Domain Names E-CommercePatentsLitigationIP Rights MaintenanceIP as PropertyNews & BulletinsTrademarksLicensingIP Rights TransfersTreaties
HomeAbout UsContact UsSearchQuick Search:

IP As Property / IP Rights Transfers / Transfers of Intellectual Property

TRANSFER OF PATENTS IN THE UNITED STATES


The Patent Act provides that applications for patents, granted patents, and any related interests are fully assignable and transferable. [123] The act specifically requires that the transfer must be effected by a written instrument. [124] Such instrument should contain language evidencing a clear and unmistakable intent to transfer ownership and must be executed by the patentee or its assignees. [125] Generally, a patent assignment conveys the exclusive right to make, sell, or use a particular invention, although in many instances assignments are effected to convey an undivided ownership interest in the patent. [126] A valid assignment will put the assignee in control of a patent standing to enforce any and all rights thereunder. [127] Additionally, a deed of assignment should expressly provide the assignee with the right to sue for past infringement. [128]

The Patent Act specifically addresses the issue of timely recordal of assignment documentation. [129] The Patent Act states,


An assignment, grant or conveyance shall be void as against any subsequent purchaser or mortgagee for a valuable consideration, without notice, unless it is recorded in the Patent and Trademark Office within three months from its date or prior to the date of such subsequent purchase or mortgage.

In the event of conflicting transfers of title in the same patent or patent application, the Patent Act gives the first purchaser a 90-day window in which to record. Even if a subsequent purchaser records before the original purchaser, the first purchaser will prevail if it records within the statutorily-granted 90-day period. However, the public policy behind the statute is intended to protect the interests of bona fide subsequent purchasers of patents who have acted without notice of a prior, unrecorded assignment. [130] A subsequent purchaser who has actual or constructive notice will not be able to employ the protective measures of the patent recordal statute. [131]


 

[123] See 35 U.S.C. §261. See also Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100 (1969); Valmet Paper Machinery, Inc. v. Beloit Corp., 868 FSupp. 1085 (W.D. Wis. 1994).
[124] Ibid.
[125] See University Patents, Inc. v. Kligman, 762 F.Supp. 1212 (E.D. Pa. 1991).
[126] See Fifer and Been, "The Acquisition and Disposition of Intellectual Property in Commercial Transactions: The U.S. Perspective," as published in Intellectual Property in the Global Marketplace. (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1999).
[127] Valmet Paper Machinery, Inc. v. Beloit Corp., 868 F.Supp. 1085 (W.D. Wis. 1994).
[128] Ibid.
[129] See 35 U.S.C. §261.
[130] See Thomas v. Tomco Acquisitions, Inc., 776 F.Supp. 431 (E.D.Wis. 1991).
[131] Ibid.

 

[PREVIOUS] [NEXT] [CONTENT]

 

Contact Us


[Home] [About Ladas & Parry LLP] [Contact Us] [Search]
[Trademarks] [Domain Names & E-Commerce] [Patents & Copyrights]
[Litigation] [IP Rights Maintenance] [IP as Property] [News & Bulletins]

(C) Copyright 2002 Ladas & Parry
Please read our disclaimer.