Key Takeaways:

  • The exhaustion doctrine limits a patent holder’s rights after an authorized sale, preventing control over future resale or use.
  • U.S. Supreme Court decisions, such as Impression Products v. Lexmark and Quanta v. LG Electronics, clarified and expanded the scope of patent exhaustion.
  • The doctrine applies both domestically and internationally, even when license agreements attempt to impose post-sale restrictions.
  • Licensing agreements can influence how exhaustion is applied, but courts generally reject efforts to override the doctrine through contract terms.
  • Copyright and trademark laws also have similar exhaustion principles, known as the "first sale doctrine."

The exhaustion doctrine is a legal principle where a plaintiff needs to exhaust all possible administrative remedies prior to obtaining judicial review. When it comes to intellectual property, this principle states that the original sale of a patented, trademarked, or copyrighted good exhausts the patent, trademark, or copyright owner's intellectual property right so they can't control the resale or distribution of the good. For example, if owner A sells to owner B, owner B is allowed to sell to owner C without getting owner A's approval. This is also known as the doctrine of first sale.

Understanding the Patent Exhaustion Doctrine

According to the U.S. Patent Act, owners of patents are granted the monopoly right to prevent other people from doing the following:

  • Using the patented invention.
  • Making the invention.
  • Selling the patented invention.

That said, the common law doctrine, also known as the patent exhaustion doctrine, usually controls what authority the patent owners have when it comes to authorized sales. This became cemented in the year 2008, when the Quanta Computer v LG Electronics case occurred. The court decided that the original authorized sale terminated all rights to that product afterward. In this example, LG Electronics, the plaintiff, had three patents that covered different computer computers, methods, and systems.

LG Electronics licensed their patents to Intel, who was permitted to create and sell chipsets and microprocessors that were covered under the patents. The license had the limitation that licenses could not be granted to third parties and stated that the doctrine of patent exhaustion could not be altered. Intel was in another agreement with LG that made it mandatory for Intel to let their customers know that Intel had the permission to sell their products, but the license wasn't applicable to any other products the purchaser made (such as combining a non-Intel product with an Intel product).

Quanta was another company who bought chipsets and microprocessors from Intel, and even though they knew about the company's notice, ended up combining Intel's products with components that weren't from Intel to make new computers under the LG patents. LG found out and sued Quanta under the terms of patent infringement.

Quanta's motion for summary judgment was originally granted on the terms that the LG license given to Intel exhausted LG's rights to be able to sue Intel's customers. It was reconsidered, and the court decided to deny summary judgment, saying that the patent exhaustion doctrine didn't apply to the claims, and therefore didn't apply to the patents since they had the method claims.

Exhaustion Doctrine and Licensing Agreements

The intersection of the exhaustion doctrine and licensing agreements is often contested. A patent owner may grant a license to make or sell a product while attempting to impose restrictions on how that product is used or resold. However, courts generally distinguish between conditions attached to a license and those attached to a sale.

If a licensee makes an authorized sale, exhaustion is typically triggered—even if the license attempts to restrict resale or use. For example, if a license says the product may not be resold without permission, but the licensee sells it anyway, the buyer still gets full ownership and immunity from infringement claims due to exhaustion. Courts have made clear that post-sale restrictions cannot override the doctrine, even if embedded in a contract.

Landmark Supreme Court Rulings on Patent Exhaustion

The exhaustion doctrine has been significantly shaped by Supreme Court rulings. A pivotal case is Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc. (2017). In this case, the Court held that once a patented item is sold—whether in the U.S. or abroad—the patent holder cannot impose post-sale restrictions or sue for patent infringement.

Lexmark attempted to restrict reuse and resale of its printer cartridges through contractual terms. The Court, however, emphasized that patent rights are exhausted upon authorized sale and cannot be revived through contract law. This decision not only affirmed but expanded the doctrine’s reach, reinforcing that exhaustion applies to both domestic and international sales and across different forms of transactions, including sales by licensees.

Fact-Sensitive Disputes

Recognizing that courts are in charge of disputes is important, as exhaustion issues are fact-sensitive. If a purchaser of an infringement claim becomes a target from the seller by reselling or using the article, it's essential to refer to the patent exhaustion doctrine. This is a meaningful and significant legal defense that's offered to the purchaser. The courts will decide if the sale of the article was actually an authorized sale that should trigger the doctrine. They'll see if there was a patent license that was associated with the transaction that occurred and if the license was limited.

The court will look at if contractual limitations or restrictive covenants were in place that gave contract rights that were separate from the IP rights of the patent owner. All of these questions will answer the gray areas of the doctrine that are being enforced. Patent owners who sell patented articles often try to find a way around the limitations that the patent exhaustion doctrine set by negotiating restrictive provisions and terms related to the sale.

Creating a license agreement between the provisions of the seller (licensor) and the purchaser (licensee) will make sure the licensee's customers aren't bound combine or process components of the licensed article. An example of trying to circumvent limitations is basing the sale of the purchaser accepting the patent license. Making it mandatory for the purchaser to let their customers know that they need to take a license from the patent owner before going further with the patented parts of an article is another way to circumvent the limitations.

Exhaustion Doctrine Beyond Patents

While most legal discourse centers on patent exhaustion, similar principles apply to other areas of intellectual property law.

  • Copyright: The “first sale doctrine” under 17 U.S.C. § 109(a) mirrors exhaustion. Once a copyrighted work is lawfully sold, the copyright holder cannot control further distribution or resale.
  • Trademark: Trademark exhaustion also exists, though courts may allow more control over downstream sales if the product’s quality is affected or the resale causes consumer confusion.

These doctrines ensure that IP owners receive compensation from the first sale but cannot perpetually control lawful goods. However, nuances exist between patent, copyright, and trademark exhaustion, particularly in how courts treat restrictions and quality control issues.

International Sales and Global Exhaustion

One of the most consequential aspects of the Impression Products decision is its embrace of international exhaustion. The Court rejected the notion that a U.S. patent holder could restrict importation of patented goods lawfully sold abroad. This means that a product sold overseas with the patent owner’s authorization exhausts U.S. patent rights just as a domestic sale would.

This approach aligns U.S. law with global trade practices and limits attempts by patent holders to segment markets by controlling downstream uses based on sale location. Companies must now consider that international sales can trigger exhaustion and eliminate their ability to enforce patent rights in the U.S. against importers or resellers.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What does the exhaustion doctrine mean in patent law? It means a patent holder's rights to control the use and resale of a patented item end once the item is sold with authorization.

2. Does the exhaustion doctrine apply internationally? Yes. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that authorized foreign sales also exhaust U.S. patent rights.

3. Can a patent owner enforce post-sale restrictions through a license? Generally no. Courts hold that once a product is sold, the patent rights are exhausted, even if a license tries to impose restrictions.

4. How is the exhaustion doctrine different from the first sale doctrine? They're similar. The exhaustion doctrine applies to patents, while the first sale doctrine applies to copyrights and trademarks.

5. Can the exhaustion doctrine be waived by contract? While contracts may include post-sale terms, courts usually do not allow those terms to revive exhausted patent rights.

If you need help with an exhaustion doctrine, you can post your legal need on UpCounsel's marketplace. UpCounsel accepts only the top 5 percent of lawyers to its site. Lawyers on UpCounsel come from law schools such as Harvard Law and Yale Law and average 14 years of legal experience, including work with or on behalf of companies like Google, Menlo Ventures, and Airbnb.