[{"@context":"http:\/\/schema.org\/","@type":"BlogPosting","@id":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/en\/wiki24\/kirtsaeng-v-john-wiley-sons-inc\/#BlogPosting","mainEntityOfPage":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/en\/wiki24\/kirtsaeng-v-john-wiley-sons-inc\/","headline":"Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.","name":"Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.","description":"before-content-x4 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This article is about Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (“Kirtsaeng I“), the","datePublished":"2016-10-19","dateModified":"2016-10-19","author":{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/en\/wiki24\/author\/lordneo\/#Person","name":"lordneo","url":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/en\/wiki24\/author\/lordneo\/","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c9645c498c9701c88b89b8537773dd7c?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c9645c498c9701c88b89b8537773dd7c?s=96&d=mm&r=g","height":96,"width":96}},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Enzyklop\u00e4die","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/wiki4\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/download.jpg","url":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/wiki4\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/download.jpg","width":600,"height":60}},"image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/upload.wikimedia.org\/wikipedia\/commons\/thumb\/f\/f3\/Seal_of_the_United_States_Supreme_Court.svg\/100px-Seal_of_the_United_States_Supreme_Court.svg.png","url":"https:\/\/upload.wikimedia.org\/wikipedia\/commons\/thumb\/f\/f3\/Seal_of_the_United_States_Supreme_Court.svg\/100px-Seal_of_the_United_States_Supreme_Court.svg.png","height":"100","width":"100"},"url":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/en\/wiki24\/kirtsaeng-v-john-wiley-sons-inc\/","about":["Wiki"],"wordCount":5578,"articleBody":"     (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});before-content-x4From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThis article is about Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (“Kirtsaeng I“), the 2013 U.S. Supreme Court case regarding the first sale doctrine. For Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (“Kirtsaeng II“), the 2016 follow-on case regarding attorney’s fees, see List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 579.       (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});after-content-x42013 United States Supreme Court caseKirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Full case nameSupap Kirtsaeng, dba Bluechristine99, Petitioner v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Docket no.11-697Citations568 U.S. 519 (more)       (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});after-content-x4133 S. Ct. 1351; 185 L. Ed. 2d 392; 2013 U.S. LEXIS 2371; 106 U.S.P.Q.2d 1001; 2013 ILRC 1487; 35 ILRD 648; 35 ITRD 1049; 41 Med. L. Rptr. 1441; 81 U.S.L.W. 4167Opinion announcementOpinion announcementPriorDefendant prohibited from raising argument, No. 1:08-cv-07834, 2009 WL 3364037 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 19,  2009) and held liable, unreported (2010); affirmed. 654 F.3d 210 (2d Cir. 2011); cert. granted, 566 U.S. 936 (2012).SubsequentRemanded, 713 F.3d 1142 (2d Cir. 2013); motion for attorneys’ fees denied, 109 U.S.P.Q.2d 1242 (S.D.N.Y. 2013); affirmed, 605 F. App’x 48 (2d Cir. 2015); cert. granted, 136 S. Ct. 890 (2016); vacated and remanded, 136 S. Ct. 1979 (2016); remanded, 653 F. App’x 82 (2d Cir. 2016); motion for attorneys’ fees denied, 121 U.S.P.Q.2d 1457 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).The first-sale doctrine applies to copies of a copyrighted work lawfully made abroad. Reversed and remanded.Chief JusticeJohn RobertsAssociate JusticesAntonin Scalia\u00a0\u00b7  Anthony KennedyClarence Thomas\u00a0\u00b7  Ruth Bader GinsburgStephen Breyer\u00a0\u00b7  Samuel AlitoSonia Sotomayor\u00a0\u00b7  Elena KaganMajorityBreyer, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, KaganConcurrenceKagan, joined by AlitoDissentGinsburg, joined by Kennedy; Scalia (except Parts III and V\u2013B\u20131)Copyright Act of 1976Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 568 U.S. 519 (2013), is a United States Supreme Court copyright decision in which the Court held, 6\u20133, that the first-sale doctrine applies to copies of copyrighted works lawfully made abroad.[1]Table of ContentsBackground[edit]Decision[edit]Reactions[edit]See also[edit]References[edit]External links[edit]Background[edit]In 2008, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. filed suit against Thailand native Supap Kirtsaeng over the sale of foreign edition textbooks made outside of the United States marked for sale exclusively abroad which Kirtsaeng imported into the United States.[2][3] When Kirtsaeng came to America in 1997 to study at Cornell University, he discovered that Wiley textbooks were considerably more expensive to buy in the United States than in his home country. Kirtsaeng asked his relatives from Thailand to buy such books at home and ship them to him to sell at a profit. He sold the imported books on eBay, making $1.2\u00a0million in revenue, although the parties disputed the net profit amount.[4]       (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});after-content-x4Wiley sued Kirtsaeng for copyright infringement and won in two lower courts. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ban on importation of copyrighted works without the authority of the U.S. copyright owner; this set up a Circuit split with the Third Circuit and the Ninth Circuit, which had had variant approaches to the same question in other cases.[5]Kirtsaeng then appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted the writ of certiorari on April 16, 2012. Oral argument was held October 29, and judgment was issued March 19, 2013.Decision[edit]In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit and held that Kirtsaeng’s sale of lawfully-made copies purchased overseas was protected by the first-sale doctrine. The Court held that the first sale doctrine applies to goods manufactured outside of the United States, and the protections and exceptions offered by the Copyright Act to works “lawfully made under this title” is not limited by geography. Rather, it applies to all copies legally made anywhere, not just in the United States, in accordance with U.S. copyright law. So, wherever a copy of a book is first made and sold, it can be resold in the U.S. without permission from the publisher.[6]Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the opinion of the court which, was joined by five Justices (Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan).[1] Justice Elena Kagan also wrote a separate concurring opinion, signed by Samuel Alito. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, joined by Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia. Kagan’s concurrence suggested that Congress could change the law to reverse the decision.[7]Reactions[edit]In law, Kirtsaeng has had the effect of causing a fresh look at the issue of “international exhaustion” in the patent context. The Federal Circuit in the 2001 Jazz Photo v. US International Trade Commission case had held that lawful sales of patented goods outside the US did not give rise to patent exhaustion inside the U.S. In a 2015 order in Lexmark v. Impression Products, the Federal Circuit sua sponte (unprompted) called for briefing and amicus curiae participation in an en banc consideration of whether:In light of Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 1351 (2012), should this court overrule Jazz Photo Corp. v. International Trade Commission, 264 F.3d 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2001), to the extent it ruled that a sale of a patented item outside the United States never gives rise to United States patent exhaustion.[8]Similarly, an effort by academic publisher Pearson to control after-market textbook sales on the basis of trademark was dismissed, citing Kirtsaeng.[9]In educational publishing, Wiley, the Kirtsaeng plaintiff that lost the case, increased its prices for the international editions as well as the international student editions and cited Kirtsaeng.[10]The decision also had an outcome-determinative effect on the long-pending dispute between Omega watches (a division of Swatch) and the retailer Costco. Whereas Omega had initially prevailed in the Ninth Circuit, the same way that John Wiley had, the decision was reversed after the United States Supreme Court decided Kirtsaeng.[11]See also[edit]References[edit]^ a b Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 568 U.S. 519 (2013).^ “Complaint, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Supap Kirtsaeng et al” (PDF). PacerMonitor. PacerMonitor. Retrieved 16 June 2016.^ John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Kirtsaeng, 654 F.3d 210 (2d Cir. 2011).^ “Supreme Court to hear arguments in case of student who resold books”. cnn.com. 26 October 2012. Retrieved 2015-11-16.^ Mandavia, Anji (2013-03-27). “The Supreme Court Clarifies the Application of the “First Sale” Doctrine to Copyrighted Works Manufactured Abroad”. The IP Law Blog. Archived from the original on 2018-02-23. Retrieved 2018-02-22.^ Mann, Ronald (March 19, 2013). “Opinion analysis: Justices reject publisher’s claims in gray-market copyright case”. SCOTUSblog. Retrieved March 20, 2017.^ Schwartz, Meredith; Hadro, Josh; Held, Shari; Kelley, Michael; Lewis, Caroline; Michaelson, Elizabeth; Oder, Norman (2013). “First sale upheld in Kirtsaeng v. Wiley“. Library Journal. Media Source Inc. 138 (7): 13.^ Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Impression Prods., Inc., Order of April 14, 2015 (Fed. Cir.).^ Pearson v. Liu, SDNY Oct. 22, 2013.^ “Press release (10.07.2013), Wiley-VCH [in German]”. July 10, 2013. Archived from the original on February 5, 2015.^ OMEGA SA v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 776 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2015).External links[edit]U.S. Supreme Court Article I case lawDormant Commerce ClauseBrown v. Maryland (1827)Willson v. Black-Bird Creek Marsh Co. (1829)Cooley v. Board of Wardens (1852)Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co. v. Illinois (1886)Swift & Co. v. United States (1905)George W. Bush & Sons Co. v. Malloy (1925)Edwards v. California (1941)Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona (1945)Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison (1951)Miller Bros. Co. v. Maryland (1954)Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc. (1959)National Bellas Hess v. Illinois (1967)Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc. (1970)Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp. (1976)Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady (1977)Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission (1977)City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey (1978)Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Maryland (1978)Reeves, Inc. v. Stake (1980)Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. (1981)Sporhase v. Nebraska ex rel. Douglas (1982)White v. Mass. Council of Construction Employers (1983)South-Central Timber Development, Inc. v. Wunnicke (1984)Maine v. Taylor (1986)Healy v. Beer Institute, Inc. (1989)Quill Corp. v. North Dakota (1992)Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. Hunt (1992)Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Quality of Oregon (1994)C&A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown (1994)West Lynn Creamery, Inc. v. Healy (1994)Granholm v. Heald (2005)United Haulers Ass’n v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority (2007)Department of Revenue of Kentucky v. Davis (2008)Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland v. Wynne (2015)South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. (2018)Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Assn. v. Thomas (2019)National Pork Producers Council v. Ross (2023)OthersCopyright Act of 1790Patent Act of 1793Patent infringement case lawPatentability case lawCopyright Act of 1831Copyright Act of 1870Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890International Copyright Act of 1891Copyright Act of 1909Patent misuse case lawClayton Antitrust Act of 1914Lanham ActInwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc. (1982)San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Committee (1987)Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc. (1992)Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co. (1995)College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board (1999)Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc. (2001)TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc. (2001)Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. (2003)Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc. (2003)Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. (2014)POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co. (2014)Matal v. Tam (2017)Iancu v. Brunetti (2019)Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc. (2020)Copyright Act of 1976Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. (1977)Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. (1984)Mills Music, Inc. v. Snyder (1985)Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises (1985)Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid (1989)Stewart v. Abend (1990)Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. (1991)Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc. (1994)Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (1994)Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int’l, Inc. (1996)Quality King Distributors Inc., v. L’anza Research International Inc. (1998)Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc. (1998)New York Times Co. v. Tasini (2001)Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003)MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. (2005)Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick (2010)Golan v. Holder (2012)Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (2013)Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. (2014)American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. v. Aereo, Inc. (2014)Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc. (2017)Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com (2019)Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc. (2019)Allen v. Cooper (2020)Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc. (2020)Other copyright casesOther patent casesContinental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co. (1908)Minerals Separation, Ltd. v. Hyde (1916)United States v. General Electric Co. (1926)United States v. Univis Lens Co. (1942)Altvater v. Freeman (1943)Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. (1945)Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co. (1948)Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp. (1950)Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. (1950)Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co. (1961)Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc. (1964)Wilbur-Ellis Co. v. Kuther (1964)Brulotte v. Thys Co. (1964)Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp. (1965)Graham v. John Deere Co. (1966)United States v. Adams (1966)Brenner v. Manson (1966)Lear, Inc. v. Adkins (1969)Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co. (1969)Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. (1971)Gottschalk v. Benson (1972)United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd. (1973)Dann v. Johnston (1976)Sakraida v. Ag Pro Inc. (1976)Parker v. Flook (1978)Diamond v. Chakrabarty (1980)Diamond v. Diehr (1981)Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc. (1989)Eli Lilly & Co. v. Medtronic, Inc. (1990)Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. (1996)Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co. (1997)Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc. (1998)Dickinson v. Zurko (1999)Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank (1999)J. E. M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. (2001)Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. (2002)Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd. (2005)eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. (2006)Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc. (2006)LabCorp v. Metabolite, Inc. (2006)MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. (2007)KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (2007)Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp. (2007)Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. (2008)Bilski v. Kappos (2010)Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A. (2011)Stanford University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. (2011)Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership (2011)Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. (2012)Kappos v. Hyatt (2012)Bowman v. Monsanto Co. (2013)Gunn v. Minton (2013)Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. (2013)FTC v. Actavis, Inc. (2013)Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International (2014)Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. (2014)Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. (2015)Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC (2015)Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. (2016)TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC (2017)Peter v. NantKwest, Inc. (2019)Other trademark casesStatutesPrecedentsand rulingsSupreme CourtAppeal courtsBerlin v. E.C. Publications, Inc. (2d Cir. 1964)Roth Greeting Cards v. United Card Co. (9th Cir. 1970)Eltra Corp. v. Ringer (4th Cir. 1978)Midway Manufacturing Co. v. Artic International, Inc. (7th Cir. 1983)Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp. (3d Cir. 1983)Fisher v. Dees (9th Cir. 1986)Whelan v. Jaslow (3d Cir. 1986)Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd. (5th Cir. 1988)Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc. (2d Cir. 1992)Dr. Seuss Enters., L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc.(9th Cir. 1997)Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc. (2d Cir. 1998)Monge v. Maya Magazines, Inc. (9th Cir. 2012)Nunez v. Caribbean Int\u2019l News Corp. (1st Cir. 2000)A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. (9th Cir. 2001)Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress Int’l (5th Cir. 2002)In re Aimster Copyright Litigation (7th Cir. 2003)NXIVM Corp. v. Ross Institute (2d Cir. 2004)BMG Music v. Gonzalez (7th Cir. 2005)Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. (9th Cir. 2006)Cartoon Network, LP v. CSC Holdings, Inc. (2nd Cir. 2008)Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc. (9th Cir. 2010)Penguin Group (USA) Inc. v. American Buddha (2d Cir. 2011)Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc. (2d Cir. 2012)Seltzer v. Green Day, Inc (9th Cir. 2013)Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc. (2d Cir. 2015)Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. (9th Cir. 2015)Naruto v. Slater (9th Cir. 2018)Lower courts       (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});after-content-x4"},{"@context":"http:\/\/schema.org\/","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"item":{"@id":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/en\/wiki24\/#breadcrumbitem","name":"Enzyklop\u00e4die"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"item":{"@id":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/en\/wiki24\/kirtsaeng-v-john-wiley-sons-inc\/#breadcrumbitem","name":"Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc."}}]}]