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

February 24, 2026

The Southern District of Florida recently dismissed a complaint without prejudice because the allegations used a form of “shotgun pleading.” The court explained that a shotgun pleading includes those where every count incorporates every preceding paragraph into each cause of action, and that dismissal of such pleadings was required under Eleventh Circuit precedent.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 20, 2026

The Federal Circuit recently addressed whether the PTO must conduct notice‑and‑comment rulemaking before issuing instructions that guide how the Board should exercise discretion at the institution stage of IPRs. The court held that no such rulemaking is required. Instructions to the Board regarding its use of the Director’s delegated discretionary authority not to institute review are merely general statements of policy exempt from notice-and-comment rulemaking.  

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 18, 2026

The District Court for the District of Delaware recently invalidated claims directed to a panoramic objective lens for lack of enablement, holding the claims impermissibly recited a single element in means‑plus‑function form. Under § 112, ¶ 6, “[a]n element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function….” By its plain terms, the statute permits means‑plus‑function claiming only in the context of a “combination.” In other words, a claim may not consist solely of a single means‑plus‑function element. Claims drafted as a single means are invalid for lack of enablement as a matter of law.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 13, 2026

In an ANDA litigation, the District of Delaware recently denied the defendants’ motion to compel the production of correspondence between the plaintiffs’ testifying expert and a third-party analyst who had performed experiments and provided data used by the testifying expert. The court found that the scope of material sought by the motion was overbroad and disproportionate to the needs of the case.

...

Read More

© 2026 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.