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 | 3 min read | 08.03.26
On July 20, 2026, New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill signed the Forbidding the Algorithmic Inflation of Rent (FAIR) Act into law, making New Jersey the fourth state to regulate algorithmic rent-setting practices. Three days later, on July 23, 2026, Governor Sherrill signed the Fair Price Protection Act, which targets “surveillance pricing”—the practice of using or collecting personal data about a user and using an algorithm or artificial intelligence to charge different consumers different prices for the same products. Together, these laws represent a significant expansion of New Jersey's consumer protection framework in the algorithmic pricing context.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 08.03.26
New York Becomes First State to Restrict Addictive Social Media Features for Minors
Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.03.26
Client Alert | 6 min read | 08.03.26
The Pipe, Not the Posts: How Section 230’s Protections Extend to Generative AI Platforms

