1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Arbitration Clause Does Not "Run With Patent"

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 | 06.25.26

Twin Executive Orders Seek to Spur Quantum Leap in Technology and Cybersecurity

On June 22, 2026, President Trump signed two executive orders, “Securing the Nation Against Advanced Cryptographic Attacks” (Quantum Security EO) and “Ushering in the Next Frontier of Quantum Innovation” (Quantum Innovation EO), marking the most significant federal action on quantum technology since the Quantum Computing Cybersecurity Preparedness Act of 2022, which directed agencies to harden their information systems against quantum-enabled hacking. The orders seek to speed the development of quantum computers, which are advanced processors that can calculate multiple possibilities simultaneously and thus solve problems exponentially faster than traditional computers. At the same time, the orders look to protect against the danger that quantum technology can “break” traditional encryption by easily decoding it. Of particular note for government contractors, the Quantum Security EO directs agencies to update federal acquisition regulations to require contractors by 2031 to adopt information processing standards that resist quantum-enabled codebreaking....