The court: Exploiting the patent-in-suit in these cases, U.S. Patent No. 5,781,788 (the ‘788 patent), was AVT’s sole reason for being. The only precondition to Plaintiff’s fulfilling its singular purpose was its acquisition of title to the ‘788 patent. Obtaining ownership of the patent was AVT’s sine qua non, the only thing Plaintiff absolutely...
Read more →Every patent litigation starts with an examination of the chain of title, or at least it should. Often there are multiple inventors; every link for each one has to be there, and even the language of the employment agreement has to be just right. Even after that, every corporate assignment has to be done...
Read more →Mr. Hillyar was the the former director of Gems TV (UK). Gems TV (UK) was owned by Gem TV Holdings Ltd. Gems TV (UK) owned the ‘211 Patent and intended to assign it to Gem TV Holdings Ltd. but didn’t. Gem TV Holdings Ltd. then sold Gems TV (UK) in a stock purchase agreement...
Read more →I’ve written in the past about a patent ownership stand-off, where, because of a mix-up in assignments and a disinterested possible co-owner, the interested owner cannot enforce the patent (original decision here and en banc decision here). The Supreme Court has refused to review the decision, so Ethicon, Inc. v. United States Surgical Corp.,...
Read more →Oh those patent trolls, cleverer and cleverer. To try to keep their cases in Texas, NPEs have rented empty office space in Texas and
Read more →Federal Treasury Enterprise Sojuzplodoimport first sued Spirits International B.V. over the STOLICHNAYA trademark 10 years ago, in October, 2004. Two lawsuits later, FTE still hasn’t survived an examination of its standing. The case has been dismissed a second in the district court, but even the district court thinks that an appeal is warranted: “In the...
Read more →I previously wrote about a Federal Circuit decision with a bit of an odd fact pattern. There was some kind of joint development between the University of New Mexico (UNM) and Sandia. A Sandia inventor assigned a resulting patent, the ‘998 patent, to UNM instead of his employer, Sandia. UNM then assigned the patent...
Read more →Oh, Federal Treasury Enterprise Sojuzplodoimport, without you I wouldn’t be so good at spelling “Stolichnaya.”* I’ve lost count of the opinions talking about who owns the STOLICHNAYA trademark and we’re now on the second lawsuit over it. It all stems from a disputed claim of ownership of the STOLICHNAYA mark in the United States....
Read more →I’ve been writing for some time (recursive link) about numerous lawsuits between photographers, or their agencies, and textbook publishers that have used photographs in excess of what they originally licensed for their books. Mostly I’ve been writing about challenges to standing, which are early in the cases on a motion to dismiss. But some...
Read more →On the left we have a disinterested patent owner; there was a mixup about the status of an inventor, Bruce Draper, so he assigned his rights in what ultimately became the ‘321 patent to the University of New Mexico (UNM) rather than his employer, Sandia. UNM realized the mistake and assigned to Sandia “those...
Read more →Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
© 2013-2022 Pamela S. Chestek. All rights reserved.