September 9, 2015 at 23:03Lexmark accuses cartridge seller of patent infringement
Lexmark is known as a manufacturer of printers, but the main profit is from the sale of toner. Powder with a penny cost is sold in "branded" cartridges at a price comparable to the cost of the printer itself.
Toner cartridges are a key source of revenue, so the company spares no effort fighting for it in court . Recently, Lexmark lawyers began to use the new strategy, writes the NY Times . The company accuses sellers of "remanufactured" cartridges of violating their patents.
If you think about it, the situation looks strange. It turns out that if you take an old empty cartridge, fill it with toner and sell it, then you somehow violate Lexmark patents for this cartridge .
If you accept Lexmark's arguments, then by this logic, manufacturers can set the rules for how their equipment should be used: computers, printers, and other patented products. How to handle them, how to sell or exchange them - everything will be only with permission and according to the rules of the manufacturer. A company may, for example, establish a ban on sales to certain countries or prohibit any international transaction at all. This is quite logical if in other countries the company sells goods at a different price. In the end, such rules apply to digital goods such as films, music, and software, and hardware manufacturers would like to receive such rights.
“This does not make sense, especially in a world where technological goods and components are bought and resold many times, which is why the court should take the side of Impression,” writes the NY Times in the editorial column.
Impression Products is Lexmark's defendant . In March 2015, the court heard the arguments of the parties, but this was not enough to reach a verdict. Now the hearings are ongoing, and experts believe that the process can drag on for a long time and reach the Supreme Court.
Impression Products buys used cartridges abroad cheaply, fills them with toner and sells them in the United States at a price lower than new Lexmark cartridges.
Lexmark considers it illegal to resell in the US patented cartridges purchased abroad. The argument is based onJudgment of Appeal Court on the lawsuit filed by Fuji Photo Film Co. to 27 companies in 2001, there was a similar matter.
“This process raises important questions about the breadth of application of US patent law and the extent to which a manufacturer can control his product after it has been legally sold,” writes the NY Times in an editorial column.
Simply put, we are talking about ownership of the goods. Is the buyer fully the owner of the purchased goods and is he entitled to do whatever he wants with it? This is a matter of principle.
Now, if technology companies want to limit the rights of buyers, they can conclude additional contracts with them. If the court allows patent law to be applied here, then restrictions on the rights of buyers will become possible without additional contracts.
Several public organizations , including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, as well as IT companies Google, Intel and Dell have officially expressed their support for Impression Products in this process. In their view, patent law should not limit the resale of goods and international trade.
Pharmaceutical companies and medical device manufacturers have expressed support for Lexmark. They said that if the court dismissed the Lexmark lawsuit, it would simplify the import of cheap medicines from third countries into the United States, which would undermine the pharmaceutical industry, prevent research and develop new drugs. There is a counterargument here, because the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) still has the right to restrict the import of certain drugs. In addition, a federal law is in place prohibiting the re-import into America of drugs manufactured in the country.
The 2013 Supreme Court ruling also seems to be in favor of Impression Products. Then by a vote of six against three, the court ruledthat people have the right to import and resell textbooks bought abroad in the United States.
Toner cartridges are a key source of revenue, so the company spares no effort fighting for it in court . Recently, Lexmark lawyers began to use the new strategy, writes the NY Times . The company accuses sellers of "remanufactured" cartridges of violating their patents.
If you think about it, the situation looks strange. It turns out that if you take an old empty cartridge, fill it with toner and sell it, then you somehow violate Lexmark patents for this cartridge .
If you accept Lexmark's arguments, then by this logic, manufacturers can set the rules for how their equipment should be used: computers, printers, and other patented products. How to handle them, how to sell or exchange them - everything will be only with permission and according to the rules of the manufacturer. A company may, for example, establish a ban on sales to certain countries or prohibit any international transaction at all. This is quite logical if in other countries the company sells goods at a different price. In the end, such rules apply to digital goods such as films, music, and software, and hardware manufacturers would like to receive such rights.
“This does not make sense, especially in a world where technological goods and components are bought and resold many times, which is why the court should take the side of Impression,” writes the NY Times in the editorial column.
Impression Products is Lexmark's defendant . In March 2015, the court heard the arguments of the parties, but this was not enough to reach a verdict. Now the hearings are ongoing, and experts believe that the process can drag on for a long time and reach the Supreme Court.
Impression Products buys used cartridges abroad cheaply, fills them with toner and sells them in the United States at a price lower than new Lexmark cartridges.
Lexmark considers it illegal to resell in the US patented cartridges purchased abroad. The argument is based onJudgment of Appeal Court on the lawsuit filed by Fuji Photo Film Co. to 27 companies in 2001, there was a similar matter.
“This process raises important questions about the breadth of application of US patent law and the extent to which a manufacturer can control his product after it has been legally sold,” writes the NY Times in an editorial column.
Simply put, we are talking about ownership of the goods. Is the buyer fully the owner of the purchased goods and is he entitled to do whatever he wants with it? This is a matter of principle.
Now, if technology companies want to limit the rights of buyers, they can conclude additional contracts with them. If the court allows patent law to be applied here, then restrictions on the rights of buyers will become possible without additional contracts.
Several public organizations , including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, as well as IT companies Google, Intel and Dell have officially expressed their support for Impression Products in this process. In their view, patent law should not limit the resale of goods and international trade.
Pharmaceutical companies and medical device manufacturers have expressed support for Lexmark. They said that if the court dismissed the Lexmark lawsuit, it would simplify the import of cheap medicines from third countries into the United States, which would undermine the pharmaceutical industry, prevent research and develop new drugs. There is a counterargument here, because the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) still has the right to restrict the import of certain drugs. In addition, a federal law is in place prohibiting the re-import into America of drugs manufactured in the country.
The 2013 Supreme Court ruling also seems to be in favor of Impression Products. Then by a vote of six against three, the court ruledthat people have the right to import and resell textbooks bought abroad in the United States.