In the Lexmark v. Impressions Products case involving the purchase of compatible toner cartridges, the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court held that the 'right to tinker' is not patent infringement.

Question

Answer the following statement true (T) or false (F)

Answer 1

True

In the landmark case, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified the extent of control that a patent holder has over used versions of an invention the patent holder has placed on the open market. The case involved a company named Lexmark International Inc. (Lexmark) that had developed a unique line of toner cartridges for use in its printers. The owners of Lexmark discovered that another firm, Impression Products Inc. (Impressions), was gathering up used Lexmark cartridges, filling them with toner, and then selling them at bargain basement prices. Lexmark sued Impressions for patent infringement. The question before the court was whether a patent extended over, above, and beyond the first sale of a product. This issue, however, was actually a subdivision of a much bigger issue, that is, an issue called the "right to tinker." Impressions argued that once they have purchased a product, they have the right to do with it as they please. They can resell it, give it away, paint it, modify it, break it apart, melt it down, sell its parts individually, or even destroy it completely. Lexmark argued that such "tinkering" violates their ownership rights under patent law because it interferes with their ability to sell additional copies of their invention. Although the right to tinker is never actually named by the High Court, in its the ruling, the Court has upheld the right to tinker. Justice Roberts noted that there was more at stake than the patent owner's property rights.