Federal Circuit presumes inventorship correct even when considering standing

federal-circuit-cafc-windowsDrone Technologies, Inc. v. Parrot S.A., (Fed. Cir. Sept. 29, 2016) (Before Newman, Schall, and Chen, J.) (Opinion for the court, Schall, J.) (Concurring opinion, Newman, J.)

Drone sued Parrot for indirect infringement of two patents relating to remote-controlled drones. Parrot moved to dismiss for lack of standing, alleging that the inventorship of Drone’s patent was incorrect, rendering the assignment to Drone invalid. The district court denied Parrot’s motion.  Additionally, the parties disputed whether Parrot must produce all source code used in operating its drone models. Drone filed two motions to compel, which the district court granted despite adamant push-back from Parrot. The district court ultimately sanctioned Parrot for failing to produce all of the relevant documents, and entered a default judgment on the Complaint.

Parrot appealed, challenging: 1) the district court’s denial of Parrot’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing; 2) whether the district court abused its discretion in compelling Parrot to turn over its on-board source code and entering a default judgment; and 3) whether damages were wrongfully awarded. Because the Court vacated the default judgment, it did not address the third issue.

On the first issue, the Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Parrot’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing. The parties disputed whether the Court must substantively consider inventorship when assessing standing. Parrot asserted Drone lacked standing because the sole inventor of Drone’s patents did not conceive the entire invention and therefore the assignment to Drone was inadequate. Drone countered that inventorship is presumed to be correct when assessing standing to sue.

The Court sided with Drone and refused to substantively examine inventorship, where Drone’s claim to title was not otherwise in dispute. Inventorship of an issued patent is presumed correct, and Parrot provided no persuasive reason why the Court must litigate inventorship as part of the standing analysis.  Alternatively, Parrot may challenge inventorship as an invalidity defense, but doing so under the guise of standing is improper.

On the second issue, the Court vacated the default judgment, finding that the district court abused its discretion by first compelling Parrot to turn over all of its on-board source code and second in determining that a default judgment for non-compliance was appropriate. Following Third Circuit precedent, the Court found that the district court’s decisions on production inexplicably deviated from local rules governing discovery. The Court also found that the district court abused its discretion by determining that a default judgment was an appropriate sanction because precedent suggested an opposite outcome, particularly in light of the “strong presumption” that exists against sanctions that decide the issues of a case.

In a concurring opinion, Judge Newman agreed to the remand, but challenged the panel’s finding that a substantive examination of inventorship is unnecessary when determining standing. She would have the district court consider inventorship, because it affects ownership, not just validity, and ownership is critical to determining if the plaintiff has standing to sue on the patent.

Inventorship is presumed correct even when considering standing to sue. 

[Troutman-Ad]

[Troutman-About]

The Author

Joseph Robinson

Joseph Robinson has over 20 years of experience in all aspects of intellectual property law. He focuses his practice in the pharmaceutical, life sciences, biotechnology, and medical device fields. His practice encompasses litigation, including Hatch-Waxman litigation; licensing; counseling; due diligence; and patent and trademark prosecution. He has served as litigation counsel in a variety of patent and trademark disputes in many different jurisdictions, and has also served as appellate counsel before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Joe also focuses on complex inter partes matters before the U.S Patent and Trademark Office, inventorship disputes, reexaminations and reissues. His experience includes numerous interferences, a particular advantage in new U.S. Patent and Trademark Office post-grant proceedings. He also counsels on patent–related U.S. Food and Drug Administration issues, including citizen petitions, Orange Book listing, and trademark issues. For more information and to contact Joe please visit his profile page at the Troutman Sanders website.

Joseph Robinson

Robert Schaffer is an intellectual property partner at Troutman Sanders. Bob applies more than 30 years of experience to IP counseling and litigation. His work includes patent procurement, strategic planning and transactional advice, due diligence investigations, district court patent cases, and Federal Circuit appeals. He regularly handles complex and high-profile domestic and international patent portfolios, intellectual property agreements and licensing, IP evaluations for collaborations, mergers, and acquisitions. In disputed court cases Bob’s work includes representing and counseling client in ANDA litigations, complex patent infringement cases and appeals, and multidistrict and international cases. In disputed Patent Office matters his work includes representing and counseling clients in interferences, reexaminations, reissues, post-grant proceedings, and in European Oppositions. For more information and to contact Bob please visit his profile page at the Troutman Sanders website.

Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog.com do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com. Read more.

Discuss this

There are currently No Comments comments.