The Supreme Court met on Tuesday, May 30th, to perform a ruling for Impression Products, Inc. v Lexmark International, Inc. At first glance, it seemed to be a minor case. However, for remanufacturing businesses such as Print.Save.Repeat, the verdict of this case was paramount.
We’ve included the entire article for your reference; however, to put it simply, Lexmark was attempting to place a monopoly on their customers by creating a contingency that they could not refill the products after purchase. This means that companies such as Print.Save.Repeat would not be able to provide what we do to any of our Lexmark customers.
Before this case, Lexmark followed the “exhaustion” doctrine, which enforces that once their customers have bought their product, they are free to do whatever they would like with it. By taking this away, Lexmark would force their customers to come directly to them for product refill, instead of a cheaper remanufacturing firm such as Print.Save.Repeat.
The court’s decision was that the dismissal of the exhaustion doctrine went too far into dictating buyers’ decisions, and they ruled to place control back into the hands of the buyers (not Lexmark).
This is very good news for Print.Save.Repeat, because it means that we can continue servicing your needs by providing quality products at a lower cost – also without fear of liabilities now, thanks to the court’s ruling.
If you would like to see the full article regarding the Impression Products, Inc. v Lexmark International, Inc. case, click here for the link.