|
:''See also Exhaustion of intellectual property rights for a general introduction not limited to U.S. law.'' The exhaustion doctrine, also referred to as the first sale doctrine,〔The term "exhaustion doctrine" is used in patent cases. The term "first sale doctrine" is used in copyright cases. Compare Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. (patent) with Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (copyright).〕 is a U.S. common law patent doctrine that limits the extent to which patent holders can control an individual article of a patented product after a so-called authorized sale. Under the doctrine, once an authorized sale of a patented article occurs, the patent holder’s exclusive rights to control the use and sale of that article are said to be "exhausted," and the purchaser is free to use or resell that article without further restraint from patent law. However, under the repair and reconstruction doctrine, the patent owner retains the right to exclude purchasers of the articles from making the patented invention anew (i.e., making another article), unless it is specifically authorized by the patentee to do so.〔''See, e.g.'', ''Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co.'', 377 U.S. 476 (1964); ''Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co.'', 365 U.S. 336 (1961); ''Morgan Envelope Co. v. Albany Perforated Wrapping Paper Co.'', 152 U.S. 425 (1894); ''Cotton-Tie Co. v. Simmons'', 106 U.S. 89 (1882). See also ''Wilbur-Ellis Co. v. Kuther'', 377 U.S. 422 (1964) (purchaser may modify article to improve or alter functionality).〕 Procedurally, the patent exhaustion doctrine operates as an affirmative defense, shielding authorized purchasers from infringement claims concerning the sale or use (including repair and modification) of a patented product after the patent owner authorized its sale. Because only an "authorized" sale triggers the doctrine, it may be difficult or at least controversial to determine whether the exhaustion doctrine applies in a particular case: for example, when the patentee purports to restrict or condition the use or resale of the patented article once purchased and in the hands of an end user (post-sale restrictions); or when the patentee licenses another to manufacture and use or sell the patented product only in a particular field. The 2008 Supreme Court decision in ''Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc.'', arguably leaves unclear the extent to which patentees can avoid the exhaustion doctrine by means of so-called limited licenses (licenses limited to a specified field of use). Since its development by the courts in the late 19th century,〔See ''Adams v. Burke'', 84 U.S. (17 Wall.) 453 (1873).〕 the patent exhaustion doctrine has raised questions regarding the scope of exclusive rights granted by patents and the extent to which a patent owner may extend those rights to control downstream use and sales of patented articles. == Overview == A patent gives the patent owner the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing into the U.S. the patented invention (i.e., a product embodying the invention) during the term of the patent.〔35 U.S.C. § 271(a)(2006).〕 The constitutional rationale behind providing these exclusive rights is to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts”〔U.S. Const., art. I, § 8, cl. 8〕 by providing inventors the incentive to invest their time, labor, and funds in researching and developing innovative technology.〔William M. Landes & Richard A. Posner, The Economic Structure of Intellectual Property Law 294 (2003).〕 Providing these protections, however, comes with social costs (monopoly rents) and limits the public’s ability to freely alienate patented goods. Thus, public policy dictates that the patent owner’s exclusive rights be limited in scope. Generally, when a patent owner receives compensation for the use of his or her invention through sale of a patented product, the purpose of patent law is fulfilled with respect to that product.〔''See, e.g.'', ''Keeler v. Standard Folding Bed Co.'', 157 U.S. 659, 666-67 (1895) (“The conclusion reached does not deprive a patentee of his just rights, because no article can be unfettered from the claim of his monopoly without paying its tribute. The inconvenience and annoyance to the public that an opposite conclusion would occasion are too obvious to require illustration.”).〕 Upon receiving compensation, the patent owner's rights to exclude others are exhausted and “the patent law affords no basis for restraining the use and enjoyment of the thing sold.”〔''United States v. Univis Lens Co.'', 316 U.S. 241, 251 (1942).〕 Accordingly, a patent owner's voluntary introduction of a patented product into commerce without restriction prevents the patent owner from exercising any claimed right to exclude others from using or reselling the sold product.〔Exhaustion occurs also when a product is given away. ''Lifescan Scotland, Ltd. v. Shasta Technologies'', 734 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2013).〕 Unlike the analogous first-sale doctrine in copyright, the patent exhaustion doctrine has not been codified into the patent statute, and is thus still a common law doctrine. It was first explicitly recognized by the Supreme Court in 1873 in ''Adams v. Burke''.〔84 U.S. (17 Wall.) 453 (1873). The ''Adams'' decision referred to earlier 19th century decisions whose language supported the proposition, but in slightly different contexts. In Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., a 2013 copyright decision, the Supreme Court termed the exhaustion principle "a common-law doctrine with an impeccable historic pedigree," and cited 15th and 17th century exhaustion precedents.〕 In that case, the patentee Adams assigned to another the right to make, use, and sell patented coffin lids only within a ten-mile radius of Boston. Burke (an undertaker), a customer of the assignee, bought the coffin lids from the manufacturer-assignee within the ten-mile radius, but later used (and effectively resold) the patented coffin lids outside of the ten-mile radius, in his trade in the course of burying a person. The patentee Adams sued the undertaker Burke for patent infringement, but the Supreme Court found no infringement liability: Once the coffin lids were lawfully made and sold, “there is no restriction on their use to be implied for the benefit of the patentee or his assignees or licensees.” Because the sale was authorized (bought from an authorized seller within the ten-mile radius), the defendant acquired the right to use the coffin lids free from any claim of the patentee, even though he carried it outside the ten-mile radius to use it. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Exhaustion doctrine under U.S. law」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|