The court didn't directly address that point. The Lexmark contract likely has a choice of law provision, e.g., "this contract will be interpreted and enforced i

The court didn't directly address that point. The Lexmark contract likely has a choice of law provision, e.g., "this contract will be interpreted and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California." It would be inappropriate for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on an issue of state law unless it also posed a question under federal law. The case is limited to the question of whether Lexmark has the right under patent law to prevent resale, refurbishment, and refilling of its cartridges. The Court ruled that it does not.