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 | 5 min read | 06.01.26
California Court Upholds Insurer’s Duty to Defend After Covered Claim Is Dismissed
On April 30, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a significant ruling in an insurance coverage dispute between a commercial general liability insurer and its policyholder. The decision addresses several critical issues in insurance law, including the scope and continuity of the duty to defend and the standard for insurer reimbursement of defense costs in mixed-claim actions. The court ruled largely in favor of the insured, SVO Building One, LLC ("SVO"), and the matter now heads toward settlement or trial on SVO's remaining counterclaims.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 05.29.26
California Assembly Passes AB 1776, Sending Major Antitrust Bill to the Senate
Client Alert | 5 min read | 05.29.26
Clover Insurance v. HHS: S.D. of Georgia Holds 20 Star Ratings Measures Unlawful
Client Alert | 3 min read | 05.29.26
