Standing Cured by Revoking an Irrevocable License Prior to Commencing Suit
Contributed by Knobbe Martens. Originally published on Patexia; republished here as part of the LexDana archive.
Before Lourie, Dyk, and Hughes. Appeal from the District Court for the Northern District of California.
Summary: An “irrevocable” patent license could be terminated by mutual agreement and such a license was not a right that by its nature would fall within a survival provision of a termination agreement.
Uniloc sued Google for patent infringement and Google moved to dismiss for lack of standing under the theory that Uniloc lacked standing because it had granted Fortress Credit Co. a license and right to sublicense the asserted patents pursuant to a default under a revenue sharing agreement. Uniloc argued that even if it had granted such a license to Fortress, any license was eliminated by a Termination Agreement executed between Uniloc and Fortress prior to commencing suit against Google. The district court granted the motion to dismiss, finding that an “irrevocable” license had been granted, that it survived the Termination Agreement, and that it deprived Uniloc of standing.
The Federal Circuit indicated that the sole issue was whether the Termination Agreement eliminated any license Fortress had and that if this license was eliminated, then the parties agreed that Uniloc had standing in this case. Turning to the language of the Termination Agreement, the Federal Circuit noted that the agreement appeared to terminate Fortress’s license by stating that the license and any rights “shall terminate.” The Federal Circuit then explained that the district court misunderstood the meaning of “irrevocable” in the license agreement. The term meant that the license was “irrevocable” by the unilateral actions of the licensor, but that this did not suggest that the license was “irrevocable” by mutual agreement as occurred in the Termination Agreement. The Federal Circuit also rejected Google’s reliance on a survival provision in the Termination Agreement, distinguishing the Fortress license from other rights that by their nature make them survive termination. Thus, the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded to the district court.
Editor: Paul Stewart
Written by: Hyunjin (Harry) Park & Andrew Morrell, Ph.D.
More insights
Federal Circuit Affirms Invalidation of Patent for Lack of Enablement of Claims Directed to a Method of Treating a Patient with a Unit Dosage in Wyeth Llc v Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals Lp
Written by : Eric Furman, Ph.D. and Ashley C. Morales Key Takeaway: Federal Circuit invalidates patent claims directed to a method for treating non-small cell lung cancer through administration of “a unit dosage” of an irreversible epidermal…
When About Becomes Indefinite Federal Circuit Provides Guidance for Life Science Patent Applications Regarding Limits of Approximation in Enviro Tech v Safe Foods
Written by : Jason J. Jardine and Kenneth O. Aruda, Ph.D. Key Takeaway: The term “about” remains useful in biotech and pharmaceutical claims, but only if the patent provides objective guidance about what the term means. Absent that guidance,…
When Any Patent Means No Patent Federal Circuit Reverses Non Specific Verdict
Written by : Brian C. Barnes and Sophia F. Zahn OLLNOVA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. ECOBEE TECHNOLOGIES ULC [OPINION] Before Chen , Cunningham, and Stark. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Summary : A verdict form…