In May 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its groundbreaking decision in Impression Products v. Lexmark International. With its decision, the Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit’s decision in this case and remanded the case back for further proceedings. Last week, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, where Lexmark’s lawsuit accusing numerous
At the end of May, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that took a major weapon long used to thwart aftermarket competitors out of printer OEMs’—and other patent holders’—arsenals. Since then, intellectual property (IP) attorneys have been busy contemplating how patent holders might be able to protect their businesses and IP using other strategies.
It has been nearly two months since the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Impression Products v. Lexmark International (see “U.S. Supreme Court Sides with Impression Products and against Lexmark on Patent-Exhaustion Questions”). In a case that centered on whether remanufactured cartridges using cores sold with a single-use-only restriction and cores first sold
In a remarkable win for Impression Products, fellow remanufacturers, and those who would like to see limits placed on patent holders’ rights and a remarkable loss for Lexmark, fellow printer OEMs, and other patent holders that would like to see their patent rights expanded, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision on Impression Products v.
On March 21, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Impression Products v. Lexmark International. This case is about patent exhaustion—whether patent holders can retain their U.S. patent rights after a first sale. Put simply, the two questions the Supreme Court will have to decide are: Can a patent holder put a restriction or
With Impression Products v. Lexmark International headed toward oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court on March 21, all eyes are on this key case that has the potential to reshape the rules for the patent-exhaustion doctrine in the United States. In recent weeks, we have covered the briefs filed by the petitioner, Impression Products,
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to take up the patent-exhaustion questions presented by Impression Products v. Lexmark International has resulted in a slew of legal filings, the latest of which is a brief by respondent Lexmark. Whereas Impression Products’ brief laid out the reasons why the Supreme Court should overturn the exceptions that the U.S.
The wave of amicus briefs filed in the Impression Products v. Lexmark International case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court continues. The latest party to weigh in on this key patent-exhaustion case is the Imaging Supplies Coalition (ISC), a non-profit trade association comprised of leading printer OEMs, including Brother, Canon, Epson, HP, Lexmark, Samsung, and
The Impression Products v. Lexmark International case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court is the most significant litigation for the printer supplies industry in many years. At its essence, the case is about the circumstances in which patentees exhaust patent rights and the circumstances in which they retain them. These are crucial issues for supplies
In December, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would take up the patent-exhaustion questions presented by Impression Products v. Lexmark International (see “Supreme Court to Hear Impression Products v. Lexmark”). Since then, Impression Products has filed its brief on the matter, urging the Court to reverse the “two substantial exceptions” that the U.S. Court of