August 1, 2017
LES Insights
By John C. Paul; D. Brian Kacedon; Robert C. MacKichan III; Ryan H. Ellis
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California recently held that a plaintiff had standing to sue for patent infringement even though it had agreed to pay 100% of the proceeds of the infringement suit to a prior owner of the patent.
To determine whether a plaintiff has standing to sue on its own for patent infringement, courts start by examining whether the plaintiff has title to the patents or received an assignment or exclusive license that conveys "all substantial rights." In Agarwal v. Buchanan, a California court ruled that the plaintiff, who had acquired rights in the asserted patents in exchange for "100 percent of any gross proceeds obtained from monetization efforts," had standing to sue for patent infringement.
The patents in suit issued to two inventors who conveyed "all substantial rights, title and interests in all inventions, improvements, and obvious variants" to Bayshore Patent LLC ("Bayshore") in exchange for "50 percent of any gross proceeds" obtained through monetization, including "licensing and litigation." The inventors retained a reversionary interest in the event that "Bayshore was unable or unwilling to pursue monetization efforts."
Bayshore later conveyed "all substantial rights, title and interests in all inventions, improvements, and obvious variants thereof, disclosed, described, and/or claimed" to the CEO of Bayshore, Amit Agarwal, in exchange for "'100 percent of any gross proceeds' obtained from monetization efforts." Bayshore also retained a reversionary interest if Agarwal was "unable or unwilling to pursue monetization efforts."
Agarwal filed a patent infringement suit against Jeff Buchanan and his businesses, and in response, Buchanan filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit for lack of standing.
In reviewing the transfer from the inventors to Bayshore, the court considered the "intentions of the parties" as well as the "substance of what was granted" by looking to the terms of the agreement to determine if the transfer was an assignment. Specifically, the court considered whether the agreement transferred the "exclusive right to make, use, and sell patented products/services and the right to sue alleged infringers."
The court noted that the parties demonstrated an intent to create an assignment because the agreement referred to the parties as assignor and assignee and it also stated that "all substantial rights" were assigned.
The agreement also allowed Bayshore to sue for past infringement, which Buchanan argued was more specific than "all substantial rights" and therefore, excludes the rights necessary to create an assignment. The court disagreed, noting that the right to sue for past infringement is not automatically transferred and that the parties included the provision to manifest an intent to transfer the right. The court found that this was further proof of intent to create an assignment because rather than narrowing the scope of the rights, the parties included additional rights not automatically included in an assignment.
Finally, the court found that the inventors who made the transfer to Bayshore retained minimal control over the patents: the agreement to pay 50 percent of monetization was merely "consideration for the transfer" and the reversionary interest was "entirely consistent with an assignment" because it did not indicate an intent to transfer less than "all substantial rights."
Having determined that the first agreement assigned the necessary rights to confer standing to Bayshore, the court next considered the subsequent transfer from Bayshore to Agarwal, which was almost identical to the first agreement except that it required Agarwal to pay 100 percent of the monetization proceeds, rather than 50 percent.
Buchanan argued that because 100 percent of the monetization proceeds were retained by Bayshore, Agarwal did not have an economic interest in the patents and therefore did not have standing to sue under the patents. The court rejected this argument, explaining that the provision did not diminish Agarwal’s rights to the patents for the purpose of standing. Infringement of the patents would still injure Agarwal’s "exclusive right to make and sell" patented products, regardless of damages. The court contrasted this situation with another case where the transferor retained a substantial amount of future proceeds in addition to substantial control as evidenced by maintaining the rights to make patented products, influence licensing and litigation, and limit sale or assignment of the patents. The court ultimately concluded that the agreements did not restrict Agarwal’s rights as an assignee, and therefore he had standing to sue for patent infringement. The court again concluded that this is merely "compensation for the transfer" that did not reserve control over the patents to Bayshore.
In conclusion, the court found that both agreements transferred the necessary rights to the patents to confer standing to sue.
Paying all the proceeds of litigation or licensing to a transferor does not necessarily deprive the transferee of standing to sue. Courts consider the overall agreement between the parties to determine their intent to create an assignment, and particularly whether the agreement transferred the exclusive right to make, use, and sell patented products/services and the right to sue infringers.
The Agarwal decision can be found here.
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.
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
Webinar
May 9, 2024
Webinar
Workshop
Life Sciences Workshop: Updates and Key Trends in Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology IP Law
May 2, 2024
Cambridge
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.