Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Boundaries of Patent Exhaustion Defense Explored, Decided (For Now) In <i>En Banc Lexmark</i> Decision
Despite over 150 years of Supreme Court precedent, even the most basic precepts of patent exhaustion doctrine remain unsettled. In Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Impression Prods., Inc., No. 2014-1617 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 12, 2016) (en banc), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit grappled with the very foundations of the so-called “first sale” defense in deciding that: 1) a patent owner's sale of an article abroad does not exhaust its U.S. patent rights; and 2) post-sale use restrictions imposed at the point of sale can preserve the patent owner's right to sue downstream users when those restrictions are violated.
Lexmark attracted enormous attention from amicus curiae. In the over 30 briefs submitted to the Federal Circuit, there was a clear demarcation along industry lines. Biotechnology and life sciences companies urged the court to maintain its limited exhaustion rules to permit price differentiation practices that benefit consumers who do not want, and cannot afford, the full bundle of rights associated with a patented product. Computer and high technology companies, in contrast, generally urged adoption of a broader exhaustion rule to ensure freer flow of component parts at every level of their international supply and distribution chains.
Background of Lexmark
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?