Page:Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc. Decision.pdf/6

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
Cite asL 581 U.S. _____ (2017)
1

Opinion of the Court

Note: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES


No. 15–1189


IMPRESSION PRODUCTS, INC., PETITIONERv
LEXMARK INTERNATION, INC.

ON WRITE OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL Circuit

[May 30, 2017]

Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court.

A United States patent entitles the patent holder (the “patentee”), for a period of 20 years, to “exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling [its] invention throughout the United States or importing the invention into the United States.” 35 U. S. C. §154(a). Whoever engages in one of these acts “without authority” from the patentee may face liability for patent infringement. §271(a).

When a patentee sells one of its products, however, the patentee can no longer control that item through the patent laws—its patent rights are said to “exhaust.” The purchaser and all subsequent owners are free to use or resell the product just like any other item of personal property, without fear of an infringement lawsuit.

This case presents two questions about the scope of the patent exhaustion doctrine: First, whether a patentee that sells an item under an express restriction on the purchaser’s right to reuse or resell the product may enforce that restriction through an infringement lawsuit. And second,