Monday, April 3, 2006
Print-on-Demand is Free
In November of 1995, On Demand Machine Corporation (OMDC) was issued patent number 5,465,213, that describes a System and method of manufacturing a single book copy. The abstract reads:
A computer based-book manufacturing, distributing and retailing system for the high-speed reproduction of a single copy of a book is disclosed. The system is especially adapted for direct consumer sales since the manufacture of a selected book can take place at the point of sale. A master module includes a computer having a database of books to be selected, the books preferably being stored in a digital book-description format. Upon selection of a particular book from the database, a single copy of the book (including the text and a color cover) is printed by means of high-speed raster printing engines. The system includes a binder for binding the text pages and the cover into a book.
In October 2001 ODMC filed suit against Ingram Industries, Lightning Source, and Amazon.com, alleging infringement of claims 7 and 8 and that the infringement was willful.
Claim 7:
A method of high speed manufacture of a single copy of a book comprising the steps of: storing the text of a plurality of books in a computer, storing a plurality of covers for books to be printed in said computer, said covers being stored in a bit mapped format, storing sales information relating to said plurality of books in a computer, providing means for a customer to scan said sales information, enabling the customer to select which book or a portion of a plurality of books, commanding a computer to print the text of said selected books and a cover in response to said selection, retrieving the text of said selected books from a computer, printing the text of said selected books on paper pages, and binding said paper pages together to form said selected one of said books.
Claim 8:
A method of high speed manufacture of a single copy of a book comprising the steps of: storing the text of a plurality of books in a computer, storing sales information relating to said plurality of books in a computer, providing means for a customer to visually review said sales information, commanding a computer to print the text of a selected one of said books in response to a customer's selection, retrieving the text of said selected one of said books from a computer, printing the text of said selected one of said books on paper pages, binding said paper pages together to form said selected one of said books, storing graphical information corresponding to the cover of each of said books, commanding a computer to reproduce said graphical information on a book cover, and binding said paper pages together with said cover therearound.
OMDC successfully won in a jury a patent infringement suit they brought against in early March 2004 in which they were awarded $15 million:
The jury found that the patent was valid, that the defendants infringed ODMC’s ‘213 patent, and induced others to infringe. The jury awarded ODMC damages of $15,000,000 for past infringement up to the period ending December 2003.
The jury also found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Ingram’s, Lightning’s and Amazon’s infringement was willful. The court could increase the damage up to $45,000,000, plus interest and award ODMC its attorney fees. Additionally, ODMC has asked the court to issue an injunction to prevent future infringement.
As a trophy of their glory, ODMC posted the Jury Verdict Form on their website. [Link to PDF on Printmode]
On March 31, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned the ruling:
Ingram Industries, Inc., Lightning Source, Inc., and Amazon.com, Inc. (collectively the defendants) appeal the judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri,1 holding them liable for infringement of United States Patent No. 5,465,213 (the Ross patent) owned by On Demand Machine Corporation (ODMC). We conclude that the jury verdict of infringement was based on a partly incorrect claim construction, and that on the correct construction a reasonable jury could not find the patent to be infringed. Accordingly, the judgment of infringement is reversed and the damages award vacated. The grant of a royalty-bearing license during appeal is vacated, and the issues raised by cross-appeal are moot.
- Federal Circuit Opinion [PDF]. [Local copy]
Thoughts
I had recently found out about this infringement suit after visiting Lightning Source last week to get a tour of their production factory and gain some insight on their Print to Order business model for my thesis.
After reading the patent I was awestruck that a business process this broad would make it through the Patent Office. After looking at ODMC's website, it looked like their products that relied on their patent little more than vaporware.
Not only is this an important victory for Lightning Source, but for an entire industry segment that will need to rely on these business processes as there is increased demand for internet-enabled automated print production.
For that, Lightning Source deserves a round of applause.
Posted in: Digital Printing | Intellectual Property
No Comments Yet