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...
Read more →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...
Read more →Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc. v. Globus Medical, Inc. is another effort by a patent-owning enterprise to try to have its cake and eat it too. The problems start when the company that owns the patents isn’t the manufacturing arm, so the patents are licensed to a sister (child, parent, cousin, etc., etc.) company....
Read more →Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v. Cinram International Inc. is, for the most part, about whether an “essential” patent in a patent pool was necessarily an infringed one (it’s not – or the license would not have said “for the avoidance of doubt, in the event that the manufacture by Licensee of CD-Discs within the...
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 →Positive Technologies whiffed the first patent infringement complaint by filing in the name of the wrong entity, Positive-California, when it should have been filed in the name of Positive-Nevada. Positive calls a mulligan and refiles in the correct entity’s name, then the two companies merge into Positive Technologies, Inc. The standing problems aren’t over...
Read more →The name “Aerotel” is fairly well known in the UK, at least among software companies. The UK doctrine on patentability of business methods and software is known as Aerotel/Macrossan, after the pair of cases decided in Aerotel Ltd v Telco Holding Ltd and others, and Neal William Macrossan’s application EWCA 1371 (Civ) (2006-10-27)....
Read more →Iris Corp. Berhard v. U.S. is a fairly routine analysis of an exclusive licensee’s standing to sue for patent infringement. Of course, an exclusive licensee only has standing if the patentee has conveyed all substantial rights in the patent to the licensee. There’s a bit of a twist here, though; the patent owner had...
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.