United States: Podcast - Supreme Court Ruling: Impression Products v. Lexmark International

In its May 30, 2017 decision in Impression Products v. Lexmark International, the U.S. Supreme Court expanded the scope of the patent exhaustion doctrine – a decision that could have substantial effects on patent owner rights, licensing practices, and what companies and consumers may do with products they buy.  Ropes & Gray IP litigation counsel Matt Rizzolo (Washington, D.C.) and associate Henry Huang (Silicon Valley) discuss the Court's ruling and its implications. 

Download Podcast

Matt: Hello and welcome to a special follow-up podcast in our Supreme Court series.  I'm Matt Rizzolo, IP litigation counsel in the Washington, D.C. office of Ropes & Gray.  Today's podcast topic is the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Impression Products v. Lexmark.  Joining me again today is my Silicon Valley colleague Henry Huang.  Henry is an IP litigation associate and a former district court and Federal Circuit clerk.  You might have heard our podcast a few weeks ago previewing this case.  Today we'll offer insights into the Court's ruling and discuss how this might affect you—as a consumer, a patent owner, or a reseller of products.

Let's start with a quick recap.  Henry—remind us what this case is about.

Henry: This case is about patent exhaustion and whether a patent owner can restrict what happens to patented products after they're sold.  Lexmark is a printer company that sells toner cartridges and has patent rights on those cartridges.  Lexmark tried to limit what customers could do with their cartridges after buying them, such as preventing customers from reselling or reusing them.  Impression is a small company that refurbishes and resells cartridges, including Lexmark's products.  Lexmark sued Impression, and the case went up to the Federal Circuit, which gave Lexmark a win ruling that no rights were exhausted due to Lexmark's sales in the U.S. or in other countries.  Then the Supreme Court took the case.

Matt: The Supreme Court was almost unanimous in reversing the Federal Circuit, is that right?

Henry: Yes.  The Court issued a near-unanimous decision that greatly expands patent exhaustion and limits patent rights.  As I mentioned, there were two issues about exhaustion—one related to conditional sales here in the U.S., and one related to sales made abroad.  On the first issue, about domestic exhaustion, the Court ruled 8-0 for Impression (Justice Gorsuch did not participate).  The Court held that when a patentee sells a product, it loses all rights to control what happens to that product afterwards.  On the second issue, about international exhaustion, the Court went 7-1 for Impression, holding that selling products in another country also exhausts U.S. patent rights.  Justice Ginsburg dissented on the second issue because she believed that U.S. patent law should not affect actions in other countries, whose patent laws may differ from those in the U.S. 

Matt: Reading the opinion, it seems like a big part of the decision was an issue we mentioned in our first podcast—the historical legal source of the patent exhaustion doctrine.

Henry: That's right.  Impression claimed that patent exhaustion is based on court-made common law dating back hundreds of years, which says that there can be no post-sale restrictions on personal property.  Lexmark, on the other hand, argued that patent exhaustion comes from the Patent Act, and specifically 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), which prevents others from making, using, or selling a patented product "without authority."  The Supreme Court agreed with Impression, and the Court said that common law doesn't distinguish between authorized sales here or in other countries.  According to the Court, "An authorized sale outside the United States, just as one within the United States, exhausts all rights under the Patent Act."  In fact, Justice Roberts said that exhaustion has "an impeccable historic pedigree."  But while the Supreme Court stressed the historical source of the patent exhaustion doctrine, it seems pretty clear that this decision changes the patent licensing landscape.

Matt: I agree.  It is a bit too early to say, but Lexmark could affect a lot of patent ownership and licensing practices.  Patent owners will still want to maintain control over their products and maximize their revenue streams, without running afoul of the law.  One issue that the Court left open is what constitutes an "authorized sale."  For example, if a company sells products, what happens if it transfers its patent to a subsidiary?  Is the first company no longer the patentee, so that its sales are not "authorized" under the patent?  If so, then the subsidiary can still sue downstream customers.  So companies might try to create new ways to transfer ownership of patents to avoid this rule.

Henry: There's also a particularly important part of the opinion where the Supreme Court reaffirms the difference between "sales" and "licenses."  The Court said, "A patentee can impose restrictions on licensees because a license does not implicate the same concerns about restraints on alienation as a sale."  This indicates that it's still possible to impose post-sale restrictions in patent licenses, such as preventing licensees from re-selling the product or using it in certain markets.  So one question that commentators have raised is whether certain companies may change their business models and simply say they are "licensing" their products to customers, instead of "selling" them.  We could see a lot more product "licenses" instead of sales to try to avoid triggering patent exhaustion.

Matt: It seems like those types of transactions might be easier to do in some industries rather than in others.  What industries do you think will be principally affected by this case?

Henry: It is hard to say this early, but we have some idea, partly because of the companies who filed amicus briefs with the Supreme Court.  As we pointed out in the first podcast, a bunch of retailers supported Impression because they sell or re-sell products, some of which have many patented components.  The same is true for some technology companies like Intel, who have complex supply chains across the world.  On the other hand, pharmaceutical and medical device companies sided with Lexmark because they want stronger control over their products.  Some news stories are already predicting that drug prices will come down because it might be easier to import cheaper drugs from other countries, though there are still are still a number of FDA rules that restrict that.

Matt: That's a very good point—those existing FDA rules may prevent arbitrage between the foreign and domestic drug markets despite this ruling.  For other industries, though, I imagine that this type of parallel importation may become much more appealing—especially importation from countries where certain types of patent protection may be harder to obtain.  There's a possibility that we could see increased activity in Section 337 actions at the International Trade Commission in D.C. as a result.  I could certainly envision some companies arguing that such parallel importation is an unfair trade practice prohibited by Section 337.

So Henry, what happens to existing licenses?  What if I already have a license or contract that has post-sale restrictions, like Lexmark or Impression?

Henry: It depends on which side you're on.  If you're the patent owner, then you might have just lost a lot of your enforcement rights.  Lexmark can't sue companies who re-sell their print cartridges.  Of course, second-hand sellers like Impression now have much greater freedom to operate.  Some IP licenses will have to be renegotiated, and several of our clients have asked for guidance on what to do now.

Matt: What else can patent owners do to protect their IP?  If they can't sue re-sellers or downstream customers for infringement because the patent owners have already exhausted their rights, what options do they have? 

Henry: There is still the possibility of suing for breach of contract.  The Supreme Court suggested this option when it said that "whatever rights Lexmark retained are a matter of the contracts with its purchasers, not the patent law."  However, as we noted last time, contracts are limited by the doctrine of privity—Lexmark would not have been able to sue Impression in this case, for example, because they never signed a contract together.  This is a big reason why companies will have be very careful with their contracts now, or come up with new ideas for controlling their products.  There's also the possibility that parties will begin to try to structure their contracts to create privity or third-party beneficiary issues in an effort to allow them to enforce the contracts more broadly; such creativity is likely to become the topic of future litigation.

Matt: Now I suppose we'll have to wait and see what companies do to adjust their patent enforcement strategies, and whether prices for consumer goods will change in some industries.  Henry, thanks for joining me for this follow-up Supreme Court podcast.  Until next time, please visit our Capital Insights page at www.ropesgray.com for more news and analysis on noteworthy issues arising out of Washington, D.C.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions