Property, intangible

Plaintiff’s argument that both the ‘176 Patent, owned by Plaintiff Email Link, and the ‘789 Patent, owned by Online New Link, are owned by Acacia by virtue of its 100% ownership of Email Link and Online News Link goes against a “basic tenet of American corporate law.. that the corporation and its shareholders are distinct entities…. A corporate parent which owns the shares of a subsidiary does not, for that reason alone, own or have legal title to the assets of the subsidiary.” Specifically in the patent context, the Federal Circuit has applied this basic principle of American corporate law to hold that once a parent company assigned a patent to its subsidiary, the parent no longer had rights in the patent, even though it controlled the subsidiary. For this reason, Email Link, not Acacia, is the owner of the ‘176 Patent. Because the ‘176 Patent and the ‘789 are not owned by the same entity as required by the Terminal Disclaimer, we hold that the ‘176 Patent is unenforceable as a matter of law.

…  Because we hold that the ‘176 Patent is unenforceable as a matter of law, we must also deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint for reason of futility.