October Term 2007 · Docket 06-937
Does selling patented components exhaust patent rights?
Quanta argues that selling components exhausts patent rights. LG argues that selling components does not exhaust those rights.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Hungar argued that authorized sales remove items from patent protection.
Ms. Mahoney argued that the district court properly dismissed the claims.
Justice Stevens asked which transaction triggered the exhaustion doctrine.
Chief Justice Roberts asked if the case depends on contract wording.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 13-21 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 13-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 9-13 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 9-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 7-49 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 7-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 3-35 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 3-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 13-19 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 13-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 35-39 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 35-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 47-51 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 47-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 49-13 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 49-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 19-17 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 19-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 29-37 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 29-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 47-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 47-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 37-47 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 37-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 21-41 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 21-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 7-21 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 7-21
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
Quanta Computer and LG Electronics dispute whether selling patented components exhausts patent rights. Quanta argues that an authorized sale removes items from patent protection. LG argues that the sale did not exhaust the system and method patents. The Court must decide which interpretation applies.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 7-49 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 7-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 3-35 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 3-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 19-17 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 19-17
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 16, 2008.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 19-21
What each side wants
Quanta wants the Court to hold that selling components exhausts patent rights.
LG wants the Court to hold that selling components does not exhaust patent rights.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 7-49 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 7-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 3-35 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 3-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 19-17 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 19-17
What each side says
Quanta argues that an authorized sale removes items from patent protection.
LG argues that the sale did not exhaust the system and method patents.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 7-49 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 7-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 3-35 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 3-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 19-17 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 19-17
What the justices asked
Justice Stevens asked which transaction triggered the exhaustion doctrine.
Chief Justice Roberts asked if the case depends on contract wording.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 13-21 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 13-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 9-13 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 9-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 13-19 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 13-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 35-39 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 35-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 47-51 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 47-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 49-13 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 49-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 29-37 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 29-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 47-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 47-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 37-47 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 37-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 21-41 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 21-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 7-21 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 7-21
Why it matters
This case defines the scope of patent exhaustion. It determines when patent rights end after a sale. It affects how companies structure component sales. It shapes the balance between patent holders and buyers.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 7-49 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 7-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 3-35 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 3-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 19-17 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 19-17
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 13-21 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 13-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 9-13 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 9-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 13-19 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 13-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 35-39 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 35-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 47-51 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 47-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 49-13 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 49-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 29-37 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 29-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 47-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 47-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 37-47 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 37-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 21-41 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 21-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 7-21 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 7-21
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 7-49 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 7-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 3-35 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 3-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 19-17 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 19-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 7-49 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 7-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 3-35 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 3-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 19-17 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 19-17
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.