Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.

Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., is an American legal case involving the <a href="/facts/Computer_printer/PnDF2QuF">computer printer</a> company <a href="/facts/Lexmark/sfqCWvK9">Lexmark</a>, which had designed an authentication system using a <a href="/facts/Microcontroller/MKrnAhnm">microcontroller</a> so that only authorized <a href="/facts/Toner_(printing)/3XFFsTpE">toner</a> cartridges could be used. The resulting litigation (described by <a href="/facts/Justice_Scalia/t2gBrPj2">Justice Scalia</a> in 2014 as "sprawling", and by others as having the potential to go on as long as <a href="/facts/Jarndyce_and_Jarndyce/PCAJzzSs">Jarndyce v. Jarndyce</a>) has resulted in significant decisions affecting United States intellectual property and trademark law.
In separate rulings in 2004 and 2012, the <a href="/facts/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Sixth_Circuit/nhcIIkXu">United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit</a> ruled that:

<ul><li>circumvention of Lexmark's ink cartridge authentication does not violate the <a href="/facts/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act/rVTdnnc2">Digital Millennium Copyright Act</a> (DMCA), and</li>
<li>Static Control Components had standing basis under the <a href="/facts/Lanham_Act/1NdYQbjJ">Lanham Act</a> to sue Lexmark for <a href="/facts/False_advertising/x5t356Qs">false advertising</a> in relation to its promotion of the program, which was unanimously affirmed in 2014 by the <a href="/facts/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States/rJHothwW">Supreme Court of the United States</a>.</li></ul>
The Supreme Court's 2014 ruling also affects statutory interpretation in the area of <a href="/facts/Standing_(law)/AN8mu6y0">standing</a> in pursuing lawsuits on statutory grounds in a wide variety of areas in federal court.

Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. open-in-new

Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.