Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comment on the US Supreme Court Decision “Impression Products v. Lexmark International”

35 U.S.C., §154(a)

  • Case Note
  • Published:
IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. Justice Ginsburg dissented on the international exhaustion issue.

  2. Impression Products, Inc., Petitioner v. Lexmark International, Inc., 581 U.S. __ (2017), No. 15-1189, slip opinion at 2–5.

  3. Sua Sponte Hearing En Banc, Order of April 14, 2015, Lexmark International v. Impression Products, Nos. 2014-1617, 2014-1619 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

  4. Lexmark International v. Impression Products, 816 F.3d 721, 737–39 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

  5. Impression Products, 581 U.S., slip opinion at 10.

  6. Id., at 6.

  7. Id., at 7–8.

  8. Id., at 11.

  9. Id., at 10–12.

  10. Frederick M. Abbott, First Report (Final) to the Committee on International Trade Law of the International Law Association on the Subject of Parallel Importation, 1 Journal of International Economic Law 607 (1998)

  11. Id. at 609. The Court of Justice of the European Union recognized in the immediate aftermath of the formation of the Union that IP, including patents, might constitute an obstacle to completion of the internal market. IP may act as a form of quantitative barrier that allowed IP owners to re-partition the internal market. The multilateral trading system as embodied in the World Trade Organization has characteristics different than the EU (e.g., in terms of the level of integration seeking to be achieved), but the potential for enterprises to partition the global market based on IP rights similarly raises the problem of measures equivalent to quotas.

  12. See Margreth Barrett, The United States' Doctrine of Exhaustion: Parallel Imports of Patented Goods, 27 N Ky. L. Rev. 911, 945–49 (2000), reprinted in 32 Intell. Prop. Rev. 231 (West, 2001).

  13. WTO, Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health (14 November 2001), at para. 5(d), Doc. WT/MIN(01)/DEC/2 (20 November 2001).

  14. Frederick M. Abbott, Intellectual Property Provisions of Bilateral and Regional Trade Agreements in Light of U.S. Federal Law, ICTSD-UNCTAD Project on IPRs and Sustainable Development, Issue Paper No. 12, at 12–14, 18(Feb. 2006).

  15. Jazz Photo Corp. v. International Trade Commission, 264 F.3d 1094, 1105 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

  16. The absence of reference to precedent was recognized by a subsequent District Court decision in related infringement proceedings, Fuji Photo v. Jazz Photo, 249 F.Supp.2d 434, 448–50 (D.N.J. 2003).

  17. See Order supra note 3.

  18. Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Reversal in Part and Vacatur in Part, Impression Products v. Lexmark International, S.Ct., No. 1189, at 22–24 (Jan. 2017).

  19. Lexmark International v. Impression Products, 816 F.3d 721, 765 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

  20. Lexmark International v. Impression Products, 816 F.3d 721, 760–62 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

  21. Id., at 765–66.

  22. Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 2006, Act of Nov. 22, 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-108, §631, 119 Stat. 2344.

  23. Impression Products, Inc., Petitioner v. Lexmark International, Inc., 581 U.S. __ (2017), No. 15-1189, slip opinion at 14.

  24. Id., at 13–14.

  25. Id., at 13–14.

  26. The Court said: “All that case illustrates is that a sale abroad does not exhaust a patentee’s rights when the patentee had nothing to do with the transaction.” Id., at 16.

  27. Id., at 15.

  28. The Court said: “But the Patent Act does not guarantee a particular price, much less the price from selling to American consumers.” Id., at 15.

  29. Id., at 17.

  30. Id., at 18.

  31. See, e.g., Brief for Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondent, S.Ct., No. 15-1189 (2017) ("PhRMA Brief"); Brief of Amici Curiae Biotechnology Innovation Organization and Croplife International in Support of Respondent, S.Ct., No. 15-1189 (Feb. 23, 2017)("BIO Brief').

  32. Lexmark International v. Impression Products, 816 F.3d 721, 772 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

  33. See, e.g., PhRMA Brief at 9–19; BIO Brief at 24.

  34. Brief of Amicus Curiae (Frederick M. Abbott) in Support of Petitioner in Impression Products v. Lexmark International, US Supreme Court, No. 15-1189, filed January 20, 2017. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2906967.

  35. Id., and; Frederick M. Abbott, Parallel Trade in Pharmaceuticals: Trade Therapy for Market Distortions, in: I. Calboli and E. Lee (eds.) Research Handbook on Intellectual Property Exhaustion and Parallel Imports, 145–65, (Edward Elgar Pub. 2016).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. J.D. (Yale), LL.M. (UC Berkeley); Edward Ball Eminent Scholar Professor of International Law, Florida State University College of Law, Tallahassee, FL, USA

    Frederick M. Abbott

Authors
  1. Frederick M. Abbott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frederick M. Abbott.

Additional information

For the headnotes of the Impression Products v. Lexmark International decision, see this issue of IIC at doi:10.1007/s40319-017-0640-8.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abbott, F.M. Comment on the US Supreme Court Decision “Impression Products v. Lexmark International”. IIC 48, 889–896 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-017-0645-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-017-0645-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation