October 24, 2019
Authored and Edited by Brooke M. Wilner; Samhitha Muralidhar Medatia; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
The Federal Circuit considered choice-of-law, bankruptcy, and contract law in vacating the district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss in Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Angewandten Forschung E.V. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 2018-2400 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 17, 2019).
In 1998, Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Angewandten Forschung E.V. (“Fraunhofer”) granted an exclusive, irrevocable license to a third party, WorldSpace International Network Inc. (“WorldSpace”), regarding Fraunhofer’s patents directed to multicarrier modulation. WorldSpace then granted Sirius XM a sublicense. A decade later, WorldSpace filed for bankruptcy, and rejected its patent license agreement with Fraunhofer under 11 U.S.C. § 365(d)(1) (bankruptcy statute allowing rejection of certain executory contracts). Many years later, Fraunhofer sent a letter to WorldSpace claiming termination of the original licensing agreement. Fraunhofer then sued Sirius XM alleging infringement of its multicarrier modulation patents. Sirius XM claimed that its sublicense was a complete defense to the patent infringement charge; the district court agreed and granted Sirius XM’s motion to dismiss.
The Federal Circuit disagreed. It first held that the parties waived the right to argue that German law should apply by failing to raise the issue at the district court. Under U.S. law, the Federal Circuit then determined that WorldSpace’s rejection of the original license agreement did not necessarily terminate the agreement, noting the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Mission Prod. Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, 139 S. Ct. 1652 (2019), which held that a rejection of an executory contract in bankruptcy had the same effect as a breach of contract outside of bankruptcy proceedings. Fraunhofer offered several other arguments that the original agreement had been terminated, but since the district court did not decide this question, the Federal Circuit remanded the issue.
The Federal Circuit then held that Sirius XM’s sublicensee rights would not necessarily survive if the master agreement had been terminated. Remanding, the Court held that the sublicense’s survival would depend on resolving ambiguity in the original license agreement between Fraunhofer and WorldSpace. Because this issue would require consideration of extrinsic evidence, the Federal Circuit held it could not properly be resolved on a motion to dismiss. Thus, the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s grant of Sirius XM’s motion to dismiss.
Copyright © 2019 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.
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.