• IP BLAWG

    Coffee Trademark Case Gets Roasted

    Beverly A. Berneman
    12/6/22

    In Brief:  An unrecorded trademark assignment is as good as no assignment at all.

    Read More
  • IP BLAWG

    All the Way Missing

    Beverly A. Berneman
    2/15/22

    In Brief:   It takes some work to prove up a missing copyright assignment.

    Read More
  • IP BLAWG

    Will Assign Doesn’t Mean Did Assign

    Beverly A. Berneman
    4/24/18

    Agreeing to assign a patent in the future isn’t an assignment at all. %CUT% Three co-inventors of a patent were employed by Company A. The co-inventors signed an employment agreement stating they “will assign” their rights to any patentable invention they created during their employment. Company A transferred its assets to Company B. Only two of the inventors assigned their patent rights to Company B. Based upon the employment agreement between the original company and the third inventor, the USPTO allowed Company B to prosecute the patent without the third inventor actually assigning the patent. Company B dissolved and its assets were transferred to Advanced Video Techs, LLC. Advanced Video then brought a patent infringement suit against HTC Corp. The district court dismissed the case holding that Advanced Video didn’t have standing to bring a patent infringement suit without joining the non-assigning inventor in the suit. On appeal, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision that Advanced Video didn’t have standing. The Federal Circuit reasoned that the agreement to assign something in the future, is not an assignment. The third co-inventor only promised to assign a future patent so she still had part ownership of the patent and had to be a party to the infringement suit.

    Read More
This website uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and provide you with personalized services. By continuing to use this site, you consent to the use of cookies. See our Terms of Engagement to learn more.
ACCEPT