| dbo:abstract
|
- Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., is an American legal case involving the computer printer company Lexmark, which had designed an authentication system using a microcontroller so that only authorized toner cartridges could be used. The resulting litigation (described by Justice Scalia in 2014 as "sprawling", and by others as having the potential to go on as long as Jarndyce v. Jarndyce) has resulted in significant decisions affecting United States intellectual property and trademark law. In separate rulings in 2004 and 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that:
* circumvention of Lexmark's ink cartridge authentication does not violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and
* Static Control Components had standing basis under the Lanham Act to sue Lexmark for false advertising in relation to its promotion of the program, which was unanimously affirmed in 2014 by the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court's 2014 ruling also affects statutory interpretation in the area of standing in pursuing lawsuits on statutory grounds in a wide variety of areas in federal court. (en)
|
| dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
| |
| dbo:wikiPageID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageLength
|
- 41104 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
|
| dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
| |
| dbp:appealedTo
| |
| dbp:arguedate
|
- 0001-12-03 (xsd:gMonthDay)
|
| dbp:argueyear
| |
| dbp:case
|
- Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., No. 03-5400 (en)
- Static Control Components, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc., Nos. 09–6287, 09–6288, 09–6449 (en)
|
| dbp:citations
| |
| dbp:court
| |
| dbp:dateDecided
|
- 2004-10-26 (xsd:date)
- 2012-08-29 (xsd:date)
|
| dbp:decidedate
|
- 0001-03-25 (xsd:gMonthDay)
|
| dbp:decideyear
| |
| dbp:decisionBy
| |
| dbp:docket
| |
| dbp:findlaw
| |
| dbp:fullName
|
- Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. (en)
- Static Control Components, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc. (en)
|
| dbp:fullname
|
- Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. (en)
|
| dbp:holding
|
- Judgment AFFIRMED. Static Control's alleged injuries - lost sales and damage to its business reputation - fall within the zone of interests protected by the Lanham Act, and Static Control sufficiently alleged that its injuries were proximately caused by Lexmark's misrepresentations. (en)
|
| dbp:joinmajority
| |
| dbp:judges
|
- Gilbert Stroud Merritt, Jr., Jeffrey S. Sutton, and John Feikens (en)
- Damon Keith, Danny Julian Boggs, and Karen Nelson Moore (en)
|
| dbp:litigants
|
- Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. (en)
|
| dbp:majority
| |
| dbp:name
|
- Lexmark Int'l v. Static Control Components (en)
- Static Control Components v. Lexmark Intern., Inc. (en)
|
| dbp:opinions
|
- Static Control Components lacked standing to pursue a federal antitrust claim under the Clayton Act or the Sherman Act, but could pursue a false association claim under the Lanham Act, as different tests for standing applied. (en)
- District court erroneously granted summary judgment for plaintiff on claim under Digital Millennium Copyright Act based on defendant's manufacture of computer chips that enabled third party manufacturers to produce toner cartridges that were compatible with laser printers manufactured by plaintiff (en)
|
| dbp:oralargument
| |
| dbp:parallelcitations
| |
| dbp:prior
| |
| dbp:priorActions
|
- 2006 (xsd:integer)
- 172800.0
|
| dbp:subsequentActions
|
- Rehearing denied en banc, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 23975 (en)
- rehearing denied, Dec. 29, 2004; and rehearing en banc denied, Feb. 15, 2005; case remanded to district court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. (en)
|
| dbp:uspage
| |
| dbp:usvol
| |
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
| dcterms:subject
| |
| rdf:type
| |
| rdfs:comment
|
- Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., is an American legal case involving the computer printer company Lexmark, which had designed an authentication system using a microcontroller so that only authorized toner cartridges could be used. The resulting litigation (described by Justice Scalia in 2014 as "sprawling", and by others as having the potential to go on as long as Jarndyce v. Jarndyce) has resulted in significant decisions affecting United States intellectual property and trademark law. (en)
|
| rdfs:label
|
- Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. (en)
|
| owl:sameAs
| |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
| foaf:name
|
- (en)
- Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. (en)
|
| is dbo:wikiPageRedirects
of | |
| is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
of | |
| is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |
