지식재산권 라이선스와 권리소진의 원칙

License is a common way to exercise IP holders’ right in practice, because they can exercise their right even in inaccessible markets through it. IP holders who want to maximize royalty revenue tend to limit scope of license as narrow as possible. This has conflict aspect with the doctrine of exhaustion to protect free distribution of products. Here comes some problems such as enforceability of unfair license, liability for breach of license, relation between license and exhaustion, and so forth. It’s hard to find clear and specific standard to solve these problems, and it might act as an obstacle to utilize IP through license. Recently, in Impression Product, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that patent rights are still exhausted once a product is sold even with post-sale restrictions, and that the use of the product in a way breaching the restrictions doesn’t constitute patent infringement. This ruling has significance in expanding scope of the exhaustion doctrine to protect the purchaser’s right to use or resell the product, instead of strengthening patent owners’ position. It’s expected that the ruling will influence license practices, so IP holders should establish license strategies bearing the exhaustion doctrine in mind.