Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Divided and Conquered? The Precarious Standing of Patent Licensees
In a business world of ever-growing sophistication, the division of patent rights has become increasingly popular among owners of intellectual property. Patent licenses have grown both in number and variety, with agreements that divide enforcement rights from usage rights, that limit licensees to certain geographical areas or types of use, or that put some of these limitations together in a single license.
What are the risks involved in such agreements? Could a party who has contracted for the right to enforce a patent nevertheless be denied standing to sue? To the likely dismay of many licensees, the Federal Circuit has now answered the latter question with a resounding 'yes.' In Int'l Gamco v. Multimedia, the court denied standing to the holder of a so-called 'enterprise license,' which granted exclusive rights to enforce and practice a patent within a limited territory and field of use. Int'l Gamco v. Multimedia Games, Inc., U.S. App. LEXIS 24099 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 15, 2007) (Rader, J.). This ruling comes on the heels of two other standing cases, Propat and Morrow, in which parties that held enforcement rights to a patent but not legal title were barred from pursuing those rights in court. Propat Int'l Corp. v. RPost, Inc., 473 F.3d 1187 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Morrow v. Microsoft Corp., 499 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Together, these rulings have set important new guidelines for which kinds of licensees will have independent standing to sue infringers, which will be compelled to join their patentees, and which will be left out in the cold.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys
Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.
Discovery of Claim Construction and Infringement Analysis May be Compelled Prior to a Markman Hearing
A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.