Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
387 F.3d 522 (2005)
Lexmark International, Incorporated (Lexmark) (plaintiff) manufactured inkjet and laser printers and complementary toner cartridges. Lexmark’s toner cartridges contained a small microchip with a simple computer program, the Toner Loading Program (TLP). TLP measured the remaining toner in the cartridge and conveyed relevant information to the printer. TLP also provided information to the printer to authenticate use of the cartridge. Lexmark’s printers contained a more complex computer program, called the Printer Engine Program (PEP). PEP directed the printer to complete its various functions, like feeding paper. Neither program was encrypted. Lexmark sold toner cartridges for its laser printers at two price levels. Lexmark’s Prebate cartridges required consumers to agree to return cartridges to Lexmark after use in return for a discounted price at the time of sale. Non-Prebate cartridges were sold at full price, but could be refilled and reused by the consumers rather than returning the cartridges to Lexmark. The authentication procedure built into the printer ensured that Prebate toner cartridges were not reused by consumers. Static Control Components, Incorporated (SCC) (defendant) manufactured microchips for use on toner cartridges. One of the microchips SCC manufactured, the SMARTEK chip, was designed to bypass Lexmark’s authentication program and allow consumers or third-party manufacturers to replace the microchip on used Prebate cartridges. By replacing the microchip, the cartridges could be purchased at Lexmark’s discount price and then resold at a discount off Lexmark’s prices. The SMARTEK chip contained an exact copy of the Toner Loading Program to enable the cartridge to operate with Lexmark’s printers. Lexmark sued SCC for violating 17 U.S.C. § 106 by selling a technology intended to circumvent Lexmark’s access-control mechanism for operating its printers. The district court granted a preliminary injunction, and SCC appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Sutton, J.)
Concurrence (Merritt, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 175,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.