U.S. Supreme Court,
Civil Litigation,
Intellectual Property,
Corporate,
Contracts
Aug. 16, 2017
Pitfalls in supplier agreements after patent exhaustion ruling
It is only logical that patent owners will seek to protect their interests in other ways, and the U.S. Supreme Court has expressly pointed them to contract law.
Sean Murray
Partner
Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP.
Email: sean_murray@kmob.com
Sean is based in the firm's Orange County office.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Impression Products v. Lexmark, 137 S. Ct. 1523 (2017), dramatically limited a patent owner’s ability to control how a patented item is used after it is sold. Lexmark did so by expanding the doctrine of patent exhaustion, which holds that the first sale of a patented product “exhausts” all patent rights in that product and precludes future patent infringement suits based on la...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In