Court Restricts Rights of Patent Licensees
When Propat International licensed a patent for e-mail authentication technology from Authentix, the company thought it was getting robust rights to use and enforce the patent. The agreement gave Propat, a Houston-based licensing company, authority to sell licenses and sue infringers, sharing the profits with Authentix. But when Propat went...
February 28, 2007 at 07:00 PM
12 minute read
When Propat International licensed a patent for e-mail authentication technology from Authentix, the company thought it was getting robust rights to use and enforce the patent. The agreement gave Propat, a Houston-based licensing company, authority to sell licenses and sue infringers, sharing the profits with Authentix.
But when Propat went after RPost Inc. for infringement, it discovered it didn't have the strong rights the licensing agreement seemed to confer. In January the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed summary judgment for RPost in Propat International v. RPost Inc., finding Propat lacked standing to sue because its license did not give it an ownership interest in the patent. And despite the district court's earlier judgment that RPost had infringed the patent, the CAFC said Propat, as a “bare licensee,” couldn't salvage the case by joining Authentix as co-plaintiff.
“The court said because there's no operative language giving Propat the right to make, use and sell the technology, it has no right to go into court,” says Timothy W. Johnson, an attorney with Matthews Lawson Bowick & Al-Azem who represented Propat.
The decision, along with several other recent cases involving licensee rights, could seriously damage the value of some patent-licensing deals. At the very least, it forces companies to reconsider how they structure their licensing agreements.
Bare License
The CAFC's decision didn't address the validity of the Authentix patent, nor whether RPost had infringed it. Instead, the appeal focused on the wording of Propat's licensing agreement with Authentix and whether it conferred legal standing to sue for infringement.
On its face, the agreement gave Propat the responsibility to license the patent, enforce licensing agreements and sue infringers in exchange for a percentage of its earnings from those activities. Under the agreement, Authentix retained the right to approve or reject Propat's licensing and litigation decisions and would join Propat in litigation if a court required it–but only if Propat provided counsel and paid Authentix's expenses.
Despite this seemingly clear language, the court found Propat didn't actually have the right to sue to enforce the patent because it had neither an ownership interest in the patent nor an exclusive license to use it.
Patent law creates three categories of licenses. The strongest type assigns all substantial rights, allowing the licensee to sue for infringement in its own name without joining the patent owner. At the opposite extreme is the bare license, which courts have defined as a covenant stating the licensor won't sue the licensee for infringement. By this definition, a bare licensee would not suffer injury from third-party infringement and therefore would have no standing to sue. In between the two extremes are exclusive licenses, which give licensees the sole right to practice the patent and thus standing to sue as a co-plaintiff.
The CAFC initially had some trouble deciding which type of license Propat had. “The case does not fit neatly within either of these two categories,” wrote Judge William Curtis Bryson, for a three-judge panel of the CAFC.
The court ultimately decided Propat had a bare license. Because the license left Authentix in control of licensing and litigation decisions and gave Propat no right to practice the patent, the court determined Propat lacked standing.
In effect the ruling expands the traditional definition of a bare license, calling into question the rights of other patent licensees with agreements similar to Propat's–agreements that give the licensee significant authority to make money from the patent, but no explicit right to manufacture it.
“If you are a licensor and you transfer the right simply to enter into a bunch of licenses with someone else, you have effectively hired an agent,” says Henry Ben-Zvi, a Santa Monica attorney who represented RPost. “Being an agent for purposes of sub-licensing doesn't make you an owner. But if you have the right to manufacture and use the patent, that's a big step toward the right to sue.”
Trolls Beware
The facts in Propat v. RPost suggest the CAFC's decision will affect only licensing arrangements that confer stripped-down patent rights and won't disturb agreements in which the patent owner gives the licensee the right to use the patent in a product. However, the court drew no clear distinction between “bare license” and “exclusive license.”
“At what point does a license provide enough rights for the licensee to be a co-plaintiff?” Ben-Zvi asks. “That is the biggest gray area for future conduct.”
In-house counsel might avoid the problem by specifying patent owners will stand as plaintiffs in infringement suits with provisions apportioning litigation costs. Ideally, patent owners will avoid entering bare licenses altogether.
“As a licensor you need to be serious about what you are doing,” says Lawrence Sung, a partner with Nixon Peabody in Washington, D.C. “Licenses need to be structured to give some rights to the licensee. And if you are simply a patent-holding company or speculation firm, you should be concerned about Propat.“
The decision is emblematic of legal trends that are complicating the business models of patent-licensing companies.
“The true significance of this case is how it fits into a continuing line of decisions,” Sung says. “If there is a perception the judiciary looks unfavorably upon patent-license companies, it is manifested in rulings that indicate their licenses are not particularly beneficial for society.”
Such rulings offer relief to companies being harassed by patent trolls, but they are making life more difficult for legitimate licensing companies–as well as the patent owners who rely on licensing deals with those companies to protect and extract value from their IP.
When Propat International licensed a patent for e-mail authentication technology from Authentix, the company thought it was getting robust rights to use and enforce the patent. The agreement gave Propat, a Houston-based licensing company, authority to sell licenses and sue infringers, sharing the profits with Authentix.
But when Propat went after RPost Inc. for infringement, it discovered it didn't have the strong rights the licensing agreement seemed to confer. In January the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed summary judgment for RPost in Propat International v. RPost Inc., finding Propat lacked standing to sue because its license did not give it an ownership interest in the patent. And despite the district court's earlier judgment that RPost had infringed the patent, the CAFC said Propat, as a “bare licensee,” couldn't salvage the case by joining Authentix as co-plaintiff.
“The court said because there's no operative language giving Propat the right to make, use and sell the technology, it has no right to go into court,” says Timothy W. Johnson, an attorney with Matthews Lawson Bowick & Al-Azem who represented Propat.
The decision, along with several other recent cases involving licensee rights, could seriously damage the value of some patent-licensing deals. At the very least, it forces companies to reconsider how they structure their licensing agreements.
Bare License
The CAFC's decision didn't address the validity of the Authentix patent, nor whether RPost had infringed it. Instead, the appeal focused on the wording of Propat's licensing agreement with Authentix and whether it conferred legal standing to sue for infringement.
On its face, the agreement gave Propat the responsibility to license the patent, enforce licensing agreements and sue infringers in exchange for a percentage of its earnings from those activities. Under the agreement, Authentix retained the right to approve or reject Propat's licensing and litigation decisions and would join Propat in litigation if a court required it–but only if Propat provided counsel and paid Authentix's expenses.
Despite this seemingly clear language, the court found Propat didn't actually have the right to sue to enforce the patent because it had neither an ownership interest in the patent nor an exclusive license to use it.
Patent law creates three categories of licenses. The strongest type assigns all substantial rights, allowing the licensee to sue for infringement in its own name without joining the patent owner. At the opposite extreme is the bare license, which courts have defined as a covenant stating the licensor won't sue the licensee for infringement. By this definition, a bare licensee would not suffer injury from third-party infringement and therefore would have no standing to sue. In between the two extremes are exclusive licenses, which give licensees the sole right to practice the patent and thus standing to sue as a co-plaintiff.
The CAFC initially had some trouble deciding which type of license Propat had. “The case does not fit neatly within either of these two categories,” wrote Judge
The court ultimately decided Propat had a bare license. Because the license left Authentix in control of licensing and litigation decisions and gave Propat no right to practice the patent, the court determined Propat lacked standing.
In effect the ruling expands the traditional definition of a bare license, calling into question the rights of other patent licensees with agreements similar to Propat's–agreements that give the licensee significant authority to make money from the patent, but no explicit right to manufacture it.
“If you are a licensor and you transfer the right simply to enter into a bunch of licenses with someone else, you have effectively hired an agent,” says Henry Ben-Zvi, a Santa Monica attorney who represented RPost. “Being an agent for purposes of sub-licensing doesn't make you an owner. But if you have the right to manufacture and use the patent, that's a big step toward the right to sue.”
Trolls Beware
The facts in Propat v. RPost suggest the CAFC's decision will affect only licensing arrangements that confer stripped-down patent rights and won't disturb agreements in which the patent owner gives the licensee the right to use the patent in a product. However, the court drew no clear distinction between “bare license” and “exclusive license.”
“At what point does a license provide enough rights for the licensee to be a co-plaintiff?” Ben-Zvi asks. “That is the biggest gray area for future conduct.”
In-house counsel might avoid the problem by specifying patent owners will stand as plaintiffs in infringement suits with provisions apportioning litigation costs. Ideally, patent owners will avoid entering bare licenses altogether.
“As a licensor you need to be serious about what you are doing,” says Lawrence Sung, a partner with
The decision is emblematic of legal trends that are complicating the business models of patent-licensing companies.
“The true significance of this case is how it fits into a continuing line of decisions,” Sung says. “If there is a perception the judiciary looks unfavorably upon patent-license companies, it is manifested in rulings that indicate their licenses are not particularly beneficial for society.”
Such rulings offer relief to companies being harassed by patent trolls, but they are making life more difficult for legitimate licensing companies–as well as the patent owners who rely on licensing deals with those companies to protect and extract value from their IP.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllOld Laws, New Tricks: Lawyers Using Patchwork of Creative Legal Theories to Target New Tech
Lawsuit Against Amazon Could Reshape E-Commerce Landscape
King Kullen—the Nation's First Supermarket—Hires Outside Counsel as GC
Trending Stories
- 1Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 2Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 3Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 4Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 5The Law Firm Disrupted: Big Law Profits Vs. Political Values
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250