How Lexmark's patent fight to crush an ink reseller will affect us all

Yes, Lexmark is still a thing


If printer maker Lexmark International prevails against ink cartridge reseller Impression Products, tech giants and other American companies will gain the ability to control products through patent claims after they have been sold.

The Federal Circuit Court in Washington, DC, last year supported this idea by siding with Lexmark's position that acquiring printer cartridges abroad, refurbishing them, and reselling them in the US violates its patent rights.

Last month, the US Supreme Court agreed to review that decision and on Monday, advocacy groups AARP, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Mozilla, Public Knowledge, and R Street filed an amicus brief in support of Impression Products' claim that it should be able to resell ink cartridges it has acquired without restriction.

The advocacy groups argue that giving patent owners the ability to control goods after they have been sold could imperil security research, reverse engineering, and the modification of devices.

Since 1853, US law has recognized that when a patent holder sells a patented item, the patent protection is exhausted, allowing the item to be resold or altered without the patent holder's consent.

The exhaustion doctrine limits the monopoly power granted to patent holders, assuming the sale was authorized in the first place. It's similar to the first sale doctrine, which limits copyright claims once a copyrighted work has been sold.

But a 2001 decision, Jazz Photo Corp. v. ITC, suggests that patent exhaustion doesn't apply when patented goods are sold outside the US.

Lexmark also contends that a notice on its packaging binds customers to return used cartridges to Lexmark rather than disposing of them elsewhere. (Lexmark sells some cartridges at a discount under its Return Program, while also selling full-priced cartridges without a contractual notice on the packaging.)

Lexmark in 2010 launched series of lawsuits in Ohio against ink cartridge recyclers. Most of them settled, agreeing not to acquire ink cartridges abroad for resale in the US. Ink cartridges purchased lawfully in the US can be resold under the patent exhaustion doctrine.

In 2013, Lexmark sued Impressions Products for patent infringement and won a Federal Circuit Court decision in early 2016.

Abusing patent law

Daniel Nazer, staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Mark Cuban Chair to Eliminate Stupid Patents, said in a phone interview with The Register, "There's a risk companies will increasingly turn to patent law to do things they're not otherwise allowed to do."

Nazer pointed to a shampoo maker that tried unsuccessfully to block the importation of a product into the US by asserting a copyright claim on the shampoo bottle label. He observed that a design patent claim could be employed in an attempt to achieve the same anti-competitive result.

"What these companies are trying to do is use a contract with a consumer, that they have no intention of enforcing against the consumer, as an end-run around patent exhaustion," he said.

In a phone interview with The Register, Jishnu Menon, associate general counsel at Mozilla, said the case has implications beyond printer supplies. "If patent rights weren't exhausted on first sale, you could conceivably be unable to sell your car to a dealer without seeking some sort of permission," he said.

Menon, in an email, observed that Lexmark has tried to use copyright law to exert post-sale control over its products.

"Prior to this case, Lexmark itself had previously tried to stop other businesses from selling 'competing' printer cartridges using the DMCA, a case it lost at the Sixth Circuit in 2004. (Lexmark v. Static Control Components)," he said.

Menon said that products increasingly have a variety of components – hardware, software, and cloud services – that are subject to intellectual property protections and that the patent exhaustion doctrine is necessary to provide some balance.

"You can't innovate if you can't experiment with the things you bought," he said. "There needs to be a balance between the monopoly created to promote the technology [and what the buyer can do with it]."

It's unclear when the Supreme Court will rule but Menon said oral arguments could come as soon as March. ®


Other stories you might like

  • Stolen university credentials up for sale by Russian crooks, FBI warns
    Forget dark-web souks, thousands of these are already being traded on public bazaars

    Russian crooks are selling network credentials and virtual private network access for a "multitude" of US universities and colleges on criminal marketplaces, according to the FBI.

    According to a warning issued on Thursday, these stolen credentials sell for thousands of dollars on both dark web and public internet forums, and could lead to subsequent cyberattacks against individual employees or the schools themselves.

    "The exposure of usernames and passwords can lead to brute force credential stuffing computer network attacks, whereby attackers attempt logins across various internet sites or exploit them for subsequent cyber attacks as criminal actors take advantage of users recycling the same credentials across multiple accounts, internet sites, and services," the Feds' alert [PDF] said.

    Continue reading
  • Big Tech loves talking up privacy – while trying to kill privacy legislation
    Study claims Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, Microsoft work to derail data rules

    Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, and Microsoft often support privacy in public statements, but behind the scenes they've been working through some common organizations to weaken or kill privacy legislation in US states.

    That's according to a report this week from news non-profit The Markup, which said the corporations hire lobbyists from the same few groups and law firms to defang or drown state privacy bills.

    The report examined 31 states when state legislatures were considering privacy legislation and identified 445 lobbyists and lobbying firms working on behalf of Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, and Microsoft, along with industry groups like TechNet and the State Privacy and Security Coalition.

    Continue reading
  • SEC probes Musk for not properly disclosing Twitter stake
    Meanwhile, social network's board rejects resignation of one its directors

    America's financial watchdog is investigating whether Elon Musk adequately disclosed his purchase of Twitter shares last month, just as his bid to take over the social media company hangs in the balance. 

    A letter [PDF] from the SEC addressed to the tech billionaire said he "[did] not appear" to have filed the proper form detailing his 9.2 percent stake in Twitter "required 10 days from the date of acquisition," and asked him to provide more information. Musk's shares made him one of Twitter's largest shareholders. The letter is dated April 4, and was shared this week by the regulator.

    Musk quickly moved to try and buy the whole company outright in a deal initially worth over $44 billion. Musk sold a chunk of his shares in Tesla worth $8.4 billion and bagged another $7.14 billion from investors to help finance the $21 billion he promised to put forward for the deal. The remaining $25.5 billion bill was secured via debt financing by Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Barclays, and others. But the takeover is not going smoothly.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022