Please join us for the SoCal IP Institute meeting, Monday, September 20 at Noon. This activity is approved for 1 hour of MCLE credit. If you will be joining us, please RSVP to Amanda Jones by 9 am Monday.
We will be discussing the following cases:
Tri-Star Electronics International, Inc. v. Preci-Dip Durtal SA, (Fed. Cir. Sept. 9, 2010) (case is attached)
In a suit for infringement of a patent, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring suit because they were not the assignee of the asserted patent. The assignment of the continuation-in-part application that resulted in the asserted patent was mistakenly assigned to an Ohio corporation that had merged with a California corporation of the same name. The district court found that the assignment was valid under Ohio law because the Ohio corporation still existed for the purpose of vesting property rights in another entity. The Federal Circuit on appeal applied Ohio law that required contracts to be read so as to give effect to the intent of the parties. Because the clear intent of the parties was to assign the application to the inventor’s employer, the Federal Circuit affirmed district court’s holding that the assignment to the successor corporation was valid.
Baseload Energy, Inc. v. Roberts, (Fed. Cir. Sept. 9, 2010) (case is attached)
In a suit for declaratory judgment, the district court held that a settlement agreement between the parties that was the result of a prior case barred the plaintiff from asserting invalidity and unenforceability of a patent. The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded because the language of the settlement agreement was not clear and unambiguous regarding the release of those claims.