## Facts

- Fuji owned U.S. patents covering “single-use” or lens-fitted film package (LFFP) cameras.
- Fuji filed a § 337 complaint at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) alleging infringement by importation of refurbished LFFP cameras by Jazz Photo Corp., Dynatec International, Inc., and Opticolor, Inc.
- Used Fuji cameras were collected after consumer use and sent overseas (including to China) for refurbishment and reloading.
- Refurbishment typically involved opening the camera, removing exposed film, inserting new film, sometimes replacing flash batteries, resealing or repairing the casing to restore light-tightness, and repackaging/relabeling for resale.
- The refurbished cameras were imported into the United States for sale; the parties did not dispute that the imported cameras met the claim limitations of the asserted patents.
- The dispute turned on whether the refurbishment was permissible repair of a lawfully acquired article or impermissible reconstruction amounting to making a new patented article.

## Issues

1. Whether the reloading and refurbishment of used LFFP cameras constituted permissible repair or infringing reconstruction.
2. Whether U.S. patent rights were exhausted only for cameras first sold in the United States, and whether foreign first sales exhausted U.S. patent rights for imported refurbished cameras.
3. How evidentiary showings about the source of the cameras and the refurbishment process affected the scope of ITC remedial orders under § 337.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit held that the described refurbishment steps (e.g., replacing film and certain consumables and resealing the body) could constitute permissible repair rather than reconstruction.
- The court held that patent exhaustion applied only to cameras first sold in the United States; cameras first sold abroad were not subject to U.S. patent exhaustion upon importation.
- The court reversed or vacated the ITC’s infringement findings and remedial orders to the extent they reached refurbished cameras shown to (i) have had an authorized first U.S. sale and (ii) have undergone only repair.
- The court affirmed the ITC’s determinations and remedies as to cameras not shown to have a first U.S. sale and as to groups for which the refurbishment evidence was insufficient or indicated reconstruction.

## Legal Principles

- Ownership of a patented article includes a right to preserve or restore the useful life of that article through repair; it does not include a right to make a substantially new article through reconstruction.
- Repair may include replacement of consumable or spent components and restoration steps necessary to return the original article to working condition, so long as the activity does not amount to a second creation of the patented combination.
- An authorized first sale in the United States exhausts U.S. patent rights in that specific article, permitting subsequent use, repair, and resale of that unit without patent infringement.
- An authorized sale outside the United States does not, by itself, exhaust U.S. patent rights with respect to importation and resale in the United States.
- A party invoking exhaustion and repair bears the burden to show the relevant units were subject to an authorized first U.S. sale and that the refurbishment activities remained within repair rather than reconstruction.

## Conclusion

The court limited § 337 exclusion and cease-and-desist relief against refurbished “single-use” cameras by holding that reloading and resealing can be noninfringing repair when performed on units first sold in the United States, but that foreign first sales do not exhaust U.S. patent rights for imported refurbished units and that inadequate proof or reconstruction supports liability and ITC remedies.


Jazz Photo Corp. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 264 F.3d 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2001)