Don’t let the tax department screw up your patent infringement case. Or, when they do, I hope they saved more on taxes than you lost on the patent case.1 W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. C.R. Bard, Inc. is an example of what can happen. In 1983, Gore set up a patent holding company,...
Read more →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 →Mindspeed was the owner of seven patents and plaintiff WiAV Solutions LLC was a licensee, claiming to be exclusive. Prior to WiAV becoming a licensee, various predecessors-in-interest had granted the following licenses to third parties: Entity Potential Licensees Patents Rockwell Science Center Rockwell International and Affiliates All Conexant Subsidiaries Spin-offs Joint Development Partners (limited...
Read more →The ‘086 patent was owned by Astra L and the ‘524 and ‘489 patents were owned AZAB. On, and effective on, June 28, 2006 and pursuant to an earlier-executed Asset Purchase Agreement, a third company, AstraZeneca-UK (“AZ-UK”), purported to assign the three patents to plaintiff Abraxis. Does Abraxis have standing? It’s not as clear-cut...
Read more →Commerce Bancorp LLC v. Hill is a meaty enough case on ownership issues alone it’s good for two blog posts. First is a standing problem that cropped up, second an allegation of trademark abandonment. I’ll do standing now and abandonment later. I am always somewhat baffled by changes in ownership of intellectual property when...
Read more →The Coinco strategy is an attack on standing because the company has shuffled patent ownership around between corporate family members. If the plaintiff is not the family member that owns the patent, then it can’t bring the suit. In Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., the patent-in-suit was owned by a...
Read more →Mars, Inc. v. Coin Acceptors, Inc., first blogged here, demonstrated what can go wrong with ownership of patents within a corporate enterprise. As a refresher, in Mars the defendant, “Coinco,” successfully attacked the chain of title of the patents in suit. Mars had transferred ownership of the patents between family members during the lawsuit,...
Read more →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...
Read more →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 →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 →Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
© 2013-2022 Pamela S. Chestek. All rights reserved.