The news has been abuzz with Allergan, Inc,’s assignment of the patents in the highly lucrative “Restasis” dry-eye drug to the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe and in turn receiving an exclusive license back. The transfer was so that the validity of the patents could not be challenged in an inter partes review because of...
Read more →Update: The Court of Appeals for the First Sixth Circuit affirmed the lower court decision that there was an implied assignment of the trademark. The defendant challenged the decision on two bases. First, without using the word “abandoned,” the defendant argued that the trademark rights were lost when Taylor ceased business. But the owner...
Read more →Here are the musings of a bewildered district court judge trying to figure out the difference between a patent owner, an exclusive licensee, and a “de facto” patent owner. The patent owner, a professor named Morris, had exclusively licensed just about everything to plaintiff BRK and the court had to figure out if BRK...
Read more →I’ve often written about the various categories of potential plaintiffs in patent infringement suits. Depending on what rights a licensee acquired, it may or may not have constitutional standing to bring a patent infringement lawsuit. A new case, CopyTele, Inc. v. E Ink Holdings, Inc., comes at it from a somewhat different angle —...
Read more →This is a blog about ownership of all types of intellectual property, but it is undoubtedly the ownership of trademarks that provides the most litigation fodder. I think it is because no one thinks of the trademarks, or else they only become important in hindsight. Taylor v. Thomas is a typical example of what...
Read more →For purposes of patent standing, there are generally three categories of ownership described: patent owner, exclusive licensee, and non-exclusive licensee. The first has the right to sue, an exclusive licensee must join the assignee in any patent infringement suit, and the non-exclusive licensee has no standing at all. But the first category can be...
Read more →There’s a tale here. Unfortunately for plaintiff, not enough to make a federal case. The plaintiff, G & F Licensing Corporation (GFLC), claims to be a successor company to the Gordon & Ferguson Company, the original owner of the mark FIELD & STREAM for apparel. The current record owner is Field & Stream Licenses...
Read more →Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
© 2013 Pamela S. Chestek. All rights reserved.