CALL US: 206.533.3854
CALL US  206.533.3854

Coffee Machine (Patent) Exhausted

Exhaustion applies
To the entire patent
Not just to some claims

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has affirmed that patent rights for a method claim are exhausted by the sale of a machine that substantially embodies the method.

In Keurig, Inc. v. Sturm Foods, Inc., Keurig held US Patents 7,165,488 and 6,606,938, which covered coffee brewers and methods of brewing coffee from disposable cartridges. Keurig sued Sturm Foods, alleging that Sturm was liable for contributory infringement of these patents.

Sturm sold replacement coffee cartridges for use in some Keurig coffee machines. Keurig claimed that the cartridges infringed the method claims of the patents at issue.

Sturm asserted the defense of patent exhaustion and moved for summary judgment of non-infringement. The district court granted this, concluding that the exhaustion of Keurig’s patent rights had been triggered by its initial sale of a patented item that practiced the claimed invention – i.e., the coffee brewer.

Keurig appealed, arguing that the district court had erred by failing to apply the substantial embodiment test in the US Supreme Court’s Quanta Computer case.

Keurig argued that under the Quanta test its rights were not exhausted because the coffee brewers were capable of uses that didn’t infringe the method claims. Specifically, the brewers could be used with cartridges with pre-made holes (in addition to cartridges that were pierced during the brewing process). Keurig contended that exhaustion must be determined on a claim-by-claim basis.

Sturm argued that Quanta was not applicable and that the use of a Keurig brewer with a non-Keurig cartridge could not be infringement because Keurig’s sale of the brewers exhausted its patent rights in the methods.

The Federal Circuit agreed with Sturm, noting that the doctrine of patent exhaustion provides that the unconditional sale of a patented device exhausts the patent holder’s right to control the buyer’s use of the patented item. This is because the patent holder has already received full value for the item.

Related Articles

Patent Board Upholds University of Washington Patent

Patent Board favors
Patent owner, licensee
In second review
Read More

Judge Refuses to Dismiss ByteDance Lawsuit over AI Scraping of YouTube

Judge won’t dismiss the
YouTube circumvention case
Brought against ByteDance
Read More

Third Circuit Affirms AI Legal Platform Not Covered by “Fair Use”

Third Circuit says that
Use of Westlaw headnotes is
Not transformative
Read More

Let's work together.

Contact us to set up a meeting with an attorney or team member.

Stay Informed

Sign up to receive Patent Poetry—a monthly roundup of key IP issues in our signature haiku format. Four articles (only 68 syllables); zero hassle.

SECTORS

HIGHTECHNOLOGY

HIGH
TECHNOLOGY

Artificial Intelligence

Blockchain & Cryptocurrency

Computer Technology & Software

Consumer Electronics

Electrical Devices

MECHANICAL& PRODUCTS​

MECHANICAL
& PRODUCTS​

Cleantech

Mechanical Devices

Consumer & Retail Products

Hardware & Tools

Toys & Games

LIFE SCIENCES& CHEMISTRY​

LIFE SCIENCES
& CHEMISTRY​

Biotechnology

Chemical Compounds

Digital Health

Healthcare Products

Pharmaceuticals

BRANDING& CREATIVE​

BRANDING
& CREATIVE​

Books & Publications

Brand Creation

Luxury Products

Photography & Video

Product Design

call us  206.533.3854