[URSpider94]

The ruling in this case simply says you can't sue someone for patent infringement if they are re-selling, refurbishing or re-manufacturing your product without their permission. Further, it says that you can't sue someone for US patent infringement if they import your goods originally sold overseas. That's because patent rights are "exhausted" with the first sale, like copyright.

This ruling does not:

- prevent a seller from forcing you to sign a contract saying you won't re-manufacture or refill their product, and sue you if you violate that contract

- require a seller to do anything else to help you repair your product

- prevent Lexmark from suing cartridge refillers for patent infringement if the materials that they are using for the refill (inks, toners) violate a Lexmark patent

Why did Lexmark use patent in the first place? Well, the problem with using shrink-wrap agreements is that then you have to sue your customers - yuck. Lexmark's customers are the ones violating the agreement, the resellers don't have any kind of contract with Lexmark so they aren't in breach. Also, you'd have to sue thousands upon thousands of customers to chill the market - reminds me of the Napster days when record labels were trying to sue individual downloaders. Suing on patent law was a creative way to go after the resellers - but it didn't work.