Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-697_d1o2.pdf
Page Number: 38

Cite as:  568 U. S. ____ (2013) 

1 

KAGAN, J., concurring 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 11–697 
_________________ 

SUPAP KIRTSAENG, DBA BLUECHRISTINE99, 

PETITIONER v. JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC.
 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 

APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
 

[March 19, 2013]

 JUSTICE  KAGAN,  with  whom  JUSTICE  ALITO  joins,

concurring. 

I  concur  fully  in  the  Court’s  opinion.  Neither  the  text 
nor  the  history  of  17  U. S. C.  §109(a)  supports  removing
first-sale  protection  from  every  copy  of  a  protected  work
manufactured abroad.  See ante, at 8–16, 28–31.  I recog-
nize,  however,  that  the  combination  of  today’s  decision
and  Quality  King  Distributors,  Inc.  v.  L’anza  Research 
Int’l,  Inc.,  523  U. S.  135  (1998),  constricts  the  scope  of 
§602(a)(1)’s  ban  on  unauthorized  importation.    I  write  to 
suggest that any problems associated with that limitation 
come not from our reading of §109(a) here, but from Qual-
ity King’s holding that §109(a) limits §602(a)(1). 

As the Court explains, the first-sale doctrine has played
an  integral  part  in  American  copyright  law  for  over  a 
century.  See  ante,  at  17–19;  Bobbs-Merrill  Co.  v.  Straus, 
210 U. S. 339 (1908).  No codification of the doctrine prior
to  1976  even  arguably  limited  its  application  to  copies
made in the United States.  See ante, at 12.  And nothing
in  the  text  or  history  of  §109(a)—the  Copyright  Act  of 
1976’s first-sale provision—suggests that Congress meant
to  enact  the  new,  geographical  restriction  John  Wiley
proposes, which at once would deprive American consum-
ers of important rights and encourage copyright holders to
manufacture abroad.  See ante, at 8–16, 28–31.