Federal Circuit Clarifies Joint Ownership Rules with a 'Resounding Yes'
Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.10.08
An inventor of one or more claims of a patent is an co-owner of the entire patent even without contribution to all of the claims, a Federal Circuit panel concludes in Lucent Tech., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc. (No. 2007-1546, -1580; September 25, 2008).
To counter Lucent's infringement claim, Microsoft alleged that Lucent lacked standing because Fraunhofer allegedly co-owned the patent. Microsoft based its allegation on a joint development agreement ("JDA"). Under the JDA, the Federal Circuit found Lucent's predecessor, AT&T, had developed two claims of a patent and that two other claims were jointly developed with Fraunhofer. Despite this finding, Lucent relied on the century-old Supreme Court precedent holding that a patent owner cannot split up its ownership rights and assign different claims to different parties. Under this precedent in view of the JDA, Lucent argued that it owned the patent, and that Fraunhofer was merely a licensee, not a co-owner.
Applying more-recent Federal Circuit precedent - but ruling consistent with the older Supreme Court authorities - the Federal Circuit phrases the issue as "whether Fraunhofer is the owner of the '080 patent even though it did not contribute to the invention of some of the claims." The answer is a "resounding yes," according to the Federal Circuit, which holds that Lucent lacked standing in the absence of Fraunhofer. The Federal Circuit also provides some prospective guidance to future joint development participants, noting that AT&T had the option to file separate patent applications.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 08.21.26
FTC Proposes Enforcement Policy Statement on Personalized Pricing: What Businesses Need to Know
On August 19, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a proposed Enforcement Policy Statement on personalized pricing — the practice of companies using consumers’ personal data to set individualized prices, discounts, coupons, or other incentives. The proposed statement, which is open for public comment for 30 days following publication in the Federal Register, marks a major step up in the FTC’s focus on data-driven pricing strategies and puts businesses across industries on notice that undisclosed or inadequately disclosed personalized pricing will not be tolerated. Importantly, while the proposed statement is not a binding legal requirement and does not create new legal obligations, it serves as an enforcement warning that the FTC is prepared to use its existing enforcement authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act (Section 5) and is also a potential harbinger of rulemaking. Businesses that engage in — or are considering — personalized pricing should carefully assess their disclosure practices and data collection procedures against the standards articulated in this statement.
Client Alert | 7 min read | 08.19.26
CMS’s Final Rule Bans Federal Medicaid Funding for Youth Gender-Affirming Care
Client Alert | 2 min read | 08.19.26

