You May Be Exhausted Over Standard Essential Patents (And Not Even Know It)
The U.S. Supreme Court at the end of the past term handed down a decision, Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc., that greatly expanded the doctrine of patent exhaustion. This equitable doctrine prevents a...more
Patent owners have long imposed post-sale restrictions on their patented goods and relied on U.S. patent laws to enforce these restrictions. For instance, companies have sought to enforce “single use” restrictions on their...more
In a nearly unanimous opinion issued recently, the U.S. Supreme Court held “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...more
In Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, No. 15–1189, 137 S. Ct. ___, 2017 WL 2322830 (May 30, 2017), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a patentee’s sale of a product exhausts all of its U.S. patent rights in...more
In Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc., the Supreme Court held that after a patent holder sells a patented product, the patent holder cannot control the product by way of patent rights. United States...more
In Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc., the Supreme Court reversed the en banc decision of the Federal Circuit, and held U.S. patents rights exhausted by the patent owner’s sale of a patented article...more
Manufacturers have long used patents, licenses and litigation to deter competitive products and restrict secondary markets in their products. The U.S. Supreme Court just dealt these practices a severe blow, confirming that a...more
Although U.S. patent law has long-established limits on enforcement after a patented product has been sold, the technological innovations may put a bulls-eye on the automotive industry for patent litigation. However, when...more
Last Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in the patent exhaustion case, Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc., Docket No. 15-1189. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case could...more