SCOTUS Decision Impacts Restriction on Downstream Sales of Patented Products
A recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court found that the sale of a patented product in the United States or abroad exhausted all patent rights in the product, and thus eliminated patent rights as a tool to control downstream resale of the product.
July 24, 2017 at 02:21 PM
7 minute read
Companies have historically used their patent rights to restrict the unauthorized resale of products in secondary markets. Manufacturers and distributors were able to control downstream sales of their products to third parties by enforcement of their patent rights. The patent rights were particularly useful in restricting unauthorized U.S. resale of products that were originally sold overseas at reduced prices. However, a recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court found that the sale of a patented product in the United States or abroad exhausted all patent rights in the product and thus, eliminated patent rights as a tool to control downstream resale of the product.
Background
In Impression Products v. Lexmark Int'l, 137 S. Ct. 1523 (2017), the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether Lexmark's sale, both in the United States and abroad, of printer cartridges exhausted its patents rights in the cartridges such that Impression Products could freely refurbish, resell and/or import the Lexmark cartridges.
Lexmark designs, manufactures and sells toner cartridges to consumers in the United States and around the world. Lexmark owns several patents that cover both the toner cartridges and methods of using the toner cartridges. The toner cartridges can be refilled and reused after the toner runs out. Other companies can also procure empty Lexmark cartridges from purchasers in the United States and abroad, refill them with the toner, and then resell them at a lower price than the Lexmark sale price.
This content has been archived.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
© 2025 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 AllJudges Say Social Media and Political Polarization Puts Them in Danger
What Judicial Nominations Could Look Like Under a President Harris or Trump
The Future of Arbitrability Disputes in Light of the Supreme Court's Ruling in 'Coinbase'
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Greenberg Traurig Combines Digital Infrastructure and Real Estate Groups, Anticipating Uptick in Demand
- 2Trump Administration Faces Legal Challenge Over EO Impacting Federal Workers
- 3Supreme Court Considers Reviving Lawsuit Over Fatal Traffic Stop Shooting
- 4Long Hours and Lack Of Boundaries: Associates In India Are Leaving Their Firms
- 5Goodwin Procter Relocates to Renewable-Powered Office in San Francisco’s Financial District
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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