Is It Patent Infringement To Reuse Recycled Apple Magsafe Connectors?

from the patent-exhaustion dept

AppleInsider has the details of yet another patent infringement lawsuit filed by Apple, who has become a lot more aggressive on the patent front lately. This lawsuit is against Sanho, a company that makes a variety of external batteries for Apple products. There are six patents listed in the lawsuit, but two are design patents, which are pretty narrow. The four (really three) utility patents are

  • 7,517,222: Magnetic connector for electronic device
  • 7,627,343 & 7,751,853 (really the same patent, as one is a continuation of the other: Female receptacle data pin connector
  • 7,783,070: Cable adapter for a media player system

All of them, obviously, have to do with the connectors Apple uses to charge its various products, including the famed “MagSafe” charger found on Apple laptops that connect via a magnet, which break away easily (such as if someone trips over the cord). I do remember when this first came out, that Apple indicated it had patented up the technology and would block others from using it.

However, where this gets interesting is that, according to Sanho’s website, it doesn’t make its own magnetic connectors, but simply recycles official Apple connectors:

“Our charging cables use original Apple MagSafe connectors for maximum compatibility,”

If that’s the case, it seems to raise some questions about patent exhaustion, where a company can’t license a patent for one player in a supply chain, but then claim that later buyers, who are buying from the original licensee need to re-license the patent. Think of it as being similar to the principle of “first sale” in copyright. I would think that, on those connectors at the very least, Sanho could make a case for patent exhaustion if it really is just buying up official Apple MagSafe connectors and repurposing them.

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: apple, sanho

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Is It Patent Infringement To Reuse Recycled Apple Magsafe Connectors?”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Seamus (profile) says:

Okay, here’s the problem. The very language that you used, implied that there’s an issue. “Licensee.” That means they’re not an owner, so no sale occurred. Also, there’s a case about patent exhaustion that you’ll hate, but it is Mallinckrodt v. Medipart 976 F.2d 700 (,_Inc._v._Medipart,_Inc.) and it speaks a little to what’s happening here.

Also, the idea of getting around a patent through recycling of a particular component and reusing it in one’s own product would frustrate the patent holders ability to exclude others from utilizing the technology without licensing it. I can almost guarantee Apple will win this suit.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Who’s getting around the patent? If the patented product was originally manufactured under license from the patent holder and the patented product is then recycled and incorporated into a product that’s not itself subject to the patent in question, I can see no reasonable case for the need to relicense that patent.

cc (profile) says:

Re: Re:

You did read the *whole* article you linked to, right?

“The effect of Mallinckrodt may have been restricted by the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., which broadly reaffirmed the exhaustion doctrine without mentioning Mallinckrodt. It is too early to state, however, what the impact of Quanta on the Mallinckrodt doctrine will be.”

This could end up being one of those legal battles that take years to resolve. Of course, we are talking about Apple here…

Keith (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I’m not so sure that you can “guarantee” that.

From the wikipedia page:

“Until the Federal Circuit’s Mallinckrodt decision, an unbroken line of Supreme Court and lower court precedents held that the patentee’s patent right over a product that the patentee sold (or that a licensee authorised to make a sale sold) ended at the point of sale.”

“The Federal Circuit’s Mallinckrodt doctrine has not avoided criticism as allegedly stating legal rules that contradict Supreme Court decisions. Thus in 2007, the United States Solicitor General filed an amicus curiae brief in Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc.,[8], stating, as to the first prong, “The test adopted by the Federal Circuit in Mallinckrodt thus reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the role and scope of the patent-exhaustion doctrine. … The court of appeals’ approach cannot be reconciled with those [Supreme Court] precedents,”[9] and more generally that the Federal Circuit’s Quanta opinion based on Mallinckrodt “rests on the same erroneous understanding of patent exhaustion that infuses the Federal Circuit’s approach to this area of the law.”

Long story short, that single ruling in Mallinckrodt v. Medipart is in direct conflict with an unbroken line of prior precedents set as high as the Supreme Court.

I say defendant has a case.

Anonymous Coward says:

Shove off if youre telling me i can’t mod my power cable that I paid for to work differently and recombine parts to suit my needs. Shove off if youre telling me I can’t pay someone else to do that to save me hours of my life.

Thanks for the legal analysis; it is interesting and all but the law is FAIL if it prohibits me from doing this and it deserves nothing but contempt from us.

iamtheky (profile) says:

think maybe they bought up all the faulty magsafe kits from the recall a couple of years ago?

and everything in the patent discusses a “plurality of magnets”

so make a safe magnetic connector with one custom shaped magnet? maybe one that looks exactly the same from the top down but has a base the pins are arising (and forged) from, making it one solid piece, or is that too novel?

william (profile) says:

well, consider the recent stupid EULA ruling, see, I hope the court doesn’t destroy this one too.

Why can’t Apple just tell it’s licensee not to sell to Sanho or else they’ll retract their license.

However, I really find it hard to believe that Sanho can find a source for enough “recycled” connector to make enough product for the masses.

Anonymous Coward says:

Scribd has a copy of the complaint filed by Apple, a reading of which shows that the claims being asserted against Sanho are based at least upon contributory infringement under Title 35, Section 271(b).

Apple alleges that Sanho manufactures products in its own right that are not “staple items of commerce suitable for a substantial non-infringing use”, and that when combined with other articles infringe Apple’s patents.

As I read the complaint, this is not a “first sale” issue (aka – Patent Exhaustion).

Overcast (profile) says:

where a company can’t license a patent for one player in a supply chain, but then claim that later buyers, who are buying from the original licensee need to re-license the patent.

Let’s say for the sake of debate…

What if:

*The companies who make boxes for apple, having patents on the container board makeup, patents on the logos or images, or whatever – says the same about apple using it’s boxes.

*Various tools, devices and other things used in images on Apples marketing pages want in on this too. For instance, search their domain for images. I’m sure you’ll find some including medical devices, buildings, cars, tables, etc – that all of the respective manufacturers of have patents on too.

*The plastics, metals, and other materials made that they use in the making of their computers; I’m sure all that is patented too – perhaps they want a cut.

*The companies that make paper that is in turn used to print manuals, brochures, etc – perhaps since their paper likely contains light water marks or whatever – they might want a cut too.

This list could basically go on to infinity; I could sit for hours and come up with hypothetical concepts – to where every company gets a cut of every other company’s profits.

Eventually it could cripple some parts of industry in general. Forcing smaller companies out of business.

Or perhaps – maybe that’s the intent of this ‘trend’?

Pat says:

This is an interesting one...

Patent exhaustion has a strong point here, but I think Apple can overcome this with a “repair” argument. Most lay people don’t realize that you can’t always do whatever you want just because you buy something. You can’t infringe a patent just because you bought an embodying product.

Wanting people to innovate as much as possible is the whole reason there are patents, so if an infringer is using Apple’s patent without a licensee, and that patent is valid, then Apple should get paid. No free riders allowed.

Also, these things are made primarily to be used with Apple’s patented products. We shouldn’t stop Apple from blocking this market I cause maybe they want to charge double for a portable charger I use that $ to pay more engineers and grow their company.

Is it counter intuitive? Yes. But they should’ve sought to get a license from Apple. If Apple doesn’t want to give them one, to bad, that’s their constitutional right.


Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: This is an interesting one...

No, because there is no substanial noninfringing use for these chargers. Plus you can repair those old computers cause dell doesnt have patents on all the parts. But here, apple does.

Although you are probably infringing 1000 patents as you read this, those patentees are choosing not to sue you. Here, apple is, and that’s why they should get compensated for somebody making money off their intellectual property.

These guys should have at least gotten a legal opinion before doing this cause now they risk punatives for intentional infringent.

Richard (profile) says:

Re: This is an interesting one...

Also, these things are made primarily to be used with Apple’s patented products. We shouldn’t stop Apple from blocking this market I cause maybe they want to charge double for a portable charger I use that $ to pay more engineers and grow their company.
Because the items in question have already been purchased legitimately from Apple.

Apple have had their legitimate cut.

If you “repair argument” is valid then the law is a travesty and should immediately be changed.

Richard (profile) says:

Re: This is an interesting one...

Wanting people to innovate as much as possible is the whole reason there are patents,
No. Patents exist because the granting of a monopoly by the government guarantees the allegiance of the patent holder to said government.

This stuff about encouraging innovation is an excuse, invented to justify the retention of a medieval practice in the modern world. There is a whole raft of evidence – much reported on this site showing that patents in fact discourage innovation. What they actually encourage is rent seeking.

Richard (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I understand why software is licensed instead of sold

Yes – it’s a sad story – originally s/w was licensed in order to give you more rights than copyright allowed – because strict copyright would have prevented you from even running a program – let alone making a backup. However when the law was clarified to allow these things without a special agreement, the licence agreements started being abused to restrict user rights.

Cynyr (profile) says:

Re: Re:

As was pointed out they are buying the connectors from licensed products. So when those were made Apple got it’s cut. From my understanding Sanho is not making the connector but simply buying them.

Can i buy 200k of those from sparkfun and make my own product?
If i buy them from an authorized source(original apple busted PSUs are authorized) then Apple has been paid what it wanted for it’s patent when it was sold the first time.

Pat says:

People... this is a second creation of the patented entity

19 I apologize… I phrased it as Apple’s counter to a repair argument. They should win on a reconstruction argument.

People unfamiliar with patent law:

“Underlying the repair/reconstruction dichotomy is the principle of exhaustion of the patent right. The unrestricted sale of a patented article, by or with the authority of the patentee, “exhausts” the patentee’s right to control further sale and use of that article by enforcing the patent under which it was first sold. In United States v. Masonite Corp., 316 U.S. 265, 278 (1942), the Court explained that exhaustion of the patent right depends on “whether or not there has been such a disposition of the article that it may fairly be said that the patentee has received his reward for the use of the article.” See, e.g., Intel Corp. v. ULSI Sys. Tech., Inc., 995 F.2d 1566, 1568, 27 USPQ2d 1136, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“The law is well settled that an authorized sale of a patented product places that product beyond the reach of the patent.”) Thus when a patented device has been lawfully sold in the United States, subsequent purchasers inherit the same immunity under the doctrine of patent exhaustion.

However, the prohibition that the product may not be the vehicle for a “second creation of the patented entity” continues to apply, for such re-creation exceeds the rights that accompanied the initial sale.”

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: People... this is a second creation of the patented entity

Also, its really great to start protesting corporations but you wouldn’t have a cool computer to type on or if you did you would need to be uber-rich.

Patents let groups gather their money, pour it into something risky, and recover the benefit of that risk.

People love the fruits of that risk (i.e. technology), but then cry when the inventor wants to enforce their constitutional right.

Our founding fathers weren’t stupid people, and understood that for every person whining and crying there would be 100 people happy just to have new and affordable products to begin with.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...