# US Supreme Court Protects Right To Refill Ink Cartridges



## 2twenty2 (Jul 17, 2003)

US Supreme Court Protects Consumers' Right To Refill Ink Cartridges In Precedent-Setting Lexmark vs Impression Case

Score one for the little guys. In a precedent-setting decision handed down this morning, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a company's patent rights are forfeited once they sell an item to a consumer under the "first sale" doctrine. This idea was central to Impression Products, Inc. v Lexmark Int'l, Inc. and is a major blow to companies that sell their printers for (relatively) low prices and then recoup any losses on the sale of expensive ink and toner cartridges.


----------



## lochlomonder (Jul 24, 2015)

Even more important is the knock-on effect of this decision regarding drug patents and price-gouging by the big pharmaceutical companies in the US.


----------



## dvk01 (Dec 14, 2002)

No drug patents etc are different
this specifically allows ( or does not prevent) refilling existing cartridges from the manufacturer
It does not allow copying the cartridge design and manufacturing compatible ones that are identical to the manufacturer's. That is still breach of copyright.

You still cannot copy the design or the product. What you can do with this ruling, is it allows a secondary purchaser to refill & resell the existing cartridge, even if it means removing /replacing or reprogramming chips etc designed to prevent refilling 
The original purchaser is still not allowed to do that, but a secondary purchaser is.


----------



## lochlomonder (Jul 24, 2015)

> No drug patents etc are different


Then why was an amicus curiae brief submitted to the SCOTUS by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America? It's because they realised this decision would impact their profit margins as well, with such a seismic shift in patent law. This is evidenced by all the other amici curiae briefs submitted by other companies not associated with ink manufacture.


----------

