Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Decision Date19 March 2013
Docket NumberNo. 11–697.,11–697.
Citation133 S.Ct. 1351,185 L.Ed.2d 392,568 U.S. 519
Parties Supap KIRTSAENG, dba Bluechristine99, Petitioner v. JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC.
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

568 U.S. 519
133 S.Ct. 1351
185 L.Ed.2d 392

Supap KIRTSAENG, dba Bluechristine99, Petitioner
v.
JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC.

No. 11–697.

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued Oct. 29, 2012.
Decided March 19, 2013.


E. Joshua Rosenkranz, New York, NY, for Petitioner.

Theodore B. Olson, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Sam P. Israel, Sam P. Israel, P.C., New York, NY, E. Joshua Rosenkranz, Counsel of Record, Annette L. Hurst, Lisa T. Simpson, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, New York, NY, for Petitioner.

Theodore B. Olson, Counsel of Record, Matthew D. McGill, Scott P. Martin, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Justice BREYER delivered the opinion of the Court.

568 U.S. 523

Section 106 of the Copyright Act grants "the owner of copyright under this title" certain "exclusive rights," including the right "to distribute copies ... of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership." 17 U.S.C. § 106(3). These rights are qualified, however, by the application of various limitations set forth in the next several sections of the Act, §§ 107 through 122. Those sections, typically entitled "Limitations on exclusive rights," include, for example, the principle of "fair use" (§ 107), permission for limited library archival reproduction, (§ 108), and the doctrine at issue here, the "first sale" doctrine ( § 109 ).

Section 109(a) sets forth the "first sale" doctrine as follows:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3) [the section that grants the owner exclusive distribution rights], the
133 S.Ct. 1355
owner of a particular copy or phonorecord 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 or phonorecord." (Emphasis added.)
568 U.S. 524

Thus, even though § 106(3) forbids distribution of a copy of, say, the copyrighted novel Herzog without the copyright owner's permission, § 109(a) adds that, once a copy of Herzog has been lawfully sold (or its ownership otherwise lawfully transferred), the buyer of that copy and subsequent owners are free to dispose of it as they wish. In copyright jargon, the "first sale" has "exhausted" the copyright owner's § 106(3) exclusive distribution right.

What, however, if the copy of Herzog was printed abroad and then initially sold with the copyright owner's permission? Does the "first sale" doctrine still apply? Is the buyer, like the buyer of a domestically manufactured copy, free to bring the copy into the United States and dispose of it as he or she wishes?

To put the matter technically, an "importation" provision, § 602(a)(1), says that

"[i]mportation 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 the United States is an infringement of the exclusive right to distribute copies ... under section 106 ...." 17 U.S.C. § 602(a)(1) (2006 ed., Supp. V) (emphasis added).

Thus § 602(a)(1) makes clear that importing a copy without permission violates the owner's exclusive distribution right. But in doing so, § 602(a)(1) refers explicitly to the § 106(3) exclusive distribution right. As we have just said, § 106 is by its terms "[s]ubject to" the various doctrines and principles contained in §§ 107 through 122, including § 109(a)'s "first sale" limitation. Do those same modifications apply—in particular, does the "first sale" modification apply—when considering whether § 602(a)(1) prohibits importing a copy?

In Quality King Distributors, Inc. v. L'anza Research Int'l, Inc., 523 U.S. 135, 145, 118 S.Ct. 1125, 140 L.Ed.2d 254 (1998), we held that § 602(a)(1)'s reference to § 106(3)'s exclusive distribution right incorporates the later subsections' limitations, including, in particular, the "first sale" doctrine of § 109. Thus, it might seem

568 U.S. 525

that, § 602(a)(1) notwithstanding, one who buys a copy abroad can freely import that copy into the United States and dispose of it, just as he could had he bought the copy in the United States.

But Quality King considered an instance in which the copy, though purchased abroad, was initially manufactured in the United States (and then sent abroad and sold). This case is like Quality King but for one important fact. The copies at issue here were manufactured abroad. That fact is important because § 109(a) says that the "first sale" doctrine applies to "a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title ." And we must decide here whether the five words, "lawfully made under this title," make a critical legal difference.

Putting section numbers to the side, we ask whether the "first sale" doctrine applies to protect a buyer or other lawful owner of a copy (of a copyrighted work) lawfully manufactured abroad. Can that buyer bring that copy into the United States (and sell it or give it away) without obtaining permission to do so from the copyright owner? Can, for example, someone who purchases, say at a used bookstore, a book printed abroad subsequently resell it without the copyright owner's permission?

In our view, the answers to these questions are, yes. We hold that the "first

133 S.Ct. 1356

sale" doctrine applies to copies of a copyrighted work lawfully made abroad.

I

A

Respondent, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., publishes academic textbooks. Wiley obtains from its authors various foreign and domestic copyright assignments, licenses and permissions—to the point that we can, for present purposes, refer to Wiley as the relevant American copyright owner. See 654 F.3d 210, 213, n. 6 (C.A.2 2011). Wiley often assigns to its wholly owned foreign subsidiary, John Wiley & Sons (Asia) Pte Ltd., rights to publish, print, and sell Wiley's

568 U.S. 526

English language textbooks abroad. App. to Pet. for Cert. 47a–48a. Each copy of a Wiley Asia foreign edition will likely contain language making clear that the copy is to be sold only in a particular country or geographical region outside the United States. 654 F.3d, at 213.

For example, a copy of Wiley's American edition says, "Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved.... Printed in the United States of America." J. Walker, Fundamentals of Physics, p. vi (8th ed. 2008). A copy of Wiley Asia's Asian edition of that book says:

"Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons (Asia) Pte Ltd[.] All rights reserved. This book is authorized for sale in Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East only and may be not exported out of these territories. Exportation from or importation of this book to another region without the Publisher's authorization is illegal and is a violation of the Publisher's rights. The Publisher may take legal action to enforce its rights.... Printed in Asia." J. Walker, Fundamentals of Physics, p. vi (8th ed. 2008 Wiley Int'l Student ed.).

Both the foreign and the American copies say:

"No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means ... except as permitted under Sections 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act." Compare, e.g., ibid. (Int'l ed.), with Walker, supra, at vi (American ed.).

The upshot is that there are two essentially equivalent versions of a Wiley textbook, 654 F.3d, at 213, each version manufactured and sold with Wiley's permission: (1) an American version printed and sold in the United States, and (2) a foreign version manufactured and sold abroad. And Wiley makes certain that copies of the second version state that they are not to be taken (without permission) into the United States. Ibid.

568 U.S. 527

Petitioner, Supap Kirtsaeng, a citizen of Thailand, moved to the United States in 1997 to study mathematics at Cornell University. Ibid. He paid for his education with the help of a Thai Government scholarship which required him to teach in Thailand for 10 years on his return. Brief for Petitioner 7. Kirtsaeng successfully completed his undergraduate courses at Cornell, successfully completed a Ph.D. program in mathematics at the University of Southern California, and then, as promised, returned to Thailand to teach. Ibid. While he was studying in the United States, Kirtsaeng asked his friends and family in Thailand to buy copies of foreign edition English-language textbooks at Thai book shops, where they sold at low prices, and mail them to him in the United States. Id., at 7–8. Kirtsaeng would then sell them, reimburse his family and friends, and keep the profit. App. to Pet. for Cert. 48a–49a.

133 S.Ct. 1357

B

In 2008 Wiley brought this federal lawsuit against Kirtsaeng for copyright infringement. 654 F.3d, at 213. Wiley claimed that Kirtsaeng's unauthorized importation of its books and his later resale of those books amounted to an infringement of Wiley's § 106(3) exclusive right to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
92 cases
  • United States v. Le Tran
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • 20 d1 Agosto d1 2018
    ...and § 924(c)(3)(B) employ differing language to mandate similar categorical approaches is not problematic. See Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 568 U.S. 519, 540 (2013) ("We are not aware, however, of any canon of interpretation that forbids interpreting different words used in differe......
  • Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 29 d2 Junho d2 2021
    ...now.Assignor estoppel, by contrast, has far from this kind of "impeccable historic pedigree." Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. , 568 U.S. 519, 538, 133 S.Ct. 1351, 185 L.Ed.2d 392 (2013). It is more recent and far shakier. It was introduced into patent law in the late 19th century—about......
  • Navarro v. Procter & Gamble Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • 19 d2 Janeiro d2 2021
    ...[from copyright infringement], provided, of course, that the copy was "lawfully made. " Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. , 568 U.S. 519, 535, 133 S.Ct. 1351, 185 L.Ed.2d 392 (2013). That proviso is the key issue here—the person asserting the doctrine must show that the copy it received ......
  • Panzarella v. Navient Solutions, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • 14 d2 Junho d2 2022
    ...or sequential number generator, we would consider these statements dicta that do not bind us. Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. , 568 U.S. 519, 548, 133 S.Ct. 1351, 185 L.Ed.2d 392 (2013) ; Singh v. Uber Techs. Inc. , 939 F.3d 210, 223 (3d Cir. 2019). Moreover, although "we pay due homag......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 firm's commentaries
  • Lingering In Lexmark's Wake, Uncertainty About The Limits Of Patent Exhaustion
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 14 d1 Março d1 2016
    ...not overrule Mallinckrodt, Inc. v. Medipart, Inc., 976 F.2d 700 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and that Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 1351 (2013)—a copyright decision—did not overrule Jazz Photo Corp. v. International Trade Comm'n, 264 F.3d 1094 (Fed. Cir. The content of this arti......
  • Intellectual Property Client Alert, March, 2016
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 14 d1 Março d1 2016
    ...continued validity of that decision arose due to a 2013 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 1351 (2013) wherein the court held that lawful sales abroad exhausted the copyright owner's exclusive rights in the U.S. The issue in the Lexmar......
  • Kirtsaeng II: Back To The High Court
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 23 d3 Março d3 2016
    ...market without running afoul of copyright law, applies to works first distributed overseas. Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 1351 (2013). The decision was a momentous one, settling a hotly debated question that had ended in a 4-4 tie only three years earlier, in Costco W......
24 books & journal articles
  • Intellectual Property Crimes
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 59-3, July 2022
    • 1 d5 Julho d5 2022
    ...software; and (3) imposes notable use restrictions.” 621 F.3d 1102, 1111 (9th Cir. 2010). 282. See Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 568 U.S. 519, 530 (2013) (holding that the first sale doctrine does not impose a geographic requirement). 283. David W. Opderbeck, Peer-to-Peer Networks, ......
  • Rebalancing Copyright Exhaustion
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 64-3, 2015
    • Invalid date
    ...Matgouranis for outstanding research assistance. All remaining errors are, of course, my own. 1. Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 1351 (2013); Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Omega, S.A., 562 U.S. 40 (2010) (per curiam) (mem.); Quality King Distrib., Inc., v. L'anza Research Int'l......
  • The Uses of Ip Misuse
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 68-4, 2019
    • Invalid date
    ...decision on appeal, the Supreme Court clarified the reach of copyright's first sale doctrine in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 568 U.S. 519 (2013). In Kirtsaeng, the Court held that goods lawfully purchased abroad would be treated like domestic goods under the first sale doctrine. Id......
  • WHATEVER DID HAPPEN TO THE ANTITRUST MOVEMENT?
    • United States
    • Notre Dame Law Review Vol. 94 No. 2, December 2018
    • 1 d6 Dezembro d6 2018
    ...Breyer used the term in one nonantitrust case, although he was referring to antitrust. See Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 568 U.S. 519, 539 (2013) (noting purpose of antitrust policy is to maximize consumer welfare in a copyright exhaustion (48) See State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT