Property, intangible

Interpret this contract, reproduced below in full: In consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good, valuable, and adequate consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is acknowledged, the undersigned does hereby sell, assign, transfer, and set over to Bridgeport Music, Inc., its respective successors and assigns, fifty percent (50%) of his… Continue reading

Last February, plaintiff Memorylink was on the losing side of a motion to dismiss almost all counts of a complaint against Motorola, a company with which it had a joint development agreement. During their relationship, Motorola filed a patent application that had both Motorola and Memorylink inventors listed, then filed a second application with just… Continue reading

Candy company Mars has a convoluted ownership saga for some patents related to currency acceptors in vending machines. In a classic case of the left hand not being introduced to the right, Mars, Inc. had assigned patents to another member of the corporate family, Mars Electronic International, Inc. (MEI),* during ongoing patent litigation. This created… Continue reading

A few days ago, the court in the Middle District of Florida held that the company that designed the logo for the “Beef O’Brady” restaurant did not own the logo for promotional goods, as blogged here. A few days later, the court also adopted the magistrate’s report and recommendation and granted a preliminary injunction against… Continue reading

Here is the answer to yesterday’s post: The court held that Balsam was the owner of the patent and therefore had standing to bring suit. Although San Marco was the owner of the patent in 2005, the court found that the 2006 agreement evidenced intent that Balsam immediately possess title to the patent and hold… Continue reading

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 later,… Continue reading

In FSC Franchise Co. v. Express Corporate Apparel, LLC, a printing company designed the logo for a restaurant and manufactured and sold promotional goods for the restaurant. The parties had a falling out, the restaurant sued for infringement, and the logo designer counterclaimed for infringement too. Express Corporate Apparel made the branded apparel for plaintiff’s… Continue reading

Movie deals are made at the Sundance Film Festival, and they’re made fast. Weinstein Company v. Smokewood Entertainment Group gives us some of the flavor. The film was “Push,” now renamed “Precious.” (One blog suggests that it was done to avoid confusion with a cheesy sci-fi film of the same name.) Push won the Grand… Continue reading

The New York Times is reporting that New York City has reversed its original opinion about whether it or the soon-to-be-ousted lessee of the building owns the trademark “Tavern on the Green.” According to the article (registration required), when the City originally put the lease out for bids it said that it could not convey… Continue reading

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 Mr.… Continue reading