August 5, 2021
Authored and Edited by Eunice Y. Lee; Caitlin E. O'Connell; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In Omni MedSci, Inc., v. Apple Inc., Nos. 2020-1715, -1716 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 2, 2021), a divided Federal Circuit panel affirmed the district court’s denial of Apple’s motion to dismiss.
While Dr. Islam was an employee at the University of Michigan, he acquired several patents and subsequently assigned the patent rights to Omni. Omni later sued Apple for infringement, and Apple filed a motion to dismiss for lack of standing. Apple argued that the university owned the asserted patents according to the university bylaws, which stated that patents acquired by university staff and supported by university funds “shall be” the property of the University. The district court denied Apple’s motion, finding that the university bylaws were at most a statement of future intention to assign, and not a present automatic assignment of title.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit agreed. The Court found that several aspects of the bylaws indicated that they did not effectuate a present automatic assignment, including (1) the use of the phrase “shall be the property,” which reflects a promise of potential future assignment, and (2) the university’s requirement that a separate form be executed, which does not contain language of confirmation, but rather contains distinct and unambiguous language of present assignment.
Judge Newman dissented because, in her view, the university’s employment agreement included an unambiguous statement of intended and agreed ownership of inventions made with university support.
motion to dismiss, infringement, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), standing, inventorship
Copyright © 2021 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.