THE HISTORY OF INK JET SUBLIMATION

TEXAS ORIGINAL GRAPHICS, INC.

AND

THE HISTORY OF INK JET SUBLIMATION





Business Relationship between Ken Hough (CASI) and Bill Wellborn (TOG)

In 1987, 1988 and part of 1989, Texas Original Graphics, Inc. hereinafter referred to as TOG, manufactured mug presses for CASI Computer systems, a Florida company hereinafter referred to as CASI. Ken Hough, President of CASI, was one of my best customers. For many months, we built and shipped as many as 50 mug presses a month to customers of CASI. At that time, Ken Hough (CASI) was selling the Sharp dye-sub thermal ribbon printer and using it for ink transfers to coffee mugs. Those transfer required considerable pressure to make an effective print. The mug press we built could create pressure better than any machine on the market. Over time, Ken and I built an excellent business relationship and we became very good friends. When Ken developed new products requiring sublimation metal, he asked TOG to make the initial products. When his customers ordered the new product, TOG drop-shipped the mug presses and samples of sublimation metal to his new customers. As the business relationship between CASI and TOG grew, so did TOG’s customer list of CASI customers. During this time period

CASI began selling the Tektronix 4696 ink jet printer, this was a Piezo printer, which made sublimation ink transfers. The sublimation ink CASI sold with the Tektronix 4696 ink jet printer had serious problems — it clogged the printer. I learned about the printer clogging problems from CASI customers. I also heard from several of Ken’s customers about another ink that was doing a much better job.



TOG Develops a Solution for Clogged Piezo Sublimation Printers

I learned of a company in Portland, Oregon, called Clacimus Computers, who was selling a much more reliable sublimation ink. I called and spoke with Dan Sorenson of Clacimus Computers. Dan told me about Leo Bergman, a chemist who developed the sublimation ink that Clacimus was selling. I set up a meeting between Dan Sorenson, Leo Bergman and myself. During this face-to-face meeting in Oregon, we worked out an agreement where TOG would become a distributor of this sublimation ink for ink jet printers. Here I reiterate that the Tektronix printer was a Piezo printer (an inkjet printer that delivered ink via pressure - not heat).



Bill Wellborn (TOG) TOG talks with Ken Hough (CASI) about Clogged Sublimation Printers

Upon returning to Texas, I talked with Ken about recommending that his customers purchase their sublimation ink from TOG. Ken was unable to do this because he had a prior purchasing agreement with Sam Kendus of QLT. He could only recommended QLT to his customers as a source for ink for the printer they bought from CASI.









Helping Existing Sublimation ink jet Customers

TOG did have a large list of CASI customers who purchased TOG mug presses and or cut metal. We began calling customers on that list asking if they had problems with clogged printers. If we learned they were having problems, we talked to them about the solution to their problem.



The Solution

CASI customers developed problems with their Tektronix 4696 ink jet printers because or poor quality inks and the fact that the printer did not have an automatic self-cleaning cycle. (Present-day EPSON Printers have automatic cleaning cycles). Since they were not “self-cleaning,” we recommended that they had to manually clean their printer. We provided instructions with this recommendation and we also “walked-them-through” the process. Once their printer was cleaned out, we helped them load their new TOG sublimation ink. Our new ink has surfactants, Uniperol ®W, a dispersant, and REAX 85, an emulsifying enforcing agents. These chemicals surround the sublimation crystals and keep them from clustering and bonding together. They help keep the solid crystals suspended in solution and aid in keeping the particles from settling out of solution. With these instructions and the new TOG ink, the Tektronix ink jet printers immediately began successfully printing sublimation transfers. These people were excited to have our ink and our Tech Support. They were now making a living with our products. The new ink was successful and commercially viable! Many of these customers bought sublimation ink from us repeatedly for two or three years. Keep in mind; TOG never sold Tektronix ink jet printers. We only looked for those companies who owned the Tektronix and were experiencing problems. We helped them repair the problem and supplied them with commercially viable ink. These are facts that can not be denied. We have original file folders with original invoices and UPS tracking numbers on all our ink sales. We have letters from customers thanking us for being so helpful and for ink that was working in their printers. TOG sold this ink from 1989 till 1993.



Technology Improves /Changing TOG’s Marketing Focus

CASI had many problems with the Tektronix 4696 ink jet printer and with the ink they were selling. The Tektronix printers had a clogging problem with Tektronix own brand of ink, not just sublimation inks. The printers did not have self-cleaning cycles as do the EPSON printers of today. In addition to clogging problems, Tektronix printers were only186 DPI printers. CASI changed to a different type of printer and no longer sold inkjet printers. The SEIKO, with a sublimation ribbon came on the market and was 300 DPI; the quality of the print was significantly superior to the quality produced by a 186 DPI printer. Many of our customers abandoned the Tektronix printer and purchased SEIKO printers. TOG sold over 300 Seiko printers. Other customers changed to inkjet printers using thermal transfer paper for printing T‑shirts and other fabric as the DPI on all these printers was superior to the Tektronix 4696 inkjet printer they had been using. Technology continually changed and improved and that forced us to make changes in our product line. By 1993 there were very few customers left who were using the Tektronix printers. We discontinued sales of the sublimation ink for ink jet printers.



Leo Bergman’s Sublimation Ink

Leo Bergman’s dye sublimation inks were comprised of some of the following items:

· Reax 85 (later identified by Nathan Hale as an emulsifying-enforcing agent)

· Surfactants

· Dispersants – Uniperol ®W “is an efficient protective colloid and dispersing agent.”

· Solvents

· Sublimation dye crystals

· Other chemicals



The History of Leo Bergman (Paint Specialties Laboratory), Bill Wellborn (TOG) and Nathan Hale (Sawgrass Systems): A TimeLine



1. In 1986, Leo Bergman purchased 4 gallons heat transfer concentrate from BASF.

2. April 5 1986, Leo Bergman began basic experimental work on sublimation ink for the ink jet printer.

3. May 5, 1986, Leo began experimental production using the concentrates from BASF. Leo Bergman had purchased dye sublimation concentrates from BASF and has now added surfactants, dispersants and solvent to the concentrates to create his first formula for sublimation ink for the ink jet printer. BASF concentrates already contained Reax 85 (an emulsifying-enforcing agent) as part of their ink concentrate.

4. By 1988 Leo Bergman (Paint Specialties Laboratory) began selling this ink to Clacimus Computer.

5. 1989 Clacimus Computer, acting as a sales agent for Leo Bergman, began reselling the ink for ink jet printers to TOG who became their largest wholesale customer.

6. August 1989, TOG began marketing this ink.

7. From 1989 to 1993, TOG successfully sold this ink to people who had Piezo type ink jet printers. There were many repeat orders from the same customers.

8. Nathan Hale (Sawgrass Systems) knew that Leo Bergman had developed sublimation ink. I am aware of this fact because Leo Bergman told me, Bill Wellborn, about a phone discussion he had with Nathan sometime between 1989 and 1993. Nathan had called Paint Specialties Laboratory and talked with Leo Bergman about the sublimation ink that Leo invented. When Leo told me, Bill Wellborn, about the phone call, he said that Nathan identified himself to Leo as a potential customer. Because of the potential of a new customer, Leo answered Nathan’s specific questions about how Leo’s ink was different from other ink.

9. I mention this conversation between Leo and Nathan because it indicates that:
a) Nathan knew that Leo Bergman was a chemist and that his company was Paint Specialties Laboratory
b) Nathan also knew that Leo had invented a sublimation ink for ink jet printers

10. Later Nathan applied for a patent for an ink that has the same basic properties that are found in Leo Bergman’s sublimation ink.

11. The relationship between Bill Wellborn (TOG) and Jim Phillip (a key employee at Sawgrass Technologies) was more than an infrequent business relationship. We were good friends. I mention this because of the following events:

· Prior to January 1, 1992 Jim Phillip of Sawgrass Technologies came to Texas, visited our TOG offices, and reviewed/ discussed sample products printed with the sublimation dyes printed by the Tektronix 4696 Piezo ink jet printer. We discussed that TOG had been selling these inks since 1989. I entertained Jim in my home on Pilgrim Street in Irving, Texas for dinner during that trip. I vividly remember the timeframe because I moved from that Pilgrim address in December 1991

· Prior to January 1 1993, while TOG offices were still on Peters Road, Bill Wellborn visited the offices of Sawgrass Technologies in Charleston SC. I spent all one Friday with Nathan Hale and Jim Phillip discussing sublimation printing. We talked about the new project that Sawgrass was working on, the sublimation ribbon for a Seiko thermal ribbon printer. At that time they did not have funding for their initial order of ribbons from Fuji, nor did they have their software finished. We talked about the history of TOG and the products TOG had sold and was selling — which included sublimation ink for ink jet printers. Both Nathan Hale and Jim Phillip were aware that TOG had been successfully selling sublimation ink for ink jet printers since 1989. That evening in Charleston, I went to supper with Jim Phillip and his wife, Pat. I mentioned that I wanted to see all the historical places in and around Charleston. Because Jim and Pat had just moved to Charleston, they, too, wanted to see the sights. So early the next morning, a Saturday, they picked me up at my hotel, and we spent all day Saturday and part of the next day, Sunday seeing local points of interest. That weekend resulted in a long and close friendship that continued until Jim’s untimely death a few years later.

12. September 1, 1994: Sawgrass Technologies (Nathan Hale) applied for Patent 5,488,907 and under oath stated that sublimation ink for ink jet printers was sold briefly in 1989 but that the ink was unstable and was not a commercially viable product. I submit that:
a) Nathan Hale knew all about Leo Bergman and his sublimation ink.
b) He knew about TOG’s success selling ink jet sublimation ink for Piezo ink jet printers. I know this because I personally told him about it during our visit prior to January 1993. Yet, when making an application for Patent 5,488,907, Nathan Hale withheld this information about Leo Bergman and TOG from the Patent Office. When one is applying for a patent, it is mandatory that you supply the Patent Office with knowledge of Prior Art. If you fail to do this then the patents would be unenforceable if they were issued.

13. In Las Vegas in 2005, at the meeting between Sawgrass and TOG, Nathan asked this question: If the sublimation ink is so good, why did you quit selling it? WHY? Here is the reason why TOG quit selling sublimation ink for a period of time:

· At some point in 1993 TOG stopped selling the inkjet inks because sales had slowed as customers upgraded to higher quality printers.

· Keep in mind that TOG had never sold the ink jet printer. We just sold the sublimation ink that was used in them.

· CASI computer Systems of Florida had sold the ink jet printers. The ink that they were using was poor quality had truly clogged those printers.

· TOG had a good CASI customer list, so we began calling their customers and helping them to get their printers cleaned out so they could successfully use our ink.

· We enjoyed good success in getting their machines unclogged, “up and running” again. We had many customers who repeatedly bought our inks.

· Since Leo Bergman had added surfactants and dispersants to the ink concentrates from BASF, which already had Reax 85 (an emulsifying-enforcing agent), they were stable and were a great improvement over any other ink that had been used.

· A fact that has not been stated in the history listed above: In addition to Leo’s formula, TOG added one additional agent which we believe improved the formula above even what Leo had produced. We added an electrolyte to the ink solution. The electrolyte caused movement of molecules within the solution and helped keep the solution stable.

· CASI stopped selling the ink jet printers. They were only 186 DPI printers. New printers with different technology and higher DPI were on the market so CASI began selling those machines and replacing the ink jet printers with these newer machines. They offered great trade-ins on the old equipment for the newer models. This slowly began to eat into our ink sales so that by 1993, our customer base did not support the continuation of sublimation inkjet sales. At that time, TOG was heavily involved in selling sublimation toner for laser printers. Customers wanting the inkjet ink were referred to Clacimus Computer. I believe Clacimus continued selling inkjet inks until sometime in 1995.

· In 1989, 1990 and 1991 these inkjet inks were a very important part of our overall sales. In fact they bridged a gap between sales of sublimation toner for copy machines and sales of the toner for laser printers. If it had not been for the success of Leo Bergman’s sublimation inks, TOG would have had a very difficult time of surviving that period of time.



I have a problem with statements that have been made to the Patent office concerning the exact purpose of an “emulsifying-enforcing agent” and what it actually does. Here is a history of events /facts surrounding this topic:



Sawgrass has claimed that the “emulsifying-enforcing agent” surrounds the dye and protects it from heat while it is in the printer and while it passes through the orifice of the print head. It is stated in patent application for ‘907, “Every ink jet printer exposes the ink to heat which is above normal room temperature, both prior to and during the printing process.” EPSON printersare piezo printers like the Tektronix printers were. EPSON printers do not expose the ink to heat. “Even though storage and printing temperatures may be insufficient to materially sublimate of activate the dye, exposure to increased heat is detrimental to the dye. Most ink jet printers incorporate a print head which operates at an elevated temperature. This temperature is sufficient to sublimate or activate the sublimation ink.” EPSON printers, like the Tektronix 4696 printers, do not expose the ink to elevated temperatures.



TOG from 1989 – 1993 sold a dye-sublimation ink that was commercially viable in a Piezo inkjet printer. Today TOG sells an ink that is commercially viable and works well in the modern EPSON printers because they are Piezo printers (which means a the ink is delivered through the orifice by pressure, not heat. The Tektronix 4696 & 4697 and the Sharp XJ 730 all were Piezo type printers. The dye-sublimation ink that was sold by Texas Original Graphics between 1989 and 1993 was used in a Piezo printer and today our ink is used in a Piezo printer. A patent was issued to Sawgrass because Sawgrass convinced the Patent Office that they had invented a way to protect the dye particles from heat while passing through the orifice of the printer. In the EPSON printer, there is no heat in the print head nor is the sublimation ink exposed to any temperature above room temperature while it is in the printer.

The next issue I have concerns the Piezo printer:



Sawgrass applied for and received a patent for sublimation ink being used in a Piezo printer. To all who are concerned: the Tektronix and Sharp ink jet printers that used our sublimation inks in 1989 – 1993 were Piezo printers. That information was not disclosed to the Patent Board. When one applies for a patent, one has obligations to inform the patent office of known “prior art.” Sawgrass has repeatedly failed to provide the truth about prior art to the Patent Office when making application for a new patent. In all your patent applications, Texas Original Graphics has never once been mentioned as having been a player in prior art. TOG was the successful company that had a commercially viable ink for Piezo ink jet printers which contained an emulsifying enforcing agent, surfactants, dispersants, emulsifiers and sublimation dye particles suspended in a solvent, years before Nathan Hale applied for any patents involving sublimation ink for any ink jet printer. Furthermore Nathan Hale absolutely did know of TOG and their successful sublimation activity. He knew of Leo Bergman and the ink he made. He knew these things and did not disclose them to Patent Office.



In Sawgrass applications for patents they mention “prior art” as an ink sold briefly in 1989 but was not commercially viable because it quickly settled out of solution and ruined the printers. There was some very bad ink on the market in 1989 and it did clog print heads. However; the ink sold by TOG from 1989 till 1993 was far superior and was commercially viable. Our inks from 1989-1993, were almost identical in composition to the ink Sawgrass applied for and received a patent. Sawgrass knew these things and withheld this critical information from the Patent Office and therefore their Patent No. 5,488,907 is not enforceable according to the laws of the United States of America.



Are you aware that Sawgrass has never won a lawsuit? There has always been an out of court settlement and all documentation is “locked up” so no one can know the truth.



TOG offered to go to mediation with Sawgrass and let a mediator look at this evidence and make a ruling. TOG offered to abide by whatever the mediator said if Sawgrass would do the same thing. But, Sawgrass ignored our offer to go to mediation.



Ladies and Gentlemen, now is the time to “draw the line in the sand.” If Sawgrass can beat TOG down with legal fees, then you lose. You will get to pay ridiculous prices for your sublimation inks from now on. If Sawgrass is not stopped here, they will not be stopped.



SO, WHAT CAN YOU DO ABOUT IT?



· Call every person you know that is using inkjet sublimation and have them go to this website…. www.sublimation.info they will be able to read this document at that address. It will be listed under Sublimation Patents.

· Encourage everyone you know, including your company to buy sublimation ink and paper from TOG. We are going to need to greatly increase our sales in order to defend this upcoming lawsuit.

· The ink we sell is definitely superior to the ink that Sawgrass is selling. Our black is definitely a darker black and our customers are getting brighter reds from TOG inks. There is less banding. Overall this is a superior ink. While we have color profiles for our inks, our customers tell us that TOG inks work well with their existing color profiles. We have our own special paper which we believe is the best in the market; however, if you want Accuplot® or Texprint ®paper, we can ship that paper as well.

· If we are to win, this will be a joint effort between TOG and all you users of ink jet sublimation inks. If we win, the patents will be unenforceable. There will be an excellent possibility of a class action lawsuit against Sawgrass. The prices of sublimation ink will fall, even below the prices we are selling it for right now; and we are considerably less than Sawgrass or any of their “licensed distributors.”



The ball is in your court. Hit it.