Property, intangible

a blog about ownership of intellectual property rights and its licensing

patent

  • Not So Fast

    A little while ago I blogged on Gerber Scientific International, Inc. v. Satisloh AG, a case that decided whether a later-filed continuation-in-part was included in the assignment of a grandparent application. The 271 Patent Blog is reporting that the issue was certified for interlocutory appeal to the Federal Circuit. © 2009 Pamela Chestek Continue reading

  • What Every Transactional Counsel Should Know

    Intellectual property specialists may not be involved in the preparation of merger and acquisition documents, and a couple of recent cases show what can go wrong when the form is missing something important. In one case the patentee won, but in the other the patentee didn’t. In Carotek, Inc. v. Kobayashi Ventures, LLC, the missing… Continue reading

    ,

  • News Flash: Patents Can Be Transferred by Operation of Law

    The patent blogs are reporting on a new decision by the Federal Circuit, affirming that transfer of ownership of a patent can occur not only by assignment and through intestacy, but also by the operation of law when a holder of a security interest exercises its right to sell the collateral. Good thing, as the… Continue reading

  • Standing No More

    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. It’s… Continue reading

  • Smart Money in Movies

    The Netflix Prize is a million dollar award for “substantially improve the accuracy of predictions about how much someone is going to love a movie based on their movie preferences.” It’s now being reported that a team has met the requirements for winning the million dollars, but for a waiting period of 30 days allowing… Continue reading

    ,

  • An Assignment of the Contract, Not the Patent

    Applera Corp. v. MP Biomedicals, LLC is an infrequent occurrence, a patent-related case in state court. In the case, the two original contracting parties entered into a royalty-bearing patent license for the PCR (polymerase chain reaction) process for amplification of DNA. The license included terms for ascertaining royalties based on whether the products would infringe… Continue reading

  • Automatic Assignment or Agreement to Assign?

    Patent numbers 5,138,459, 6,094,219, 6,233,010 and 6,323,899 had three named inventors, Marc Roberts, Matthew Chikosky and Jerry Speasl. They invented the subject matter of the patents while working for Mirage Systems, Inc., then formed their own company, Personal Computer Cameras, Inc. St. Clair Intellectual Properties invested in the company, and when Personal Computer Cameras was… Continue reading

  • The Unmentioned

    Here’s a patent assignment, in its entirety: I, JACK BENNETT, . . . do hereby sell and assign to VECTOR CORROSION TECHNOLOGIES LTD. . . . all my interest in the United States, Canada and in all other countries in and to my US, Canadian, and European applications for patents and issued U.S. patent, namely:… Continue reading

  • Caught in the Crossfire

    Patently-O revisits the half-millionth design patent, the design of the Chrysler Crossfire, and its assignment history. Now pledged to the government. © 2009 Pamela Chestek Continue reading

  • Licensed Confusion

    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 Territory… Continue reading

About Me

Learn more about me at my website, Chestek Legal

Recent Posts

Categories

Newsletter