Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.,
The Court unanimously affirmed the Sixth Circuit's ruling that a toner cartridge component maker had standing under the Lanham Act to sue printer company Lexmark for false advertising.· AI-written
572 U.S. 118 · No. 12-873 · 2013 term · Roberts Court
Decided Mar 25, 2014 · argued Dec 3, 2013
Judicial power · Standing to sue: live dispute
Majority opinion: Antonin Scalia
The voteMajority
9–09 in the majority, 0 in dissent
No dissent (9–0)
Affirmed. Lexmark Int'l, Inc. lost.
What this ruling means
Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).
Lexmark Int'l, Inc. was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., is an American legal case involving the computer printer company Lexmark, which had designed an authentication system using a microcontroller so that only authorized toner cartridges could be used. The resulting litigation (described by Justice Scalia in 2014 as "sprawling", and by others as having the potential to go on as long as Jarndyce v. Jarndyce) has resulted in significant decisions affecting United States intellectual property and trademark law.
In separate rulings in 2004 and 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that:
circumvention of Lexmark's ink cartridge authentication does not violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and
Static Control Components had standing basis under the Lanham Act to sue Lexmark for false advertising in relation to its promotion of the program, which was unanimously affirmed in 2014 by the Supreme Court of the United States.
The Supreme Court's 2014 ruling also affects statutory interpretation in the area of standing in pursuing lawsuits on statutory grounds in a wide variety of areas in federal court.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2013 term. Filled: the 9 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(9)
Antonin ScaliaWrote the majority opinion
Sonia SotomayorJoined the majority
Ruth GinsburgJoined the majority
Elena KaganJoined the majority
Stephen BreyerJoined the majority
Anthony KennedyJoined the majority
John RobertsJoined the majority
Samuel AlitoJoined the majority
Clarence ThomasJoined the majority
Dissent(0)
- None.
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- Lexmark Int'l, Inc.Manufacturer
- Respondent
- Static Control Components, Inc.,Seller or vendor
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- 15-1125
- Kind of law
- Infrequently litigated statutes
- Decided by
- Statutory construction
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Mar 25, 2014DecidedDecided · Decided 9–0: affirmed. Lexmark Int'l, Inc. lost.
- Dec 3, 2013ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit: reversed.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Kentucky Eastern U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
8 other argued cases since 1946 on standing to sue: live dispute, newest first.
- Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski141 S. Ct. 792Mar 8, 2021 · 141 S. Ct. 792Judicial power8–18–1 band
- Priscilla Summers et al. v. Earth Island Institute et al.555 U.S. 488Mar 3, 2009 · 555 U.S. 488Judicial power5–45–4 band
- Texas v. United States et al.523 U.S. 296Mar 31, 1998 · 523 U.S. 296Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Louise Renne, San Francisco City Attorney, et al. v. Bob Geary, et al.501 U.S. 312Jun 17, 1991 · 501 U.S. 312Judicial power6–36–3 band
- ASARCO Inc. et al. v. Kadish et al.490 U.S. 605May 30, 1989 · 490 U.S. 605Judicial power6–27–2 band
- United States Parole Commission et al. v. Geraghty445 U.S. 388Mar 19, 1980 · 445 U.S. 388Judicial power5–45–4 band
- Deposit Guaranty National Bank of Jackson, Mississippi v. Roper et al.445 U.S. 326Mar 19, 1980 · 445 U.S. 326Judicial power7–27–2 band
- Golden, Acting District Attorney of Kings County v. Zwickler394 U.S. 103Mar 3, 1969 · 394 U.S. 103Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.