Federal Circuit Finds Nunc Pro Tunc Agreement Does Not Confer Standing

09 June 2015 PharmaPatents Blog

The tenuous nature of an exclusive licensee’s standing to enforce a patent was something I learned early in my legal career, when I was a judicial clerk at the Federal Circuit. In Alps South LLC v. Ohio Willow Wood Co., the Federal Circuit issued another painful lesson on this topic, when it reversed, vacated and remanded a jury verdict of willful infringement because the plaintiff-licensee lacked standing to bring suit without joining the patent owner.

The License Agreements

The patent at issue was U.S. Patent No. 6,552,109, owned by Applied Elastomerics, Inc. and exclusively licensed to Alps South, LLC. According to the Federal Circuit decision, the patent relates to composite articles useful in “‘liners’ that are used as a cushioning and protective layer between the residuum of an amputated limb and a prosthetic limb.”

The original license agreement was an exclusive license covering several patents. The original agreement gave Alps “the right to enforce the ’109 patent and provided that AEI would cooperate ‘to the extent necessary . . . , including transferring of such rights to [Alps] as are necessary to enable [Alps] to enforce the PATENT RIGHTS in its own name.’” However, the original agreement “prohibited Alps from settling any infringement actions without AEI’s prior written consent,” and AEI “retained the right to pursue infringement litigation if Alps declined to do so within six months of learning of suspected infringement.” Also important to the Federal Circuit’s decision was the agreement’s restriction of Alps’ rights to a certain field of use and certain licensed products.

The amended license agreement eliminated the field of use restriction and “eliminated the provision permitting AEI to pursue litigation against potential infringers if Alps declined to do so.” Important to the district court’s decision, the amended agreement purported to be effective as of August 31, 2008, the same date as the original license agreement.

Alps brought suit after the original license agreement was executed, but before the amended agreement was executed.

The Federal Circuit Decision

The Federal Circuit decision was authored by Judge Chen and joined by Judges Lourie and Moore.

The opinion frames the question before the court as whether Alps had sufficient rights to have standing as a “patentee” under 35 USC  § 281. The court noted precedent to the effect that “[a]n exclusive licensee has standing to sue in its own name, without joining the patent holder where ‘all substantial rights’ in the patent are transferred.” Thus, the court considered whether Alps held “all substantial rights” in the ‘109 patent.

With regard to the original agreement, the court noted:

Precedent dictates that the original agreement’s field of use restriction is fatal to Alps’s argument that it had standing to file this action.

With regard to the amended agreement, the court cited its 1998 decision in Enzo APA & Son, Inc. v. Geapag A.G. for the proposition that

[N]unc pro tunc assignments are not sufficient to confer retroactive standing.”

The Federal Circuit explained that while its precedent permits joinder of parties to cure a defect in standing, “executing a nunc pro tunc license agreement after filing a case” does not have the same effect. The court also noted that while 28 U.S.C. § 1653 permits an amended complaint to be used “to correct ‘[d]efective allegations of jurisdiction,'” the ability to amend applies only to “incorrect statements about jurisdiction that actually exists, and not defects in the jurisdictional facts themselves.”

Having found that “Alps possessed neither legal title nor all substantial rights at the outset of this litigation,” the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of the motion to dismiss for lack of standing, vacated the judgment below and remanded with instructions for the district court to dismiss Alps’s complaint without prejudice.”

Why Not Join The Patent Owner?

It is not apparent why Alps didn’t join AEI as a party, but a patent owner may resist being joined in an enforcement action if joinder would make the patent owner subject to discovery and/or subject its employees (such as the inventors) to depositions.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

Hatch Comments on DNC-Related Construction Projects in Milwaukee
14 June 2019
Milwaukee Business Journal
Bernard Quoted on Debt-Relief Settlement with ITT Tech Lender
14 June 2019
Wall Street Journal
Dodd and Daughter Profiled in Wisconsin Golf
13 June 2019
Wisconsin Golf
Brinckerhoff Comments on SCOTUS Ruling in Patent Case
11 June 2019
Intellectual Property Magazine
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
2019 NDI Executive Exchange
14-15 November 2019
Chicago, IL
Association for Corporate Counsel Annual Meeting 2019
27-30 October 2019
Phoenix, AZ
Foley's Government Contracts Annual Update
16 October 2019
Liviona, MI