• Posts Tagged ‘standing’

    Standing or Not? Answer Tomorrow

    by  • October 21, 2009 • patent

    Here are the facts, you decide who owns the patent. Court’s decision this time tomorrow. The original owner of the patent was Balsam Coffee Solutions, Inc. On June 9, 2005, Balsam assigned the patent to San Marco Roasters, Inc. The two inventors on the patent were co-owners of both companies. More than a year...

    Read more →

    Recording It Doesn’t Make It So

    by  • October 9, 2009 • patent

    I’ve read so many standing cases that it takes something different for me to pay much attention. This is one. Donald W. Huntley, Esq. is a patent lawyer and plaintiff Huntley, L.L.C., also known as Huntley & Associates, his firm. (His web site is www.monopolize.com, unfortunately not live right now.) EPL Technologies, Inc. retained...

    Read more →

    Standing No More

    by  • August 14, 2009 • patent

    Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc. v. Globus Medical, Inc. is another effort by a patent-owning enterprise to try to have its cake and eat it too. The problems start when the company that owns the patents isn’t the manufacturing arm, so the patents are licensed to a sister (child, parent, cousin, etc., etc.) company....

    Read more →

    Licensed Confusion

    by  • April 2, 2009 • patent

    Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v. Cinram International Inc. is, for the most part, about whether an “essential” patent in a patent pool was necessarily an infringed one (it’s not – or the license would not have said “for the avoidance of doubt, in the event that the manufacture by Licensee of CD-Discs within the...

    Read more →

    Mars Gets at Least One Do-Over

    by  • January 3, 2009 • patent

    The June, 2008 decision in Mars, Inc. v. Coin Acceptors, Inc., blogged here, was a tale of what happens when companies move IP assets around for tax purposes. In Coin Acceptors, Mars sued Coin Acceptors, then assigned the patents to a subsidiary, MEI, Inc. The assignment created a standing problem for Mars, which lost...

    Read more →

    Positively Perfect in Every Way

    by  • September 30, 2008 • patent

    Positive Technologies whiffed the first patent infringement complaint by filing in the name of the wrong entity, Positive-California, when it should have been filed in the name of Positive-Nevada.  Positive calls a mulligan and refiles in the correct entity’s name, then the two companies merge into Positive Technologies, Inc. The standing problems aren’t over...

    Read more →

    Aerotel Visits the United States

    by  • August 27, 2008 • patent

    The name “Aerotel” is fairly well known in the UK, at least among software companies. The UK doctrine on patentability of business methods and software is known as Aerotel/Macrossan, after the pair of cases decided in Aerotel Ltd v Telco Holding Ltd and others, and Neal William Macrossan’s application EWCA 1371 (Civ) (2006-10-27)....

    Read more →

    Shifting IP

    by  • June 30, 2008 • patent

    Update: See more recent post on related case here. In large corporate entities, intellectual property is often placed and moved around to improve the company’s tax position. The IP department may not be consulted on the shift, finding out only at the last minute when it is asked to execute the assignments that the...

    Read more →