DO YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO SUE: UNDERSTANDING CONTRACT PROVISIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF LITIGATION
|
|
- Curtis Anthony
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 DO YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO SUE: UNDERSTANDING CONTRACT PROVISIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF LITIGATION A patent grants the patentee the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering to sell or importing the patented invention into the United States. 35 U.S.C. 271(a). It follows that when this right to exclude is violated by an infringer, the patentee has the right to bring a civil action for infringement of [its] patent, i.e., standing to sue for patent infringement. 35 U.S.C Recently, the identity of the patentee as defined, has been called into question. The Federal Circuit has made it clear that nuances in the provisions and language used in patent licensing and assignment agreements can be critical in determining whether or not an inventor, licensee or assignee has standing to sue another party for patent infringement. Slight imperfections or even subtle deviations from what was actually intended or desired by the parties can have a profound impact on their right to sue over the patent. It is therefore imperative that practitioners are knowledgeable about the effects particular language and provisions have on a standing determination in order to ensure that their clients, whether individual inventors or corporations, licensors or licensees, preserve their right to sue for patent infringement. To bring suit for patent infringement, a party must have constitutional standing to do so. WiAV Solutions LLC v. Motorola, Inc., 631 F.3d 1257, 1264 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Where an invention is assigned by its inventor to a third party or out licensed by its owner to a third party, the question of who has standing to sue becomes more complicated. The patentee in this context includes not only the patentee to whom the patent was issued but also the successors in title to the patentee. See 35 U.S.C. 100(d). 1
2 Who are the necessary and indispensable parties to the patent infringement suit? Under what circumstances has the inventor or patent owner conveyed sufficient rights to the assignee or licensee and consequently deprived himself of standing to sue? The facts outlined in a recent Supreme Court case demonstrate the impact of the use of certain language in assignment agreements. See Bd. of Trs. of the Leland Stanford Junior University v. Roche Molecular Sys., Inc., 2011 U.S. LEXIS 4183 (June 6, 2011). In Stanford, the inventor of the patent-at-issue first signed an agreement agree[ing] to assign his right, title and interest in inventions resulting from his employment at the University to Stanford. Id. at *9. Subsequently, the inventor signed an agreement stating that he will assign and do[es] hereby assign to Cetus (later acquired by Roche), his right, title and interest in each of the ideas, inventions and improvements made as a consequence of [his] access to Cetus. Id. The invention in question was conceived during the inventor s time at Cetus, but was later tested and covered by several patent applications that were subsequently filed by the inventor when he returned to Stanford. Roche commercialized a product incorporating the technology covered by the Stanford patents and Stanford asserted its patents against Roche. The Federal Circuit held that Roche possessed an ownership interest in the patent-in-suit, depriving Stanford of standing to sue for infringement, because agree[ing] to assign an invention is no more than a mere promise to assign rights in the future, while the language that one will assign and do[es] hereby assign an invention constitutes an actual assignment of the inventor s rights in the invention. Bd. of Trs. of the Leland Stanford Junior University v. Roche Molecular Sys., Inc., 583 F.3d 832, (Fed. Cir. 2009) (emphasis added). The Supreme Court s affirmed the Federal Circuit s holding in Stanford. The Court s holding centered on whether the Bayh-Dole Act deprived the inventor of his right to the invention by vesting title to 2
3 federally funded inventions in the federal contractor, the University, and never considered the Federal Circuit s construction of the relevant agreements. Stanford, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 4183, at *11 n.2. Nevertheless, the case illustrates the importance of understanding the consequences of variations in either assignment or licensing language. In addition to having the right language, the right provisions are also critical. Federal Circuit case law on standing in the context of license agreements highlights the substantial impact of contract provisions on the right to sue for patent infringement. An exclusive licensee will have sole standing to sue for patent infringement if the owner of the patent has conveyed all substantial rights in the patent such that the license is tantamount to an assignment of the patent. Alfred C. Mann Found. v. Cochlear Corp., 604 F.3d 1354, (Fed. Cir. 2010). Not surprisingly, the provisions of the licensing agreement guide a court s determination as to whether the license rises to the level of a virtual assignment. In determining whether or not an exclusive licensee has sole standing to sue, Courts have considered: whether the provisions in the license transfer the exclusive right to make, use and sell products or services under the patent; the extent to which the licensor is able to supervise and control the licensee s activities; the duration of the license rights granted to the licensee; the scope of the licensee s right to sublicense; the responsibility to maintain the patent, including who assumes responsibility for paying patent maintenance fees; the nature of any limits on the licensee s right to assign its interests in the patent; the rights the licensor has following a breach of the licensing agreement; the nature and scope of the exclusive licensee s right to bring suit, together with the nature and scope of any right to sue retained by the licensor; the control over licensing and litigation decisions; 3
4 whether the licensor can receive a portion of the recovery in infringement suits brought by the licensee; and the ability of the parties to terminate the contract and the impact of such termination. See Alfred C. Mann Found., 604 F.3d at ; Sicom Sys. Ltd. v. Agilent Techs., Inc., 427 F.3d 971, (Fed. Cir. 2005). See also Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Miracle Optics, Inc., 434 F.3d 1336, (Fed. Cir. 2006) (finding that [b]y having rights for only a limited portion of the patent term, [the licensee] simply did not own the patent.... [the patent] was exclusively licensed for only a fixed period of years, which does not meet the all substantial rights standard ). While the most important consideration in determining standing is often the exclusive licensee s right to bring suit, the interplay of the remaining provisions in the contract may dictate whether the licensor has in fact conveyed substantial rights to the licensee. Alfred C. Mann Found., 604 F.3d at 1361; see also A123 Sys., Inc. v. Hydro-Quebec, 626 F.3d 1213, (Fed. Cir. 2010). In determining whether all substantial rights in a patent have been transferred, labels given by the parties do not control. A123 Sys., 626 F.3d at If the licensor retains a right to sue accused infringers, the court will likely find that not all substantial rights were transferred to the licensee. See Alfred C. Mann Found., 604 F.3d at However, if the licensor s right to sue is merely illusory, for example, because the licensee is allowed to settle licensor-initiated litigation by granting royalty-free sublicenses to the accused infringers, then the licensor might be deemed to have transferred all substantial rights to the licensee, despite retaining the right to sue. See id. at (finding the licensing agreement did not convey all substantial rights in the patent to the licensee because: (a) the licensor retained the right to sue if the licensee chose not to sue; (b) the licensee s ability to sublicense the patent was not 4
5 unfettered; and (c) any sublicense granted by the sublicensee was required to include specified pass-through royalties). Similarly, where a licensing agreement gives the licensee the right to sue for patent infringement, but such a right is unaccompanied by the transfer of other rights indicative of ownership, it is likely that a court will find that there has not been a virtual assignment of the patent. Propat Int l Corp. v. RPost, Inc., 473 F.3d 1187, (Fed. Cir. 2007) (finding that although the licensing agreement gave the licensee the responsibility to sue infringers, the licensor retained sufficient rights in the patent such that it could not be said to have assigned all substantial rights to the licensee). For example, the licensor s retention of the unrestricted power to bar the licensee from transferring its interest in the patent to a third party can indicate that the licensor has retained ownership of the patent. Id. at See also Sicom Sys. Ltd., 427 F.3d at 979. Thus, patent assignment and licensing are integral parts of the litigation dance. Drafting contract provisions with an understanding of the impact of contract language and provisions on potential standing issues will go a long way to ensuring that your client will have the right to sue for patent infringement. Authors: Michael A. Davitz, M.D. J.D. (partner) Josephine Liu, Ph.D. J.D. (associate) Tara R. Rahemba, J.D. (associate) 5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION
HAILO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION Plaintiff, v. Civil Case No. 4:17-CV-00077 MTDATA, LLC, Defendant. DEFENDANT MTDATA LLC
More informationStanding with a Bundle of Sticks: The All Substantial Rights Doctrine in Action
Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal Volume 28 XXVIII Number 3 Article 1 2018 Standing with a Bundle of Sticks: The All Substantial Rights Doctrine in Action Mark J. Abate
More informationUnited States District Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA COPYTELE, INC., No. C-1-0 EMC 1 1 1 v. Plaintiff, E INK HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Defendants. / ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS FOR
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 04-1265 ASPEX EYEWEAR, INC., MANHATTAN DESIGN STUDIO, INC., CONTOUR OPTIK, INC., and ASAHI OPTICAL CO., LTD., v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, MIRACLE OPTICS,
More informationCase 1:15-cv REB-KMT Document 67 Filed 03/15/16 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 15
Case 1:15-cv-01023-REB-KMT Document 67 Filed 03/15/16 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Robert E. Blackburn Civil Action No. 15-cv-01023-REB-KMT
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit WIAV SOLUTIONS LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MOTOROLA, INC., Defendant-Appellee, AND NOKIA CORPORATION AND NOKIA INC., Defendants-Appellees, AND PALM,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Luminara Worldwide, LLC, Case No. 14-cv-3103 (SRN/FLN) Plaintiff, v. Liown Electronics Co. Ltd., Liown Technologies/Beauty Electronics, LLC, Shenzhen
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION. vs. CASE NO. 2:07-CV-282-CE MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION TOBI GELLMAN, AS TRUSTEE OF THE MAYER MICHAEL LEBOWITZ TRUST vs. CASE NO. 2:07-CV-282-CE TELULAR CORPORATION, et al. I. Introduction
More informationSpeedplay, Inc.v v. Bebop, Inc. & Prima Tek, II, L.L.C. v. A-Roo Co.
Berkeley Technology Law Journal Volume 16 Issue 1 Article 8 January 2001 Speedplay, Inc.v v. Bebop, Inc. & Prima Tek, II, L.L.C. v. A-Roo Co. Christa P. Worley Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/btlj
More informationLicense Agreements and Litigation: Protecting Your Assets and Revenue Streams in the High-Tech and Life Science Industries
License Agreements and Litigation: Protecting Your Assets and Revenue Streams in the High-Tech and Life Science Industries January 21, 2010 *These materials represent our preliminary analysis based on
More informationCase 1:16-cv JPO Document 111 Filed 12/07/18 Page 1 of 12
Case 1:16-cv-00885-JPO Document 111 Filed 12/07/18 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK BOBCAR MEDIA, LLC, -v- Plaintiff, AARDVARK EVENT LOGISTICS, INC., Defendant. 16-CV-885
More informationStanding and Other Pre-Suit Considerations in Patent, Trademark, and Copyright Cases
Standing and Other Pre-Suit Considerations in Patent, Trademark, and Copyright Cases Darcy L. Jones, Sutherland, Moderator Ann G. Fort, Sutherland, Presenter David M. Lilenfeld, Manning Lilenfeld, Presenter
More informationPatent Portfolio Licensing
Patent Portfolio Licensing Circling the wagons while internally running a licensing program By: Nainesh Shah CAIL - 53rd Annual Conference on IP Law November 17, 2015, Plano, TX All information provided
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 05-1066 SICOM SYSTEMS LTD., v. Plaintiff-Appellant, AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant-Appellee, and TEKTRONIX, INC., Defendant-Appellee, and LECROY
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 09-819 In the Supreme Court of the United States SAP AG AND SAP AMERICA, INC., Petitioners, v. SKY TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals
More informationThe Unintended Consequences of Stanford v. Roche
Syracuse University SURFACE College of Law Faculty Scholarship College of Law Summer 7-26-2012 The Unintended Consequences of Stanford v. Roche Ted Hagelin Syracuse University College of Law, thagelin@law.syr.edu
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION. v. Case No. 5:15-cv-9-CMC
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION KEITH MANUFACTURING CO. Plaintiff v. Case No. 5:15-cv-9-CMC CARGO FLOOR B.V. AND MAGNIDRIVE BV Defendants MAGNIDRIVE
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit TOBI GELLMAN, AS TRUSTEE OF THE MAYER MICHAEL LEBOWITZ TRUST, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TELULAR CORPORATION,
More informationPatent Basics for Emerging Companies. Maria Laccotripe Zacharakis, Ph.D. Thomas Hoover Daniel J. Kelly McCarter & English, LLP
Patent Basics for Emerging Companies Maria Laccotripe Zacharakis, Ph.D. Thomas Hoover Daniel J. Kelly McCarter & English, LLP Cambridge Innovation Center March 20, 2013 BOSTON // HARTFORD // NEW YORK //
More informationPatent Rights Retention by the Contractor (Short Form)
52.227 11 Patent Rights Retention by the Contractor (Short Form) As prescribed in 27.303(a), insert the following clause: Patent Rights Retention by the Contractor (Short Form) (Jun 1997) (a) Definitions.
More informationAn Assignment's Effect On Hypothetical Negotiation
Portfolio Media, Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 customerservice@portfoliomedia.com An Assignment's Effect On Hypothetical Negotiation
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1 EBS AUTOMOTIVE SERVICES; MOC PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC.; ABF TECHNOLOGIES, INC., vs. ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS, INC; CMC INDUSTRIES, INC., Plaintiffs,
More informationINTERPLAY Patent-Related Issues in the Government Contracts Universe
INTERPLAY Patent-Related Issues in the Government Contracts Universe Lawrence M. Prosen & Gunjan Talati Presented to: 2017 Kilpatrick Townsend Roadmap Introductions Government Contracting Basics Bayh-Dole
More informationOddball Defenses In Patent Cases
Oddball Defenses In Patent Cases December 8, 2016 Fabio Marino, McDermott Will & Emery LLP fmarino@mwe.com Karen Boyd, Turner Boyd LLP boyd@turnerboyd.com www.mwe.com Boston Brussels Chicago Düsseldorf
More informationSEC PROVISIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE PATENT LAW TREATY
Review of United States Statutory Implementation of the Patent Law Treaty By Richard Neifeld, Neifeld IP Law, PC 1 I. INTRODUCTION The "Patent Law Treaty " (PLT) is an international treaty administered
More informationIDEAS ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
IDEAS ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW october/november 2011 You invent it, you own it Supreme Court addresses federally funded inventions Playing the Internet domain name game Are you hiding something? Failure
More informationConcordia University, Mequon Wisconsin. From the SelectedWorks of Toshiko Takenaka Prof.
Concordia University, Mequon Wisconsin From the SelectedWorks of Toshiko Takenaka Prof. August 26, 2011 Serious Flaw of Employee Invention Ownership under the Bayh-Dole Act in Stanford v. Roche: Finding
More informationNo. SC IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. MDS (CANADA), INC., BEST THERATRONICS, LTD., AND BEST MEDICAL INTERNATIONAL, INC.
Electronically Filed 09/24/2013 04:56:45 PM ET RECEIVED, 9/24/2013 16:58:47, Thomas D. Hall, Clerk, Supreme Court No. SC13-1215 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA MDS (CANADA), INC., BEST THERATRONICS, LTD.,
More informationLicensing & Management of IP Assets. Covenant Not to Sue
Licensing & Management of IP Assets Covenant Not to Sue AIPLA Spring Meeting May 2, 2013 Presented by D. Patrick O Reilley Emotional Background to Covenants Implication of validity Exhaustion Lemelson
More informationLife Sciences Industry Perspective on Declaratory Judgment Actions and Licensing Post-MedImmune. Roadmap for Presentation
Life Sciences Industry Perspective on Declaratory Judgment Actions and Licensing Post-MedImmune MedImmune: R. Brian McCaslin, Esq. Christopher Verni, Esq. March 9, 2009 clients but may be representative
More informationPatent Enforcement Pre-Litigation Considerations
Patent Enforcement Pre-Litigation Considerations The Intellectual Property Society April 10, 2005 Patrick Reilly 1 I. Pre-Litigation Check-List 2 Purposes of a Pre-Litigation Check-List Validity Can the
More informationEconomic Damages in IP Litigation
Economic Damages in IP Litigation September 22, 2016 HCBA, Intellectual Property Section Steven S. Oscher, CPA /ABV/CFF, CFE Oscher Consulting, P.A. Lost Profits Reasonable Royalty * Patent Utility X X
More informationSpeaker and Panelists 7/17/2013. The Honorable James L. Robart. Featured Speaker: Panelists: Moderator:
Updates in Determining RAND for Standards Essential Patents: Featuring The Honorable James L. Robart July 12, 2013 Washington State Patent Law Association IP Committee of the Federal Bar Association for
More informationJohn Fargo, Director Intellectual Property Staff, Civil Division Department of Justice.
DOJ Role in Affirmative Suits John Fargo, Director Intellectual Property Staff, Civil Division Department of Justice May 6, 2009 john.fargo@usdoj.gov DOJ Role in Affirmative Suits Tech transfer involves
More informationPitfalls in Licensing Arrangements
Pitfalls in Licensing Arrangements Association of Corporate Counsel November 4, 2010 Richard Raysman Holland & Knight, NY Copyright 2010 Holland & Knight LLP All Rights Reserved Software Licensing Generally
More informationThe Supreme Court Appears Likely to Place the Burden of Proof in Declaratory-Judgment Actions on the Patentees
The Supreme Court Appears Likely to Place the Burden of Proof in Declaratory-Judgment Actions on the Patentees BY ROBERT M. MASTERS & IGOR V. TIMOFEYEV November 2013 On November 5, the U.S. Supreme Court
More informationNavigating through the Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Minefield Landslide Vol. 10, No. 3 January/February 2018
Navigating through the Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Minefield Landslide Vol. 10, No. 3 January/February 2018 Elizabeth A Doherty, PhD 925.231.1991 elizabeth.doherty@mcneillbaur.com Amelia Feulner
More informationTHE MUDDY METAPHYSICS OF INVENTORSHIP: WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW
THE MUDDY METAPHYSICS OF INVENTORSHIP: WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW JUNE 28, 2016 J. PETER FASSE 1 Overview Statutory Basis Court Decisions Who is (and is not) an inventor? Why do we care? How to Determine Inventorship
More informationPatent Prosecution and Joint Ownership of United States Patents
Patent Prosecution and Joint Ownership of United States Patents Eric K. Steffe and Grant E. Reed* * 2000 Eric K. Steffe and Grant E. Reed. Mr. Steffe is a director and Mr. Reed is an associate with Sterne,
More informationCase 1:11-cv PAC Document 25 Filed 10/14/11 Page 1 of 11
Case 1:11-cv-02541-PAC Document 25 Filed 10/14/11 Page 1 of 11 USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------------X
More informationRECENT FEDERAL CIRCUIT DECISIONS ASSESSING JURISDICTION Richard Basile Partner St. Onge Steward Johnston & Reens LLC Stamford CT
RECENT FEDERAL CIRCUIT DECISIONS ASSESSING JURISDICTION Richard Basile Partner St. Onge Steward Johnston & Reens LLC Stamford CT I. INTRODUCTION During the last year the Court of Appeals for the Federal
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE PETITION FOR RULEMAKING UNDER 5 U.S.C. 553(e) AND 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2) TO CORRECT THE TEXT PLACED ON ISSUED PATENT COVER BINDERS TO REMOVE WRONG INFORMATION
More informationPaper No. 129 Tel: Entered: February 23, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 129 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: February 23, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No.06-937 In the Supreme Court of the United States QUANTA COMPUTER, INC., ET AL., v. Petitioners, LG ELECTRONICS, INC., Respondent. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ASPEX EYEWEAR, INC., and CONTOUR OPTIK, INC., v. ALTAIR EYEWEAR, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants, Defendant-Cross
More informationThe Edge M&G s Intellectual Property White Paper
Supreme Court Restores Old Induced Patent Infringement Standard Requiring a Single Direct Infringer: The Court s Decision in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. In Limelight Networks,
More informationU. S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY WORK FOR OTHERS AGREEMENT WITH A NON-FEDERAL SPONSOR. Strategic Partnership Project Agreement (SPP) No.
[Draft 1 or Rev. m, ## MMM DD] Project Title: U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY WORK FOR OTHERS AGREEMENT WITH A NON-FEDERAL SPONSOR Strategic Partnership Project Agreement (SPP) No. [FY-nnn] between The Board
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION E2E PROCESSING, INC., Plaintiff, v. CABELA S INC., Defendant. Case No. 2:14-cv-36-JRG-RSP MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
More information(In text and on CD-ROM) 1 Some Premises and Commentary... 1 Form 1.01 Construction... 13
Contents of Forms (In text and on CD-ROM) 1 Some Premises and Commentary... 1 Form 1.01 Construction... 13 2 Legal Principles... 15 Form 2.01 Definition of Licensed Information... 18 Form 2.02 Assignment
More informationCase 2:15-cv WCB Document 522 Filed 10/16/17 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 26017
Case 2:15-cv-01455-WCB Document 522 Filed 10/16/17 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 26017 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION ALLERGAN, INC., Plaintiff, v. TEVA
More informationIP in Bankruptcy: Addressing Licensor and Licensee Concerns
IP in Bankruptcy: Addressing Licensor and Licensee Concerns Presentation to the LES Aerospace & Transportation Committee Ian G. DiBernardo idibernardo@stroock.com IP in Bankruptcy Bankruptcy Code sections
More informationLIMELIGHT V. AKAMAI: LIMITING INDUCED INFRINGEMENT
LIMELIGHT V. AKAMAI: LIMITING INDUCED INFRINGEMENT MICHAEL A. CARRIER * In Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., 1 the Supreme Court addressed the relationship between direct infringement
More informationPARTIALLY EXCLUSIVE LICENSE. Between (Name of Licensee) And UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. As Represented By THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY
PARTIALLY EXCLUSIVE LICENSE Between (Name of Licensee) And UNITED STATES OF AMERICA As Represented By THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY INDEX Page Preamble...3 Article I Article II Article III Article IV Definitions...6
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Innovus Prime, LLC v. Panasonic Corporation et al Doc. United States District Court INNOVUS PRIME, LLC, v. Plaintiff, PANASONIC CORPORATION AND PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant.
More informationPsst! Wanna Buy a Bridge? IP Transfers of Non- Existent Property
Georgia State University Law Review Volume 31 Issue 3 Spring 2015 Article 2 May 2015 Psst! Wanna Buy a Bridge? IP Transfers of Non- Existent Property Stephen T. Black Follow this and additional works at:
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 03-1541, 04-1137, -1213 EVIDENT CORPORATION, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant- Appellant, and PEROXYDENT GROUP, v. CHURCH & DWIGHT CO., INC., Counterclaim
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit G. DAVID JANG, M.D., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION AND SCIMED LIFE SYSTEMS, INC., Defendants-Petitioners. 2014-134 On Petition
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Case 2:09-cv-00219-TJW Document 378 Filed 08/29/11 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 5097 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION CARL B. COLLINS and FARZIN DAVANLOO,
More informationReal Parties and Privies in PTAB Trials. By Richard Neifeld, Neifeld IP Law, PC 1
Real Parties and Privies in PTAB Trials By Richard Neifeld, Neifeld IP Law, PC 1 INTRODUCTION The America Invents Act (AIA) requires Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) petitions to identify the real
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Actus, LLC v. Bank of America Corp. et al Doc. 101 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION ACTUS, LLC, PLAINTIFF, (1 BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION; (2 BLAZE
More informationPatent Licensing: Advanced Tactics
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Patent Licensing: Advanced Tactics for Licensees Post-AIA Structuring Contractual Protections and Responding When Licensed Patents Are Challenged
More informationIP LICENSING COMMITTEE MODEL LICENSING CLAUSES BULLETIN
IP LICENSING COMMITTEE MODEL LICENSING CLAUSES BULLETIN This paper was created by the Intellectual Property Owners Association IP Licensing Committee to provide background to IPO members. It should not
More informationTechnology Contracts and Agreements: A Practice Guide to Effective Negotiation, Drafting and Strategy
Technology Contracts and Agreements: A Practice Guide to Effective Negotiation, Drafting and Strategy Keith Witek Director of Strategy & Corp Development AMD Ed Cavazos Principal Fish & Richardson P.C.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION ORDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION Flexuspine, Inc. v. Globus Medical, Inc. CASE NO. 6:15-cv-201-JRG-KNM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER Before the Court is Defendant Globus
More informationDrafting Patent License Agreements Course Syllabus
I. SOME PREMISES, LIMITATIONS, AND LEGAL PRINCIPLES A. Orientation and a Disclaimer of Legal Completeness B. Evaluating the Legal Nature of the Subject Matter 1. The Scope of a Patent 2. The Scope of Unpatented
More informationCUSTOMER CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS A-160 HUMMINGBIRD CUSTOMER CONTRACT N
Page 1 of 5 CUSTOMER CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS A-160 HUMMINGBIRD CUSTOMER CONTRACT N00421-03-9-0001 (a) Patent Rights Note: The provisions of Patent Rights have been modified from the Prime Agreement to suitably
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit MARK R. HOOP and LISA J. HOOP, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 01-1288 MARK R. HOOP and LISA J. HOOP, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JEFFREY W. HOOP, STEPHEN E. HOOP, and HOOPSTERS ACCESSORIES, INC., Defendants-Appellees.
More informationUnited States District Court
Case:0-cv-0-JSW Document Filed0// Page of KLAUSTECH, INC., IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 Plaintiff, No. C 0-0 JSW v. ADMOB, INC., Defendant. / ORDER DENYING
More informationAppeal Nos , UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT APPLE INC., MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC,
Case: 13-1150 Document: 75 Page: 1 Filed: 01/06/2014 Appeal Nos. 2013-1150, -1182 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT APPLE INC., v. Plaintiff-Appellant, MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC, Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2008-1606 SKY TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SAP AG and SAP AMERICA, INC., Defendant-Appellant. Alexandra G. White, Susman Godfrey L.L.P.,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS A123 SYSTEMS, INC., * * Plaintiff, * v. * * Civil Action No. 06-10612-JLT HYDRO-QUÉBEC, * * Defendant. * * MEMORANDUM TAURO, J. September 28, 2009
More informationCase 5:05-cv NAM-DEP Document 133 Filed 11/28/2006 Page 1 of 8. Plaintiffs, Defendant. Counterclaim Plaintiff, Counterclaim Defendants.
Case 5:05-cv-01456-NAM-DEP Document 133 Filed 11/28/2006 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg ARROW COMMUNICATION
More information6 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal Spring, Recent Development RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN PATENT LAW
6 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 355 Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal Spring, 1998 Recent Development RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN PATENT LAW James C. Pistorino a1 Copyright (c) 1998 by the State Bar of Texas,
More informationNo OIL STATES ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, Petitioner, v. GREENE S ENERGY GROUP, LLC, ET AL., Respondents.
No. 16-712 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OIL STATES ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, Petitioner, v. GREENE S ENERGY GROUP, LLC, ET AL., Respondents. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2007-1074 SCHWARZ PHARMA, INC. and SCHWARZ PHARMA AG, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and WARNER-LAMBERT COMPANY, LLC, Plaintiff, v. PADDOCK LABORATORIES,
More informationCase 2:13-cv SD Document 36 Filed 12/13/13 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:13-cv-01502-SD Document 36 Filed 12/13/13 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, Plaintiff, vs. Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-01502-SD
More informationCOLLABORATIVE RESEARCH AGREEMENT AND ALLOCATION OF RIGHTS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY UNDER AN STTR RESEARCH PROJECT between. and
COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH AGREEMENT AND ALLOCATION OF RIGHTS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY UNDER AN STTR RESEARCH PROJECT between and MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY This Agreement between (hereinafter Company ),
More informationPatent Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan
Patent Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan With an adoption of the Law On Amendments and Additions for some legislative acts concerning an intellectual property of the Republic of Kazakhstan March 2, 2007,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2007-1034 INTERNATIONAL GAMCO, INC., and Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant- Appellee, JOHN ADAMS and SCOTT HENNEMAN, and Counterclaim Defendants- Appellees,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff,
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 SONIX TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff, KENJI YOSHIDA and GRID IP, PTE., LTD., Defendant. Case No.: 1cv0-CAB-DHB ORDER GRANTING
More informationThe Scope and Ramifications of the New Post-Grant and Inter Partes Review Proceedings at the USPTO
The Scope and Ramifications of the New Post-Grant and Inter Partes Review Proceedings at the USPTO By Lawrence A. Stahl and Donald H. Heckenberg The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) makes numerous
More informationPlaintiff, Defendant.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------- LUMOS TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., -v- JEDMED INSTRUMENT COMPANY, Plaintiff, Defendant. --------------------------------------
More informationNo IN THE. ROCHE MOLECULAR SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Respondents.
No. 09-1159 IN THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, Petitioner, V. ROCHE MOLECULAR SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States
More informationUtility Patent Or Trade Secret? Klaus Hamm November 1, 2017
Utility Patent Or Trade Secret? Klaus Hamm November 1, 2017 PATENT TRADE SECRET 2 WHICH IS BETTER? Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., 416 U.S. 470 (1974) Chief Justice Burger (majority): Trade secret law
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
Patriot Universal Holding LLC v. McConnell et al Doc. 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN PATRIOT UNIVERSAL HOLDING, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 12-C-0907 ANDREW MCCONNELL, Individually,
More informationReasonable Royalties After EBay
Portfolio Media, Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 customerservice@portfoliomedia.com Reasonable Royalties After EBay Monday, Sep
More informationCovenant Not to Sue and Patent License: Two Sides of the Same Coin?
Covenant Not to Sue and Patent License: Two Sides of the Same Coin? Contractual Exploita>on of Patents Under U.S. Law Chicago l Frankfurt, Germany San Francisco Bay Area l Washington, D.C. Defini=ons Covenant
More informationIntellectual Property Licensing Strategies
I N S I D E T H E M I N D S Intellectual Property Licensing Strategies Leading Lawyers on Educating Clients, Drafting Licensing Agreements, and Resolving Disputes 2011 EDITION 2011 Thomson Reuters/Aspatore
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit THOMSON S.A., Plaintiff-Appellant, QUIXOTE CORPORATION and DISC MANUFACTURING, INC.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 97-1485 THOMSON S.A., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. QUIXOTE CORPORATION and DISC MANUFACTURING, INC., Defendants-Appellees. George E. Badenoch, Kenyon &
More informationSENATE PASSES PATENT REFORM BILL
SENATE PASSES PATENT REFORM BILL CLIENT MEMORANDUM On Tuesday, March 8, the United States Senate voted 95-to-5 to adopt legislation aimed at reforming the country s patent laws. The America Invents Act
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE EASTMAN CHEMICAL COMPANY, v. Plaintiff, ALPHAPET INC., INDORAMA HOLDINGS ROTTERDAM B.V., INDORAMA POLYMERS ROTTERDAM B.V., INDORAMA POLYMERS
More informationPharmaceutical Formulations: Ready For Patenting?
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Pharmaceutical Formulations: Ready For Patenting?
More informationCase 6:16-cv PGB-KRS Document 267 Filed 04/04/18 Page 1 of 8 PageID 4066
Case 6:16-cv-00366-PGB-KRS Document 267 Filed 04/04/18 Page 1 of 8 PageID 4066 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION TASER INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff, v. Case No:
More informationCase 3:13-cv RCJ-VPC Document 38 Filed 07/23/14 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case :-cv-00-rcj-vpc Document Filed 0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 0 0 FERRING B.V., vs. Plaintiff, ACTAVIS, INC. et al., Defendants. :-cv-00-rcj-wgc ORDER This patent infringement
More informationCase 1:13-cv JSR Document 252 Filed 06/30/14 Page 1 of 18
--------------------- ----- Case 1:13-cv-02027-JSR Document 252 Filed 06/30/14 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------- x COGNEX CORPORATION;
More informationThe content is solely for purposes of discussion and illustration, and is not to be considered legal advice.
The following presentation reflects the personal views and thoughts of Victoria Malia and is not to be construed as representing in any way the corporate views or advice of the New York Genome Center and
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Before the court is defendant/counterclaimant Yoshida s 1 motion to dismiss
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1 1 1 SONIX TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD, Plaintiff, vs. KENJI YOSHIDA and GRID IP, PTE., LTD., Defendant. Case No.: 1cv0-CAB-DHB Order Regarding Motion
More informationIP Innovations Class
IP Innovations Class Pitfalls for Patent Practitioners December 9, 2010 Presented by: Kris Doyle KDoyle@KilpatrickStockton.com 1 PRESERVING FOREIGN PATENT RIGHTS 2 1st Takeaway Absolute novelty is not
More informationPresuming Patent Inventorship Without Further Examination: A Double-Edged Sword for Aerospace Companies
Journal of Air Law and Commerce Volume 83 Issue 1 Article 11 2018 Presuming Patent Inventorship Without Further Examination: A Double-Edged Sword for Aerospace Companies Jake Winslett Southern Methodist
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiffs, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, Plaintiffs,
Case :-cv-0-h-dhb Document Filed 0// Page of 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ALPHA ONE TRANSPORTER, INC., and AMERICAN HEAVY MOVING AND RIGGING, INC., vs. Plaintiffs, PERKINS
More information