• patent

    IP Rights and NDAs

    by  • December 8, 2015 • patent • 0 Comments

    You have someone sign an NDA that says this: If you can’t read it, it says 4. Beverly Johnson shall not directly or indirectly acquire any interest in, or design, create, manufacture, sell or otherwise deal with any item or product, containing, based upon or derived from the information, except as may be expressly...

    Read more →

    What Went Wrong?

    by  • November 30, 2015 • patent • 0 Comments

    Recently I’ve been thinking about the US rules of contract interpretation versus the approach used in other countries, UK law in particular. As I understand it, under UK law the courts have more latitude in interpreting the language of the agreement to derive what the parties intended than what we allow under US law....

    Read more →

    You Had One Job

    by  • September 21, 2015 • patent • 0 Comments

    The court: Exploiting the patent-in-suit in these cases, U.S. Patent No. 5,781,788 (the ‘788 patent), was AVT’s sole reason for being. The only precondition to Plaintiff’s fulfilling its singular purpose was its acquisition of title to the ‘788 patent. Obtaining ownership of the patent was AVT’s sine qua non, the only thing Plaintiff absolutely...

    Read more →

    Jurisdiction Over a Patent Ownership Claim

    by  • July 30, 2015 • patent • 0 Comments

    Predator International, Inc. v. Gamo Outdoor USA, Inc. is a Tenth Circuit decision involving a patent infringement claim. PatentlyO reports on the appellate posture, explaining why the appeal ended up at the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit rather than the Federal Circuit. But I’m more interested in the ownership aspect of it....

    Read more →

    Patent Ownership in Germany

    by  • July 14, 2015 • patent • 0 Comments

    Here’s an interesting little patent case involving the ownership of patents under foreign law, in this case German law. The plaintiff’s principal, Werner Schnaebele, worked in Germany for a predecessor of the defendant. He signed one employment agreement that didn’t have any provision for ownership of inventions conceived of by employees, meaning local law...

    Read more →

    Tax Structuring Strikes Again

    by  • June 22, 2015 • patent • 0 Comments

    Oh, adidas. adidas AG is a large multinational conglomerate headquartered in Germany. It reported that at the close of 2014 it had 154 subsidiaries, one of which is co-plaintiff adidas America, Inc. A few years ago adidas developed “miCoach,” an “interactive personal coaching and training system.” Parent adidas AG owns the company’s US patents...

    Read more →

    You Need to Take Care of the Little Details

    by  • June 3, 2015 • patent • 0 Comments

    Every patent litigation starts with an examination of the chain of title, or at least it should. Often there are multiple inventors; every link for each one has to be there, and even the language of the employment agreement has to be just right. Even after that, every corporate assignment has to be done...

    Read more →

    Check the Clock

    by  • May 7, 2015 • patent • 0 Comments

    Mr. Hillyar was the the former director of Gems TV (UK). Gems TV (UK) was owned by Gem TV Holdings Ltd. Gems TV (UK) owned the ‘211 Patent and intended to assign it to Gem TV Holdings Ltd. but didn’t. Gem TV Holdings Ltd. then sold Gems TV (UK) in a stock purchase agreement...

    Read more →

    STC.UNM v. Intel Stands

    by  • April 8, 2015 • patent • 0 Comments

    I’ve written in the past about a patent ownership stand-off, where, because of a mix-up in assignments and a disinterested possible co-owner, the interested owner cannot enforce the patent (original decision here and en banc decision here). The Supreme Court has refused to review the decision, so Ethicon, Inc. v. United States Surgical Corp.,...

    Read more →

    Consideration Can Be a Failed Expectancy

    by  • February 3, 2015 • patent • 0 Comments

    I’ve written about MemoryLink Corp. v. Motorola Solutions, Inc. in the past (recursive link). Peter Strandwitz and Bob Kniskern, owners of plaintiff Memorylink, had collaborated with defendant Motorola Solutions on the development of a handheld camera that could wirelessly transmit and receive video signals. Standwitz and Kniskern trusted Motorola Solutions with filing patent applications...

    Read more →