The United States Court of Appeals ruling upheld the judgement from Delawares district court in 2001, which found that Pressteks patents were valid and that Creos technology for the Heidelberg SM74 did not infringe these patents.
However, this meant that Presstek failed in its counter-claim to show that Creo had infringed on its patents, while Creo failed to provide sufficient evidence that the patents relating to image error correction, imaging apparatus and the method of imaging were invalid.
One judge on the appeals panel found that one of Pressteks patents should be found invalid.
Creo first filed suit in August 1999 requesting that the Court rule that its technology did not infringe Presstek patents, following accusations by Presstek to Creo customers. Presstek then counter-sued and the cases were combined.
Have your say in the Printweek Poll
Related stories
Latest comments
"Gosh! That’s a huge debt - especially HMRC! It’s a shock that HMRC allowed such an amount to be accumulated."
"Whatever happened to the good old fashioned cash job! At least the banks didn't take 2-3% of each sale. After 30 odd transactions that £100 quid you had has gone."
"It's amazing what can be found on the "web" nowadays!"
Up next...
Turnover boosting wins
FDM in bumper triple contract win
Interim boss already in place
Royal Mail chief executive quits
Prints onto complex objects