E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.

Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.

  • Law Blogs

Become a Fan

« WIPO Releases Report on Worldwide IP Rights | Main | USPTO and EPO Announce Extension of Trial Period for PPH Program »

September 22, 2009

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451ca1469e20120a5e677ae970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference AsymmetRx, Inc. v. Biocare Medical, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2009):

Comments

Joinder, lost profits.

The need for joinder of licensor when the exclusive license is by Field of Use is to be generally expected, see International Gamco, INC. v Multimedia Games, Inc. 504 F.3d 1273, 1279 (C.A.F.C. 2007). Not sure why Plaintiff left Harvard off.

Fettering the right to sue in an exclusive license is always risky. There are no lost profits damages if the maker/seller is not the owner/true-exclusive-licenssee:
Poly-America, L.P. v. GSE Lining Technology, Inc. 383 F.3d 1303, (C.A.F.C. 2004), (“We have held that a licensee generally may not sue for damages unless it has exclusive rights under a patent, including the right to sue.”), Intellectual Property Development, Inc. v. TCI Cablevision of California, Inc. 248 F.3d 1333, (C.A.F.C. 2001) (”The right to sue in Vaupel, which was deemed ‘particularly dispositive,’ was only subject to an obligation to inform the transferor of any impending litigation”)

The comments to this entry are closed.

November 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30