U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, In Re McDonald, Docket No. 2021-1697

Patent

 

Reissue Statute

 

Recapture Rule

 

Equity

 

 

 

 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 14/658,050

 

 

A.

The Reissue Statute and the Recapture Rule

 

 

Over a century ago, the Supreme Court recognized that a patentee may seek reissue of a patent if she erroneously claimed less than she had a right to claim in the original patent. See, e.g., Leggett v. Avery, 101 U.S. 256 (1879). Subsequently, the reissue statute was codified to delineate the circumstances where a patent may be reissued: when it “is, through error without any deceptive intention, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid.” 35 U.S.C. § 251. Stemming from the reissue statute, the recapture rule provides that a reissue will not be granted to “recapture” claimed subject matter that was surrendered during prosecution to obtain the original claims. In the context of pre-AIA2 § 251, we have explained what errors can be appropriately corrected through reissue and what limitations are imposed by the recapture rule. See Greenliant Sys., Inc. v. Xicor LLC, 692 F.3d 1261, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“A patentee may surrender a patent and seek reissue enlarging the scope of the original patent’s claims if through error without any deceptive intent he claimed less than he had a right to claim in the original patent and he applies for reissue within two years from the grant of the original patent.” (cleaned up)); Ball Corp. v. United States, 729 F.2d 1429, 1436 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (“The recapture rule bars the patentee from acquiring, through reissue, claims that are of the same or of broader scope than those claims that were canceled from the original application. On the other hand, the patentee is free to acquire, through reissue, claims that are narrower in scope than the canceled claims.” (emphasis in original)). We have further expounded upon the limits and the equitable underpinnings. The reissue statute is “based on fundamental principles of equity and fairness.” In re Weiler, 790 F.2d 1576, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Nonetheless, “the reissue statute was not enacted as a panacea for all patent prosecution problems, nor as a grant to the patentee of a second opportunity to prosecute de novo his original application.” Id. at 1582. Congress struck a balance between “the competing interest of providing a patentee with an opportunity to correct errors of inadequate claim scope with the public interest in finality and certainty of patent rights, and legislated in favor of allowing the patentee to correct its errors through broadening, if necessary.” In re Youman, 679 F.3d 1335, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

 

 

 

2 “AIA” refers to the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011).

 

 

In addressing pre-AIA § 251, we have explained that the statute provides the public with two safeguards against such broadening. First, “the public is on notice for two years following the issuance of a patent that the patent can be broadened to recapture matter ‘dedicated to the public’ through error.” Id. Analogously, “‘the recapture rule’ prevents a patentee from regaining through reissue subject matter surrendered during prosecution, thus ensuring the ability of the public to rely on a patent’s public record.”  Vectra Fitness, Inc. v. TNWK Corp., 162 F.3d 1379, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Second, reissue is limited to “instances where the patentee could demonstrate an ‘error without any deceptive intention.’” In  re Youman, 679 F.3d at 1342; see also MBO Lab’ys, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 602 F.3d 1306, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“Without a rule against recapture, an unscrupulous attorney could feign error and re-draft claims in a reissue patent to cover a competing product, thereafter filing an infringement suit.”); Mentor Corp. v. Coloplast, Inc., 998 F.2d 992, 996 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“Error under the reissue statute does not include a deliberate decision to surrender specific subject matter in order to overcome prior art, a decision which in light of subsequent developments in the marketplace might be regretted.”). The AIA amended § 251 to delete the phrase “without any deceptive intention” after “error” from the revised statute. See § 20(b)(1)(B), 125 Stat. at 333–34 (effective Sept. 16, 2012). Neither party argues that this change to the statute is material to our decision today.

 

 

The revised reissue statute provides: Whenever any patent is, through error, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for the reissue. 35 U.S.C. § 251(a).

 

 

Under the three-step recapture rule analysis, we consider: (1) whether and in what aspect the reissue claims are broader than the patent claims; (2) if broader, whether those broader aspects of the reissue claim relate to the surrendered subject matter; and (3) if so, whether the surrendered subject matter has crept into the reissue claim. In re Youman, 679 F.3d at 1343–45 (citing In re Mostafazadeh, 643 F.3d at 1360 (“The recapture rule is triggered only where the reissue claims are broader than the patented claims because the surrendered subject matter has been reclaimed in whole or substantial part (i.e., an added limitation has been eliminated or revised).”)).

 

 

 

(…) Accordingly, we affirm. The Board properly applied the recapture rule to bar Mr. McDonald’s attempt to reclaim claim scope already surrendered during prosecution. Because Mr. McDonald deliberately—not erroneously or inadvertently—added the “processor” limitations during prosecution of the original claims to overcome the § 101 rejection, the recapture rule does not permit him to now remove those limitations to broaden his claim.

 

 

The Board did not err in rejecting reissue claims 1– 7, 10, 12–14, and 29–38 of the ’111 patent as violating the recapture rule and all the reissue claims as being premised on a defective inventor reissue declaration.

 

 

 

 

 

(U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, In Re McDonald, August 10, 2022, Docket No. 2021-1697)

 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, REXA, Inc. v. Mark V. Chester and MEA, Inc., Docket No. 20-2953

Assignment

Breach of an Implied Contractual Obligation (of Employee) to Assign Patent Rights (to Employer, Then to Successor Corporation)

 

May Employer’s Rights Under a Written Employment Agreement Be Assigned Without the Employee’s Consent?

 

May an Implied-In-Fact Contractual Obligation Regarding Intellectual-Property Rights Be So Assigned?

 

Successor Corporation

 

Patent Law

 

Illinois Law

 

Wisconsin Law

 

Common Law of Massachusetts (Contract Formation)

 

 

 

 

(…) REXA also challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Chester on Count IV, REXA’s claim for breach of an implied-in-fact contractual obligation to assign any patent rights in connection with the patent application. In evaluating such a claim, federal courts “apply state-law principles of contract formation to determine whether an implied contract existed.” Farmers Edge Inc. v. Farmobile, LLC, 970 F.3d 1027, 1031 (8th Cir. 2020) (citing Teets v. Chromalloy Gas Turbine Corp., 83 F.3d 403, 407 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). The parties agree that REXA’s claim for breach of an implied-in-fact contract arises under the common law of Massachusetts, where Koso employed Chester.

 

 

Massachusetts law provides that if an employer “contemplates the discovery of an invention” and contracts with an employee to build it such that the employee “must have reasonably understood that such inventions as resulted from his performance of the contract should belong to the employer,” the employee has “an implied obligation to assign any patents ... for said inventions to his employer.” Nat’l Dev. Co. v. Gray, 55 N.E.2d 783, 787 (Mass. 1944) (citations omitted). Subsequent cases have extended that proposition. When an employee—even if hired in a general capacity—is specifically “directed during the course of his employment to develop or perfect new or existing machinery or processes, his employer becomes the owner of resulting inventions and may compel the assignment of patents taken in the employee’s name.” Steranko v. Inforex, Inc., 362 N.E.2d 222, 233–34 (Mass. App. Ct. 1977); see also Silica Tech, L.L.C. v. J-Fiber, GmbH, 2009 WL 2579432, at *13 (D. Mass. Aug. 19, 2009) (same).

 

 

REXA is correct that the question of whether an employer’s rights under a written employment agreement may be assigned without the employee’s consent is materially distinct from whether an implied-in-fact contractual obligation regarding intellectual-property rights may be so assigned. The concerns that weigh against permitting a successor corporation to enforce a contract for employment, a personal service, do not necessarily apply to an implied contractual right to assign intellectual property. Chester and MEA do not sufficiently account for the differences between employment and intellectual-property rights. Notably, in other cases involving similar allegations, courts and parties have assumed that successors-in-interest may enforce the type of implied-in-fact contractual right at issue here.

 

 

Yet, we decline to hold that as a matter of Massachusetts law, an implied-in-fact obligation to assign patent rights may be transferred to a successor-in-interest. After all, state courts are the “ultimate expositors” of their own laws. Smart Oil, LLC v. DW Mazel, LLC, 970 F.3d 856, 863 (7th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). “A federal court sitting in diversity must proceed with caution in making pronouncements about state law,” especially given that such pronouncements “inherently involve a significant intrusion on the prerogative of the state courts to control that development.” Lexington Ins. Co. v. Rugg & Knopp, Inc., 165 F.3d 1087, 1092 (7th Cir. 1999) (citations omitted). Here, there is no need to resolve the Massachusetts state-law issue concerning the transferability of implied-in-fact obligations to assign patents. Instead, we adjudicate REXA’s implied-in-fact contractual claim by applying a requirement common to all such claims.

 

 

As a general rule, “an individual owns the patent rights to the subject matter of which he is an inventor, even though he conceived it or reduced it to practice in the course of his employment.” Banks, 228 F.3d at 1359. But there are exceptions. In the archetypal case involving an inventor’s breach of an implied-in-fact contractual obligation, an employer may be entitled to ownership rights associated with “the inventions of employees hired to direct or to engage in inventive research.” Steranko, 362 N.E.2d at 233 (citations omitted). Also, when an employee is specifically “directed during the course of his employment to develop or perfect new or existing machinery or processes, his employer becomes the owner of resulting inventions and may compel the assignment of patents taken in the employee’s name.” Id. at 233–34. By adhering to this rule, Massachusetts follows the law of many other states. See, e.g., Teets, 83 F.3d at 408 (“Even if hired for a general purpose, an employee with the specific task of developing a device or process may cede ownership of the invention from that task to the employer.”) (applying Florida law); Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Miller, 22 F.2d 353, 356 (9th Cir. 1927) (applying federal common law).

 

 

The pertinent question is whether the employer “specifically directed” the employee to create the invention at issue. Farmers Edge, 970 F.3d at 1032; Teets, 83 F.3d at 408. “The primary factor courts consider in determining whether an employed to invent agreement exists is the specificity of the task assigned to the employee.” Farmers Edge, 970 F.3d at 1032 (quoting Skycam LLC v. Bennett, 900 F. Supp. 2d 1264, 1276 (N.D. Okla. 2012)). In Skycam, the court correctly reasoned that if the employee was not employed or specifically directed “to invent the entirety” of the system described in a claim of the patent application for which assignment is sought, the employer “is not entitled to ownership of the invention described therein.” 900 F. Supp. 2d at 1277.

 

 

 

(U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, July 28, 2022, REXA, Inc. v. Mark V. Chester and MEA, Inc., Docket Nos. 20-2953, 20-3213, 21-2033)

 

 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Molon Motor and Coil Corp., v. Nidec Motor Corp., Docket No. 2019-1071

Patent Infringement

Licenses

Contract Law

Contract Drafting

Covenant Not to Sue

Settlement, License and Release Agreement

Merger Clause

Integration Clause

Merger of the Two Agreements?

Illinois State Law

Contract Interpretation

Four Corners Rule

Parol Evidence Rule

Comparing the Subject Matter of Contracts

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in No. 1:16-cv-03545

Molon Motor and Coil Corporation (“Molon”) appeals from the judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in favor of Nidec Motor Corporation (“Nidec”) on Molon’s claim for infringement of U.S. Patent 6,465,915 (“the ’915 patent”). The district court granted summary judgment that Molon is barred from enforcing the ’915 patent against Nidec pursuant to a covenant not to sue that Molon granted in 2006 (“the 2006 Covenant”). Molon argues that the 2006 Covenant was extinguished by a clause in a Settlement, License and Release Agreement that the parties entered into in 2007 (“the 2007 Settlement”). The clause at issue in the 2007 Settlement states that all prior covenants “concerning the subject matter hereof” are “merged” and “of no further force or effect.” Because we agree with the district court that the two agreements concern different subject matter and therefore do not merge, we affirm.

The 2006 Covenant states: Molon hereby forever covenants not to sue Merkle- Korff for patent infringement (whether direct, contributory, or by inducement thereof) under either the ’915 patent or the ’726 patent with respect to any and all products previously or presently made, used or sold by Merkle-Korff in the United States. This covenant extends directly to Merkle-Korff as well as any individual or entity to which Merkle- Korff previously or presently supplies products by way of the manufacture and/or sale thereof in the United States.

In early 2007, Molon and Merkle-Korff entered into the 2007 Settlement, after which the parties jointly filed a stipulation of dismissal in the ’5134 litigation. J.A. 30–37. In the 2007 Settlement, Merkle-Korff agreed to pay Molon a lump sum payment in exchange for an exclusive license to more than a dozen of Molon’s United States and foreign patents and patent applications—including the ’785, ’915, and ’726 patents—within a narrowly defined exclusive market:

The 2007 Settlement states: Grant. Molon hereby grants each of the Merkle- Korff Affiliates an exclusive, fully paid-up, royalty free, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, retroactive, current and future right and license of all Patent Rights to make, have made, use, sell, offer to sell, lease, import, export, or otherwise commercialize products and/or systems for resale or other transfer: (i) to any of the other Merkle-Korff Affiliates; and/or (ii) to [a third-party company and its affiliates] (such persons and entities in (i) and (ii) above, collectively the “Kinetek Exclusive Market”). Under said license, the sale, offer to sell, lease, importation, exportation, commercialization and/or other transfer of products and/or systems between two Merkle-Korff Affiliates (as expressly set forth in (i) above), shall in no way permit the transferee Merkle-Korff Affiliate (i.e., the receiving Merkle-Korff Affiliate) to make, have made, use, sell, offer to sell, lease, import, export, or otherwise commercialize such products and/or systems for resale or other transfer to any person or entity outside of the Kinetek Exclusive Market.

In addition to the exclusive license rights within the Kinetek Exclusive Market, the 2007 Settlement granted Merkle-Korff in certain instances “the right, but not the duty, to pursue an infringement claim”—i.e., the right to exclude others from using the patents within the Kinetek Exclusive Market.

The 2007 Settlement contains a “merger” or “integration” clause:

The integration clause states: Entire Agreement. This Agreement is an integrated Agreement and constitutes the entire agreement and understanding between and among the Parties with regard to the matters set forth herein and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the administrators, agents, personal representatives, successors, and assigns of each. There are no representations, promises, or agreements pertaining to the terms or subject matter of this Agreement, whether express or implied, that are not set forth in this Agreement. All prior and contemporaneous conversations, negotiations, possible and alleged agreements, representations and covenants concerning the subject matter hereof, are merged herein and shall be of no further force or effect.

The 2007 Settlement also expresses the parties’ agreement that they cooperated in drafting the agreement, it is not to be interpreted for or against either of them, and it is to be governed by the laws of the State of Illinois. J.A. 34–35.

(The terms “merger clause” and “integration clause” may be used interchangeably to describe a clause in a written contract that states that there are no representations, promises, or agreements between the parties except those found in the written contract. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 216 cmt. e (1981).)

Merkle-Korff later merged with Nidec. Whether that merger immunizes Nidec from liability that it might have otherwise had prior to the merger raises the issue that is at the heart of this appeal. In the present suit Molon alleges that Nidec is practicing and/or inducing others to practice the ’915 patent outside the licensed Kinetek Exclusive Market. See J.A. 58–64.

Nidec moved for partial summary judgment on Molon’s infringement claim, arguing that Molon is barred from enforcing the ’915 patent against Nidec under the 2006 Covenant. Molon responded that the 2006 Covenant was extinguished by the merger clause in the 2007 Settlement. Applying Illinois contract law, the district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Nidec on Molon’s claim for infringement of the ’915 patent. J.A. 1–12. Because the merger clause in the 2007 Settlement pertains only to covenants “concerning the subject matter hereof,” the court compared the subject matter of the 2006 Covenant to the subject matter of the 2007 Settlement. The court found that the 2006 Covenant gives Nidec a right to avoid suit for patent infringement on two patents, one of which is the ’915 patent. J.A 9. In contrast, the 2007 Settlement is in some ways broader—it is an exclusive license, it includes more than a dozen patents and applications, and it provides Nidec with some enforcement rights—and in other ways narrower—it is limited to a defined market of customers—than the 2006 Covenant. J.A. 9. Thus, the court concluded, the 2006 Covenant remains in effect because it does not concern the same subject matter as the 2007 Settlement.

In this case, the question before us is whether the 2007 Settlement should be interpreted to have revoked or extinguished the 2006 Covenant. Contract interpretation is a question of state law. See Volt Info. Sci., Inc. v. Bd. Of Tr. Of Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 489 U.S. 468, 474 (1989). The 2007 Settlement contains a choice-of-law provision requiring that it “be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Illinois as to all matters of interpretation and remedy.” J.A. 35. Therefore, we apply Illinois state law to interpret the 2007 Settlement de novo.

Traditional contract interpretation principles in Illinois require application of the “four corners” rule. Air Safety, Inc. v. Teachers Realty Corp., 706 N.E.2d 882, 884 (Ill. 1999). In applying this rule, “a court must initially look to the language of a contract alone, as the language, given its plain and ordinary meaning, is the best indication of the parties’ intent.” Gallagher v. Lenart, 874 N.E.2d 43, 58 (Ill. 2007); Rakowski v. Lucente, 472 N.E.2d 791, 794 (Ill. 1984) (“Where a written agreement is clear and explicit, a court must enforce the agreement as written. Both the meaning of the instrument, and the intention of the parties must be gathered from the face of the document without the assistance of parol evidence or any other extrinsic aids.”).

We must therefore look to the language of the 2007 Settlement. The merger clause states in relevant part:

All prior and contemporaneous conversations, negotiations, possible and alleged agreements, representations and covenants concerning the subject matter hereof, are merged herein and shall be of no further force or effect.

The parties have not argued that the merger clause is ambiguous or that it requires extrinsic evidence to interpret what the parties intended. The clause, on its face, only pertains to covenants “concerning the subject matter” of the 2007 Settlement.

We first address the language of the merger clause in the 2007 Settlement, which limits its application to covenants “concerning the subject matter hereof.” We consider whether the subject matter of the 2006 Covenant and the 2007 Settlement is the same, such that the 2006 Covenant was expressly merged into the 2007 Settlement.

In comparing the subject matter of contracts, Illinois courts have cautioned against defining subject matter too broadly or too narrowly. For example, in Ill. Concrete- I.C.I., Inc. v. Storefitters, Inc., the court rejected the broad view that two contracts had the same subject matter simply because both involved “using trucks.” 922 N.E.2d 542, 546 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). On the other hand, in Midwest Builder Distrib., Inc. v. Lord & Essex, Inc., the court rejected an “extremely narrow view” of two contracts as having subject matter limited to “the specifications of the products to be delivered.” 891 N.E.2d 1, 20 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007).

(…) To determine the subject matter of each agreement, we must examine the actual language of the agreements themselves. We must consider how the language of each agreement conveys the substantive rights and obligations exchanged between the parties.

First, we look at the subject matter of the 2006 Covenant, which is a one-paragraph unilateral covenant not to sue on two patents—the ’915 patent and the ’726 patent. J.A. 27. The 2006 Covenant covers “any and all products previously or presently made, used or sold by Merkle-Korff” and it extends geographically to “the United States.” It contains no restrictions on the market for sales of licensed products.

Next, we look at the subject matter of the 2007 Settlement, which is an eight-page bilateral contract, in which Merkle-Korff agreed to pay monetary consideration to Mo- lon in exchange for an exclusive license covering more than a dozen United States and foreign patents and patent applications. J.A. 30–37. The 2007 Settlement is not limited to any specific products or geographical area, but it is limited to the Kinetek Exclusive Market. J.A. 31. Additionally, the 2007 Settlement gives Merkle-Korff a right to sue third parties for infringement of the licensed patents within the Kinetek exclusive Market in the event that Molon declines to do so.

A covenant not to sue is equivalent to a nonexclusive or “bare” license, see Ortho Pharm. Corp. v. Genetics Inst., Inc., 52 F.3d 1026, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 1995), which is a promise by the patent owner not to sue the licensee for practicing the patented invention, and under which the patent owner impliedly reserves the right to grant similar nonexclusive licenses to other entities. See Intellectual Prop. Dev., Inc. v. TCI Cablevision of Cal., Inc., 248 F.3d 1333, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2001). In contrast, an exclusive license is a license to practice the patented invention “accompanied by the patent owner’s promise that others shall be excluded from practicing it within the field of use wherein the licensee is given leave.” Textile Prods., Inc. v. Mead Corp., 134 F.3d 1481, 1484 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Western Elec. Co. v. Pacent Reproducer Corp., 42 F.2d 116, 118 (2d Cir. 1930)). We have characterized an exclusive licensee as “sharing the property rights represented by a patent.” Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelly Co., 56 F.3d 1538, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quoting Weiner v. Rollform, 744 F.2d 797, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).

There are fundamental differences between an exclusive license and a nonexclusive license, particularly in the context of standing to assert a claim for patent infringement. See Rite-Hite, 56 F.3d at 1552 (citing Independent Wireless Tel. Co. v. Radio Corp. of Am., 269 U.S. 459, 468– 69 (1926)). In essence, an exclusive licensee has an interest in the patent sufficient to establish an injury when a third party infringes, akin to an ownership interest, while a non- exclusive licensee has no such interest in the patent and merely enjoys freedom from suit. See id. Under this framework, it cannot be said that an exclusive license and a non- exclusive license necessarily concern the same subject matter, even though both licenses include the same patent.

We thus find that there are important substantive differences between the subject matter of the 2006 Covenant and the 2007 Settlement. The 2006 Covenant is a unilateral promise by Molon not to sue Merkle-Korff (or its successor, Nidec) for infringement of two patents, one of which is the ’915 patent. The 2007 Settlement, in contrast, is a bilateral contract through which Molon transferred to Merkle-Korff a share in the existing and potential exclusionary rights under more than a dozen listed patents and applications, one of which is the ’915 patent. Moreover, the 2006 Covenant is limited to products existing at the time of its execution, while the 2007 Settlement includes both existing and future products. And the 2006 Covenant is not limited to any specific market, while the 2007 Settlement is limited to the Kinetek Exclusive Market.

We therefore conclude that the language of the merger clause in the 2007 Settlement did not expressly extinguish the 2006 Covenant.

(Merger doctrine in its traditional form as a doctrine of contract interpretation. See Schweickhardt v. Chessen, 161 N.E. 118, 122 (Ill. 1928) (“The rule is, that when parties reduce their agreement to writing, all prior negotiations leading up to the execution of the contract are merged therein, and parol evidence is not admissible to explain, contradict, enlarge, or modify the writing as it existed when executed.”). The effect of the merger doctrine is to “preclude evidence of understandings, not reflected in a writing, reached before or at the time of its execution which would vary or modify its terms.” J & B Steel Contractors, Inc. v. C. Iber & Sons, Inc., 642 N.E.2d 1215, 1217 (Ill. 1994); see also Fuchs & Lang Mfg. Co. v. R.J. Kittredge & Co., 146 Ill. App. 350, 364 (Ill. App. Ct. 1909) (“It follows legally that this written contract merged all prior negotiations, letters and telegrams in the written agreement thus formulated and signed; and all extrinsic evidence of oral or written negotiations became incompetent, immaterial and irrelevant for the purpose of contradicting or modifying the written agreement.”)).

Under Illinois law, the doctrine of merger only applies when a later contract “relates to the same subject matter and embraces the same terms” as an earlier contract. Kraft v. No. 2 Galesburg Crown Fin. Corp., 420 N.E.2d 865, 870 (Ill. App. Ct. 1981).

We agree with the district court that the absence of any reference to the 2006 Cove- nant in the 2007 Settlement, though not dispositive, is an indication that Nidec did not intend to assent to its revocation.

(We see nothing “strange” about a market-limited exclusive licensee being both empowered to sue for infringement within the licensed market and also subject to being sued by the licensor for infringement outside of that market.)

(…) For these reasons, we find that the merger clause in the 2007 Settlement does not indicate that the parties intended to revoke the 2006 Covenant. The 2006 Covenant remains operable, and it bars Molon’s suit against Nidec for infringement of the ’915 patent.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

(U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, January 10, 2020, Molon Motor and Coil Corp., v. Nidec Motor Corp., Docket No. 2019-1071)

Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.

Labor law: rights in an invention: since 1790, patent law has operated on the premise that rights in an invention belong to the inventor. See, e.g., Gayler v. Wilder, 10 How. 477, 493. In most cases, a patent may be issued only to an applying inventor, or—because an inventor’s interest in his invention is assignable in law by an instrument in writing—an inventor’s assignee. See United States v. Dubilier Condenser Corp., 289 U. S. 178, 187. Absent an agreement to the contrary, an employer does not have rights in an invention “which is the original conception of the employee alone,” id., at 189; an inventor must expressly grant those rights to his employer, see id., at 187; the Court’s construction of the Act is also reflected in the common practice of contractors, who generally obtain assignments from their employees, and of agencies that fund federal contractors, who typically expect those contractors to obtain assignments. With effective assignments, federally funded inventions become “subject inventions” and the Act as a practical matter works pretty much the way Stanford says it should. The only significant difference is that it does so without violence to the basic patent law principle that inventors own their inventions (U.S.S.Ct., 06.06.11, Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., C.J. Roberts).

Droit du travail, droit sur une invention : depuis 1790, le droit des brevets est basé sur le principe qu’une invention appartient à son inventeur. Dans la plupart des cas, un brevet ne peut être octroyé qu’à à un inventeur qui procède au dépôt de son invention. Comme un inventeur peut assigner par écrit ses intérêts dans son invention, le brevet peut être octroyé à l’assignataire. Sauf accord contraire, un employeur ne peut déduire aucun droit d’une invention qui est la conception originale de l’employé et de lui seul. L’employé doit expressément attribuer ses droits sur l’invention à son employeur pour que le transfert s’opère.