IP News

On Nov. 6, 2014, a divided Federal Circuit panel of Judges Reyna, Mayer, and Chen issued an opinion, filed by Judge Chen, and a dissent-in-part, filed by Mayer, in Azure Networks, LLC v. CSR PLC, Case No. 2013-1459. The majority affirmed the lower court's finding that one plaintiff lacked standing, but reversed construction of the claim term “MAC address,” and vacated the summary judgment of noninfringement and remanded.

The patent-in-suit “describes a network for wireless communications between a central hub device and a number of surrounding peripheral devices in close proximity with the hub device.” Slip op. at 3. Azure, a company located in the Eastern District of Texas, acquired the patent-in-suit, and sought a local charity to join in its patent enforcement activities. Azure found one such charity, and they eventually partnered and formed Tri-County, a Texas nonprofit. In 2010 Azure donated the patent-in-suit, along with other patents and applications, to Tri-County. A few weeks later, Azure and Tri-County entered into a licensing agreement, whereby Tri-County granted Azure the exclusive, worldwide, transferable right to practice the patent, as well as the full right to enforce or sublicense the patent. Azure also had the exclusive right, but not obligation, to maintain, enforce, or defend the patent. Tri-County retained the right to receive a portion of the proceeds from Azure's licensing or litigation activities, as well as the personal right to practice the patent. In addition, Tri-County was obligated to participate in litigation at Azure's request and in Azure's sole discretion.