May 23, 2012

First Sale Doctrine of U.S. Copyright Law Does Not Apply to Foreign-Made Works

Considering once again the applicability of the first sale doctrine of the U.S. Copyright Act to goods manufactured abroad, the U.S. Court of Appeals for Second Circuit followed its recent holding in John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Kirtsaeng (see IP Update, Vol. 14, No. 9), concluding that the first sale defense does not apply to goods manufactured outside the United States. Pearson Education, Inc. v. Yadav, et al., 10-2610-cv (2d. Cir., Sept. 19, 2011) (summary order).

Defendants Kumar and Dart Air, appealed from the district court’s decision, which found that they infringed copyrighted works owned by plaintiff’s Pearson Education, John Wiley & Sons, Cengage Learning and McGraw-Hill Companies.   The district court also held the defendants liable for about $285,000 in damages.  The defendants argued on appeal that the district court erred in failing to recognize that the first sale doctrine shields the purchaser of a copyrighted work outside the United States from an infringement claim based on the importation and resale of the work in the United States.

The 2d Circuit recently rejected a similar argument in Kirtsaeng.   The first sale doctrine in U.S. copyright law, codified at 17 U.S.C. §109(a), permits the owner of a work “lawfully made under this title” to resell it without limitations imposed by the copyright holder.  In Kirtsaeng, the court addressed a conflict between the first sale defense and 17 U.S.C. §602 (a)(1), which provides that importation, without the owner’s permission, of a copyrighted work acquired abroad is an act of infringement. 

The 2d Circuit in Kirtsaeng acknowledged the ambiguity in the statutory language of the Copyright Act, remarking that §109(a)’s language specifying that it applied to works “lawfully made under this title” neither compelled or foreclosed an application of the first sale doctrine to works manufactured abroad.  However, the court looked to §602 (a)(1) in conjunction with the Supreme Court’s guidance in Quality King Distributors holding that the first sale defense does not apply to products manufactured abroad. 

In Pearson Education, the panel, which consisted of Judges McLaughlin, Calabresiand Raggi, did not expound on the merits of Kirtsaeng.   Rather it issued a summary order noting that judgment of the district court must be affirmed because the panel is bound by the court’s decision in Kirtsaeng, unless it were to be reversed by the Supreme Court or the 2d Circuit en banc

Practice Note:   Further consideration of this issue appears likely, as the Supreme Court in Wholesale Corp. v. Omega, S.A. recently considered this issue in an appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  However, no opinion issued because the Supreme Court divided 4-4 after Justice Kagan recused herself. 

© 2012 McDermott Will & Emery

About the Author

Associate

Rose Whelan is an associate in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP and is based in the Firm’s Washington, D.C., office.  She focuses her practice on intellectual property litigation.

202-756-8410

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.