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

November 11, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a summary judgment ruling of invalidity, holding that the district court erred in applying preclusive effect to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s unpatentability findings regarding other claims in the same patent. In doing so, the Federal Circuit reiterated that issue preclusion does not apply where the prior factual determinations were made under a lower standard of proof.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

November 3, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently clarified the requirement for work disclosed in a reference to qualify as “by another” under pre-AIA Sections 102(a) and (e), holding that there must be complete inventive identity between the information disclosed in the asserted reference and the inventors named on the relevant patent. 

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

October 31, 2025

The District Court for the Northern District of California recently granted a defendant’s motion to bifurcate, ordering that issues related to PGR estoppel should be decided in a bench trial, while the remaining issues in the case should proceed to a jury trial.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

October 31, 2025

The Northern District of Iowa recently held that a defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment of invalidity was barred after the PTAB issued final written decisions, regardless of when the motion was filed. The defendant filed its motion before the final written decisions were issued, but the court rejected the defendant’s argument that the timing of the motion insulated it from estoppel.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

October 1, 2025

In a recent final written decision, the PTAB determined that a reference patent was not prior art, despite the petitioner’s post‑filing attempt to correct its petition. While the petitioner argued that it intended to rely on the patent application’s earlier date of publication, both the corrected petition and the expert declaration continued to reference the issued patent rather than the published application.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 30, 2025

The USPTO Director recently granted a petitioner’s request for rehearing of the decision discretionarily denying institution of inter partes review, ultimately vacating the original decision, and referring the petition to the board for an institution decision.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 25, 2025

In considering claims to a method of reducing cardiovascular events, the Federal Circuit held that the term a “clinically proven effective” amount did not render the claims patentable over the prior art. Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that the “clinically proven effective” amount, whether limiting or not, could not be used to distinguish the prior art because the claims also specified the exact amount of the drugs to be administered in the method. The Federal Circuit also rejected patentee’s evidence of unexpected results because that evidence was tied solely to the “clinically proven effective” limitation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law on non-infringement, thereby setting aside a $106 million jury verdict, after holding that prosecution history estoppel barred the patentee from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

...

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.