On June 28, 2013, CTP Innovations, LLC (“CTP”) filed nearly identical patent infringement complaints against nine commercial printing businesses. These complaints, filed in the Northern District of Georgia, allege that the companies infringe two CTP patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,611,349 (the ‘349 Patent) and 6,738,155 (the ‘155 Patent). Georgia is not the only location CTP has been active in litigation; two weeks before filing these actions CTP filed multiple suits in Texas (14 complaints) and Tennessee (12 complaints) asserting the same causes of action.

The ‘349 Patent, issued on August 26, 2003 and titled “System and Method of Generating a Printing Plate File in Real Time Using a Communication Network,” and the ‘155 Patent, issued on May 18, 2004 and titled “System and Method of Providing Publishing and Printing Services Via a Communications Network,” are printing and publishing systems which generate printing plate-ready files from data provided remotely, and provide prepress and content management services in real time using a disclosed communication network, respectively. CTP appears to be a non-practicing entity that does not make or sell any products, or perform any methods, covered by the two patents.

According to company records CTP formed on January 1, 2013, and immediately began sending letters to businesses throughout the country notifying them of potential infringement.[1] In a form letter sent to multiple alleged infringers, CTP listed various actions which it considered to infringe one or more claims of its patents and offered a license to the patents if the recipients acted within two weeks and paid a lump sum of $75,000. Information online suggests that many recipients ignored the letter, believing CTP to be hoping to force less well-heeled printing companies into licensing agreements in lieu of litigating.[2] The Printing Industries of America even addressed the situation in a notice, calling CTP’s efforts “reprehensible” and promising to form a strategy on behalf of the smaller member companies facing the infringement allegations.[3]

The following cases were filed on June 28, 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, and assigned to U.S. District Court Chief Judge Julie E. Carnes:

CTP Innovations, LLC v. Benson Integrated Mktg. Solutions, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-02166-JEC

CTP Innovations, LLC v. Datamatx, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-02167-JEC

CTP Innovations, LLC v Meyers Printing Co., Inc., No. 1:13-cv-02168-JEC

CTP Innovations, LLC v. Primary Color Sys. Corp., No. 1:13-cv-02169-JEC

CTP Innovations, LLC v. Progress Printing Co., No. 1:13-cv-02170-JEC

CTP Innovations, LLC v. Rohrer Corp., No. 1:13-cv-02171-JEC

CTP Innovations, LLC v. SleeveCo, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-02172-JEC

CTP Innovations, LLC v. Tucker-Castleberry Printing, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-02173-JEC

CTP Innovations, LLC v. Walton Press, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-02174-JEC

CTP claims that each defendant’s alleged infringement is willful, and under 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 285 seeks relief, including damages, costs of litigation and attorneys’ fees, and injunctive relief. The author would like to thank summer associate Emily Scheible for her substantial contribution to this post.