Another recent intellectual property decision by the Supreme Court concerned the intersection of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to The Constitution and the “disparagement clause” within the Lanham Act.

I would like to continue to cover Supreme Court decisions in intellectual property (IP) from the last term now that my series on IP issues in additive manufacturing is complete. Specifically, I would like to discuss Impression Prods. v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc., 137 S. Ct. 1523, 198 L. Ed. 2d. (May 30, 2017), a case that concerns the exhaustion doctrine, as applied to patent rights.

Our AM intellectual-property series concludes with this post.

Our series on how intellectual property can protect additive-manufacturing products and processes continues.

Our series on how intellectual property can protect additive-manufacturing products and processes continues.

We continue our series on how intellectual property can protect additive-manufacturing products and processes.

We continue our series on how intellectual property can protect additive-manufacturing products and processes.

We continue our series on how intellectual property can protect additive-manufacturing products and processes.
​​​​​

Additive-manufacturing (AM) processes can produce three-dimensional (3D) physical objects that can be used as models, prototypes or even parts for use in service.

The Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision narrowing the scope of the patent-venue statute with respect to corporations in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC on May 22, 2017.