February 12, 2016
Authored and Edited by Kevin D. Rodkey; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
The doctrine of patent exhaustion limits a patentee’s ability to control the use of patented articles after an authorized sale of those articles. In Lexmark International, Inc. v. Impression Products, Inc., Nos. 14-1617, -1619 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 12, 2016), a majority of the en banc Federal Circuit reaffirmed its prior decisions in Mallinckrodt v. Medipart, 976 F.2d 700 (Fed. Cir. 1992) and Jazz Photo Corp. v. International Trade Commission, 264 F.3d 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2001) on two issues of patent exhaustion: post-sale limits on use and resale and whether foreign sales exhaust a patentee’s U.S. rights.
In reaffirming Mallinckrodt, the court held that a patentee may preserve its right to allege infringement when selling a patented article through “clearly communicated, otherwise-lawful restrictions.” Specifically, the court upheld that a patentee has the ability to “sell[] a patented article subject to a single-use/no-resale restriction that is lawful and clearly communicated to the purchaser” without exhausting the patentee’s rights in that item.
The court rejected Impression’s and the government’s argument that any sale by a patentee automatically exhausts the patentee’s rights to the article sold. Rather, the court analogized the issue to a licensor limiting the rights of a licensee, and explained that patent rights were not exhausted “simply because [the patentee] sold the [patented articles] itself..., rather than having left the manufacture and sale to others under [a] license.” The court also distinguished the Supreme Court’s holding in Quanta v. LG Electronics, 553 U.S. 617 (2008), because Quanta decided the issue of an unrestricted sale that was not subject to any conditions, but “did not involve a patentee’s sale” or single-use/no-resale restriction applied by Lexmark. Examining the “longstanding Supreme Court precedent” that a patentee may preserve its patent rights against downstream buyers through lawful restrictions on licensees, the court concluded that “the law does not forbid the patentee to do the same when making and selling the articles itself.”
In reaffirming Jazz Photo, the court also held that importing patented articles sold abroad constitutes infringement, unless the patentee has authorized the importation, because foreign sales do “not authorize the buyer to import the article and sell and use it in the United States.”
Distinguishing the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, 133 S. Ct. 1351 (2013), which analyzed foreign sales under section 109 of the Copyright Act, the Federal Circuit determined that Kirtsaeng “does not answer the question presented under the Patent Act.” In particular, the court considered the distinctions between the Patent Act and the Copyright Act, such as a patentee’s right to exclude another’s “use,” which a copyright holder does not have. The court distinguished the statutory text analyzed in Kirtsaeng as referring the location of manufacture, but not “whether a foreign sale...is properly treated as conferring on the buyer...the authority to resell” the article. After concluding that Kirtsaeng did not control the outcome, the court held that a patentee does not waive its U.S. rights to a patented article “simply by making or authorizing a foreign sale of an article.” The court explained, however, that U.S. patent rights may be exhausted by a foreign sale under an express or implied license, but that that question was not presented here.
Judge Dyk, joined by Judge Hughes, dissented and would have found that Mallinckrodt “was wrongly decided” and “cannot be reconciled with [Quanta],” and that foreign sales would “result in exhaustion if an authorized seller has not explicitly reserved the United States patent rights.”
Copyright © 2016 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
June 10-12, 2024
San Francisco
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
10th Annual Georgia Asian Pacific American Bar Association Gala
May 29, 2024
Atlanta
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.