@article{oai:doshisha.repo.nii.ac.jp:00026847,
 author = {井関, 涼子 and Iseki, Ryoko},
 issue = {1},
 journal = {同志社法學, The Doshisha Hogaku (The Doshisha law review)},
 month = {Apr},
 note = {米国連邦最高裁判所は、2017年のImpression Prods. v. Lexmark事件判決において、特許権者が特許製品の販売に際し転売禁止等を契約していたとしても、特許権は消尽すること、特許権者が国外において特許製品を販売した場合も特許権は国際消尽することを判示し、従来のCAFCの判断を覆した。この判断は、特許権の消尽の根拠を特許製品の所有権を譲渡するという特許権者の決定に求める考え方であり、黙示の許諾論による柔軟な判断よりも、製品の円滑な流通や予測可能性を重視する政策判断である。日本の判例通説とは異なる結論ではあるが、日本においても採用可能性はあると考える。, In the decision of Impression Prods. v. Lexmark (2017), the Supreme Court of the United States held that a patentee's decision to sell a product exhausts all of its patent rights in that item, regardless of any restrictions the patentee purports to impose, and an authorized sale outside the United States exhausts all rights under the Patent Act, and the judgment of the CAFC was reversed. The theory behind it is that in the exhaustion rule, what matters is the patentee’s decision to make a sale. It is a policy to weigh the smooth flow of commerce and reliance than case-by-case treatment by the implied license. It differs from the Supreme Court decision and the accepted theory in Japan, but it could be reasonable in Japan too., 森田章教授古稀記念論集, Dedicated to Professor Akira Morita on his 70th birthday, Article, application/pdf},
 pages = {253--286},
 title = {米国における特許権の消尽を巡る転回 : Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc. 最高裁判決(2017)},
 volume = {71},
 year = {2019},
 yomi = {イセキ, リョウコ}
}