Customize Consent Preferences

We use cookies to help you navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. You will find detailed information about all cookies under each consent category below.

The cookies that are categorized as "Necessary" are stored on your browser as they are essential for enabling the basic functionalities of the site. ... 

Always Active

Necessary cookies are required to enable the basic features of this site, such as providing secure log-in or adjusting your consent preferences. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable data.

No cookies to display.

Functional cookies help perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collecting feedback, and other third-party features.

No cookies to display.

Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics such as the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.

No cookies to display.

Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.

No cookies to display.

Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with customized advertisements based on the pages you visited previously and to analyze the effectiveness of the ad campaigns.

No cookies to display.

Login

Recent U.S. Court Decisions And Developments Affecting Licensing

John Paul
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP

Brian Kacedon
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP

The exhaustion doctrine in patent law precludes a patent owner from asserting patent rights to control the use of an apparatus after an authorized sale. In Keurig, Inc. v. Sturm Foods, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that a patent owner’s rights to a patented method are exhausted when the patent owner sells an apparatus with a normal and intended use of practicing the method. The Federal Circuit also stated that exhaustion is determined on a patent-by-patent basis, not a claim-by-claim basis. This latter portion of the Keurig decision is significant for patent owners because it could have additional ramifications for those whose patents cover both method and apparatus claims.

Latest