1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |State Law, Not the Patent Act, Governs Patent Ownership

State Law, Not the Patent Act, Governs Patent Ownership

Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.03.08

In Akazawa v. Link New Technology International, Inc. (No. 07-1184, March 31, 2008), the Federal Circuit vacates a district court’s grant of summary judgment based on lack of standing and remands for further consideration. Relying on 35 U.S.C. § 261, the district court granted Link’s motion for summary judgment because Akazawa had not met his burden of proving the existence of a writing transferring ownership of the patent at issue from the patent owner’s estate to his heirs. The patent owner had died intestate and, under Japanese intestacy law, the patent owner’s wife and daughters were the only heirs. The heirs executed assignments that ultimately transferred their interest in the patent to Akazawa. The district concluded that, despite the subsequent transfers, without a proper assignment from the estate to the heirs, the estate held the patent.

The Federal Circuit holds that ordinarily state law determines patent ownership. Although Section 261 requires a transfer of patent ownership by assignment to be in writing, patent title can also be transferred according to state probate law. Because the patent owner was a resident of Japan at the time of his death, foreign law is controlling. Upon remand, the district court must resolve issues of Japanese intestacy law to determine whether Akazawa owned the patent and thus had standing to bring the infringement suit.

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....

View All Insights