Exhaustion doctrine or first sale is a term in the United States (U.S.) copyright law. It implies that copyright owners have the right to distribute or even destroy their copies of works (Cartiglia & Bergmar, 2013). However, according to the U.S. copyright act, section 109, the right to control distribution goes away after the first sale. According to a Supreme Court ruling in 2013, the first sale principle applies to goods legally bought overseas and imported into the United States (Cartiglia & Bergmar, 2013). The two recent verdicts held that genetically modified seeds do not trigger the exhaustion doctrine, but textbooks do.
Major Points Discussed in the Article:
- The first sale principle means the patent owner’s rights are exhausted by the first sale.
- In agribusiness, patent holders the court ruling introduced international exhaustion
- Patent exhaustion is a judiciary-made doctrine that holds that the initial sale terminates the rights of that patent. The ruling helps owners and prevents them from post-sale use of patent items.
- The Monsanto ruling addressed the patent ruling in the context of a sell-replicating genetically modified seeds. In this case, the court ruled that patent exhaustion does not allow a farmer to replicate patented seeds through planting and harvesting without permission from the patent holder.
- In Monsanto’s case, the ruling is limited, according to Justice Kagan, because the legislation addressed the case at hand and not everyone involved in self-replicating products. The court predicted that future rulings would be centered on the purchaser’s involvement in the replication process, especially for self-replicating products. Most significantly, the court narrowed its ruling, internationally posing the question of what entails copying in different contexts.
- In the Kirtsaeng case, the court, in its ruling, looked at the exhaustion doctrine from a geographical point of view. The case involved books imported from Thailand and sold in the United States by Kirtsaeng, a Thai national. John Wiley and Sons later sued Kirtsaeng for copyright infringement.
In this article, there are two key questions; the first is whether the exhaustion doctrine permitting the sale of a patented product is allowed under the United States copyright laws. The second question is about the scope of the patent exhaustion doctrine (Cartiglia & Bergmar, 2013). According to the U.S. patent act of 2009, the exhaustion doctrine gives patent owners the right to prevent others from making an invention, selling patented products, and using patented inventions (Cartiglia & Bergmar, 2013). The patent exhaustion doctrine became cemented when the court ruled a case of copyright infringement to accommodate international exhaustion rules. In this case, if someone purchases and resells an article, it is essential to go back and refer to the exhaustion doctrine. Therefore, the courts will rule if the sale was authorized, which should trigger the declaration.
In the recent past, the U.S. federal circuit has clarified the current copyright laws governing importations into the United States. According to Trade Commission 2020, articles not infringed before but invaded after importation are still against copyright laws (Cartiglia & Bergmar, 2013). The Kirtsaeng case limits America’s copyright laws both domestically and on the global stage. It helps to regulate illegal trade where traders import patented products from low-price regions and sell them in high-price areas (Cartiglia & Bergmar, 2013). Thus, the Kirtsaeng ruling means that making, selling, or using a patented product or articles from the U.S. in another country infringes on the U.S. exhaustion doctrine.
In a recent review, exhaustion doctrine has allowed the sale of refurbished electronic products because the United States adopted international exhaustion doctrines standards. There is, therefore, an uninterrupted flow of goods under the international exhaustion system. However, the doctrine has some exemptions; for example, the buyer who has modified or refurbished a trademark product must disclose such developments to the developer (Cartiglia & Bergmar, 2013). It is essential because it will help the trademark to maintain the distinctive and original quality of its products. In this regard, failure to disclose may lead to infringement charges.
In conclusion, the exhaustion doctrine helps protect genuine buyers from trademark infringement while protecting the trademark owner’s rights. It is, therefore, the duty of every nation to come up with copyright laws that strike a balance between the rights of the consumer against those of the producer. Bowman vs. Monsanto’s case questions who controls the replication process in agribusiness. The court’s judgment on the case addressed the situation and not anyone involved in the replication process. The court set the basis for ruling such a case in the future by rejecting Bowman’s ‘blame the bean’ defense and ruling out that the replication of the soybean involved copying a patented product. Therefore, the court ruled that patent exhaustion does not permit a farmer to reproduce patented seeds through planting and harvesting without the patent holder’s permission. Besides, future cases shall evaluate how the purchaser was involved in the replication process.
Reference
Cartiglia, J.R. & Bergmar, N.M. (2013). Court Says Exhaustion Doctrine Applies to Imported Textbooks, But Not Genetically Modified Seeds. Tennessee Bar Journal, 49. Web.