June 21, 2016
LES Insights
By John C. Paul; D. Brian Kacedon; R. Benjamin Cassady
Authored by R. Benjamin Cassady, D. Brian Kacedon, John C. Paul
A District of Delaware court ruled that an exclusive licensee lacked standing to sue where the licensor retained a right to sue in its field of use. According to the court, Federal Circuit precedent dictates that holders of field of use licenses do not hold all substantial rights to the patent and therefore lack standing to sue. Accordingly, the court found that the patent infringement action should be dismissed unless the licensor was added as a plaintiff.
A couple months ago, we wrote about the Duckweed USA v. Behrens case, where the court found that an exclusive licensee had standing to sue the patent owner for infringement, even though the licensee did not have "all substantial rights" to the patent, because preventing the licensee from doing so would have been "an absolute failure of justice." But what if an exclusive licensee’s substantive rights are limited to a particular (and particularly broad) field of use—are they free to pursue infringers within that field without involving the patentee
Acceleration Bay LLC ("AB") sued several electronics companies for allegedly infringing three patents that AB claimed to have acquired from the Boeing Intellectual Property Licensing Company ("Boeing"). The Boeing assignment conveyed "all right, title and interest" in the patents to AB, but there were several limitations. In particular, Boeing retained: (1) a non-exclusive, non-transferable right to practice the patents in any field of use; (2) the exclusive, transferable right to practice the patents in the "Boeing Field of Use" (which included aerospace, military, transportation, solar energy, and surveillance fields), including the sole right to sublicense and enforce the patents in the Boeing Field of Use; and (3) the right to assert the patents in a counterclaim in any action. When the defendants learned of AB's assignment to Boeing, they moved to dismiss AB’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).
Generally, a patent infringement plaintiff must have the full legal title to the patent at the time of infringement. And in order to convey the full legal title, the original patent owner must convey the entire patent, an undivided part or share of the entire patent, or all rights under the patent in a specified geographical region. Anything less, and the “conveyance” is really a license. But in some circumstances, a licensee has standing to sue for infringement. Specifically, an exclusive licensee that has "all substantial rights" to the patent may sue in its own name. But an "exclusive" licensee with anything less that "all substantial rights" typically may sue only as a co-plaintiff with the patentee.
Within this, framework, the District of Delaware court analyzed the Boeing assignment. As an initial matter, the court found that the Boeing assignment did not convey all rights to AB, so AB was an exclusive licensee of the patents, not an owner. The court then turned to whether the Boeing assignment granted AB "all substantive rights" to the patents, such that AB had standing to assert infringement on its own.
The court found that AB did not hold "all substantial rights" to the patents and therefore could not sue for infringement on its own. Critically, because Boeing retained the right to sue within the "Boeing Field of Use," AB only had an exclusive license in all other fields of use. Citing Federal Circuit precedent, the court found that holders of field of use licenses, no matter if they cover almost all fields, do not hold all substantial rights to the patent and therefore lack standing. Moreover, the court also pointed to the fact that Boeing retained the right to assert the patents in any counterclaims. And since Boeing maintains a right to sue under certain circumstances, the court cautioned that there exists a substantial risk of multiple suits and multiple liabilities against an alleged infringer for a single act of infringement. Accordingly, the court found that AB did not have standing to sue alone, and that it would have to join Boeing to the lawsuit to continue its suit.
This case shows that while an exclusive licensee for a field of use may appear to have all rights, including the exclusive right to sue for patent infringement in its field, that it may still need to join the patent owner if the patent owner retains rights in other fields or the right to assert the patents in counterclaims in any field. Accordingly, it can be useful to address these issues in drafting the patent license and include appropriate language in the agreement regarding the obligation of the patent owner to join in suits filed by the licensee.
Endnotes
1 The Acceleration Bay LLC opinion may be found at http://www.finnegan.com/files/upload/LES_Insights_Column/2016/ABvActivision.pdf.
Copyright © Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. This article is for informational purposes, is not intended to constitute legal advice, and may be considered advertising under applicable state laws. This article is only the opinion of the authors and is not attributable to Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, or the firm’s clients.
June 10-12, 2024
San Francisco
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
Webinar
Obviousness of Biologics Inventions: Strategies for Biologics Claims in the U.S., Europe, and China
May 28,2024
Webinar
Webinar
Building a Strong ADC Patent Portfolio – From Prosecution and Litigation Perspectives
May 15, 2024
Webinar
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.