Patent Righter have the right to product, use, sell and lend the thing made by execution of Patent and he can hinder other's these behavior. But he cannot use his right, if he transfer the thing. He who received thing made by execution of Patent can use, sell, lend the thing to other without permission of Patent Righter. But wether he can repair or modify the thing or not is not clear. The object of this paper is to clear that the owner of the printer cartridge have the right to inject ink or toner to printer storing place. In this paper, a judicial decision of korea, japan, american relate to this issue is enumerated and compared each other. CAFC(United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) say that improvement that buying cartridge from patentee, breaking the seal of the cap and replacing the cap with shims, refilling ink is not impermissible 'reconstruction' but is behavior akin to permissible repair. Japan supreme court say that Patent Exhaustion is fixed by awareness of person who lived in a community, wether the owner of the printer cartridge have the right to inject ink or toner to printer storing place is fixed by awareness of person who lived in a community. To fix awareness of person who lived in a community, it is necessary to consider nature of thing made by patent, content of patent, the mode of treatment or replace of components. Korea supreme court say that the act that buy vacant printer cartridge that used up, is correspond to indirect infringement(impending infringement). And Korea supreme court say that refilling ink in vacant printer cartridge is correspond to reconstructing printer cartridge. But in this paper, refilling ink in vacant printer cartridge should not be treated reconstruction but be treated repair

Patent Righter have the right to product, use, sell and lend the thing made by execution of Patent and he can hinder other's these behavior. But he cannot use his right, if he transfer the thing. He who received thing made by execution of Patent can use, sell, lend the thing to other without permission of Patent Righter. But wether he can repair or modify the thing or not is not clear. The object of this paper is to clear that the owner of the printer cartridge have the right to inject ink or toner to printer storing place. In this paper, a judicial decision of korea, japan, american relate to this issue is enumerated and compared each other. CAFC(United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) say that improvement that buying cartridge from patentee, breaking the seal of the cap and replacing the cap with shims, refilling ink is not impermissible 'reconstruction' but is behavior akin to permissible repair. Japan supreme court say that Patent Exhaustion is fixed by awareness of person who lived in a community, wether the owner of the printer cartridge have the right to inject ink or toner to printer storing place is fixed by awareness of person who lived in a community. To fix awareness of person who lived in a community, it is necessary to consider nature of thing made by patent, content of patent, the mode of treatment or replace of components. Korea supreme court say that the act that buy vacant printer cartridge that used up, is correspond to indirect infringement(impending infringement). And Korea supreme court say that refilling ink in vacant printer cartridge is correspond to reconstructing printer cartridge. But in this paper, refilling ink in vacant printer cartridge should not be treated reconstruction but be treated repair

Patent Exhaustion Doctrine, Patent. Act injecting ink into Printer, Patent Righter, Printer cartridge, Repair