Arbitration Clause Does Not "Run With Patent"
Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.18.08
Finding that the parties in Datatreasury Corp. v. Wells Fargo & Co. (No. 2007-1317; April 16, 2008) were not the parties to a patent license agreement containing an arbitration clause and thus were not bound under state law by that clause, a Federal Circuit panel affirms a district court's order denying the accused infringers' motion to dismiss or stay the infringement litigation pending arbitration. A Wells Fargo subsidiary had entered into a software license agreement in 2003 with e-Bank LLC and WMR e-Pin LLC, and that agreement memorialized a side agreement that WMR would grant a royalty free license under its Central Check Clearing System patent. In 2004, WMR and the Wells Fargo subsidiary did enter into a patent license agreement based on that patent and agreed to arbitrate any dispute or disagreement in accordance with the software license agreement's dispute resolution procedures. Then in 2006, WMR assigned four patents, one of which was the licensed patent, to Datatreasury who later sued Wells Fargo & Company and Wells Fargo Bank for patent infringement.
Federal policy favoring arbitration does not apply, says the panel, to a determination of whether there is a valid agreement to arbitrate between the parties. Instead, ordinary contract principles determine who is bound. Applying state law, in this case Minnesota's law, the panel notes that none of the parties to this litigation was a signatory to the patent license agreement or assisted in negotiating its terms, and thus could not be bound absent a theory of equitable estoppel, agency, third party beneficiary, incorporation by reference, assumption or veil-piercing/alter ego. None of these theories was asserted in this case. And the court finds no persuasive authority for the proposition that the arbitration clause binds Datatreasury because it "runs with the patent." Legal encumbrances deemed to run with the patent in prior case law involved only the right to use the patented product, not a duty to arbitrate.
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 02.20.26
SCOTUS Holds IEEPA Tariffs Unlawful
On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a pivotal ruling in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, negating the President’s ability to impose tariffs under IEEPA. The case stemmed from President Trump’s invocation of IEEPA to levy tariffs on imports from Canada, Mexico, China, and other countries, citing national emergencies. Challengers argued—and the Court agreed—that IEEPA does not delegate tariff authority to the President. The power to tariff is vested in Congress by the Constitution and cannot be delegated to the President absent express authority from Congress.
Client Alert | 7 min read | 02.20.26
Section 5949 Proposed Rule Puts the FAR Council's Chips on the Table
Client Alert | 5 min read | 02.20.26
Trump Administration Pursues MFN Pricing for Prescription Drugs
Client Alert | 4 min read | 02.19.26
Proposed NY Legislation May Mean Potential Criminal Charges for Unlicensed Crypto Firms
