Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., is an American legal case involving the computer printer company Lexmark, which had designed an authentication system using a microcontroller so that only authorized toner cartridges could be used. The resulting litigation (described by Justice Scalia in 2014 as "sprawling", and by others as having the potential to go on as long as Jarndyce v. Jarndyce) has resulted in significant decisions affecting United States intellectual property and trademark law.

Property Value
dbo:abstract
  • Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., is an American legal case involving the computer printer company Lexmark, which had designed an authentication system using a microcontroller so that only authorized toner cartridges could be used. The resulting litigation (described by Justice Scalia in 2014 as "sprawling", and by others as having the potential to go on as long as Jarndyce v. Jarndyce) has resulted in significant decisions affecting United States intellectual property and trademark law. In separate rulings in 2004 and 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that: * circumvention of Lexmark's ink cartridge authentication does not violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and * Static Control Components had standing basis under the Lanham Act to sue Lexmark for false advertising in relation to its promotion of the program, which was unanimously affirmed in 2014 by the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court's 2014 ruling also affects statutory interpretation in the area of standing in pursuing lawsuits on statutory grounds in a wide variety of areas in federal court. (en)
dbo:wikiPageEditLink
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
dbo:wikiPageExtracted
  • 2019-09-27 22:37:44Z (xsd:date)
  • 2020-12-12 20:28:56Z (xsd:date)
  • 2021-01-23 18:33:51Z (xsd:date)
  • 2021-01-23 18:36:12Z (xsd:date)
  • 2021-01-23 18:37:39Z (xsd:date)
  • 2021-01-26 04:57:13Z (xsd:date)
  • 2021-04-06 16:00:17Z (xsd:date)
  • 2021-04-18 01:16:05Z (xsd:date)
dbo:wikiPageHistoryLink
dbo:wikiPageID
  • 6333492 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageLength
  • 39727 (xsd:integer)
  • 39728 (xsd:integer)
  • 39744 (xsd:integer)
  • 39804 (xsd:integer)
  • 39854 (xsd:integer)
  • 39855 (xsd:integer)
  • 39857 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageModified
  • 2019-09-27 22:36:25Z (xsd:date)
  • 2020-12-12 20:28:45Z (xsd:date)
  • 2021-01-23 18:33:44Z (xsd:date)
  • 2021-01-23 18:36:08Z (xsd:date)
  • 2021-01-23 18:37:34Z (xsd:date)
  • 2021-01-26 04:57:09Z (xsd:date)
  • 2021-04-06 16:00:10Z (xsd:date)
  • 2021-04-18 01:16:01Z (xsd:date)
dbo:wikiPageOutDegree
  • 94 (xsd:integer)
  • 95 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
  • 918285127 (xsd:integer)
  • 993848341 (xsd:integer)
  • 1002286775 (xsd:integer)
  • 1002287144 (xsd:integer)
  • 1002287396 (xsd:integer)
  • 1002816909 (xsd:integer)
  • 1016328047 (xsd:integer)
  • 1018426011 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageRevisionLink
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dct:subject
rdf:type
rdfs:comment
  • Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., is an American legal case involving the computer printer company Lexmark, which had designed an authentication system using a microcontroller so that only authorized toner cartridges could be used. The resulting litigation (described by Justice Scalia in 2014 as "sprawling", and by others as having the potential to go on as long as Jarndyce v. Jarndyce) has resulted in significant decisions affecting United States intellectual property and trademark law. (en)
rdfs:label
  • Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. (en)
owl:sameAs
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
foaf:name
  • Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. (en)
  • (en)
is dbo:wikiPageRedirects of
is foaf:primaryTopic of