Troy & Schwartz Attorneys-At-Law

Introduction

Intellectual property assets (patents, copyrights, trade secrets, and trademarks) can be sold, assigned, or licensed by the IP’s owner.   For companies, IP ownership issues may arise where steps are not taken to ensure that any IP created by or developed by an employee or independent contractor will belong to the company or hiring party.   Such issues could have a devastating effect on the company under a variety of scenarios as discussed below.  As such, every employee of a company should be required to sign a confidentiality and IP assignment agreement as a condition for employment.  Such an agreement obligates the employee to keep confidential the proprietary information of the business, both during employment and after the employment ends.  The agreement also ensures that any inventions, ideas, creations, business plans, logos, brands, trade secrets, copyrightable works, or services developed within the scope of his/her employment during the term of employment belong to the company and not the employee.

Similarly, all independent contractors should be required to sign a confidentiality/non-disclosure agreement.  If their efforts on the company’s behalf could result in an IP asset(s), the independent contractor should also be required to sign an IP assignment of rights agreement.   Examples  of IP-related works often developed by independent contractors are: APPs, software programs, prototypes, formulations, websites and logos.

Of all the four types of IP, ownership issues involving copyrights are arguably the most misunderstood as the result of the copyright law’s work made for hire doctrine as defined in 17 U.S.C. § 101.

Copyright Ownership as the Result of a Work Made For Hire

Copyright law may seem deceptively simple compared to patent and trademark law especially with regards to the registration process.  Where copyright law can get particularly complicated for the unwary, however, is in the area of copyright ownership.  Under U.S. law, the creator or author of the work is the owner of the copyright.  But what happens if the work was created by and employee in the scope of his/her employment or by an independent contractor who was hired or commissioned to create the work?

Regarding an employer-employee relationship, the work is generally treated as a work made for hire wherein the employer (and not the employee) is deemed the author and owner of the work.  The forms for federal registration of a copyrightable work include a section addressing ownership secured on the basis of a work made for hire.

Regarding an independent contractor relationship, the work may qualify as a work made for hire providing two conditions are met pursuant to the Copyright Act (Act).  First, the work must fall into one of the nine enumerated types of works specified in the Act.  Second, the independent contractor and the hiring party must have also both signed an agreement agreeing that the work to be created is a work made for hire.  If both of these two requirements are met, the hiring party is deemed as the owner of the work created by the independent contractor.

Note the difference between works made for hire by an employee versus those made by an independent contractor.  In the latter case, the type of works qualifying as work made for hire are limited by statute and a written assignment agreement is required for all such “statutorily” defined works made for hire.

What happens if the work created by the independent contractor does not fall into one of the nine enumerated types of works in the Act?  An assignment of rights agreement executed by the independent contractor will be required for the hiring party to “honestly” claim copyright ownership as the claimant in a copyright registration application.

Why the Distinction Between and Employee and an Independent Contractor Is Important

Take the scenario of software developers who are often hired as independent contractors by startup companies.   Software can be copyrighted, but software is not one of the enumerated types of works qualifying as a work made for hire work by Independent Contractors.  Therefore, even with a written agreement stating that the software is a work made for hire, the hiring company will not actually own the copyright to the developed software under the Act even though the software developer (independent contractor) was paid to create the software.   That is, the software developer may well still be the owner of the software despite the work made for hire agreement.   On the other hand software development companies such as Microsoft Corporation that have employees dedicated to developing software are the owners/authors of any copyright-related rights in the software under the work made for hire doctrine.   See the U.S. Copyright Office Records for Microsoft Corporation’s registered copyrights where Microsoft is listed as the author of the work as the result of an employer work made for hire.

Copyright ownership issues as they relate to independent contractors may remain hidden and then arise: 1) when a business is being sold and the sale involves intellectual property (IP) assets such as copyrights; 2) in a copyright infringement lawsuit; 3) or a business is being evaluated by venture capitalists or other investors or is involved in an M&A transaction.    The buyer of IP assets will want assurance that the IP assets are indeed owned by the seller so that they may be effectively assigned to the buyer by a written instrument signed by the seller and the buyer.   A deal could fall through if the seller cannot prove to the buyer’s satisfaction that it – the seller – is the owner of the copyrights and therefore has the right to transfer ownership to the buyer.

As for a copyright infringement lawsuit, standing is a requirement for bringing a lawsuit, namely that the plaintiff is the true copyright owner.   A defendant in a copyright infringement lawsuit may be able to use “lack of ownership” as a defense if the work was created by an independent contractor and the work does not qualify as a work made for hire under the Copyright Act.  That is, ownership remains vested in the independent contractor and plaintiff does not own the copyright it claims is being infringed under the law.  The author of this blog has successfully used lack of ownership of the registered work as grounds for dismissing a copyright infringement lawsuit.

As for scenario #3, the buyer’s due diligence team will also be looking for these agreements with employees and/or independent contractors to ensure that the copyrights (and all of the company’s IP) is owned by the company.

Ensuring the Legally Sufficient Transfer of a Copyright by an Independent Contractor

What steps can be taken to ensure the proper transfer of copyright-related rights from an independent contractor?  Where the work(s) to be created clearly fall into one of the nine enumerated classifications specified within the copyright statute, the  hiring company should require the independent contractor to sign an agreement wherein the work(s) to be created is designated as a work made for hire with all associated copyright-related rights belonging to the hiring party.  This agreement should be executed by both the company and the independent contractor before work on the project commences.

Copyright ownership can also be transferred by an assignment of rights.  For her clients, the author includes an assignment of rights provision within all work made for hire agreements with independent contractors as a precaution to cover the situation where the created work may be found to not qualify as a work made for hire after all.  Thus, if for whatever reason the work should not qualify as a work made for hire because, e.g., it does not fall into one of the nine enumerated categories, the hiring party would still own the copyright as the result of the independent contractor’s assignment of rights to the hiring party.   17 U.S.C. § 201(d)(1).  Any such assignment needs to be clear as to the rights being conveyed and the nature of the underlying works.     For a good discussion of how important an assignment of rights provision may be where the work made for hire conveyance by an independent contractor fails, see Capital Concepts, Inc. v. Mountain Technology Corp., et al., WL 6761880 (W.D. Va. 2012).  In our software development example, the assignment agreement should also state that the independent contractor is assigning any and all patent and trade secret rights to the company since software may also qualify for these types of IP protection.  That is, the company/individual hiring an independent contractor needs to ensure that it is the owner of all potential IP rights emanating from the independent contractor’s work.

We are proud of the legal services we provide to our business and entrepreneurial clients on all matters related to intellectual property law including trademark law.  Contact us at 305-279-4740 to discuss any questions related to IP including ownership questions.   

Troy & Schwartz, LLC

Attorneys-at-Law

Miami, Florida  (305) 279-4740

Where Legal Meets Entrepreneurship™

This blog is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

© 2023 by Troy & Schwartz, LLC

On July 7, 2022, in In re Lana Grossa mode mit Wolle Handels-und Vertriebs GmbH, the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board (the “Board”) held that a mark utilizing the Italian word for yarn, Filati, could not be registered because the mark is generic and thus incapable of registration.

The opinion is instructive because it covers several matters pertinent to trademark registration that often take a backseat to the far more common likelihood-of-confusion registration issues.  This blog summarizes the take home points from Lana Grossa wherein the Applicant sought registration of the mark FILATI on the Supplement Register as a generic mark.

1.  Some Background on the Supplemental Register.

The Supplemental Register (“SR”) offers legal protections to a lesser extent than the Principal Register.  SR can thus be a viable alternative to registration on the Principal Register if an applied-for mark is rejected on merely descriptive/generic grounds providing the proposed mark passes a likelihood of confusion analysis by the examining attorney.  Indeed, examining attorneys may recommend that the original application be amended to a “Supplemental Registration” application if the applied-for mark is not rejected on likelihood of confusion grounds. One can also initially apply for registration on the Supplemental Register as did the FILATI mark Applicant but such an application will nevertheless be examined to see if it qualifies for such registration.   Additionally, a “Supplemental Registered” mark may later qualify for registration on the Principal Register if the registrant can establish that the mark has become distinctive in the minds of consumers.

2.  A Mark Comprising a Foreign Word Will Not Overcome Potential Registration Issues.

Over the years, the commentator has encountered clients who mistakenly believe that using a foreign word as a mark for service(s) or good(s) provided in the U.S will eliminate registration problems.   This assumption is a fallacy.  First, trademark applications require the applicant to provide a translation of the foreign word.

Second, under the doctrine of equivalents, the foreign equivalent of a registered arbitrary English word mark may result in a finding of likelihood of confusion.  For example, a proposed mark for MANZANA (Spanish for apple) as an arbitrary mark for computers would clearly not be registrable in today’s “Apple Brand” world.

Moreover, a merely descriptive or generic foreign word mark is no more registrable than its English counter-part. As the Lana Grossa opinion states:  “[A] word taken from a well-known foreign modern language, which is, itself, merely descriptive of a product or service will be so considered when it is attempted to be registered as a trademark in the United States for the same product.”   The doctrine is, however, to be applied only when it is likely that the ordinary American purchaser who is knowledgeable in the foreign language would stop and translate the foreign word into its English equivalent.  The FILATI mark applicant had argued that the mark was merely descriptive and eligible for registration on the SR.

As a result of various websites and publications accessible in the U.S. promoting a premier international Italian yarn (as “Filati”) event, the Board concluded that the relevant U.S. consumers, particularly those with knowledge of Italian, will translate the word “Filati” into “yarn.” As such, the word “Filati” is a generic term for yarn and cannot be registered on the Supplemental Register.

As discussed above, a merely descriptive foreign word may be registered on the Supplemental Register.  A merely descriptive mark is one which describes a desirable characteristic of the specified good/service.  For example, In In re Geo. A. Hormel & Co., 227 USPQ 813 (TTAB 1985), the Board held that the applied-for mark SAPORITO, an Italian word meaning “tasty,” was merely descriptive and ineligible for registration on the Principal Register.   Interestingly the SAPORITO mark was originally registered in 1973 on the Supplemental Register by a company other than Hormel.  Reg. no. 952,895.   In 1989, that same company was able to achieve registration on the Principal Registration by showing that the mark had acquired distinctiveness and recognition by the buying public.  Reg. no. 1573637 obtained under Section 2(F) of the Lanham Act.

3. The Stylized Lettering in FILATI Is Insufficient for Creating a Distinct Commercial Impression Separate and Apart from the Generic Word Itself.

Having found that the mark FILATI is generic, the Board next determined if the Applicant’s stylized drawing of the word mark is so distinctive that it is possible to disclaim the unregistrable components and still have a registrable mark as a whole.  Generic matter within an applied-for mark, whether the mark is to be registered on the Principal Register or the Supplemental Register, must generally be disclaimed. Here, the entire mark itself (i.e. (“Filati”) would need to be disclaimed.  Yet, an entire mark cannot be disclaimed.  TMEP § 1213.06 (2022).   The Board concluded that the FILATI mark does not create a distinct commercial impression separate and apart from the word itself.   As such the mark was not registrable on the Supplemental Register.  To understand the Board’s reasoning, compare the registered mark CONSTRUCT A CLOSET, where the stylistic rendering of the mark was found to be distinctive, with the unregistrable FILATI mark.

4. Take Home Points.

Trademark law is not as simple as it may seem as this decision shows.   This is why a trademark attorney should be consulted so that the registration risks can be understood and discussed.  Why spend a lot of money on building brand where legal protection may well not even be available?   Contact Susan Troy at 305-279-4740 for a complimentary consultation on your branding legal requirements.

 WE THANK YOU READING THIS BLOG AND HOPE YOU FOUND IT INFORMATIVE.  HOWEVER, THE CONTENT IS PROVIDED FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE OR ANY  ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.

©2022

Troy & Schwartz, LLC

Where Legal Meets Entrepreneurship™

 (305) 279-4740

Take Home Points

1. File at least a provisional patent application before taking steps to commercialize and sell an invention.
2. Understand the ramifications of the on-sale bar to patentability.
3. If engaging in experimentation with others prior to filing a patent application, ensure that contracts are very clear concerning the experimentation purpose.
4. Be very careful about making an offer for sale of the invention prior to filing a patent application. An offer for sale can take many forms including a contract, proposal and/or invoice.

Section 102(b) of the Patent Act involves the on-sale bar to patentability.  The America Invents Act (“AIA”) amended § 102(b).  Any patent issuing from an application filed before May 16, 2013 which is later subjected to an on-sale bar analysis in a patent infringement analysis will be analyzed under pre-AIA § 102(b). This section states that a patent claim is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) if “the invention was  . . .  on sale in this country more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States.”

This commentator recently published a blog on the CAFC’s February 2022 opinion in Junker v. Medical Corp., Inc where the Court held that the patentee had not timely filed a patent application under § 102(b) of the Patent Act.  Also see that blog for a comparison of the pre-AIA § 102(b) and the post AIA statute.  In Junker, the patent owner’s damages for patent infringement awarded by the district court were negated.  Now we have another decision in just over two months where the patent owner has had patent claim rights adversely affected because of failure to timely file a patent application.

On April 29, 2022^, in Sunoco Partners Marketing v. U.S. Venture, Inc., the CAFC again addressed the on-sale bar to patentability.  The patent at issue involved an application filed on February 9, 2001.  Accordingly, based on 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), the critical date (the latest date on which the patentee could have made an offer for sale without violating the on-sale bar) was Feb. 9, 2000.  Here, the patentee’s offer for sale was Feb. 7, 2000.  Put another way, once the offer for sale was made, the patent applicant had exactly one year to file the patent application or until Feb. 7, 2001.

In Sunoco, the defendant asserted an on-sale bar defense to invalidate claims in two of Sunoco’s patents. To prevail, the defendant needed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the patented invention was both: (1) “the subject of a commercial offer for sale”; and (2) “ready for patenting.”  Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 57 (1998).

A factor which may allow the patent owner to negate an on-sale bar invalidation is whether the offer for sale occurred primarily for purposes of experimentation.  The “experimentation” exception to the on-sale bar was first articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in City of Elizabeth v. Am. Nicholson Pavement Co., 97 U.S. 126, 137 (1877):  [E]xperimental use allows inventors to delay patenting to engage in “bona fide effort[s] to bring his invention to perfection or to ascertain whether it will answer the purpose intended.”  At the same time, “[a]ny attempt to use [the invention] for a profit and not by way of experiment” before the critical date will “deprive the inventor of his right to a patent.”  Ultimately, as the City of Elizabeth court explained, the on-sale bar is related to the monopoly afforded to a patentee – to have the government-granted right to seek legal recourse for the unauthorized use of the patented invention for a statutory period of time.   The on-sale bar prevents a subsequent patentee from “acquiring an undue advantage over the public by “preserv[ing] their monopoly . . .  for a longer period than is allowed.”

Sunoco, the current owner of the patents at issue, argued the on-sale bar was not violated because the inventor’s company, MCE Blending (“MCE”) offer to sell the invention to Equilon Enterprise, LLC (“Equilon”) was primarily for experimentation purposes.  The district court agreed and held found that the defendant’s on-sale bar defense was negated by the experimental use doctrine.

The CAFC disagreed on the basis of the terms of a contract between the inventor’s company and MCE.  The opinion is instructive because it demonstrates how a contract’s terms can play a critical role in upholding or defeating patent rights.  Whether such a transaction was for primarily for experimental or commercial purposes is a “question of law to be analyzed based on the totality of the surrounding circumstances.”   The Sunoco court assessed the transaction “under contract law as generally understood, focusing on those activities that would be understood to be commercial offers for sale in the commercial community.”

The invention was for an automated butane-blending system to maximize a desirable property of combining butane and similar gasoline components.

Based on the following contractual words and terms, the transaction was deemed to be a commercial offer for sale for the following reasons:

1. The contract expressly described the transaction as a sale without any mention of any experimental purpose.
2. The contract stated that MCE already developed the relevant technology and equipment, that Equilon wanted to purchase it, and that MCE was willing to sell it, install it, and supply butane for it in return for Equilon’s agreement to purchase several hundred barrels of butane from it over a period of five years.
3. The contract stated that MCE is willing to install the blending Equipment and to supply the butane required for such blending to Equilon.
4. The contract stated that the ownership and title to the Equipment shall be conveyed to Equilon by MCE upon completion of the installation and training. MCE was to execute a bill of sale to effectuate the conveyance of ownership of the Equipment to Equilon.
5. The contract referred to Equipment Testing and not Experimental Evaluation.

The district court concluded that there had been no offer of sale of the invention because the contract “did not require Equilon to pay MCE anything in exchange for the system which incorporated the invention.  In contrast, the CAFC opined that Equilon purchased MCE’s equipment by committing to buy MCE’s butane.  In other words, it incurred a real if indirect cost.   Had the contract not intertwined the equipment’s required installation with Equilon’s obligation to buy butane, the CAFC indicated that it would not have characterized the transaction as a sale.

The CAFC further emphasized that the concept of experimental use can be difficult to establish.  For example, the contract had a section entitled “Equipment Testing” with two sets of testing:  pre-installation testing and post-installation testing.  Sunoco argued that MCE wanted “to experiment at the actual tank farm and determine whether their inventive idea was capable of performing its intended purpose in its intended environment.” MCE therefore would need access to Equilon’s facility to test under action conditions.  However, testimony revealed that the testing, which focused on determining whether that system could communicate with one of the equipment’s components was not done at Equilon, after all but by a third party.  Additionally, the testing could have been done at any time prior to entering into the offer for sale with Equilon.   This was not a situation involving, e.g., street pavement, which cannot be experimented upon satisfactorily except on a highway.  Sunoco court quoting City of Elizabeth, 97 U.S.C. 134.

The commentator adds that large, expensive equipment is often set up and qualify assurance tests conducted by the seller’s employees.  However, these are not “experimental purpose” activities because the buyer is expecting the equipment to work.  A good example is medical diagnostics equipment.

The inventor’s subjective intent concerning experimentation is of minimal importance.  The courts have generally looked to objective evidence to show that a precritical date sale was primarily for experimentation.   The opinion includes a useful list of objective indicia relied on by the courts in footnote 5.  In this case: 1) the terms of the sale agreement itself constituted objective evidence; and 2) the nature of the experimentation was such that it could have been done prior to the sales offer.

In conclusion, the CAFC held that the Equilon agreement was an offer for sale to commercially exploit the invention rather than primarily for experimentation purposes. Equipment which incorporated the invention was ready for use at the time the contract was entered into and ready for patenting based on objective evidence.   The district court’s experimental-use determination was reversed and its infringement determination with respect to the pertinent claims was vacated.   The decision involved some other issues which are separate from the 102(b) discussion of this blog for those interested.

If you have any questions about when you should file a patent application to preserve your rights, contact Susan at 305-279-4740.

WE THANK YOU READING THIS BLOG AND HOPE YOU FOUND IT INFORMATIVE.  HOWEVER, THE CONTENT IS PROVIDED FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE.  IF YOU ARE CONTEMPLATING ANY ACTION THAT MAY HAVE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES, CONSULT WITH AN ATTORNEY.

©2022

Troy & Schwartz, LLC

Where Legal Meets Entrepreneurship™

(305) 279-4740

Several states including Delaware, Wyoming, and Nevada are popular states for incorporation and limited liability company formation for privacy and taxation reasons.  But what if the corporation or LLC will actually be transacting business in Florida and not in its state of incorporation/formation?

Under Florida law, such LLCs or corporations (known as foreign LLCs or corporations, collectively foreign entities) may not transact business in Florida until they obtain a certificate of authority from Florida’s Department of State.  Over the years, I have encountered several foreign entities that have not obtained this certificate even though they were clearly a business operating in Florida.  In one case, the entity could not file an breach of contract lawsuit until it had received its certificate of authority and paid a fine.

Both incorporation and limited liability formation in all states is relatively simple and typically carried out by a non-attorney.   As for Florida, the failure of the foreign corporation to early-on obtain a Florida certificate of authority is generally the result of unfamiliarity with the law by non-lawyers.

According to Florida law, both foreign corporations and limited liability companies must not transact business in Florida until it obtains a certificate of authority from the Department of State.   See §607.1501 of the Florida Corporations Statute and §605.0905 of the Florida Revised LLC Act.   Neither statute provides guidance as to what constitutes “transacting business.” Both statutes do, however, provide a non-exhaustive list of activities which do not constitute “transacting business” such as:

• holding managers’ meetings or members’ meetings (LLC) or board of directors/shareholders meetings (corporation);
• maintaining bank accounts;
• collecting on debts or enforcing mortgages;
• transacting business in interstate commerce;
• conducting an isolated transaction that is completed within 30 days and that is not one in the course of repeated transactions of a like nature;
• owning or controlling a subsidiary corporation or LLC incorporated in or transacting business in Florida;
• owning real estate or personal property located in Florida that produces no income (the statutes make a specific exception for income-producing property).

As for “transacting business,” the following activities are examples of transactions that likely require registration:

• Having a physical presence in the state such as a business office, warehouse, or store;
• Having employees or payroll in Florida;
• Applying for and obtaining a business license in Florida.

Are there any ramifications if a foreign entity needs a certificate of authority to transact business, but does not get one?  Legally, the entity may not file a lawsuit in a Florida court, and if a lawsuit is filed, the court may stay the proceeding until the unregistered foreign entity obtains a certificate of authority. The unregistered entity may, however, defend the lawsuit. In addition, any contracts executed by the unregistered entity are still valid, notwithstanding the lack of a certificate of authority. By transacting business in Florida without a certificate, the entity is deemed as a matter of law to have appointed the Secretary of State as the company’s agent for service of process.  Finally, the entity is liable to the Secretary of State for civil penalties for each year (or part thereof) that it operates without a certificate of authority.

Practically speaking, an entity that is conducting its business operations within Florida, entering into contracts executed in Florida with other Florida entities or Florida residents, and/or is earning money in Florida from Florida businesses/residents should register the foreign entity in Florida.  Florida banks and financial institutions may also prefer, even require, that the foreign entity be registered as a Florida foreign entity.

The forms for registering a foreign corporation or LLC are relatively straight forward.  Note that you must provide a Certificate of Existence, no more than 90 days old, from the original state of entity formation.  A Florida registered agent is required.  You are also required to list the date that your entity first started transacting business in Florida.  If you have been conducting business as a foreign corporation before obtaining a certificate authority, you may be responsible for any back Florida Corporate Income Tax and a penalty.

If you are registered corporation, you will be subject to Florida Corporate Income Tax based on Florida-specific adjustments for corporations doing business outside of Florida.  LLCs themselves do not pay income taxes, only their members do.  Florida is one of the few states which does not have a state income tax for individuals.  Accordingly, Florida LLC members will not owe state income tax on their LLC earnings.  Some states, but not Florida, impose a separate fee on LLCs for the privilege of doing business in the state.

Finally, note that the foreign corporation or LLC must have a name distinguishable from other companies already registered in Florida.  Otherwise, the registrant will be required to register an alternative name to use within the state for a foreign corporation/LLC Florida qualification action.

              THANK YOU FOR YOUR INTEREST IN THIS BLOG.  AS USUAL, THE CONTENT IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE & IS PROVIDED SOLELY FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES. 

© 2022 by Troy & Schwartz, LLC

These days, Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) templates are readily available on-line, often free-of-charge, making them an attractive alternative for many.  The problem with these templates is they are not necessarily applicable to the contracting parties’ unique circumstances and/or do not properly anticipate dealings between the parties. A poorly drafted, one-size-fits-all NDA can make or break a patent-infringement case many years into the future.   These assertions are supported by the Dec. 7, 2020 decision in Sionyx, LLC v. Hamamatsu Photonics K.K. by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC).

In Sionyx, the CAFC concluded that the district court mistakenly concluded that it lacked authority to compel the transfer of ownership of foreign patents from Hamamatsu Photonics, K.K. (Hamamatsu) to Sionyx, LLC (Sionyx).  Moreover, the lower court abused its discretion in distinguishing between the U.S. and foreign patents at issue in the case. The CAFC affirmed the district court on most other issues, including that Hamamatsu breached its non-disclosure agreement (NDA) with Sionyx, and that Sionyx was entitled to co-inventorship and sole ownership of the U.S. patents, as well as damages and an injunction.

The decision is largely based on the NDA signed by the parties in 2006.  This blog discusses the decision and emphasizes that an NDA can have consequences years later.  As the decision demonstrates, had the NDA lacked certain wording, Sionyx may well not have prevailed.

Background

In 1998, Professor Eric Mazur and his student, James Carey, discovered a novel process for creating “black silicon.” The two inventors filed a provisional patent application on May 25, 2001, from which U.S. Patent 8,080,467 ultimately issued, among other patents. Four years later in 2005, the inventors founded Sionyx and met with Hamamatsu – a company that produces silicon-based photodetector devices – a year later.  The two companies entered into an NDA to share confidential information for the purpose of “evaluating applications and joint development opportunities of pulsed laser process doped photonic devices.”

The NDA stipulated that a party receiving confidential information “shall maintain the information in strict confidence for seven years after the expiration of the agreement, after which the receiving party may use or disclose the confidential information.”  Commentator’s emphasis. The NDA also said that the receiving party of confidential information acknowledged that the disclosing party claims ownership of the information and all patent rights “in, or arising from” the confidential information.  Commentator’s emphasis.   The NDA also required that all confidential information received must be returned within 30 days of the termination of the agreement.  The term of the NDA was three years.

Hamamatsu and Sionyx worked together for about two years, at which time Hamamatsu said it wished to develop its products alone. Surprisingly, Sionyx did not request the return of any confidential information from Hamamatsu.  Hamamatsu began developing its own products and emailed Sionyx in 2009 to alert the company that it would be releasing a new photodiode at an upcoming exhibition that it did not believe infringed Sionyx’s IP or breached the confidentiality obligations. Hamamatsu then filed Japanese patent applications for photodetector devices and later filed in several other countries, including the United States, claiming priority to the Japanese patents.

One of Simony’s customers alerted the company to Hamamatsu’s U.S. patents five years later, in 2014.  When discussions between the two company’s failed, Sionyx sued Hamamatsu in the District of Massachusetts for (1) breach of contract; (2) unjust enrichment; (3) infringement of the ’467 patent; and (4) the equitable relief to transfer the foreign to Sionyx and name Carey as an inventor.

District Court Declines to Transfer Foreign Patents

A jury found in favor of Sionyx, awarding almost $800K for breaching the NDA in February 2009, when it first referred to Sionyx’s confidential information in an internal report, and almost $600K in damages for unjust enrichment. The jury also found that Carey should be added as a co-inventor to the U.S. patents. At the post-trial motion stage, the district court then granted Sionyx sole ownership of the disputed U.S. patents, injunctions on Hamamatsu’s accused products practicing those patents and the ’467 patent, pre- and post-judgment interest on damages for breach of contract, and pre-judgment interest on damages for unjust enrichment. The court denied Sionyx’s motions for ownership of the disputed foreign patents because it was uncertain that it had jurisdiction to grant ownership of foreign patents and because Sionyx had failed to adequately identify the foreign patents for which it was requesting ownership.

Sionyx appealed the district court’s decision to refrain from transferring the foreign patents.  The CAFC agreed with Sionyx, holding that “the evidence that established Sionyx’s right to sole ownership of the Disputed (Hamamatsu) U.S. Patents also applies to the Disputed Foreign Patents.” The decision added:

As we discussed above with respect to the Disputed (Hamamatsu) U.S. Patents, we agree that the jury’s findings compel the conclusion that those patents arose from Sionyx’s confidential information and that Hamamatsu has not shown that it contributed [its own] confidential information entitling it to joint ownership. And because the Disputed U.S. Patents claim priority from Hamamatsu’s Japanese patent applications, the Japanese applications must be for the same inventions as the Disputed U.S. Patents. See 35 U.S.C. § 119(a). Thus, Hamamatsu’s Japanese patent applications and any applications claiming priority from the Japanese applications in other countries must also have arisen from Sionyx’s confidential information.

Simply put, the CAFC found that Hamamatsu’s Japanese and U.S. patents emanated from Sionyx’s confidential information which Hamamatsu became privy to under the terms of the 2005 NDA.  According to the court, Hamamatsu itself never provided its own confidential information to Sionyx, which might have justified joint inventorship of the patent with Cary as the jury had concluded.

Abuse of Discretion Standard

Accordingly, Sionyx was entitled to sole ownership of the Japanese applications and any foreign applications claiming priority therefrom. The CAFC further explained that “it is well established that courts have authority to compel parties properly before them to transfer ownership of foreign patents, just as they would any other equitable remedy,” since such an order is “an exercise of the court’s authority over the party, not the foreign patent office in which the assignment is made.” As such, the district court abused its discretion in distinguishing between the two groups of patents.

The CAFC denied Sionyx’s motion for fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 on cross-appeal, declined to address the issue of willfulness, and affirmed the following findings by the district court: a) Hamamatsu breached the NDA; b) Sionyx is entitled to the damages and pre-judgment interest awarded by the jury, as well as post-judgment interest at the statutory rate for its breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims; c) Carey is a co-inventor of Hamamtsu’s U.S. Patents; Sionyx is entitled to an injunction prohibiting Hamamatsu from practicing its U.S. Patents for breach of the NDA; and d) Sionyx is entitled to an injunction prohibiting Hamamatsu from practicing its 467 patent.

Conclusions

The outcome may well have been different had the NDA not “directed” the ownership of all future patents emanating from Sionyx’s confidential information to Sionyx.   Furthermore, any resulting patent relying on confidential information emanating from both parties should have designated both Cary and an Hamamtsu inventor as joint inventors no matter where the patent applications were filed.  Inventorship does not, however, mean that the inventor(s) is also the owner(s) of the patent.  Generally, R&D and engineering personnel who work for companies assign any patent rights they may have over to their employer-company (e.g., Hamamtsu).  Or, where inventors establish a business entity, the inventors often assign their patent-related interests over to the company as part of their capital contribution.  (e.g., Sionyx).

As this case illustrates, an NDA can be a critical factor in determining patent (and other IP) ownership.  An NDA should be tailor-made for the particular situation at hand with particular emphasis on protecting the disclosing party which is often an individual inventor or a small start-up company.  Anticipate problems into the future since patents in particular can take several years to issue meaning that infringement lawsuits, patent ownership disputes, etc. may occur many years down the road.  It is also important that the disclosing party take steps consistent with protecting its confidential information upon early termination of the NDA or expiration by time.  For example, it is not clear why Sionyx did not insist on the return of all its confidential information when Hamamatsu indicated negotiations were over.

Take Home Points

1. Do not presume a generic NDA template will adequately protect your interests.  An NDA should reflect the parties’ particular situation and the nature of their business relationship under which confidential information may be disclosed.

2. Know and follow the procedures required of you and your company in the NDA as the Disclosing or Receiving Party.

Contact Susan at 305-279-4740 on matters related to your NDA to ensure it addresses potential scenarios consistent with the particular circumstances involving the contracting parties.   We are here to serve you and answer your questions related to intellectual property & business law in both transactional matters and litigation.  Check her reviews at AVVO.com where she has received Client’s Choice Badges for both 2019 and 2020.  She is a registered patent attorney.

WE THANK YOU FOR READING THIS BLOG AND HOPE YOU FOUND IT INFORMATIVE.  HOWEVER, THE CONTENT IS PROVIDED FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE.

©2021

Troy & Schwartz, LLC

Where Legal Meets Entrepreneurship™

(305) 279-4740