Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. (2004)

“Technological measures to protect product ecosystems can be enforced under copyright, preventing circumvention and ensuring fair competition.”

This case addressed the intersection of copyright law and technological protection measures in hardware and software components.

Short Description :

Lexmark, a printer manufacturer, sued Static Control Components for producing chips that circumvented Lexmark’s printer security system, allowing third-party cartridges to function. The court examined whether circumventing a technological measure constituted copyright infringement and discussed the scope of fair use and patent/copyright overlap in product ecosystems.

Facts :

Lexmark used digital codes on printer cartridges to restrict functionality to authorized cartridges. Static Control produced chips that bypassed these codes, enabling customers to use third-party cartridges. Lexmark argued that this violated copyright protections in the embedded software controlling cartridge authentication. Static Control argued it provided competition and that circumvention did not infringe copyright because it related to functional interoperability.

Findings / Reasoning :

The court held that circumventing technological protection measures can be actionable under copyright law. Lexmark’s software embedded in cartridges qualifies for copyright protection. However, the court also considered market competition and interoperability concerns, recognizing that certain circumvention for lawful purposes may not constitute infringement. The decision clarified the balance between protecting intellectual property and allowing competitive alternatives in hardware ecosystems.

Suggestions / Observations :

Manufacturers should implement clear and legally defensible technical protections, but also consider interoperability and fair competition. Users and third-party vendors must be aware of limitations when bypassing embedded protections. This case guides companies in enforcing software copyright while supporting competitive markets.

Judgment & Date :

Judgment favored Lexmark, confirming that circumventing printer authentication software could constitute copyright infringement.

Date : 2004