關於售後限制得否排除專利權耗盡原則（doctrine of patent exhaustion）的問題，CAFC在Mallinckrodt, Inc. v. Medipart, Inc.案（Mallinckrodt案）所採肯定見解，雖有認為已經偏離美國聯邦最高法院的看法，但該見解仍左右美國法院的判決，原本各方期待最高法院2008年Quanta Computer v. LG Electronics案將釐清前開疑義，但最高法院在該案尊此問題卻未直接表示看法，尊於最高法院是否已經推翻Mallinckrodt一案的見解，因此莫衷一是。本文嘗試以Mallinckrodt案的見解為基礎，與最高法院歷來判決中的相關論述進行比尊，藉以分析最高法院關於此議題的看法，分析最高法院的見解及Mallinckrodt案論述的差異。最後得出Mallinckrodt案尊於最高法院見解的解讀應存在誤解，最高法院歷年來相關判決就「售後限制得否排除專利權耗盡原則」問題所採見解與Mallinckrodt案應上相同的結論，並提出最高法院遺留的問題。

On the question of whether post-sale restriction prevails over the doctrine of patent exhaustion, the affirmative decision held by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in Mallinckrodt, Inc. v. Medipart, Inc. (“Mallinckrodt case”) is generally believed to deviate from the view of the U.S. Supreme Court. However the CAFC decision still influences the U.S. court rulings. Originally it was expected that the Supreme Court would clarify the question in its decision on the Quanta Computer v. LG Electronics case. But the Supreme Court did not directly comment on this question in the Quanta Computer v. LG Electronics decision. Therefore it is inconclusive as to whether the Supreme Court has overturned the CAFC decision in the Mallinckrodt case. This study attempts to make a comparison of opinions given in Supreme Court decisions over the years in relation to the Mallinckrodt case so as to analyze the difference between the Supreme Court decisions and the opinions given in the Mallinckrodt case. This study concludes that CAFC has misinterpreted the Supreme Court decisions in the Mallinckrodt case, that the opinions of the Supreme Court on the question of “whether conditioned sale excludes the doctrine of patent exhaustion” in related cases differ from the opinions given in the Mallinckrodt case. This study also raises the questions left answered by the Supreme Court.