IP: Supreme Court holds that the “first sale” doctrine applies to copies of a copyrighted work lawfully made abroad
On March 19, in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., the Supreme Court, reversing the 2nd Circuit, resolving conflicting decisions from the federal appellate courts, and rejecting the solicitor generals arguments, held that the first sale doctrine applies to lawful copies of a copyrighted work first sold abroad.
April 16, 2013 at 08:25 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
On March 19, in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., the Supreme Court, reversing the 2nd Circuit, resolving conflicting decisions from the federal appellate courts, and rejecting the solicitor general's arguments, held that the “first sale” doctrine applies to lawful copies of a copyrighted work first sold abroad. Practically, this decision means that a buyer or other rightful owner of a copy of a copyrighted work lawfully first sold abroad may bring that copy into the U.S. and sell it without violating the copyright owner's copyright rights.
Prior to the Supreme Court's ruling, some copyright owners had divided international markets, placing notices in foreign editions of copyrighted works that such copies could be sold only in a particular country or region outside the U.S., and could not be imported into the U.S. This practice, which arose from the recognition that economic conditions and demand for particular goods vary around the world, allowed copyright owners to sell equivalent foreign and U.S. manufactured copyrighted works at significantly different prices. The ability to engage in such price discrimination is undermined if third parties are permitted to import copies from low-price regions and sell them in high-price regions, which is precisely what had happened in Kirtsaeng, which involved the importation into the U.S. for resale of textbooks first sold abroad.
Section 106 of the Copyright Act grants to a copyright owner certain “exclusive rights,” but these rights are qualified by Section 109(a), which provides that the owner of a particular copy “lawfully made under this title … is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy.” However, Section 602(a)(1) provides that “importation into the United States, without the authority of the owner of copyright under this title, of copies . . . of a work that have been acquired outside of the United States is an infringement of the exclusive right to distribute copies . . . under section 106.” Given these statutory provisions, the issue before the Supreme Court was whether the first sale doctrine as codified in Section 109(a) applies to lawful copies first sold abroad in view of the prohibition against importation as codified in Section 602(a)(1). To resolve this issue, the Supreme Court had to decide whether the words “lawfully made under this title” in Section 109(a) geographically restrict the scope of the first sale doctrine.
In concluding that there is no geographic restriction in Section 109(a), the Supreme Court reasoned that geographical interpretations created more linguistic problems than they resolve in the construction of these statutory provisions; that both historical and contemporary statutory context indicates that Congress, when writing the present version of Section 109(a), did not have geography in mind; that the court must presume that Congress intended to retain the substance of the common law first sale doctrine, which made no geographic distinctions; and that a geographic interpretation could bring about practical problems arising from having to obtain permission from the copyright owners (where for example, the owner cannot be found or if a group of heirs is arguing about who owns which copyright) that are “too serious, too extensive, and too likely to come about” to be dismissed as insignificant. In dissent, Justices Ginsburg, joined by Justices Kennedy and Scalia, argued that the majority's decision “shrinks to insignificance copyright protection against the unauthorized importation of foreign-made copies.”
Under the Supreme Court's ruling in Kirtsaeng, once a copy of a copyrighted work has been lawfully sold in a foreign country, the buyer has the right to resell that copy in the U.S., and as a consequence it will now be more difficult for a copyright owner to charge different prices for the same copyrighted work in different geographic markets. However, other considerations, such as language of publication, may de facto restrict cross-border sales.
The “exhaustion doctrine” in patent law is similar to the first sale doctrine in copyright law. Under the patent exhaustion doctrine, a first lawful sale of a patented product in the U.S. terminates the patent owner's patent rights in that product. However, consistent with several of its earlier decisions, in 2012, in Ninestar Tech. Co. v. ITC, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the exhaustion doctrine does not apply when the first lawful sale of a patented product is made outside the U.S., i.e., importation of that product into the U.S. constitutes patent infringement. Ninestar petitioned the Supreme Court for review of the Federal Circuit's ruling, but on March 25, after issuing its decision in Kirtsaeng, the Supreme Court denied Ninestar's petition for review, leaving intact, at least for now, the Federal Circuit's position on this issue.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRates Will Go Up (Again), But Here's Why Profitability Might Not Be Maximized
4 minute read'Rocket Docket': EDVA Judge Controls Google's Fate in Ad Tech Monopoly Trial
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 3BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 4GlaxoSmithKline Settles Most Zantac Lawsuits for $2.2B
- 5A&O Shearman Adopts 3-Level Lockstep Pay Model Amid Shift to All-Equity Partnership
Who Got The Work
Blank Rome partner Andrew T. Hambelton has stepped in to defend Fragrancenet.com in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed Aug. 29 in New York Southern District Court by the Blakely Law Group, targets the defendants for allegedly selling counterfeit fragrance products. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Lorna G. Schofield, is 1:24-cv-06521, Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co. v. Quester (US) Enterprises, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Davis Polk & Wardwell partners Mari Grace and Edmund Polubinski III have entered appearances for Australia-based Bitcoin-mining company Iris Energy and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Eastern District Court by the Rosen Law Firm, contends that the defendants concealed the inadequacy of the company's site in Childress County, Texas, including it being 'ill-equipped' and unable to operate the company's proprietary design. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Peggy Kuo, is 1:24-cv-07046, Williams-Israel v. Iris Energy Limited et al.
Who Got The Work
Ryan S. Stippich of Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren has entered an appearance for biopharmaceutical company Veru Inc. and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 30 in Wisconsin Western District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of June Ovadias, accuses the defendant of failing to disclose that small sample sizes and other issues rendered it unlikely that the FDA would grant Emergency Use Authorization for the cancer drug candidate sabizabulin as a potential treatment for COVID-19. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge William M. Conley, is 3:24-cv-00676, Ovadias, June v. Steiner, Mitchell et al.
Who Got The Work
Holland & Knight partners Cynthia A. Gierhart and Thomas Willcox Brooke have entered appearances for Pakistani American Political Action Committee and Rao Kamran Ali in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 24 in District of Columbia District Court by Jackson Walker on behalf of Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee, accuses the defendants of using a mark that's confusingly similar to the plaintiff's 'Pak-Pac' marks without authorization. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Randolph D. Moss, is 1:24-cv-02727, Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee v. Pakistani American Political Action Committee et al.
Who Got The Work
Lauren M. Rosenberg and Yonatan Even of Cravath, Swaine & Moore have stepped in to represent Israel-based Oddity Tech Ltd. in a pending securities class action. The case, filed Aug. 30 in New York Southern District Court by Pomerantz LLP and Holzer & Holzer, contends that the defendant made materially misleading statements regarding the capability of Oddity's AI technology and ongoing civil litigation, resulting in the artifical inflation of the market price of Oddity's securities. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Garnett, is 1:24-cv-06571, Hoare v. Oddity Tech Ltd. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250