By Jason Rantanen Lexmark International, Inc. v. Impression Products (Fed. Cir. 2016) (en banc) Download OpinionMajority opinion authored by Judge Taranto, with Judge Dyk dissenting (joined by Judge Hughes) This morning the Federal Circuit issued its en banc opinion in the closely watched Lexmark case. In a behemoth 92 page opinion by Judge Taranto, the court held that the limitations on the exhaustion doctrine set out in its 1992 Mallinkrodt and 2001 Jazz Photo opinions remain good law, notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s intervening decisions in Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 553 U.S. 617 (2008) and Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 133 S.Ct. 1351 (2013). From the majority opinion: First, we adhere to the holding of Mallinckrodt, Inc. v. Medipart, Inc., 976 F.2d 700 (Fed. Cir. 1992), 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,…
↧