U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Case on Patent Exhaustion

Dec 8, 2016

Reading Time : 2 min

The patent exhaustion doctrine, or “first sale doctrine,” requires that the initial authorized sale of a patented item terminate all patent rights to that item. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, however, has recognized two exceptions to this doctrine. First, in Mallinckrodt, Inc. v. Medipart, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that a patentee may transfer title to the patented article and specify a post-sale reuse or resale restriction on the article that may be enforced by patent laws. See 976 F.2d 700.  Second, in Jazz Photo Corp. v. International Trade Commission, the Federal Circuit held that a patentee’s U.S. patent rights are not exhausted when it sells the patented article outside the United States. See 264 F. 3d 1094.

Lexmark is a printer manufacturer that makes and sells patented toner cartridges for its printers. Impression Products is a remanufacturer of toner cartridges. In 2010, Lexmark brought suit against Impression Products and other remanufacturers for patent infringement. See Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Impression Prods., 816 F.3d 721, 728-729 (Fed. Cir. 2016).  Impression Products moved to dismiss Lexmark’s claims on the grounds that Lexmark exhausted its U.S. patent rights in the cartridges in two manners. First, Impression Products argued that Lexmark’s single-use/no-resale requirement was an invalid post-sale restriction under the Court’s decision in Quanta, 553 U.S. at 637. Id. at 731. Second, Impression Products argued that Lexmark exhausted its patent rights as to cartridges first sold abroad under the Court’s copyright exhaustion analysis in Kirtsaeng, 133 S. Ct. 1351 (2013). Id. at 731-32.

The district court for the Southern District of Ohio held that Lexmark did not exhaust its U.S. patent rights in toner cartridges that Lexmark initially sold abroad. Lexmark, 816 F.3d at 730. The district court further held, however, that the patent exhaustion doctrine barred Lexmark’s patent infringement regarding toner cartridges that were first sold by Lexmark in the United States, concluding that post-sale use restrictions did not preclude patent exhaustion after an authorized sale under Quanta. Id.

After subsequent appeals by both parties, in February 2016, the Federal Circuit en banc issued a 10-2 decision reaffirming that foreign sales do not exhaust patent rights and holding that post-sale use restrictions preclude patent exhaustion after an authorized sale.

Impression Products petitioned for a writ of certiorari regarding the scope of patent exhaustion with respect to foreign sales and post-sale use restrictions. The Court will hear both issues. This is the fourth patent case the Court has taken this term.

Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc., 15-1189

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

December 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently denied a petition for a writ of mandamus that challenged the PTO Director’s reliance on “settled expectations” to discretionarily deny two inter partes review (IPR) petitions. In so doing, the court explained that, while it was not deciding whether the Director’s use of “settled expectations” was correct, the petitioner’s arguments about what factors the Director may consider when deciding whether to institute an IPR or post-grant review (PGR) are not generally reviewable and did not provide sufficient basis for mandamus review here.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 5, 2025

District courts are split on whether a complaint can provide the required knowledge for post-suit indirect and willful infringement in that same lawsuit. Chief Judge Connolly in the District of Delaware recently confirmed that, consistent with his prior opinions, the complaint cannot serve as the basis for knowledge for either a claim of post-suit indirect infringement or a demand for willfulness-based enhanced damages in that lawsuit.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 3, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently held that a patentee acted as its own lexicographer to define a claim term even though it did not explicitly define the term. Rather, because the patentee consistently and clearly used two terms interchangeably to describe the same structural feature and did so in all of the embodiments in which the feature appeared, the patentee impliedly gave the term its own, unique definition.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 2, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently held an asserted patent was not entitled to its priority date because the priority application lacked written description support for the asserted claims. In so doing, the court explained that broad disclosures that do not provide reasonably specific support for narrower claims do not meet the written description requirement. The court also considered whether the inventor’s testimony showed they possessed the full scope of the claimed genus at the priority date or whether it was more likely the inventors first became aware of the claimed embodiments from public disclosures of the accused product.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.