United States: The Aftermath Of Impression Products v. Lexmark

On May 30, 2017, the  U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited patent exhaustion decision in Impression Products v.  Lexmark International, 137 S.Ct. 1523 (2017). In that opinion, the court held that any authorized sale by a patent owner exhausts all patent rights in the product sold, which prohibits a patent owner from enforcing post-sale restrictions through patent infringement suits. The court also held that exhaustion applies to foreign sales authorized by the patent owner. While the decision clarified the law of patent exhaustion, it also left many patent owners questioning whether any avenues remain to control downstream use and resale of patented products.

In Impression Products, the court identified some options that may be available to patent owners, such as reaffirming that contract law allows restricting a licensee's authority to use or sell a patented product. Similarly, the court indicated that contract law might provide a mechanism to enforce post-sale restrictions on downstream purchasers. But while this may provide some hope to patent owners, it also raises other important questions: If a patent owner attempts to "license," rather than "sell," its products, how can it ensure that the "license" does not effectively become a "sale"? Similarly, if contract law permits enforcing post-sale restrictions, how can a patent owner ensure that such contracts are enforceable?

The answers to these questions are likely to shape the post-Impression Products landscape. This article summarizes the Impression Products decision and also looks at two enforcement questions and possible answers that might be gleaned from existing case law: When is a transaction properly viewed as a license rather than a sale, and are licenses attached to the product on sale (for example, shrinkwrap licenses) enforceable?

The Impression Products Decision

Background
Lexmark manufactures and sells printers and printer cartridges in the United States and abroad. It sells cartridges in the United States under two purchasing options:

  1. Buyers can purchase a "Regular" cartridge at full price that is not subject to any restrictions, or
  2. Buyers can purchase a "Return Program" cartridge at a discount, subject to the restriction that the buyer will not reuse the cartridge and will not transfer the cartridge to anyone other than Lexmark after the toner runs out.1

Impression Products collected the used return-program cartridges sold in the U.S. and abroad, refilled the cartridges, and resold them in the United States.

Lexmark sued Impression, alleging that the sale of the refurbished return-program cartridges and the importation and sale of foreign-sold cartridges in the Unites States infringed its U.S. patents. Impression responded that Lexmark's sales of the cartridges both abroad and in the United States exhausted Lexmark's patent rights. The Federal Circuit, who heard the case en banc, determined that none of Lexmark's rights were exhausted. Impression then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Impression Products Decision
The Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit's decision, holding that "a patentee's decision to sell a product exhausts all of its patent rights in that product, regardless of any restrictions the patentee purports to impose or the location of the sale."2

1. Authorized Sales Exhaust All Patent Rights Regardless of Intended Post-Sale Restrictions
First, the court held that while the restrictions in Lexmark's return program might be enforceable under contract law, they do not entitle Lexmark to retain patent rights in the items sold. The court noted that the doctrine of patent exhaustion has its origins in the common law's refusal to permit restraints on the alienation of goods and acts as a limitation on a patent owner's right to exclude.

The court also rejected Lexmark's argument that the Supreme Court's decision in General Talking Pictures Corp. v. Western Electric Co. dictated a different result. In that case, the patent owner granted a license to sell patented products in a defined field of use. The court held that when the licensee sold the product outside its licensed field to a customer who knew the sale was unauthorized, both the licensee and customer could be sued for infringement. The court stated that patent licenses and product sales implicate different ownership concerns. Because licenses exchange rights, not goods, patent owners can restrict the licensee's use or sale of covered products because the license does not transfer ownership. Although patent owners can restrict a licensee's actions, those licensees cannot enforce post-sale restrictions on customers.

2. Patent Owner's International Sales Exhaust U.S. Patent Rights
The court also held that foreign sales of patented products exhaust U.S. patent rights if the patent owner authorizes the sale of the product abroad. The court explained that exhaustion principles are not geographically dependent and relied on its recent copyright exhaustion decision in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, where it held that foreign sales of copyrighted material exhausted United States' copyright protections. Thus, patent exhaustion applies regardless of where the sale occurred.

Post-Sale Restrictions After Impression Products

With respect to patent law, the Supreme Court's decision is clear: When a patent owner sells a patented product, the patent owner cannot use patent infringement suits to enforce post-sale restrictions. The court left open, however, at least two options for patent owners wishing to exert some control downstream. First, the court reaffirmed a patent owner's ability to restrict a licensee's authority to use and sell patented items. Second, the court left open the possibility of enforcing restrictions through contract law.

License v. Sale
Impression Products reaffirmed that patent owners can restrict a licensee's ability to use or sell a patented product. Thus, one way to restrict the downstream use of a patented product could be to license it to a customer rather than sell it. This distinction, however, begs the question of when a transaction is a "license," thereby avoiding exhaustion, or a "sale," thereby invoking exhaustion.

The concept of licensing products rather than selling them is common in the software industry. But, despite being styled as licenses, questions often arise regarding whether customers are actually purchasing, not licensing, the software. Thus, the issue of when a transaction is a sale as opposed to a license has arisen frequently in copyright litigation involving software. While not patent cases, there are lessons that can be gathered from these cases that could inform the issue of patent exhaustion going forward.

Several circuit courts of appeal have addressed this issue, including the Ninth Circuit, Federal Circuit and Second Circuit. A recent decision from the Northern District of California summarized the Ninth Circuit framework from a trio of decisions—Vernor,3 UMG Recordings4 and Christenson5—as follows:

[In Vernor, the Ninth Circuit held that to] determine whether a software user is a licensee or an owner, [it] looks to whether the copyright owner: (1) "specifies that the user is granted a license"; (2) "significantly restricts the user's ability to transfer the software;" and (3) "imposes notable use restrictions." ...

[I]n UMG Recordings, the Ninth Circuit further held that merely labeling an arrangement as a license, or stating that the copyrighted works were "not for resale," was not dispositive of the issue ....

Finally, in Christenson, the Ninth Circuit clarified ... that "the party asserting a first sale defense must come forward with evidence sufficient for a jury to find lawful acquisition of title, through purchase or otherwise, to genuine copies of the copyrighted software." ... Once established, "[t]o the extent that the copyright holder claims that the alleged infringer could not acquire title or ownership because the software was never sold, only licensed, the burden shifts back to the copyright holder to establish such a license or the absence of a sale."6

Similar to the Ninth Circuit, the Federal Circuit also attached less importance to formal title and focused instead on the restrictions placed on the customer's rights.7 The Second Circuit similarly held that "formal title in a program copy is not an absolute prerequisite" to demonstrating ownership, and that courts should instead "inquire into whether the party exercises sufficient incidents of ownership over a copy of the program to be sensibly considered the owner of the copy."8 As one California court put it, "in determining whether a transaction is a sale, a lease, or a license, courts look to the economic realities of the exchange."9

To the extent the holdings of these cases can be applied to the sale of patented products, it appears that a patent holder wishing to "license," rather than sell, a product will need to do more than just label the contract a "license." The patent owner will likely need to place significant restrictions on the customer's use of the product. While placing such restrictions may be desirable, patent owners in some industries may find customers reluctant to accept such terms. Moreover, even if this option is legally available, if enforcing the license alienates customers, such restrictions may not be practical. Regardless, the development of the law in this area will be of significant interest for many patent owners.

Enforceability of Shrinkwrap Licenses
If a patent owner wants to license a patented product to a customer or simply wants to sell the product subject to restrictions enforceable under contract law, the question remains of how to create an enforceable contract with the consumer. One option commonly used in the software area for this purpose is the shrinkwrap license.10 Perhaps not surprisingly, the enforceability of shrinkwrap licenses has been litigated frequently in the software field. Thus, these cases may also provide some guidance for patent owners.

In general, several courts have stated that "'shrink wrap licenses[]' are no less enforceable than any other type of contract."11 To determine whether such agreements are enforceable, courts apply traditional principles of contact law.12 The applicability of traditional contract principles also includes "generally applicable contract defenses, such as fraud, duress, and unconscionability."13 Importantly, several courts have also found shrinkwrap licenses invalid "as contracts of adhesion, unconscionability, and/or unacceptable pursuant to the U.C.C."14

One important consideration for courts in determining enforceability has been "whether the party ... had reasonable notice of and manifested assent to the agreement."15 The amount of notice, however, may vary by jurisdiction. In New York, for example, one court required that the "reasonably prudent user" have "inquiry notice."16 The court explained that this means that the contract—in that case a website—"must encourage the user to examine the terms 'clearly available through hyperlinkage,'" and that the link cannot be "buried at the bottom of a webpage or tucked away in obscure corners of the website."17 In other words, this court emphasized that the user accepting the agreement must know the terms of the agreement.

In some situations, courts have also permitted transactions, where the consumer pays for the product without seeing the terms, but has a period of time to review the terms afterwards and return the product if they do not accept the terms.18 In such cases, the law may require that the user is given notice of the terms and that the notice provides a period for the user to consider and return the product if they reject those terms.

Shrinkwrap licenses' uneven history of enforceability in certain circumstances makes this an area of the law that patent owners will likely watch moving forward. Issues such as sufficiency of notice could make this an area of future litigation as patent owners attempt to retain control of their products downstream.

Strategies and Considerations

Although Impression Products made clear that patent law is not a viable mechanism to enforce restrictions after a sale, it appears that contract law provides at least some avenues to patent owners moving forward. Patent owners may be able to license their products subject to enforceable license restrictions. And for patent owners looking to license or sell their products subject to contractual restrictions, shrinkwrap licenses may provide one viable mechanism. As patent owners navigate the post-Impression Products landscape, the continued development of the law in these areas will be closely watched.

Footnotes

1 Impression Prods., Inc. v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc., No. 15-1189, slip op. at 2-3 (U.S. May 30, 2017).

2 Id., slip op. at 13.

3 Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc., 621 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2010).

4 UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Augusto, 628 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. 2011).

5 Adobe Sys. Inc. v. Christenson, 809 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2015).

6 Microsoft Corp. v. A&S Elecs., Inc., No. 15-CV-03570-YGR, 2017 WL 976005, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2017) (discussing Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc., 621 F.3d 1102, 1107 (9th Cir. 2010); UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Augusto, 628 F.3d 1175, 1179 (9th Cir. 2011); and Adobe Sys. Inc. v. Christenson, 809 F.3d 1071, 1078-79 (9th Cir. 2015) (citations omitted, paragraphing added).

7 DSC Commc'ns Corp. v. Pulse Commc'ns, Inc., 170 F.3d 1354, 1360-61 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

8 Krause v. Titleserv, Inc., 402 F.3d 119, 123-24 (2d Cir. 2005).

9 SoftMan Prods. Co., LLC v. Adobe Sys., Inc., 171 F. Supp. 2d 1075, 1084 (C.D. Cal. 2001).

10 Generally speaking, a shrinkwrap license comes in the form of users accepting the terms of the license by opening the package or by not returning the product within a prescribed period. A variation on this type is the clickwrap license, where the user accepts the terms by clicking an acceptance before installing the software.

11 Novell, Inc. v. Unicom Sales, Inc., No. C-03-2785 MMC, 2004 WL 1839117, at *11 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2004); see also ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447, 1449 (7th Cir. 1996); U.S. v. Drew, 259 F.R.D. 449, 462 n.22 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (noting that "Clickwrap agreements have been routinely upheld by circuit and district courts.") (quotation marks and citation omitted).

12 See Specht v. Netscape Commc'ns Corp., 150 F. Supp. 2d 585, 589 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).

13 Comb v. PayPal, Inc., 218 F. Supp. 2d 1165, 1170 (N.D. Cal. 2002).

14 Novell, Inc. v. Network Trade Ctr., Inc., 25 F. Supp. 2d 1218, 1230 (D. Utah 1997) (citing Step–Saver Data Sys., Inc. v. Wyse Tech., 939 F.2d 91 (3d Cir.1991); Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd., 847 F.2d 255 (5th Cir.1988); see SoftMan Prods, 171 F. Supp. 2d at 1075, 1084 (collecting cases, but not deciding the issue because buyer did not assent to contract); see also Lloyd L. Rich, Mass Market Software and the Shrinkwrap License, 23 Colo. Law. 1321 (1994).

15 Jallali v. Nat'l Bd. of Osteopathic Med. Exam'rs, Inc., 908 N.E.2d 1168, 1173 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (citation omitted).

16 Resorb Networks, Inc. v. YouNow.com, 30 N.Y.S.3d 506, 511, 51 Misc. 3d 975, 981 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2016).

17 Id.

18 Brower v. Gateway 2000 Inc., 246 A.D.2d 246, 251 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998) (agreeing that "cash now, terms later" agreements can be enforceable, but that no agreement exists until the period for acceptance expires).

Previously published November 13, 2017, in Law360.

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.

Authors
Events from this Firm
24 Jul 2018, Webinar, Washington, DC, United States

The program will consider arguments that have worked to avoid a finding of inequitable conduct or unclean hands and those that have not been successful.

9 Aug 2018, Webinar, Washington, DC, United States

As part of Strafford Publications’ webinar series, Finnegan partners Shana Cyr and Barbara Rudolph will discuss best practices for patent counsel navigating the 30-month stay in Hatch-Waxman Act litigation.

5 Sep 2018, Webinar, Washington, DC, United States

Finnegan’s 2018 webinar series addresses challenges across the IP landscape in the United States. The series starts with one of the fundamentals—proving or disproving obviousness. The panelists will address what works and what doesn’t before U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) examiners, before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and before the courts.

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
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must 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.

Disclaimer

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.

General

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