 In May of 1997, Lexmark International unveiled its ¡°prebate¡± marketing program for cartridges used in the company¡¯s Optra S printers. In a cartridge industry first, customers were asked to agree to a one-time use and cartridges were not to be resold, reused or remanufactured.
The move generated a number of lawsuits, mainly involving Static Control Components and Lexmark. Static Control has largely prevailed in litigation and the result is widely viewed as helping to secure the remanufacturing world¡¯s future.
¡°This issue galvanized our industry,¡± said Tricia Judge, executive director of the International Imaging Technology Council. ¡°The industry said, ¡®No way, we¡¯re not going to take it.¡¯ ¡±
On March 31 of this year, the latest round in the ongoing prebate fight went to Static Control in a legal battle that stretches to 2002. Ruling in Kentucky, Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove accepted Static Control¡¯s motion to reconsider a previous ruling regarding the prebate cartridges and ¡°Lexmark¡¯s prebate terms are not enforceable under patent law in light of Quanta Computer Inc. v LG Electronics Inc.¡± the court ruled. That 2008 U.S. Supreme Court ruling centered on the question of patent exhaustion in the sale of computer components.
¡°This ruling vindicated a position that Static Control has held for years,¡± said Skip London, general counsel for Static Control. ¡°Lexmark¡¯s prebate program does not create valid and enforceable patent licenses.¡± |
