Talk:Exhaustion doctrine under U.S. law

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Name of this page[edit]

It would be better to name this page in terms of the Exhaustion doctrine -- as the doctrine is typically called in Europe and now in the US as well. See, for example, the 2008 opinion of the US Supreme Court in Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. It refers to the doctrine as the exhaustion doctrine, not the first sale doctrine. The latter is actually a copyright law term, and while the doctrines are much the same the standard nomenclature is different. PraeceptorIP (talk) 02:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks. --Edcolins (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needs cleanup though. Not sure the European Commission quote is relevant here. --Edcolins (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last part on Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc.[edit]

This part needs drastic revision in light of the fact that the case is now decided. Also there is now an article on the case. PraeceptorIP (talk) 02:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where in 35 USC?[edit]

First sale in copyright law is 17 USC 109. Is there a corresponding statutory citation for patent law, or is patent exhaustion in the United States entirely a matter of case law (e.g. Keeler v. Standard Folding Bed Co., 157 U.S. 659, 666–67 (1895))? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 16:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely case law. PraeceptorIP (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bowman v Monsanto[edit]

Bowman v. Monsanto Co. would seem to deserve coverage on this page as it seems to limit patent exhaustion. Right now it doesn't seem to be covered. I'm not experienced enough to attempt the edit on my own. TMLutas (talk) 15:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is, it's not exhaustion. Monsanto did not sell to Bowman the infringing article. The case involves growing a new soybean plant from seed resulting from what Monsanto sold (other batch of soybean seed). The real problem is whether growing a plant from saved seed is "making" within 35 USC 271(a). Read this article on the subject (says growing should not be deemed making but doesn't challenge no exhaustion ruling):

Bowman v Monsanto: Exhaustion versus Making, [2014] EUR. INTELL. PROP. REV. 255

If the consensus is that it is worth saying that this is not an exhaustion case (dubito), I'll take a stab at adding a section. Let's have some comments from other WPians. bd2412? Edcolins? Others?

PraeceptorIP (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]