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
"And here's me thinking they bought the Docklands Light Railway."
"15 x members? Why don't they throw their lot in with the Strategic Mailing Partnership (SMP) and get a louder voice?"
"Some forty plus years ago I was at a "sales" training seminar and got chatting to the trainer after the session had finished.
In that conversation he told me about another seminar he had..."
Up next...
Further breathing space
'Serious group' interested in Highcon, new deadline set
Automation welcomed
Colourbridge enhances efficiency with new Duplo multi-finisher
New business unit includes OpSec
