Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Impression Prods., Inc.
| Decision Date | 12 February 2016 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 2014–1617,2014–1619.,s. 2014–1617 |
| Citation | 816 F.3d 721 |
| Parties | LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff–Cross–Appellant v. IMPRESSION PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant–Appellant Quality Cartridges, Inc., John Does, 1–20, Blue Trading LLC, Exprint International, Inc., LD Products, Inc., Printronic Corporation, Tesen Development (Hong Kong) Co. Ltd., Benigno Adeva And His Companies, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
Constantine L. Trela, Jr., Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago, IL, argued for plaintiff-cross-appellant. Also represented by Robert N. Hochman; Benjamin Beaton, Joshua John Fougere, Washington, DC; Timothy Colin Meece, Bryan Medlock, Jr., Audra C. Eidem Heinze, Jason S. Shull, Banner & Witcoff, Ltd., Chicago, Il; Steven B. Loy, Stoll, Keenon & Park, LLP, Lexington, KY.
Edward F. O'connor, Avyno Law, P.C., Encino, CA, argued for defendant-appellant. Also represented by Jennifer Herbst Hamilton.
Andrew J. Pincus, Mayer Brown LLP, Washington, DC, argued for amici curiae LG Electronics, Inc., Dell Inc., Google Inc., Intel Corporation, L Brands Inc., Newegg Inc., Ninestar Image Tech Limited, QVC, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., SAS Institute, Inc., Xilinx, Inc. Also represented by Jamie B. Beaber, Kfir Levy, Paul Whitfield Hughes; James Suh, LG Electronics Inc., Seoul, Korea; Matthew R. Hulse, Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA.Melissa N. Patterson, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for amicus curiae United States. Also represented by Benjamin C. Mizer, Mark R. Freeman.
Barbara A. Fiacco, Foley Hoag LLP, Boston, MA, argued for amici curiae Biotechnology Industry Organization, CropLife International. Also represented by Sarah S. Burg.
Margreth Barrett, University of California–Hastings College of Law, The Sea Ranch, CA, as amicus curiae pro se.
Frederick M. Abbott, Florida State University College of Law, Tallahassee, FL, as amicus curiae pro se.
Kristin Leigh Yohannan Moore, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, Washington, DC, for amicus curiae American Intellectual Property Law Association. Also represented by Tihua Huang; Lisa K. Jorgenson, American Intellectual Property Law Association, Arlington, VA.
Meenakshi Kala Sarvaiya, SoCal IP Law Group LLP, Westlake Village, CA, for amicus curiae Conejo Valley Bar Association. Also represented by Steven C. Sereboff.
Noah Leibowitz, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, LLP, New York, NY, for amicus curiae New York Intellectual Property Law Association. Also represented by Walter E. Hanley, Jr., Kenyon & Kenyon LLP, New York, NY; David F. Ryan, Croton–On–Hudson, NY.
Charles Duan, Public Knowledge, Washington, DC, for amici curiae Public Knowledge, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Open Source Hardware Association, Digital Right to Repair Coalition, Public Citizen, Inc. Also represented by Mohammed Raza Panjwani, Sherwin Siy; Vera Ranieri, Electronic Frontier Foundation, San Francisco, CA.
Peter James Wied, Lee Tran Liang & Wang LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for amici curiae Quanta Computer, Inc., Acer, Inc. Also represented by Vincent K. Yip.
John R. Alison III, Winston & Strawn LLP, Washington, DC, for amici curiae HTC Corp., HTC America, Inc. Also represented by Owais Ahmed Siddiqui, San Diego, CA; Gino Cheng, Los Angeles, CA.
Charles Lifland, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for amicus curiae SK Hynix Inc. Also represented by Susan Roeder, Susan Van Keulen, Menlo Park, CA.
James R. Klaiber, Pryor Cashman LLP, New York, NY, for amicus curiae The Association of the Bar of the City of New York. Also represented by Timothy P. Heaton, Troutman Sanders LLP, New York, NY; Aaron Ligoury Joseph Pereira, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, New York, NY.
Steven A. Hirsch, Keker & Van Nest, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for amicus curiae SanDisk Corporation. Also represented by Christa M. Anderson, Robert A. Van Nest, Leo L. Lam.
Robert T. Haslam, Covington & Burling LLP, Redwood Shores, CA, for amicus curiae Texas Instruments, Inc. Also represented by Nathan Shaffer; Ranganath Sudarshan, Washington, DC.
Matthew J. Moore, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC, for amici curiae Costco Wholesale Corp., Retail Litigation Center, Inc. Also represented by James Scott Ballenger, Melissa Arbus Sherry.
Phillip R. Malone, Stanford Law School, Juelsgaard Intellectual Property and Innovation Clinic, Mills Legal Clinic, Stanford, CA, for amici curiae American Antitrust Institute, Jeremy W. Bock, Esq., Irene Calboli, Michael A. Carrier, Andrew Chin, Samuel Ernst, Shubha Ghosh, Ariel Katz, Mark A. Lemley, Yvette Joy Liebesman, Brian J. Love, Mark P. McKenna, Michael J. Meurer, Tyler T. Ochoa, Mark R. Patterson, Esq., Aaron Perzanowski, John A. Rothchild, Pamela Samuelson, Sharon K. Sandeen, Kurt M. Saunders, Christopher B. Seaman, Katherine J. Strandburg, Jennifer M. Urban, Esq., Ryan Vacca, Sarah R. Wasserman–Rajec. Also represented by Jeffrey Theodore Pearlman.
Robert Anthony Surrette, McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd., Chicago, IL, for amicus curiae Association of Medical Device Reprocessors. Also represented by Christopher M. Scharff.
William Douglas Kari, Arbitech, LLC, Irvine, CA, for amici curiae Association of Service and Computer Dealers International, Inc., Owners' Rights Initiative.
Matthew A. Levy, Computer & Communications Industry Association, Washington, DC, for amicus curiae Computer & Communications Industry Association.
Daniel Stringfield, Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, Chicago, IL, for amicus curiae Licensing Executive Society , Inc. Also represented by Katherine H. Johnson; Brian P. O'shaughnessy, Ratner Prestia, Washington, DC.
Merritt Blakeslee, The Blakeslee Law Firm, Washington, DC, for amicus curiae Recycling Times Media Corporation.
Mark Schonfeld, Burns & Levinson, LLP, Boston, MA, for amicus curiae Imaging Supplies Coalition. Also represented by Sara Beccia.
Garrard R. Beeney, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New York, NY, for amicus curiae Dolby Laboratories, Inc. Also represented by Adam R. Brebner.
Robert P. Taylor, Arnold & Porter, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for amicus curiae Intellectual Property Owners Association. Also represented by Herbert Clare Wamsley, Jr., Intellectual Property Owners Association, Washington, DC; Kevin H. Rhodes, 3M Innovative Properties Company, St. Paul, MN; Philip Staton Johnson, Johnson & Johnson, New Brunswick, NJ.
John D. Haynes, Alston & Bird LLP, Atlanta, GA, for amici curiae Nokia Technologies OY, Nokia USA Inc.
Kathi A. Cover, iBiquity Digital Corporation, Columbia, MD, for amicus curiae iBiquity Digital Corporation.
Joseph S. Cianfrani, Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP, Irvine, CA, for amicus curiae Medical Device Manufacturers Association. Also represented by Kent N. Shum.
Roger Brooks, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, New York, NY, for amicus curiae Qualcomm Incorporated. Also represented by David J. Kappos.
John Nilsson, Arnold & Porter LLP, Washington, DC, for amicus curiae Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. Also represented by Kristan Lynn Lansbery, Samuel Drezdzon; Willow White Noonan, San Francisco, CA.
Theodore Lawrence Field, South Texas College of Law, Houston, TX, as amicus curiae pro se.
David S. Steuer, Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, PC, Palo Alto, CA, for amicus curiae InterDigital, Inc. Also represented by Michael Brett Levin, Maura L. Rees.
Seth David Greenstein, Constantine Cannon LLP, Washington, DC, for amici curiae International Imaging Technology Council, Auto Care Association, Automotive Parts Remanufacturers Association.
Before PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, LOURIE, DYK, MOORE, O'MALLEY, REYNA, WALLACH, TARANTO, CHEN, HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge TARANTO, in which Chief Judge PROSTand Circuit Judges NEWMAN, LOURIE, MOORE, O'MALLEY, REYNA, WALLACH, CHEN, and STOLLjoin. Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge DYK, in which Circuit Judge HUGHESjoins.
Congress has declared: "Except as otherwise provided in [the Patent Act], whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent." 35 U.S.C. § 271(a); see id. § 154(a) (). The doctrine of patent exhaustion (or "first sale" doctrine) addresses the circumstances in which a sale of a patented article (or an article sufficiently embodying a patent), when the sale is made or authorized by the patentee, confers on the buyer the "authority" to engage in acts involving the article, such as resale, that are infringing acts in the absence of such authority. There is nothing "otherwise provided" on the issue in the Patent Act. In that respect, the Patent Act differs from the Copyright Act, whose infringement, importation, and exclusive-rights provisions, 17 U.S.C. §§ 501, 602, 106, are all subject to a separate, overriding statutory provision that grants owners of certain copyrighted articles a right to sell those articles "without the authority" of the copyright holder, id. § 109(a).
In this case, all of the initial sales at issue were made by the U.S. patentee, rather than by a licensee having authorization from the patentee. Some of the initial sales were made domestically, some abroad. All of the domestic sales, and an unknown portion of the foreign sales, were accompanied by clearly communicated restrictions on the buyer's reuse and resale.
We decided to hear this case en banc to consider whether two decisions of this court concerning the uncodified doctrine of patent exhaustion—one decision from 1992, the other from 2001—remain sound in light of later decisions of the Supreme Court. Today we reaffirm the principles of our earlier decisions.
First, we adhere to the holding of Mallinckrodt, Inc. v. Medipart, Inc., 976 F.2d 700 (Fed.Cir.1992), that a patentee, when selling a patented article subject to a single-use/no-resale...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.
...to consider whether prior decisions remain sound in light of later Supreme Court decisions. See, e.g. , Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Impression Prod., Inc. , 816 F.3d 721, 726 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ; SCA Hygiene Prod. Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Prod., LLC , 807 F.3d 1311, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2015). ......
-
Impression Prods., Inc. v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc.
...to enforce, through patent infringement lawsuits, "clearly communicated, ... lawful restriction[s] as to post-sale use or resale." 816 F.3d 721, 735 (2016). The exhaustion doctrine, the court reasoned, derives from the prohibition on making, using, selling, or importing items "without autho......
-
Romano-Murphy v. Comm'r of the Internal Revenue Serv., 13–13186.
...Cir.1979) ("Nor can the Agency rest on the doctrine of harmless error. While that doctrine has been held applicable to review of agency 816 F.3d 721actions, and has statutory sanction in the APA, it is to be used only when a mistake of the administrative body is one that clearly had no bear......
-
Westerngeco L.L.C. v. ION Geophysical Corp.
...“foreign activity ... can have an impact on the rights of a United States patent owner.” Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Impression Prods., Inc. , 816 F.3d 721, 784 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (en banc) (10-2 decision) (Dyk, J., dissenting).3 As recognized elsewhere in Power Integrations, the central issue in ......
-
Historical Development of the Misuse Doctrine
...Id. at 705. Both aspects of Mallinckrodt were upheld by a majority of the Federal Circuit in Lexmark Int’l v. Impression Prods. Inc., 816 F.3d 721 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit in Lexmark , holding that an authorized sale, whether conditional or unconditio......
-
Specific Practices That Have Been Challenged as Misuse
...is the 1947 Supreme Court decision in Transparent-Wrap Machine Corp. v. Stokes & Smith Co. 189 The Court held that such clauses 182. 816 F.3d 721 (Fed. Cir. 2016), rev’d , Impression Prods. v. Lexmark Int’l, 137 S. Ct. 1523 (2017). 183. Id . at 726. 184. Id. at 735. 185. Id. at 737. 186. Le......