Skip to main content

Can I use an off-the-shelf video player as a component in my product?

Tempe, AZ |

I'm building a product that needs some video playback capability and rather than build the video circuit, I'd like to pick up a cheap MP4 player and integrate it into my product. The product has other functionality, but video is one aspect of its use. When I open other devices, I see several company names on the components. Is there a reseller license I need? Would I have to pay royalties or is buying the devices enough? Would it be better to pay to build my own video playback circuit?

The video player brand will not be recognizable. Only the LCD screen will be seen and located inside of a custom built casing.

Attorney Answers 5

Posted

You will find company names on nearly everything that you have in your product, all the way down to the capacitors on the circuit board. There is a Doctrine of First Sale that should allow you to use the player in your product. There are little licensing caveats that can create exceptions, but you should be okay.

Of course, building your own will be better, but it's probably a better idea to wait until you have some volume before investing time, effort and production dollars in that direction.

I'm not your attorney; my answer to your question includes assumptions. If you want me to be your attorney, I'm easy to find.

Mark as helpful

7 lawyers agree

Posted

You can, and no doubt will have to, use lots of branded products in your device. The only components you'd use that would be generic would be nails and screws --and sometimes even those are branded. You don't need a re-seller's license for that, and you don't need to pay royalties, because copyright law's "1st sale" or "exhaustion" doctrine means that once you lawfully buy a copyrighted work, you're free to re-sell it or use it as you like.

But a video player isn't the creative type of work that's copyrighted anyway. Copyrights are reserved for works like songs, plays, novels, photographs, drawings, movies, etc. Not functional electronic devices, which are most likely patented and trademarked.

You don't need to worry about the patent on the product, but you do need to be careful not to market your product as having this off-the-shelf video player, so that consumers could mistakenly believe that the manufacturer of the video player is also the source of your product. That consumer confusion equates to trademark infringement.

Avvo doesn't pay us for these responses, and I'm not your lawyer just because I answer this question or respond to any follow-up comments. If you want to hire me, please contact me. Otherwise, please don't expect a further response. We need an actual written agreement to form an attorney-client relationship. I'm only licensed in CA and you shouldn't rely on this answer, since each state has different laws, each situation is fact specific, and it's impossible to evaluate a legal problem without a comprehensive consultation and review of all the facts and documents at issue.

Mark as helpful

7 lawyers agree

Posted

As noted by my colleagues, once a product branded with a trademark or covered by a patent is lawfully sold the owner of the trademark or patent no longer has the right to prevent the product owner from using [alone or within a new product] or reselling that product.

The key exception is as already stated: The product owner cannot make it appear to consumers that the trademark or patent owner somehow endorses or approves of the re-sale [in your case of the sale of the new product] or is associated in any way with the person or company who bought the product.

But this "exhaustion" of trademark and patent rights relies upon an important premise -- that is, the sale of the branded or patent-protected must have been lawful. A "cheap MP4 player" [perhaps from China?] may infringe some other company's patents covering technology included in the MP4 player. In fact, it would very likely infringe absent a license [ http://www.mpegla.com/main/default.aspx ]. If you install an infringing "cheap MP4 player" into your product then your product also infringes the patents covering the MP4 technology. In short, you must engage in due diligence to investigate your suppliers to ensure that their products are lawfully offered to the marketplace before you incorporate those products into your product.

You should discuss this project with your own intellectual property attorney.

The above is general information ONLY and is not legal advice, does not form an attorney-client relationship, and should NOT be relied upon to take or refrain from taking any action. I am not your attorney. You should seek the advice of competent counsel before taking any action related to your inquiry.

Mark as helpful

7 lawyers agree

1 comment

Daniel Nathan Ballard

Daniel Nathan Ballard

Posted

I left out a key word: "that is, the sale of the branded or patent-protected PRODUCT must have been lawful."

Posted

Daniel makes excellent points about patent exposure. Let me take it one step further. You need to perform a patent clearance analysis for your product---and that includes determining whether patents cover the use of an MP4player as a component in products such as your product. Patents cover not only products, but also methods for making and using them. Even if the MP4 player does not, itself, violate patents of others and you are free to use it under the "First Sale" doctrine, there may be patents that cover combining an MP4 device or a similar device into a product such as the one you are building.

Unfortunately, whenever you build a product like this, there are likely numerous relevant patents. Further, you need to take steps to assure that you are not suggesting to your customers that the manufacturers of components that you use endorse or are affiliated with your product In short, you need to work closely with IP counsel, and failure to do so could lead to financial disaster.

One further point---while you are focussing on IP law issue, there may be other legal issues. For example, safety regulations on the federal or state level may prohibit you from combining off-the-shelf components into your product because of concerns regarding the potential lack compatibility of components, and/or their dangers when combined together. When you are dealing with electronic products, you need to be concerned about creating dangers for consumers. Also, the terms of use of the products that you buy "off the shelf" may prohibit you from combining them with other products for safety or other reasons. Bottom line---you need an attorney with experience in your industry, both as to IP law and many other potential legal issues.

Mark as helpful

7 lawyers agree

Posted

Great answers. You are asking the wrong questions. Reread the answers of Attorneys Ballard and Ross. You cannot brand your device to falsely imply some name brand is behind it. And, your service may infringe a patent of someone else. Without a patent clearance you are taking a risk. And, you really should be thinking about how you can get your own patent.An IP attorney is important for all those issues. Big companies use patent attorneys to clear new products. Small companies complain about patents as being bad if they belong to someone else. So do big companies if the patents belong to someone else.

I am not your lawyer and you are not my client. Free advice here is without recourse and any reliance thereupon is at your sole risk. This is done without compensation as a free public service. I am licensed in IL, MO, TX and I am a Reg. Pat. Atty. so advice in any other jurisdiction is strictly general advice and should be confirmed with an attorney licensed in that jurisdiction.

Mark as helpful

4 lawyers agree

6 comments

Bruce E. Burdick

Bruce E. Burdick

Posted

A "bad patent"is one belonging to someone else. A "good patent"is one you own.Thomas Jefferson thought all patents were bad as being Government interference with the natural course of events. James Madison thought they promoted progress if they went to first and true inventors rather than wealthy patrons of Government. Madison's view was adopted in the Constitution.

Daniel Nathan Ballard

Daniel Nathan Ballard

Posted

And Thomas Jefferson, when he became Secretary of State, became the nation's first patent examiner [there was no Patent Office in those early days]. You can read Jefferson's "office action" to Eli Whitney when the latter applied to patent the cotton gin [ http://www.teachingushistory.org/lessons/JefftoWhit.htm ]

Bruce E. Burdick

Bruce E. Burdick

Posted

Under Section 1 the 1790 Act, the examination was by a committee of three, Jefferson as SOS, Henry Knox as Sec of War, and Edmund Randolph Attorney General. Any two of them could approve the patent, but Jefferson, as SOS, was the one responsible to report the result to the President along with the Letters Patent for signature. http://burdlaw.com/references/IP/historical/Patent_Act_of_1790.pdf Jefferson, being strongly opposed to patronage patents such as were prevalent under King George, and being the better scientist , was the most active. Still, he "allowed" a number of patents. Interesting that with Whitney he seemed to be saying the patent was conditionally allowed before he even saw the model and it is interesting to have the "patent examiner" trying to buy one of the patented devices in the Office Action. It makes it sound like he is asking for a bribe, although we know Jefferson was a man of means and was more likely just offering to buy one for his plantation.

Bruce E. Burdick

Bruce E. Burdick

Posted

Actually, it was the AG (Randolph) who delivered the first patents to the Pres (G. Washington) for signature. The SOS kept the Patent records. So I suppose we could say Jefferson was the first "Patent Office" as well as its chief examiner.

Bruce E. Burdick

Bruce E. Burdick

Posted

I used to practice patent law in New Haven, CT just a few blocks from Yale and have been to the Yale library and seen the actual original TJ letter, and a number of other Whitney artifacts, a number of times. Interesting stuff.

Bruce E. Burdick

Bruce E. Burdick

Posted

Of perhaps more historical invention interest is the original Gutenberg bible from that famous printing press Yale has on permanent display at the Beinecke. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beinecke_Rare_Book_and_Manuscript_Library