Patent and Copyright Exhaustion in England circa 1800

Tomas Gomez-Arostegui
{"title":"Patent and Copyright Exhaustion in England circa 1800","authors":"Tomas Gomez-Arostegui","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2905847","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this Article, I examine and reject the claim, made by the United States Supreme Court, that the first-sale doctrine is a “common-law doctrine with an impeccable historic pedigree” that reaches as far back as the 17th century and that “makes no geographical distinctions.” The Supreme Court’s depiction of the common law formed an important basis for the Court’s recent copyright decision in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (2013), and is likely to reappear and influence the Court in a patent case in which it has recently granted certiorari, Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc. At issue in Lexmark is whether gray-market goods embodying patented inventions can be imported or sold in the United States without the permission of the U.S. patent holder. Focusing on the state of English law during the long eighteenth century—that is to say, in the years before and just after Congress enacted the first copyright and patent statutes in 1790—this Article demonstrates that although a domestic first-sale (or exhaustion) principle was evident in litigation in English courts, the common law did not recognize international exhaustion. On the contrary, the common law observed foreign legal boundaries and permitted right owners and their licensees to stop gray-market goods that embodied intangible rights.","PeriodicalId":255520,"journal":{"name":"English & Commonwealth Law eJournal","volume":"98 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-02-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"English & Commonwealth Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2905847","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this Article, I examine and reject the claim, made by the United States Supreme Court, that the first-sale doctrine is a “common-law doctrine with an impeccable historic pedigree” that reaches as far back as the 17th century and that “makes no geographical distinctions.” The Supreme Court’s depiction of the common law formed an important basis for the Court’s recent copyright decision in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (2013), and is likely to reappear and influence the Court in a patent case in which it has recently granted certiorari, Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc. At issue in Lexmark is whether gray-market goods embodying patented inventions can be imported or sold in the United States without the permission of the U.S. patent holder. Focusing on the state of English law during the long eighteenth century—that is to say, in the years before and just after Congress enacted the first copyright and patent statutes in 1790—this Article demonstrates that although a domestic first-sale (or exhaustion) principle was evident in litigation in English courts, the common law did not recognize international exhaustion. On the contrary, the common law observed foreign legal boundaries and permitted right owners and their licensees to stop gray-market goods that embodied intangible rights.
1800年前后英国的专利和版权枯竭
在这篇文章中,我审查并驳回了美国最高法院的主张,即首次销售原则是一种“具有无可挑剔的历史血统的普通法原则”,其历史可以追溯到17世纪,并且“没有地理上的区别”。最高法院对普通法的描述构成了法院最近在Kirtsaeng诉John Wiley & Sons, Inc.(2013)一案中做出的版权裁决的重要基础,并可能在最近的Impression Products, Inc.诉利盟国际公司(Lexmark international, Inc.)一案中再次出现并影响法院。利盟案的争议在于,未经美国专利持有人许可,是否可以在美国进口或销售带有专利发明的灰色市场商品。本文聚焦于18世纪漫长的英国法律状况——也就是说,在国会于1790年颁布第一部版权和专利法规之前和之后的几年里——表明,尽管国内首次销售(或权利用尽)原则在英国法院的诉讼中是显而易见的,但普通法并不承认国际权利用尽。相反,普通法遵守外国法律界限,允许权利所有人及其被许可人制止含有无形权利的灰色市场商品。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信