U.S. Supreme Court Rules That Domestic and Foreign Sales of a Patented Article Exhaust All Patent Rights

by Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
Contact

On May 30, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court set forth a bright-line patent exhaustion rule, holding that both domestic and foreign sales exhaust all rights under the Patent Act. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the opinion for the Court, which held unanimously on the issue of domestic exhaustion (8-0) and near unanimously on international exhaustion (7-1), ruling “that a patentee’s decision to sell a product exhausts all of its patent rights in that item, regardless of any restrictions the patentee purports to impose or the location of the sale.” The Court overturned the Federal Circuit, which had sua sponte ordered hearing of the case en banc in light of related Supreme Court case law in the copyright context.1

Background

Lexmark International is a manufacturer of printers and toner cartridges. Lexmark owns patents covering cartridges and makes “first sales” of those cartridges domestically and abroad to resellers and end users. Lexmark sells two types of cartridges: full-price “regular cartridges” and discounted “return program cartridges.” Regular cartridges are not subject to resale/reuse restrictions—they can be refilled when empty and resold. Discounted return program cartridges are subject to no-resale/single-use restrictions and include a microchip that monitors toner levels to prevent refills and reuse. Many third parties, including the petitioner, Impression Products, developed methods to defeat the microchip technology that restricts refills and marketed them to resellers for use in Lexmark printers.

Lexmark sued Impression for direct and contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. Section 271 because contrary to sale restrictions, Impression refurbished and resold return program cartridges. Lexmark also alleged patent infringement by Impression for sales of all toner cartridges sold overseas and imported into the U.S. The district court held that although the return program cartridges were sold under post-sale restrictions, they “do not prevent patent rights from being exhausted given that the initial sales were authorized and unrestricted.” The district court dismissed Lexmark’s infringement claims for the return program cartridges sold in the U.S., but held that patent exhaustion did not apply to the cartridges first sold abroad. Accordingly, the district court found that Impression committed acts of infringement by selling, within the U.S., refilled return program cartridges initially sold abroad.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit ruled in favor of Lexmark for both return program cartridges sold domestically and abroad. The Supreme Court disagreed and reversed the Federal Circuit.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court’s decision addressed two issues related to patent exhaustion. First, the Court considered whether a patentee that sells an item domestically completely exhausts its rights under patent law or whether it can reserve some rights by imposing an express restriction on the purchaser’s right to reuse or resell the product. The Supreme Court determined that as a matter of patent law, such post-sale restrictions are impermissible because “when a patentee chooses to sell an item, that product ‘is no longer within the limits of the [patent] monopoly’ and instead becomes the ‘private, individual property’ of the purchaser with the rights and benefits that come along with ownership.”2 While the Federal Circuit reasoned that at the point of sale, some patent rights can transfer while others are retained, the Supreme Court declared in no uncertain terms that “the sale ‘terminates all patent rights to that item.’”3 The Court explained that the Federal Circuit committed a misstep in logic by considering the exhaustion doctrine a “presumption” when it is instead a limit on “the scope of the patentee’s rights.

The Court justified the result on public interest grounds, explaining that patent laws do not include the right to restrain further alienation after an initial sale and deemed such conditions “obnoxious to the public interest.”4 The Court held, based on Supreme Court jurisprudence and policy, that upon sale of Lexmark’s return program cartridges, the company exhausted all of its patent rights and only retained rights over the cartridges as a matter of contract.

Second, the Court considered whether a patentee exhausts its patent rights by selling its product outside the U.S., where American patent laws do not apply. Lexmark sued Impression for patent infringement for cartridges it sold abroad under the theory that foreign sales do not trigger patent exhaustion unless the patentee expressly or implicitly transfers its rights. Lexmark reasoned that this outcome was appropriate because U.S. patent law does not protect foreign sales, and “a patentee selling in a foreign market may not be able to sell its product for the same price that it could in the United States, and therefore is not sure to receive ‘the reward guaranteed by U.S. patent law.’”5 The Court disagreed. The Court reasoned that patent exhaustion is a common law principle that has not been narrowed by Congress to apply uniquely to domestic sales and therefore, its application to foreign sales is no different from domestic sales.6 The Court rejected Lexmark’s reasoning because “exhaustion is a separate limit on the patent grant, and does not depend on the patentee receiving some undefined premium for selling the right to access the American market.”7 The Court further explained that exhaustion occurs because in a sale “the patentee elects to give up title to an item in exchange for payment.”8

Justice Ginsburg authored an opinion concurring with the Court’s domestic exhaustion holding, but dissenting from the Court’s holding on international exhaustion. Justice Ginsburg explained that because U.S. patent law is territorial, a patent provides no protection abroad, “so it makes little sense to say that such a sale exhausts an inventor’s U.S. patent rights.”9 Justice Ginsburg distinguished patent exhaustion from copyright law, because patent law lacks an analogous statutory first-sale provision, and “copyright protections, unlike patent protections, are harmonized across countries.”10

Practical Effects

By overturning the Federal Circuit’s patent exhaustion doctrine, the Court has implemented a bright-line rule that exhausts all patent rights at the point of sale—whether domestic or foreign. However, post-sale restrictions as a matter of contract law are permissible, so long as the patentee does not rely on patent rights to encumber goods post-initial sale and infringement suits as an enforcement mechanism. Moving forward, clients that seek to impose post-sale restrictions on the products they sell should consider evaluating their sales contracts to ensure, where necessary, that both domestic and international sales contracts restrict product uses through clear contractual restraints that are independent of the seller’s patent rights. The Court’s reasoning indicates that such contractual restraints between a buyer and seller, or licensor and licensee, are permissible because liability attaches to a party of the agreement rather than liability floating on a cloud of legal uncertainty through the marketplace. At the same time, when acting as a product purchaser, in certain contexts clients can expect to see sellers attempt to impose additional—and more complex—contractual constraints on use as sellers attempt to work within the Court’s decision and address contractual privity-of-contract and enforceability questions. Accordingly, future disputes may revolve around those privity-of-contract and enforceability questions and could ultimately be heard by state supreme courts or regional federal circuit courts of appeal, rather than the Federal Circuit.


1See Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 568 U. S. 519, 525 (2013).
2 Op. at 6
3Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 553 U.S. 617, 625 (2008).
4Straus v. Victor Talking Machine Co., 243 U. S. 490, 501 (1917).
5 Op. at 15 (citation omitted).
6Id. at 14.
7Id. at 15.
8Id. at 18.
9 Dissent at 2. 
10Id. at 3.
 

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
Contact
more
less

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.