December 15, 2020
Authored and Edited by Eric S Magleby; Kara A. Specht; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In SiOnyx LLC v. Hamamatsu Photonics K.K., Nos. 2019-2359, 2020-1217 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 7, 2020), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of SiOnyx’s sole ownership of Japanese patent applications. The Federal Circuit also addressed, but declined to reverse, the district court’s other rulings regarding the statute of limitations, pre-judgment interest, permanent injunctions, damages, ownership of U.S. patents, willful infringement, and attorney fees.
The dispute between the parties stemmed from a 2007 non-disclosure agreement between the parties to evaluate and develop applications for “pulsed laser process doped photonic devices.” The agreement stipulated that whichever party disclosed confidential information to the other party “claims ownership of the information and all patent rights ‘in, or arising from’ the information.” After termination of the agreement, Hamamatsu used confidential information received from SiOnyx as the basis for a series of Japanese patent applications, to which U.S. patents at issue in this case claimed priority.
The Federal Circuit granted SiOnyx sole ownership of the Japanese patent applications, reiterating that courts have authority to compel transfer of ownership of foreign patents. It based its decision, in part, on the fact that Hamamatsu did not contribute any of its own confidential information provided under the agreement to the Japanese patent applications. The Federal Circuit declined to overturn the district court’s many other holdings based on determinations made by a jury.
patentability, validity, inventorship, willful infringement, Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL), jury trial, remedies, damages, permanent injunctions, attorney fees, exceptional case
Copyright © 2020 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.
At the PTAB Blog
Discretion All the Way Down: USPTO Uses a Discretionary IPR Denial to Justify a
§ 325(d) EPR Denial
May 28, 2026
At the PTAB Blog
IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in March and April 2026
May 26, 2026
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.