When Ownership Meets Power: What Calidad v Seiko Epson Reveals About Hidden Limits on Your Rights
Home › Case Studies › Case Law Library › Commercial & Business Cases › Intellectual Property & Licensing Disputes › Calidad Pty Ltd v Seiko Epson Corporation [2020] HCA 41
Published: 18 November 2025 | Reviewed: 18 November 2025
(3-minute read)
Case Summary - What Happened and Why It Mattered
In Calidad Pty Ltd v Seiko Epson Corporation [2020] HCA 41, the High Court considered whether a manufacturer can continue controlling what a purchaser does with a patented product after it has been sold.
Epson sold “single-use” printer cartridges. A third party refilled and modified those empty cartridges so they could be reused. Calidad then imported and sold these refilled cartridges in Australia. Epson claimed patent infringement.
Two legal questions framed the dispute:
Does a patentee’s control end at the first sale?
The Court adopted the exhaustion doctrine: once a patented product is sold without conditions, the patentee’s control over that particular item ends. The Court famously stated:“the rule, that a patentee’s rights with respect to a particular product are exhausted once that product is sold without conditions as to use, should be accepted.”
Did refilling and modifying the cartridges amount to making a new patented product?
The Court held no. The modifications “were within the scope of the rights of an owner to prolong the life of a product and make it more useful”. This meant Calidad did not infringe Epson’s patents.
This restored a basic principle of ownership: if you buy a physical product, you are generally free to use, repair, and resell it unless the seller imposes clear contractual conditions at the time of sale.
Why It Still Matters - The Modern Relevance
This case is about printers, but its logic reaches far beyond them.
In many disputes, clients face hidden conditions, fine print, or post-purchase restrictions - sometimes arising from intellectual property, sometimes from service agreements, sometimes from a professional’s “usual practice”. The Court’s reasoning reflects a broader fairness principle:
Power exercised after the deal is done must be transparent, limited, and justified.
When that transparency is absent, people lose control - over their assets, their decision-making, or their legal position. The judgment shows how easily unclear conditions can shift power away from the purchaser unless the law steps in.
How to Avoid the Same Trap - Clear, Enforceable Conditions and Client Control
Relevant Structural Risk Exposed by the Case
The risk revealed here is unclear conditions on use - where rights are restricted after you’ve already committed money or time.
Clients often experience a similar issue in litigation:
work starts, costs rise, and the “conditions” on what the lawyer is allowed to do (and charge for) become visible only after the commitment is made.
Clean Law Safeguard That Directly Addresses This Risk
Escrow + Two-Lawyer Role Separation (primary safeguard)
Under this safeguard:
Nothing proceeds without the client’s approval.
All stages are authorised before work starts, avoiding hidden or implied conditions.
Costs cannot expand silently in the background because:
Two lawyers often cost less than one - because you fund one path, not both.
Traditional models blend settlement work and trial preparation; ours separates them so clients never unintentionally “fund both”.
This mirrors the principle affirmed in Calidad:
rights and obligations should be clear at the moment you agree - not altered afterward.
Because escrow locks every stage behind client approval, and role separation prevents a single lawyer from charging for both paths, the conditions of engagement stay transparent and stable. This structurally prevents the kind of post-sale (or post-retainer) power imbalance examined in the judgment.
Reflection
Clients often consider how much control they truly have once a matter begins. Cases like Calidad show why transparent conditions at the outset matter, whether you're buying a product or engaging legal support. When roles, costs, and limits are clear at the start, power stays in the client’s hands.
To see how clear conditions and one-path funding work in practice, this explainer walks through each safeguard step by step.
If you’re facing a dispute where terms, costs, or obligations feel uncertain, a confidential mapping call can clarify your options before you commit to any pathway.
By Nicky Wang
Principal Solicitor
Legal Liaison Ltd (trading as Clean Law)
Prepared in accordance with public-interest governance,
annual Law Society trust-account audits, and ACNC-reported standards.
Disclaimer: This page is intended to provide general information only and is not legal advice. The contents may not reflect the most current legal developments and do not take into account your individual circumstances. You should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of this information without obtaining legal advice tailored to your situation.
