Insights
Publications

Federal Circuit Rejects International Exhaustion in Lexmark, Distinguishes Scotus' Copyright Ruling in Kirtsaeng

2/16/2016 Articles
The en banc Federal Circuit has issued a highly anticipated decision in Lexmark Intern., Inc. v. Impression Products, Inc., No. 2014-1617, slip op. (Fed. Cir. Feb. 12, 2016) (en banc).  The patent friendly decision reaffirms two key prior Federal Circuit opinions allowing patent holders to restrict downstream use of their products, and rejects the notion that a foreign sale exhausts U.S. patent rights – notwithstanding a recent Supreme Court decision holding to the contrary in the copyright context.  See Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 1351 (2013).  Lexmark will almost assuredly be appealed to the Supreme Court, which may well weigh in to determine whether the Federal Circuit has (once again) refused to properly apply its precedent.

Background

The judicially created doctrine of patent exhaustion provides that the initial authorized sale of a patented item terminates all patent rights to that item.  Even following the Supreme Court’s decision in Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 553 U.S. 617 (2008), issues relating to the scope of the patent exhaustion doctrine and the extent to which patent holders can place limits on its applicability and restrict the downstream use of their products have continued to vex patent litigants and the courts. 

The Lexmark Decision

In Lexmark, the Federal Circuit addressed (1) whether to overrule Jazz Photo Corp. v. ITC, 264 F.3d 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2001), and hold that an initial authorized sale of a patented product outside of the United States exhausts the patent rights of the patent holder just as a sale within the United States would; and (2) whether to also overrule Mallinckrodt, Inc. v. Medipart, Inc., 976 F.2d 700 (Fed. Cir. 1992), in which the Federal Circuit had held that patent owners could place restrictions on sales of patented goods (for instance as “single use only”).

In a 10-2 decision, the Federal Circuit re-affirmed both Jazz Photo and Mallinckrodt.  The 99-page majority opinion written by Judge Taranto holds that these decisions remain good law notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s decisions in Kirtsaeng and Quanta.  In particular, the majority holds

First, we adhere to the holding of [Mallinckrodt], that a patentee, when selling a patented article subject to a single-use/no-resale restriction that is lawful and clearly communicated to the purchaser, does not by that sale give the buyer, or downstream buyers, the resale/reuse authority that has been expressly denied….  Under Supreme Court precedent, a patentee may preserve its § 271 rights through such restrictions when licensing others to make and sell patented articles.  Mallinckrodt held that there is no sound legal basis for denying the same ability to the patentee that makes and sells the articles itself. [¶]  Second, we adhere to the holding of [Jazz Photo], that a U.S. patentee, merely by selling or authorizing the sale of a U.S.-patented article abroad, does not authorize the buyer to import the article and sell and use it in the United States, which are infringing acts in the absence of patentee-conferred authority.  Jazz Photo ‘s no exhaustion ruling recognizes that foreign markets under foreign sovereign control are not equivalent to the U.S. markets under U.S. control in which a U.S. patentee’s sale presumptively exhausts its rights in the article sold.  A buyer may still rely on a foreign sale as a defense to infringement, but only by establishing an express or implied license – a defense separate from exhaustion, as Quanta holds – based on patentee communications or other circumstances of the sale.  We conclude that Jazz Photo’s no-exhaustion principle remains sound after the Supreme Court’s decision in [Kirtsaeng], in which the Court did not address patent law or whether a foreign sale should be viewed as conferring authority to engage in otherwise-infringing domestic acts.  Kirtsaeng is a copyright case ….

Slip op. at 9.

In distinguishing its holding here from Kirtsaeng, the Lexmark opinion emphasized an important distinction between the statutory scheme governing copyrights and that governing patents.  Id. at 21-22.  Whereas Congress included an exhaustion provision in the Copyright Act (see 17 U.S.C. § 109(a)), no such “congressionally prescribed exhaustion rule” exists in the Patent Act.  Id.

The dissent, written by Judge Dyk and joined by Judge Hughes, includes a discussion of numerous Supreme Court opinions, which the dissent claims mandate that Mallinckrodt and Jazz Photo be overruled.  The discussion of these same cases in both the majority and dissenting opinions is a fascinating example of judges emphasizing particular facts and holdings of the same cases to support their differing views.

Now the parties will fight on to the Supreme Court, which will once again have the opportunity to reject a patent-friendly Federal Circuit decision because it fails to adhere to Supreme Court precedent.  Notably, Justice Scalia (along with Justices Ginsburg and Kennedy) dissented from the majority opinion in Kirtsaeng, so it remains to be seen how his death may impact whether and how the Supreme Court weighs in on Lexmark.  Until the Supreme Court’s review, however, patent holders will continue to be able to place restrictions on the downstream use of their products.

Lexmark was the subject of our IP Roundtable discussions in December 2015: Lexmark v. Impression Products: Will (and Should) The En Banc Federal Circuit Move to International Patent Exhaustion? View outline.

Firm Highlights

Publication

Trade Secret Hygiene for Current Employees

Published on  ACCDocket.com . By Walt Norfleet, Smiths Group plc and Eugene Y. Mar, Farella Braun + Martel LLP In the first two parts of this series on best practices in protecting trade secrets, we...

Read More
News

Farella Braun + Martel Attorneys, Practices Recognized by Chambers USA 2020

SAN FRANCISCO, April 23, 2020: Farella Braun + Martel announces that Chambers USA has recognized 12 lawyers and five practice areas in the legal directory’s 2020 edition. Individual Rankings: Tyler Gerking – Insurance: Policyholders...

Read More
Publication

Tips for Efficiently Managing New Trade Secret Risks Created by Shelter-In-Place Restrictions and Remote Working

On April 14, 2020, California Governor Gavin Newsom outlined the six “critical indicators” the state will monitor during the next phase of its COVID-19 response as it considers when to modify its statewide shelter-in-place...

Read More
News

Sushila Chanana Named to 2020 Leadership Council on Legal Diversity Fellows Program

SAN FRANCISCO, February 13, 2020: Farella Braun + Martel is proud to announce that Sushila Chanana has been named a member of the 2020 class of Fellows participating in a landmark program created by...

Read More
News

Farella Braun + Martel Announces 2020 Partner Elevations

SAN FRANCISCO/ST. HELENA, Calif., January 21, 2020: Northern California legal powerhouse Farella Braun + Martel is pleased to announce the election of senior associates Evan Abrams, Lauren Galbraith, and Alex Reese to the partnership...

Read More
Publication

Protecting Your Internal Intellectual Property Investigation: Privilege and Work Product Under California and Federal Law

As California begins preparing to ease shelter-in-place restrictions, the state’s technology industry is facing the most challenging economic circumstances in recent memory. The state’s technology companies may place new demands on in-house intellectual property...

Read More
Publication

COVID-19 IP Lessons: Consider the Big Picture

In any crisis, there are always those that look to take advantage of the situation.  The coronavirus pandemic is no different. Here, we have highlighted a few of the most egregious fortune hunters, attempting...

Read More
Publication

How Defense Strategies Can Go Awry When Pursuing Concurrent PTAB Relief in Financial Services Patent Litigation

United States Automobile Association (USAA), a financial services company that provides insurance, banking, investment, and retirement products and services for members of the military and their families, filed a surprising patent infringement complaint against Wells Fargo...

Read More
News

Gov't Drops IP Theft Charges Against Ex-Jawbone Workers

Law360 reported that the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California in San Jose moved to dismiss all trade-secret-theft charges against the remaining four defendants in what was originally a six-defendant case...

Read More
News

Daily Journal Names Farella Lawyers Among Top IP Lawyers in California

Farella Braun + Martel is proud to announce that partners Jeffrey M. Fisher and James L. Day were named to the 2020 list of “Top Intellectual Property Lawyers” in California by the Daily Journal...

Read More