Dec 2005<br /><b>To: Pedaler (ROYBREWER)</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.23">#23</a>] 14 Dec 2005</p> Roy,<br /> <br /> It didn't occur to me at the time, but in your post, I think you were alluding to patents in the laser industry, as well as the dye sub industry. <hr /><a name="a1477_31"></a><p><b>From: Pedaler (ROYBREWER)</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.31">#31</a>]<br /> 14 Dec 2005<br /><b>To: Stunt Engraver (DGL)</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.30">#30</a>] 14 Dec 2005</p> <p>David,</p> <p>Yes, if TOG is successful I think others would be encouraged to challenge frivolous patents. The lasering patents included, but several others I'd like to see challenged. Competition in any arena brings more creativity and therefore potential profit to any industry.</p> <p>"Frivolous" patents are a different "animal" from Copyrights, but with reference to the renewed legal activities with the industry, I saw in current (Dec 05) EJ that Crown won a significant settlement from a competitor who duplicated their copyrighted designs.<br /> Similarly, Mike Davis' editorial in the Nov issue of EJ, was on this very issue; I thought it was very well done.</p> <hr /><a name="a1477_32"></a><p><b>From: Stunt Engraver (DGL)</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.32">#32</a>]<br /> 14 Feb 2006<br /><b>To: ALL</b></p> <p>= UPDATE =</p> <p>TOG vs. Sawgrass</p> <p>From a document dated Feb. 10, 2006.</p> <p>(paraphrased)</p> <p>Sawgrass Technologies' motion, requesting a change of venue, from Texas to South Carolina, fell flat.</p> <p>Won't happen.</p><p class="edit_text">EDITED: 14 Feb 2006 by DGL</p> <hr /><a name="a1477_33"></a><p><b>From: Stunt Engraver (DGL)</b> [<a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.33">#33</a>]<br /> 30 Mar 2006<br /><b>To: ALL</b></p> Here's an excerpt from TOG's recent post to DSSI:<br /> <br /> The Court will consider our claim construction for the Markman hearing in less than 180 days. The good news is that we are moving forward. The case is set for trial on October 15, 2007. <hr /><p align="center">Show messages:  <a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.1">1</a>  <a href="lmessages.php?webtag=EE&msg=1477.2">2-21</a>  22-33</p> <h4><a href="lthread_list.php?webtag=EE">Back to thread list</a> | <a href="llogout.php?webtag=EE">Login</a></h4> <h6>© 2025 <a href="http://www.beehiveforum.net/" target="_blank">Project Beehive Forum</a></h6> </body>