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

|

The Exhaustion Theory Is Not Yet Exhausted Part 3

Erik Verbraeken
Johnson Controls

2013 has been rich in the issuance of various court decisions, from the Supreme Court to the District Courts, that provide further guidance on the application of the intellectual property exhaustion doctrine (a.k.a. the “first sale” doctrine) to sales of products made by unauthorized third parties.Without giving an exhaustive overview of all judicial cases that may have been tried in 2013, this article will focus on the following six decisions: (1) Kirtsaeng vs. John Wiley Inc. (Supreme Court March 19, 2013), (2) Bowman vs. Monsanto (Supreme Court May 13, 2013), (3) Capitol Records vs. Redigi (NY District Court March 30, 2013, (4) Keurig vs. Sturm Foods (Federal Circuit October 17, 2013), (5) Lifescan Scotland vs. Shasta Technologies (Federal Circuit November 4, 2013), and (6) Tessera vs. ITC (Federal Circuit May 23, 2011). In addition, this article will comment these decisions from a EU perspective, where in some instances similar, but in other cases radically different decisions have been given.

Latest