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 | 3 min read | 11.21.25
On November 7, 2025, in Thornton v. National Academy of Sciences, No. 25-cv-2155, 2025 WL 3123732 (D.D.C. Nov. 7, 2025), the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation complaint on the basis that the plaintiff’s allegations that he was fired after blowing the whistle on purported illegally discriminatory use of federal funding was not sufficient to support his FCA claim. This case appears to be one of the first filed, and subsequently dismissed, following Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s announcement of the creation of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative on May 19, 2025, which “strongly encourages” private individuals to file lawsuits under the FCA relating to purportedly discriminatory and illegal use of federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in violation of Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025). In this case, the court dismissed the FCA retaliation claim and rejected the argument that an organization could violate the FCA merely by “engaging in discriminatory conduct while conducting a federally funded study.” The analysis in Thornton could be a sign of how forthcoming arguments of retaliation based on reporting allegedly fraudulent DEI activity will be analyzed in the future.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.19.25
