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

July 11, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a PTAB determination on remand that a patent was obvious over applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in combination with prior art patents, holding that expressly designating AAPA as a “basis” for a ground is improper under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). In doing so, the Court rejected the PTAB’s “blanket rule” that “AAPA used in combination with prior art patents or printed publications under § 311(b) is ipso facto not the basis or part of the basis of a ground.” Ultimately, while the case clarifies that expressly listing AAPA in an IPR ground is improper, the precise line between proper and improper uses of AAPA in other instances remains unclear.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 1, 2025

In an appeal from an inter partes review, the Federal Circuit recently clarified that the enablement inquiry applied to prior art references in the context of an anticipation defense differs from the enablement inquiry applied when evaluating the claims of a patent.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 26, 2025

The Northern District of Ohio denied a motion to compel the plaintiff to produce test results referenced in its initial disclosures and complaint. The court found that because the “test results are not facts but rather are opinions,” the information was protected as work product. Furthermore, because that testing would not be used as evidence in the litigation, the defendant was not prejudiced.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 6, 2025

In a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit definitively held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has jurisdiction over IPRs that concern expired patents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 6, 2025

In a patent infringement litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Judge Rodney Gilstrap denied a joint motion to stay the litigation pending resolution of inter partes review when it was uncertain that all defendants would be bound by the statutory estoppel provision of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e).

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 30, 2025

A district court recently dismissed a patent infringement complaint for improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), finding that the storage and distribution of products from an Amazon warehouse was not sufficient to establish that warehouse as a regular and established place of business in the district.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 27, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a District of Delaware finding of non-infringement in an ANDA litigation due to the patentee’s clear and unmistakable disavowal of claim scope during prosecution. Specifically, the court held that statements made during prosecution of a parent application before the asserted claims were allowed amounted to a prosecution disclaimer that extended to subsequent patents in the family. In reaching this conclusion, the court rejected an attempt by the patentee to resurrect the claim scope through a unilateral, self-serving statement made in later applications in the family.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 13, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s holding that patent term extension (PTE) for a reissued patent was properly based on the issue date of the original patent and not that of the reissued patent. The Federal Circuit concluded that, where both the original and reissued patents claimed a drug product under regulatory review, using the issue date of the original patent to calculate PTE comports with both the purpose of the Hatch-Waxman Act and the related statutory context.

...

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.