Supreme Court sides with Kirtsaeng on first sale defence

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Cookies Settings

Supreme Court sides with Kirtsaeng on first sale defence

The Supreme Court disagreed with amici such as AIPLA, IPO and the MPAA on Tuesday when it ruled that Supap Kirtsaeng could lawfully buy cheaper editions of textbooks overseas and then resell them in the US for a profit

The Court said in Kirtsaeng v Wiley & Sons that the first sale doctrine - which states that once a copyright owner sells a work, his rights in that work are exhausted - applies to copies manufactured outside of the United States with the publisher’s permission. The books at issue were manufactured by Wiley & Sons’ foreign subsidiary, Wiley Asia.

The decision has clarified what the US Copyright Act means by “lawfully made under this title”, but many copyright owners and practitioners will undoubtedly be unhappy with its interpretation.

While Wiley read “lawfully made under this title” to mean that the work must have been geo­graphically made in the US under US copyright law, Kirtsaeng argued that it simply meant ‘in accordance with’ or ‘in compliance with’ the Copyright Act, which would permit the doctrine to apply to copies manufactured abroad with the copyright owner’s permission”, wrote the Court.

AIPLA’s amicus brief argued that the first sale defence may not be raised, not because the books were made abroad, but because under the extraterritoriality doctrine the first sale right attaches only after the copyright owner has made its first sale in the United States.

Joshua Rosenkranz of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe argued for Kirtsaeng, while Theodore Olson of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher argued for Wiley.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Cabinet M Oproiu’s Raluca Vasilescu explains why AI is changing what clients expect from patent attorneys, where the technology is overhyped and what the next generation will need to do differently
As clients demand more flexible fees and AI-driven efficiencies, IP firms are rethinking pricing without abandoning the value of their work
HG Law was formed largely by ex Fish & Neave lawyers who left after the latter's merger with Ropes & Gray; now those experiences are shaping its latest combination
David Rodrigues and Evan Lazerowitz – attorneys at Robinson & Cole – offer practical guidance on the steps a business might consider to preserve and maximise IP value before entering financial distress or insolvency
Daniel Law CEO Alicia Daniel-Shores may have stepped into a family business, but she has spent two decades building her own vision around technology and litigation
Law firms don't particularly like saying no to clients. Perhaps they should get better at it
The office, which has a relatively new patent litigation team as well as a wider ‘soft’ IP offering, would remain independent if the rejection is rubberstamped
The IP boutique is betting that growing investment in quantum and semiconductors will fuel demand as technology shifts toward physical systems
Lawyers say the overhaul better reflects commercial reality, with changes spanning novelty searches, digital designs and access to a small claims track, but stopping short of criminalising unregistered design infringement
Carpmaels & Ransford hires its fourth partner of the year and wins access to UPC files, as fresh orders address costs, confidentiality and the use of divisional patents
Gift this article