February 19, 2016
Authored and Edited by Jeffrey D. Smyth; Elizabeth D. Ferrill; Aaron Gleaton Clay
In TriReme Medical, LLC v. Angioscore, Inc., No. 15-1504 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 5, 2016), the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded a district court’s dismissal of a suit for correction of inventorship based on a consulting agreement.
Angioscore claims exclusive ownership of patents related to angioplasty balloon catheters. TriReme, a competitor, sought to acquire an interest in the Angioscore patents from an Angioscore consultant involved in developing the claimed catheters but was not a named inventor. TriReme sought to have the consultant named as an inventor pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 256. Angioscore moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the consultant assigned all of his rights to Angioscore. Relying on the underlying consulting agreement, the district court found that the consultant had assigned his rights to the patents by failing to identify the inventions as being incorporated into Angioscore’s technology, to which he were to retain the rights and grant Angioscore a non-exclusive license.
Interpreting the plain meaning of the consulting agreement, the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded. The court found that by failing to identify the inventions in the consulting agreement, the consultant did not assign any rights under the terms of the contract, and that at best, the consulting contract conferred a nonexclusive license to Angioscore. The court also found that whether a second provision in the contract regarding the timing the consultant’s services were performed, which implicated a second provision of the consulting agreement concerning assignment, involved factual questions requiring remand.
Copyright © 2016 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
June 10-12, 2024
San Francisco
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
10th Annual Georgia Asian Pacific American Bar Association Gala
May 29, 2024
Atlanta
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.