Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Standing to Assert a U.S. Patent: Do Infringement Actions Belong Solely to the 'Patentee'?
Who can sue on a U.S. patent? The answer is not always as clear-cut as one may think. A patent plaintiff or other party seeking to enforce rights in a U.S. patent portfolio will thus wish to ensure before commencing any such action that he enjoys sufficient legal standing with respect to the patents in his portfolio. Otherwise, a challenge to the plaintiff's legal standing may lead to unexpected chagrin for the would-be asserter of the patent and unlooked-for advantage on the part of the alleged infringer against whom the patent was to be asserted.
35 U.S.C. ' 281 provides that “a patentee shall have remedy by civil action for infringement of his patent.” (emphasis added) This section of the Patent Code provides the statutory basis for standing to sue in a patent case. It may be a source of some surprise, then, to consider how often in practice substantial questions arise regarding the putative patent plaintiff's threshold right to assert the patent at all, or how important it is (for both plaintiff and defendant) to determine at the outset of a possible patent infringement proceeding whether the plaintiff actually has adequate ownership interests in the patent he is purporting to assert.
How could anyone have the effrontery to attempt asserting a patent for which he was not the patentee? In most cases in which the “standing to sue” issue is raised, the problem is not that the putative plaintiff truly has no relation at all to the patent in suit, or that he has brashly filed a complaint based on the patent of a stranger. Rather, more commonly, the plaintiff has ' or believes he has ' some relation to or interest in the patent in suit, but his interest is not sufficient, or perfected, enough to satisfy the somewhat stringent statute- and case-based requirements that “the patentee” (or someone very like the patentee) is the only person entitled to complain of infringement of the patent's claims.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?