1. Do you think U.S. pharmaceutical companies should be able to charge lower prices for their patented drugs in poorer countries and prevent the product from being re-imported into the United States? Why or why not?

2. Do you think American students should pay more for textbooks than students in poorer countries? Why or why not?

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers visit https://www.djreprints.com. https://wwwwsj.com/articles/how-price-discrimination-helps-less-affluent-countries-1490051000 OPINION | COMMENTARY How 'Price Discrimination' Helps Less-Affluent Countries The Supreme Court takes up a patent-law case with repercussions far beyond U.S. borders. By Daniel Hemel and Lisa Larrimore Ouellette March 20, 2017 7:03 pm ET PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES Supreme Court decisions affect ordinary Americans on matters from health care to housing, but rarely does a ruling make a material difference for people abroad. On Tuesday the high court will hear a case that represents an exception to the rule. Impression Products Inc. v. Lexmark International is at bottom a case about price discrimination, the practice of charging higher prices to customers who likely can pay more and offering discounts to those who cannot. In many cases, the practice benefits less affluent consumers, who receive a discount to purchase products that they otherwise might not be able to afford. The Supreme Court's decision will determine whether companies can continue to use patent laws to protect their interest when they set prices lower for consumers abroad. Lexmark, a Chinese-owned corporation based in Kentucky, makes laser printers and holds patents that cover its toner cartridges. The defendant, West Virginia-based Impression Products, started buying cartridges from Lexmark customers abroad and reselling themfor a higher price inside the U. S. Lexmark responded by suing Impression for infringing Leicmark's patents. The trial court dismissed Lemark's complaint, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed that decision in February 2016. One question before the Supreme Court is whether Lexmark's initial overseas sales of its toner cartridges \"exhausted\" its U. S. patent rights over those cartridges. Lexmark said it didn't, while Impression disagreed. The Federal Circuit sided with Lexmark. If the company prevails again at the Supreme Court, then a U.S. patent holder could sell a pro duct overseas without losing the ability to enforce its patent against someone who tries to import and sell the product in the U.S. Impression says its preferred \"exhaustion\" rule will be better for U.S. consumers. It has a point: A ood of reimported goods into the U.S. would likely mean lower prices for Americans. But if the lower court '5 ruling stands, that means Lexmark can set a lower price in less-afuent nations without worrying that overseas sales will cannibalize the U.S. market. If this case were only about printer cart ridges, we might not be worried about the outcome. Yet the Supreme Court's decision will also apply to pharmaceutical products now sold for a discount in less developed countries. And it will apply to educational pro ducts like the low-cost X0 tablets manufactured by Sakar International and distributed to schoolchildren world-wide. If the patent laws cannot be used to prevent such products from being resold in the U.S., then you can bet that prices elsewhere will begin to rise toward U.S. levels. In countries where people live on a fraction of what Americans do, consume rs might soon be required to pay ever greater shares of their income for medicine, for example. Even worse: Since pharmaceutical companies are subject to price controls in many countries, they might respond by pulling their drugs from some overseas markets. There are almost certainly consumers in the U.S. including some living on very low incomeswho would benet if Impression wins. This is a case that implicates the distribution of wealth among individuals and across nationsand distribution questions are rarely easy. At the very least we hope that the justices will consider what their decision might mean for consumers beyond the U.S.-and especially in developing countrieswho will feel the weight of the court's judgment. Mr. Hemel is an assistant professor at the University of Chicago Law School. Ms. Ouellette is an assistant professor at Stanford Law School. Appeared in the March 21, 2017, print edition. Copyright @ 2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers visit https://www.djreprints.com