568 U.S. 519 (2013)
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., an academic textbook publisher, often assigns to its wholly owned foreign subsidiary Wiley Asia rights to publish, print, and sell foreign editions of Wiley's English language textbooks abroad.1 Each copy states that it is authorized for sale only in particular regions outside the United States and may not be exported without permission.2
Supap Kirtsaeng, a citizen of Thailand, moved to the United States in 1997 to study mathematics at Cornell University on a Thai government scholarship.3 While studying, Kirtsaeng asked friends and family in Thailand to purchase copies of these foreign edition textbooks at low prices in Thai book shops and to mail them to him.4
Kirtsaeng sold the imported books in the United States, reimbursed his family and friends for their purchases, and retained the profit after successfully completing his undergraduate and doctoral programs.5 In 2008 Wiley filed a federal lawsuit against Kirtsaeng alleging that his unauthorized importation and resale of the books infringed Wiley's exclusive right to distribute copies under 17 U.S.C. §106(3) and the import prohibition in §602(a)(1).6
The District Court rejected Kirtsaeng's assertion of the first sale defense.7 The jury found that Kirtsaeng had willfully infringed eight of Wiley's copyrighted titles and assessed statutory damages of $600,000.8 A split panel of the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment that the first sale doctrine does not apply to copies of American copyrighted works manufactured abroad.9 The Supreme Court granted Kirtsaeng's petition for certiorari to consider the question in light of differing views among the Circuits.10
Whether the first sale doctrine applies to copies of a copyrighted work lawfully made abroad?11
Section 109(a) provides that notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord.12 The phrase lawfully made under this title does not impose a geographical limitation.13
Yes. Wiley assigned rights to its wholly owned foreign subsidiary Wiley Asia to publish and sell foreign editions abroad.14 Kirtsaeng acquired ownership of particular copies through legitimate purchases in Thai book shops.15 Those copies were manufactured abroad with Wiley's permission.16
The non-geographical reading of section 109(a) therefore permits Kirtsaeng to sell or otherwise dispose of the copies in the United States without further authorization from Wiley.17 The statutory language, its context in sections 106 and 602, and the common-law history of the first sale doctrine all confirm that the place of manufacture is irrelevant once ownership of a lawfully made copy has passed.18
The first sale doctrine applies to copies of a copyrighted work lawfully made abroad.19
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Alito
Justice Kagan, joined by Justice Alito, concurred in the judgment.20 She agreed that neither the text nor the history of section 109(a) supports removing first-sale protection from copies manufactured abroad.21 She observed that the decision, when combined with Quality King, substantially narrows the scope of section 602(a)(1)'s ban on unauthorized importation.22
She suggested that any resulting difficulty for copyright owners seeking to segment markets stems from Quality King rather than the present holding.23 Congress could address the matter by overturning Quality King if it wished to strengthen the importation prohibition.24
Joined by Justice Kennedy And In Part By Justice Scalia
Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justice Kennedy and in part by Justice Scalia, dissented.25 She maintained that the phrase lawfully made under this title refers to copies whose creation is governed by and complies with Title 17, which does not apply extraterritorially.26 Foreign-made copies therefore fall outside section 109(a).27
She argued that this reading preserves the independent force of section 602(a)(1) and prevents the importation ban from being rendered largely superfluous.28 She concluded that the Court's adoption of international exhaustion departs from Congress's design to protect copyright owners against unauthorized importation of low-priced foreign copies.29