Apparently in the Northern District of California, an exclusive licensee can successfully sue under Section 32 of the Lanham Act even though it doesn’t claim to be either owner or registrant.
Read more →I’m curious about the different legal standards that the courts apply in patent versus copyright cases when deciding whether a plaintiff who acquired the rights through transfer has standing. Patent law seems draconian, as exemplified by Abraxis Bioscience, Inc. v. Navinta, LLC. In Abraxis (blogged here and here), standing for a patent infringement suit...
Read more →Florida VirtualSchool is an agency of the State of Florida. The enabling statute for the school says this: The board of trustees … may acquire, enjoy, use and dispose of patents, copyrights, and trademarks and any licenses and other rights or interests thereunder or therein. Ownership of all such patents, copyrights, trademarks, licenses, and...
Read more →If you snoozed through biz org class in law school thinking that you weren’t going to be a transactional lawyer, perhaps you better go back and brush up on the law of agency. That’s what snagged Universal Music Group and its related company, UMG Recordings. That, and the pressure to get the deal done....
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 →I love cases where the defendant goes back and finds another potential inventor. Stemcells, Inc. v. Neuralstem, Inc. shows some of the ways this can play out – in this case, standing, and the rarely-invoked bona fide purchaser in good faith defense. The patents in dispute are 7,115,418entitled “Methods of proliferating undifferentiated neural cells”...
Read more →Sherman & Associates, Inc. v. Oxford Instruments, PLC discusses the fairly commonplace question of whether plaintiff Sherman & Associates, who was only a patent licensee, has standing to sue. The answer hinged on interpretation of the contract between it and the patent owner, ASM America, Inc. Sherman & Associates was originally the owner of...
Read more →I’ve been hanging on to a decision from the Seventh Circuit since January, but it’s still worth some exposure because it explains one way to determine whether a copyright license is exclusive. A claim for copyright infringement may only be brought by the “legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right under a copyright.”...
Read more →Defendant River West Brands LLC is a company that, in its own words, “identifies, acquires, redevelops, and monetizes iconic brand intellectual property that is significantly distressed.” In other words, its business is in zombie brands. I previously blogged on some of the methods the company uses here. It’s a business model with fairly significant...
Read more →Pacific Coast Trailers, LLC v. Cozad Trailer Sales, LLC is a tale of failed due diligence. Reliance Trailer Manufacturing Corp. (“Reliance Mfg.”) owned the trademarks RELIANCE, STURDYWELD, ALLOY and COMET. It assigned the latter three, but not RELIANCE, to a sibling company, Reliance Trailer Co., LLC (“Reliance LLC”). Reliance LLC defaulted on some loans...
Read more →Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
© 2013 Pamela S. Chestek. All rights reserved.