Cukierski and Adam H. Also, it is much more costly and time-consuming to obtain a patent than a copyright. The second branch of the case involves cartridges that Lexmark sold outside the US. Lexmark owns a number of patents that cover its cartridges and their use. Justice Ginsburg dissented from the Court’s holding with respect to imported items. Motion Picture Patents did not leave behind the remnants of A. Masia see the decision as “pro-patent owner” but warn again premature celebration:.

Uploader: Shabar
Date Added: 22 March 2014
File Size: 58.31 Mb
Operating Systems: Windows NT/2000/XP/2003/2003/7/8/10 MacOS 10/X
Downloads: 73070
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]

And there is x167 sound reason, and no Supreme Court precedent, requiring a distinction that gives less control to a practicing-entity patentee that makes and sells its own product than to a non-practicing-entity patentee that licenses others to make and sell the product.

This does not mean, however, that a patentee by lexamrk conduct cannot waive its US rights, be estopped from asserting them, or be found to have granted an implied license. The court emphasized the differences between patent law and copyright law. Kirtsaeng is a copyright case holding that 17 U.

I would suggest that those activities are incredibly beneficial to our society in terms of resource allocation and avoiding waste as well x61 empowering citizens and avoiding anticompetitive market behavior. That is not accurate. Finally, the court rejected a proposal that exhaustion should be presumed unless the patentee express states that it reserves its US rights.

Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. Seven justices joined the Court’s opinion extending that reasoning to items imported from abroad. Patent holders give up their patent rights upon the first sale of product, domestically or overseas. Again, the court insisted that Congress had overridden the common law’s prohibitions on post-sale restraints, in order to promote technological progress:.


Impression Prods., Inc. v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc. – Wikipedia

They created their own “unauthorized replacement” microchips that, when installed in a Return Program cartridge, fool the printer into allowing reuse of that cartridge. Under Lexmark’s program, customers who agree to the restriction pay a lower price than those who do not.

A sale made under a clearly communicated, otherwise-lawful restriction as to post-sale use or resale does not confer on the buyer and a subsequent purchaser the “authority” to engage in the use or resale lexmadk the restriction precludes. In contrast, the Patent Act lexmmark no exhaustion provision.

Paul Jahn, Rufus Pichler and Lincoln Lo raise many questions mostly about “clear communication” about what the Lexmark majority opinion left llexmark. But because in some cases a difference may be significant, there should be abalanced approach.

Lexmark Store: Buy Lexmark Products at Best Prices in Egypt | Jumia Egypt

He insisted that the majority lexmarj misread the Motion Picture Patents decision by asserting “that it only ‘held particular restrictions improper’. Dodd and Matthew J. There seems to be no dispute that U. United States Supreme Court case. The court then turned to what it called “the likely real-world consequences of one answer or another to the exhaustion question presented here.

Lexmark Toner & Ink Cartridges

The court did not explain, however, the way that or other differences between copyrights and patents called for contrary results as to international exhaustion. When the patentee lexmzrk makes nor authorizes a foreign sale, as occurred in Boesch v. I purchased my last couple of smart phones through the used market — and have also repaired them several times.


The case concerned a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Lexmark against Impression Products, Inc. In every US lower court decision before Jazz Photo: The court did say that the US patent statute gives patentees the reward available from “sales in American markets, not from sales in foreign markets. I would recognize foreign exhaustion where the U. This latitude is particularly wide with respect to limiting the import into the United States of patented lesmark sold in authorized sales in foreign markets even where restrictions on resale were not proven to have been communicated to foreign buyers.

It said that international exhaustion did not apply to patents because Kirtsaeng v.

Toner for Lexmark MS 617 dhn

Thus, Lexmark’s technology prevented violation of the post-sale restriction against refilling the Return Program Cartridges. The first branch of the case turns on the legal status of these x67 restrictions.

With personal property courts long ago rejected lexmarkk such as use and resale restrictions that bind subsequent purchasers. Cukierski and Adam H. Masia see the decision as “pro-patent owner” but warn again premature celebration:. Judge Taranto, writing for a majority, reaffirmed both of the prior Federal Circuit rulings.