Lexmark accuses cartridge vendor of patent infringement
Lexmark is known as a printer manufacturer, but it makes most of its profits on the sale of toner. Powder with a penny value 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 have begun to use a new strategy, writes the NY Times . The company accuses the sellers of the “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, then you somehow violate Lexmark patents on this cartridge .
If you accept the Lexmark arguments, then according to 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 the permission and according to the rules of the manufacturer. A company may, for example, prohibit the sale in certain countries or ban any international transaction altogether. 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 movies, music and software, so the equipment manufacturers would like to receive such rights.
')
“It 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 side with Impression,” writes the NY Times in an editorial column.
Impression Products is a Lexmark lawsuit . In March 2015, the court heard the arguments of the parties, but this was not enough to render a verdict. Now the hearings are continuing, and experts believe that the process can take a long time and reach the Supreme Court.
Impression Products buys used cartridges abroad for cheap, fills them with toner and sells in the US at a price lower than the new Lexmark cartridges.
Lexmark considers resale of patented cartridges purchased abroad to be illegal in the United States. The argument is based on the decision of the Court of Appeal on the suit of Fuji Photo Film Co. to 27 companies in 2001, there was a similar deal.
“This process raises important questions about the breadth of US patent law and to what extent a manufacturer can control its product after it has been legally sold,” writes the NY Times in an editorial column.
Simply put, we are talking about the ownership of the goods. Is the buyer fully owner of the purchased goods and is he entitled to do whatever he wants with him? This is a matter of principle.
Now, if technology companies want to limit the rights of customers, they can enter into additional agreements with them. In the event that the court permits the application of patent law here, then restrictions on the rights of buyers will be possible without additional contracts.
Several public organizations , including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, as well as IT companies Google, Intel and Dell have officially expressed support for Impression Products in this process. In their opinion, patent laws should not restrict the resale of goods and international trade.
Pharmaceutical companies and medical device manufacturers have expressed support for Lexmark. They said that if the court rejected the Lexmark lawsuit, it would make it easier to import cheap medications from third countries into the US, which would undermine the pharmaceutical industry and prevent research and development of 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, there is a federal law prohibiting the re-import into America of drugs produced in the country.
The 2013 Supreme Court decision also seems to be in favor of Impression Products. Then by a vote of six against three, the court ruled that people have the right to import and resell textbooks purchased 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 have begun to use a new strategy, writes the NY Times . The company accuses the sellers of the “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, then you somehow violate Lexmark patents on this cartridge .
If you accept the Lexmark arguments, then according to 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 the permission and according to the rules of the manufacturer. A company may, for example, prohibit the sale in certain countries or ban any international transaction altogether. 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 movies, music and software, so the equipment manufacturers would like to receive such rights.
')
“It 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 side with Impression,” writes the NY Times in an editorial column.
Impression Products is a Lexmark lawsuit . In March 2015, the court heard the arguments of the parties, but this was not enough to render a verdict. Now the hearings are continuing, and experts believe that the process can take a long time and reach the Supreme Court.
Impression Products buys used cartridges abroad for cheap, fills them with toner and sells in the US at a price lower than the new Lexmark cartridges.
Lexmark considers resale of patented cartridges purchased abroad to be illegal in the United States. The argument is based on the decision of the Court of Appeal on the suit of Fuji Photo Film Co. to 27 companies in 2001, there was a similar deal.
“This process raises important questions about the breadth of US patent law and to what extent a manufacturer can control its product after it has been legally sold,” writes the NY Times in an editorial column.
Simply put, we are talking about the ownership of the goods. Is the buyer fully owner of the purchased goods and is he entitled to do whatever he wants with him? This is a matter of principle.
Now, if technology companies want to limit the rights of customers, they can enter into additional agreements with them. In the event that the court permits the application of patent law here, then restrictions on the rights of buyers will be possible without additional contracts.
Several public organizations , including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, as well as IT companies Google, Intel and Dell have officially expressed support for Impression Products in this process. In their opinion, patent laws should not restrict the resale of goods and international trade.
Pharmaceutical companies and medical device manufacturers have expressed support for Lexmark. They said that if the court rejected the Lexmark lawsuit, it would make it easier to import cheap medications from third countries into the US, which would undermine the pharmaceutical industry and prevent research and development of 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, there is a federal law prohibiting the re-import into America of drugs produced in the country.
The 2013 Supreme Court decision also seems to be in favor of Impression Products. Then by a vote of six against three, the court ruled that people have the right to import and resell textbooks purchased abroad in the United States.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/368209/
All Articles